Shasta County Election Worker Emerges as Whistleblower, Alleges Harassment and Retaliation in Fight for Election Integrity

Laura Hobbs, a Shasta County elections office analyst and dedicated election-integrity advocate, has stepped forward as a whistleblower in a sharply worded email sent Sunday, June 7, 2026, to county supervisors, elections officials, and government leaders. In the message — accompanied by her signed declarations under penalty of perjury — Hobbs details harassment, threats of arrest, and what she calls election interference while attempting to complete official duties and speak out at a rare Saturday evening Board of Supervisors closed-session meeting.

At a time when voters across Shasta County and California are demanding greater transparency and security in elections, Hobbs’ account highlights the ongoing battle between reformers pushing for accountability and entrenched interests that have long resisted such changes.

The special Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting on June 6 focused on “initiation of litigation” and was held in closed session. Supervisor Matt Plummer (District 4) later posted on Facebook that the board met for roughly 1 to 1½ hours. Afterward, he publicly reported that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the California Secretary of State and that the board directed staff “to release as much information as legally permissible as soon as possible,” with updates expected Monday morning.

Hobbs’ Sworn Account of June 4 Events

In her two-page declaration — signed under penalty of perjury under California law — Laura Hobbs describes a troubling episode on Thursday, June 4, that appears to illustrate the very resistance to transparency that election reformers have fought for years.

According to the document, Clerk/Registrar Clint Curtis asked Hobbs's supervisor early that morning to provide Hobbs with the ballot issue receipts, so that Hobbs could make a report. The supervisor repeatedly delayed, first promising the records after “balancing” (estimated at one hour), then claiming they still weren’t finished by 2:45 p.m. Hobbs and others asked again in front of witnesses; her supervisor refused to let her work on the report in their absence. Curtis was present as Hobb's supervisor gathered their belongings and held the papers. Hobbs described her supervisor as acting sketchy, like the supervisor was not comfortable leaving the papers out. After the supervisor left, Curtis reportedly said the staff supervisor had placed the documents in a sack and taken them out of the office.

Later that evening, Hobbs, Curtis, and another staff member discussed their concern about the unknown location of official election records. Laura believes that personnel who overheard their conversation called a staffer, who indicated that the records were in a locked ballot cabinet. Keys were located, photocopies were made so both the supervisor and Hobbs could access the information, and Hobbs left at 6:45 p.m.

Public Comment Cut Short; Alleged Threats and Interference

In her email, Hobbs describes attending the Saturday 5 p.m. special Board of Supervisors meeting to speak during public comment. 

She began:

“I don’t know what the “initiation of litigation” is in reference to, however I suspect it is election related. Yesterday as I was preparing a time sensitive report for the Secretary of State (SOS). I was called away to talk to Larmour and Rickert. Not surprisingly, their line of questioning focused on Clint Curtis.”  

Her microphone was reportedly cut off after roughly one minute (of a three-minute allotment). She attempted to continue speaking without amplification and was told that if the sheriff were present, she would be arrested for interrupting a public meeting. County Counsel Joseph Larmour said he would file a report with the sheriff. Hobbs says she had to return to work for election duties; the sheriff arrived after she left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlubIjnkVpo

She intended to add (per the email):

“It appears there are more false allegations that have been levied against him (Clint Curtis) by entrenched bureaucrats. You are being played by them, and by Joseph Larmour.  Contrary to what this county has claimed, none of the allegations against Clint are true. I am opposed to initiating litigation against Clint Curtis. Do not spend any taxpayer dollars in litigation against Clint Curtis.

I would like you to know that while I was speaking to County Counsel Larmour and CEO Rickert yesterday, the SOS was calling my desk, asking why I hadn’t filed out my report yet. Calling me away from my official duties during an election is election interference. This harassment has got to stop.”

Hobbs attached her declaration as a primary witness to the events that prompted the closed BOS session and, in her email, urged, “Nolda, please initiate the whistleblower process on my case.” She wrote that she followed Nolda's prior advice to raise concerns with personnel, but that Monica Fugit (Support Services Director) only investigates claims against Clint Curtis and has ignored harassment and toxic workplace issues caused by others.

Context in a Polarized Elections Office

Hobbs, a microbiologist, former District 2 supervisor candidate, and key proponent of Measure B (the June 2026 ballot measure requiring voter ID, hand-counting of ballots, and other security measures), was hired as an elections analyst in early 2026. She has a long history of advocating for greater transparency and security.

Curtis, appointed Registrar of Voters in 2025, is an election-integrity advocate who has implemented major reforms to the Shasta County election process — including improved transparency and stricter chain-of-custody procedures. These changes have faced fierce resistance from long-time staff members of the previous administration, some of whom have accused Curtis of abuse and misconduct. Yet, some long-time staff supervisors from the previous administration were named in dozens of sworn statements detailing harassment of election observers, hidden election processes, alleged fraud, and violations of election laws. Despite the seriousness of those observer complaints, no meaningful investigations were ever conducted.

Curtis has denied the allegations against him, submitted to and passed a polygraph test, and described the ongoing tension as resistance from entrenched bureaucrats opposed to genuine reform.

Hobbs’ declaration and email defend Curtis against what she calls “false allegations” while raising her own concerns about document handling, interference with her Secretary of State reporting duties, and retaliation for speaking out in support of secure elections.

County officials have not yet issued a detailed public response. The board’s directive to release as much information as is permissible “as soon as possible” suggests that additional details may emerge on Monday.

Laura Hobbs has positioned herself as a whistleblower fighting to protect both election integrity and her ability to perform official duties without intimidation. In an era when voters rightfully demand transparent and secure elections, her declarations and public comments underscore the real cost of resisting reform. As Shasta County’s elections office continues to navigate these internal conflicts, Hobbs’ stand adds urgency to the broader push for accountability and trust in our electoral process.