Sacramento Overrides Shasta Voters: Judge Issues Full Preliminary Injunction Against Measure B

Proponents Stress Ruling Is Not Final — Fight Continues for the 55% Who Demanded Election Integrity

Last week, the will of more than 55 percent of Shasta County voters was temporarily blocked. In two consecutive hearings, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna first issued a sweeping preliminary injunction against Measure B and then allowed a coalition of outside activist groups to join the State’s lawsuit.

Importantly, the judge has not ruled on the final merits of the case. The August 7 order only decides whether Measure B can be implemented while the lawsuit continues. The underlying question of whether the voter-approved measure is permanently valid remains to be fully litigated.

August 7 – The Preliminary Injunction

Judge Hanna granted Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s request for a preliminary injunction in its entirety. The County and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis are now barred from implementing any part of Measure B until further court order.

The judge focused on four provisions he found likely to conflict with state law: voter ID, limiting most voting to a single Election Day, mandatory precinct hand-counting, and creating offline voter rolls. He ruled that charter counties lack authority to regulate elections and that these four areas cannot be severed from the rest of the measure for purposes of the preliminary injunction.

But Measure B is far broader. It contains many additional election-integrity reforms that do not conflict with state law — including changes to counting-team structure and compensation, paper poll books, bipartisan oversight procedures, and other transparency and security measures.

Alexander Haberbush, attorney for the Real Parties in Interest, is defending the entire measure. He argues that even the provisions the State claims conflict with existing statutes should be upheld because those state laws themselves undermine election integrity and improperly override the voters’ charter authority.

At the very least, Haberbush will continue to press the alternative argument that the clearly non-conflicting portions of Measure B are severable and must still be allowed to take effect.

Haberbush’s statement the day of the ruling emphasized the limited nature of the decision:

"We strongly disagree with today’s ruling. Measure B was enacted by the voters of Shasta County, and we do not believe the State has established a lawful basis for preventing implementation of the voters’ exercise of their charter authority merely because Sacramento objects to the election reforms they adopted. However, today’s ruling is preliminary. It does not decide the merits of the case or finally determine the validity of Measure B. Those issues remain to be litigated, and we intend to vigorously defend the measure the voters enacted."

Laura Hobbs, one of the original proponents, told Freedom in Action (on KQMS radio) the next morning that Measure B is “certainly not dead.” She announced an immediate appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal and said they expect a rapid decision. Hobbs criticized the judge for identifying only with the State’s interests and showing no concern for Shasta voters who want fair elections. She also noted that County Counsel Joseph Larmour has actively opposed the measure despite Board instructions to stay neutral.

Registrar Clint Curtis was blunt in an interview the same day. He called the trial-court level “kindergarten” — judges there simply apply existing state law — and said stronger arguments belong in the appellate courts. He expressed surprise that the constitutionality of AB 969* was not challenged to preserve the issue for appeal. Most seriously, Curtis accused County Counsel Larmour of asking him to perjure himself by claiming he could not implement Measure B. Curtis confirmed he has already filed a State Bar complaint and reported the matter to the court.

August 10 – Outside Groups Officially Join the Case

On Monday, Judge Hanna granted leave for multiple ACLU affiliates, the League of Women Voters, Disability Rights California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and others to file an amicus brief supporting the State.

Haberbush opposed the request, arguing the brief goes well beyond Bonta’s existing claims, introduces new constitutional theories, widens the scope of the case, and cannot be used to amend the pleadings. The judge allowed the brief anyway. The Real Parties have 10 court days to respond in writing.

What Comes Next

Proponents are preparing an emergency appeal of the preliminary injunction. They will fully defend every part of Measure B on the grounds that the State’s conflicting statutes themselves undermine election integrity, while also arguing that, at minimum, the portions that do not conflict with state law must be severed and implemented. A status conference is set for August 24. Ballot files must go to the printer by August 27.

For now, the November election will proceed under existing state rules.

The voters of Shasta County did their job in June. They approved a comprehensive package of reforms for greater transparency and security. Sacramento, outside activist groups, and a County Counsel who appears determined to defeat the measure have used a preliminary court order to block the entire package — for the moment.

But a preliminary injunction is not a final judgment. The fight to defend the full will of the voters continues.

Footnote:

*AB 969 (2023) is the elections-related bill more commonly referenced in discussions of voting systems and hand-counting. It restricted manual vote counts in the semifinal official canvass for contests with more than 1,000 (or 5,000 in certain cases) registered voters unless done under a Secretary of State-approved plan; required use of certified voting systems; and made termination of certified voting system contracts provisional until a transition plan and new contract were in place. It was chaptered into law in 2023.