Shasta County Judge Dismisses Legal Challenge to Measure B, Ruling Pre-Election Review Inappropriate
- Elisa Ballard
- Mar 26
- 3 min read
courts.ca.gov Shasta County, New Redding Courthouse | Judicial Branch of California
In a decisive written ruling issued today, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna dismissed Jennifer Katske’s petition seeking to block the “Shasta County Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative” (commonly known as Measure B) from the June 2, 2026, ballot. The court sustained a demurrer filed by the measure’s proponents (Intervenors), finding that Katske’s First Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
krcrtv.com Judge Hanna
Judge Benjamin L. Hanna in court (file photo). The ruling, released one day after a March 25 hearing, brings a swift end to the high-stakes pre-election litigation. County Counsel Joseph Larmour confirmed that Respondents (the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis) took no position throughout the proceedings.
Key Legal Findings
Judge Hanna ruled that Katske did not adequately allege a “clear, present, and ministerial duty” on the part of county officials to exclude the initiative from the ballot. While the petition referenced a general duty under the California Constitution and Elections Code to comply with state law—and briefly cited Elections Code § 13314 (concerning errors in ballots or voting materials)—the court found this too broad and untethered to the specific relief sought.
Citing precedents such as Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School District (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 911, the ruling emphasized that a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 requires a petitioner to identify a precise statutory obligation. The court declined to reach the substantive merits of Katske’s claims that Measure B conflicts with state election law.
Crucially, Judge Hanna reinforced California’s strong policy against pre-election judicial review of qualified ballot initiatives. Challenges to the validity or legality of an initiative’s provisions, the court held, are better addressed post-election.
Leave to amend the petition was denied due to the compressed timeline.
Context and Background
This outcome follows weeks of procedural twists. Measure B qualified for the ballot after gathering more than 10,000 signatures. It proposes charter amendments requiring photo ID for in-person voting, limiting absentee and mail ballots, mandating hand-counting at precincts, and restricting elections to a single in-person day (with exceptions).
Katske initially filed anonymously as “Jane Doe” on February 17, 2026, citing privacy and safety concerns, and obtained a temporary restraining order on February 26. She later amended under her true name.
Jennifer Katske speaks out on or about March 5, 2026, after Judge Hanna allows Measure B to move forward pending his final decision
At the March 25 hearing, Katske argued the measure would waste taxpayer funds and would likely be invalidated under state preemption doctrines. Intervenors countered that pre-election challenges face an extremely high bar and that voters—not courts—should decide the measure’s fate.
Yes on Measure B campaign sign– Shasta Scout
Analysis and Implications
The ruling is a clear victory for Measure B proponents and a setback for Katske, who mounted a pro-per challenge. Legally, it underscores the high bar for judicial intervention in the initiative process.
Practically, Measure B is now positioned to appear on the June 2 ballot unless an immediate appeal succeeds (none has been announced). If it passes, opponents may refile challenges after the election.
The decision also highlights ongoing tensions in Shasta County over election administration. For voters, the ruling preserves their right to weigh in directly on a contested set of election-integrity reforms.
No immediate reactions from Katske or county officials were available as of press time, but the court’s certificate of service indicates copies were sent to all parties. Attorney Alexander Haberbush provided the following comment:
“Today’s ruling is a complete vindication of the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process. This case was an attempt to short-circuit the democratic process, and it rightly failed. The voters of Shasta County will now have the opportunity to decide this measure for themselves. We’re proud to have defended that principle, and we’re ready to defend the will of the voters going forward.”
With the April 2 deadline looming, attention now shifts to whether the measure will print and how campaigns on both sides will mobilize.
This article draws on the full text of Judge Hanna’s March 26, 2026, ruling and prior Shasta Unfiltered coverage.
