Shasta County Court Victory Reinforces Citizens' Right to Defend Fair Elections

Redding, CA — A Shasta County Superior Court ruling delivered a clear message on May 18, 2026: citizens who successfully defend the integrity of the election process are entitled to basic protections under the law — just like everyone else.

In Katske v. Shasta County Board of Supervisors, et al. (Case No. 26CV-0209919), Judge Benjamin Hanna upheld his tentative ruling, ordering Petitioner Jennifer Katske to pay $3,084.25 in court costs to the five citizen intervenors who stepped forward to protect Measure B. The court reduced the requested amount by $337.92. Still, it affirmed the core principle: prevailing parties in California litigation are entitled to recover their filing and motion fees under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032 and 1033.5.

Why This Matters for Every Voter

Fair elections are the foundation of self-government. When over 10,000 Shasta County voters sign a petition to place a measure on the ballot, that signature represents more than support for specific reforms — it is an exercise of direct democracy. Measure B seeks common-sense improvements to election security and transparency:

• Stronger voter identification

• Improved chain-of-custody protections

• Hand-counting of ballots at the precinct level with full public observation

• Tighter controls on voter rolls and ballot distribution

These proposals aim to ensure every legitimate vote counts and that no voter — regardless of party or background — has reason to doubt the outcome. Proponents argue that such measures protect the rights of all citizens, making elections more trustworthy for everyone.

Years of Effort, One Lawsuit After Another

For several years, local volunteers have documented irregularities, observed elections, gathered affidavits, and pushed for audits and reforms through official channels — with limited success. As a new charter county, residents saw the citizen initiative process as the best path forward. They collected signatures in sweltering heat, overcame legal hurdles (including an early challenge from county counsel), and secured enough valid signatures to qualify Measure B for the June 2, 2026, ballot.

When Katske filed suit to block the measure, the Board of Supervisors chose not to defend it. Five ordinary citizens — Laura Hobbs, Deidre Holliday, Kari Chilson, Jim Burnett, and Richard Gallardo — intervened to represent the interests of the 10,000+ signers and the broader community’s stake in election integrity. Represented by Alexander Haberbush of the Lex Rex Institute, they prevailed when the court sustained their demurrer without leave to amend on March 26, 2026.

The Cost Award: Protecting Participation, Not Punishing Speech

During Monday’s hearing on the Motion to Tax Costs, Katske argued that requiring her to pay costs would chill public-interest litigation. Judge Hanna responded that California law is clear: the prevailing party is entitled to recover costs so they are not financially punished for successfully defending their position. The judge emphasized that litigation always carries risk and that the statutes exist precisely to ensure that winners are not left bearing unnecessary expenses.

Importantly, the court awarded only statutory costs — not attorney fees. The intervenors still absorbed significant out-of-pocket and volunteer burdens to protect a measure supported by thousands of their neighbors.

Fair Elections Benefit Everyone

This modest cost award is not about one side versus another. It is about upholding the rules that allow citizens to participate in democracy without facing open-ended financial penalties when they win. When voters exercise their constitutional right to propose reforms through the initiative process, the system should not allow well-timed lawsuits to effectively nullify that effort while leaving defenders to bear all the expense.

Transparent, secure, and verifiable elections are not a partisan issue — they are essential for public confidence in government. Every Shasta County resident, regardless of how they plan to vote on Measure B in June, deserves to know the process was conducted fairly.

The final decision on Measure B now rests where it belongs: with the voters on June 2, 2026. The court’s ruling simply ensured that the citizens who defended the ballot process were not left bearing the full cost of doing so.

For more on Measure B, visit official county resources or proponent sites like VoteForB.com.