Shasta County Elections Procedures Comparison Report Shows Underreporting of Errors by Prior ROV

Date: April 15, 2026

An important election will take place this June to decide who will serve as Shasta County's Registrar of Voters for the next four years. Clint Curtis, the current Shasta County Registrar of Voters (ROV), was appointed on April 30, 2025, by the Board of Supervisors after the retirement of Thomas Toller (who only held the position for approximately 10 months). Before Toller, ROV Cathy Darling Allen held the position for two decades and retired, citing health issues related to job stress. Until Curtis's appointment, citizen election observers were treated poorly, kept behind metal fences and other barriers, and unable to observe the election process meaningfully. Dozens of citizen election observers repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with how the elections were being run at Board of Supervisors meetings and signed affidavits about these problems.

Since taking office, Curtis has also observed and alleged that major failures occurred in the conduct of elections. Curtis has documented the problems in a letter to the Secretary of State and has communicated with the Department of Justice. The problems he and others have observed include lax or no chain of custody of the ballots, seals being used that did not really seal the boxes of ballots, ballots being stacked without seals in rooms that were accessed by multiple personnel without any oversight or log entries, all of which left many opportunities for manipulation in vote/ballot counts. The most telling example of the impact of these problems is the fact that errors were underreported and "swept under the table", possibly affecting election outcomes where candidates won by narrow margins. Clint Curtis and the former Assistant ROV, Joanna Francescut, are running for the ROV position, which the voters will decide in the June 2024 primary election.

Candidate for ROV, Joanna Francescut

Current ROV Clint Curtis

The table below compares the most significant old procedures (pre-Curtis, including the November 2024 election under Thomas Toller as ROV and Joanna Francescut as Assistant ROV) with the new procedures now in place.

Aspect	Old Procedures (Pre-Curtis)	New Procedures (Curtis Era)
Public Observation	Public treated “like invaders,” corralled behind spiked fences; duplication (≈50% of ballots) blocked from view; even Board of Supervisors often denied access	Observer lounge with live camera feeds on multiple monitors; the public can watch comfortably from chairs, take notes, have snacks/drinks; meaningful observation of all key processes
Ballot Movement & Chain of Custody	Ballots carried across two floors (stairs & elevator), no seals, non-transparent bins; individual staff carried loose ballots; no documented tracking	All activity moved to a single first floor; every ballot movement limited to ≤3 feet and must be under seal + chain-of-custody form; transparent containers only
Sealing of Ballots	Defective seals that could be removed/re-attached undetected; ballots often left unsealed in rooms	New high-quality hard seals (4 per container); seals clipped and replaced with new ones if any change; all seals logged on chain-of-custody forms
Access Control & Logging	Key-card system controlled solely by ROV/Asst ROV; hundreds of anonymous log entries; no independent oversight or audits	Will assign an independent Board-appointed monitor for all election-area access; regular public reports; Curtis to take a polygraph after each election
Camera Coverage	Cameras only on first-floor processing; none in hallways, elevators, or ballot storage room	Full camera coverage of all ballot-handling areas; live feeds to observer lounge
Ballot Duplication	Hidden from public view; no separation of ballots with identifying marks	Duplication under camera when possible; ballots with marks separated and handled privately by multi-party arbitration teams to protect voter identity
Drop Box Operations	6 teams (12 workers) on daily routes; ballots rode in cars all day, sometimes left at residences; no seals, non-transparent containers; cost ≈$70,000 per election	Single team, direct trips only, twice-daily pickups; ballots secured immediately; no routes or detours; $61,000 savings + major pollution reduction
Post-Election Storage	Cardboard/plastic containers with thin tape or broken/missing seals; ballots accessible without oversight	Sealed, durable containers (under review for stacking strength); full chain-of-custody maintained
Logic & Accuracy Testing	Conducted in private or limited view; observers often contentious	Fully observable from lounge or stools; public welcome; same technical process but with transparency
1% Manual Tally & Audits	Under-reported errors: Reported only 10 errors when there were 500+; random draw conducted privately	All drawings are public with proper notice; full transparency is expected to reduce disputes; zero errors found during audit
Voter Privacy Protections	No systematic separation of ballots with identifying marks	Generic ballots run publicly; marked ballots are separated and handled by multi-party teams
Overall Cost & Efficiency	High cost, inefficient multi-team routes, spread-out processes	Significant savings ($61k+ per election on drop boxes alone); streamlined, secure, single-floor operation

Another anomaly cited by Curtis was that the previous administration ignored the candidate order as drawn by the Secretary of State's office. California law requires counties to use the randomized alphabet drawing conducted by the Secretary of State's office to determine the order of candidates' names on the ballot. Instead of following that official draw, the prior ROV (and Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut) created and used their own privately prepared list. The order in which candidates appear on the ballot can sometimes influence election outcomes, as candidates listed first often receive a small but statistically significant increase in votes.

Francescut has appeared on a KRCR News Channel 7 television interview stating that there were no problems with the election processes or vote counts under her watch; however, the record does not support her statements. Francescut worked for 16 years in the Election Office and was terminated shortly after Clint Curtis was appointed.

Summary

The old system allowed ballots to move through the system without seals, cameras, or public oversight for extended periods, creating opportunities for undetected tampering. Curtis’s reforms emphasize “every ballot, every three feet, under seal and camera” while dramatically increasing transparency and reducing costs.

The November 5, 2024, election results were questionable, but the Board of Supervisors had a ministerial duty to acknowledge the results certified by then-ROV Thomas Toller. Supervisors Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom, and Patrick Jones stated they felt legally compelled (“under duress”) to sign/declare the results because they lacked authority to block certification, even though they had ongoing concerns about issues such as the Runbeck ink overspray problem, audit log discrepancies, and other procedural matters from the election. There were 2783 more ballots tabulated than voters. No one has properly explained why this occurred. Approximately 50% of the ballots in the November 2024 election had to be duplicated because the tabulation machines could not read them due to an "ink overspray" issue caused by Runbeck Election Services, an Arizona-based company. Under the new ballot processing system instituted by Clint Curtis, no errors were identified in the 1% audit for the November 4, 2025, Special Election. The hand count matched the machine count perfectly.

The changes made by Curtis are expected to remain in place for future cycles if Curtis is elected. Curtis has invited members of the public to tour the revamped elections office to observe the new procedures firsthand. Other counties in California are interested in using Curtis' new system as a model for their own systems to improve transparency in the election processes. Clint Curtis has a long-standing background in election integrity issues. In 2000, while working as a computer programmer for Yang Enterprises in Florida, he claims he was asked by then-state legislator (and later Congressman) Tom Feeney to create a prototype program capable of secretly flipping votes on touchscreen voting machines. Curtis later became a whistleblower, publicly alleging the request and testifying before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee (and other congressional settings) about the incident. He has worked in software development for various governmental and private entities (including firms with NASA and Florida Department of Transportation contracts). He is a licensed attorney in the state of New York.

The public is invited to hear the two candidates speak and answer questions at the League of Women Voters' Forum on Wednesday, April 22nd, from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Redding Library Community Room.