Shasta County Judge Reverses Temporary Restraining Order and Accelerates Hearing Timeline for Measure B – Election Integrity Initiative
- Elisa Ballard
- 4 hours ago
- 3 min read
Redding, CA – March 5, 2026
On March 5, 2026, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna (Department 63) held an ex parte hearing on an application filed by proponents of the Election Integrity Initiative—now designated as Measure B (previously referred to as Measure D in some contexts)—to intervene in a lawsuit. The lawsuit, originally filed on February 17 by petitioner "Jane Doe" against Shasta County and the Shasta County Registrar of Voters (ROV), seeks to block the measure from appearing on the June 2 primary ballot.
The petitioner, now identified as Jennifer Katske (an ICU nurse and a known local political activist), appeared pro se (without an attorney). She had previously filed under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" but was ordered by Judge Hanna to disclose her real name. Katske is associated with an LLC called Shasta Exposed and has been noted for posting controversial materials, including threatening posters targeting ROV Clint Curtis.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors previously voted 4-1 (with Supervisor Kevin Crye dissenting) not to defend the case. As a result, County Counsel Joseph Larmour attended the hearing but presented no arguments for or against the petition.
Background on the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):
On February 26, Judge Hanna issued a TRO that halted all preparations to place Measure B on the June 2 ballot.
He initially scheduled a full hearing on the merits for April 10 in Department 64.
This late date would have effectively prevented inclusion on the ballot, as it missed the critical ballot printing deadline of April 2.
At the time of the initial ruling, the judge lacked full details on the ballot printing timeline.
Developments at the March 5 Hearing: Attorney Alexander Haberbush of the Lex Rex Institute represented the initiative proponents (including Laura Hobbs, Richard Gallardo, Deidre Holliday, Jim Burnett, and Kari Chilson). He filed an ex parte application for them to intervene as indispensable parties, supported by relevant case law requiring courts to permit such intervention. Judge Hanna granted the intervention.
After hearing arguments from Haberbush and Katske and reviewing briefs and a declaration from the ROV detailing the ballot printing timeline, Judge Hanna modified the TRO. The modified order now permits the County and ROV to continue preparations to place Measure B on the ballot.
Additionally, the judge advanced the hearing on the petition's merits to Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. This earlier date provides sufficient time for any potential appeal while still allowing compliance with the April 2 printing deadline.
Related Appellate Action: Haberbush separately filed a writ petition with the California Court of Appeals seeking a stay of the original TRO. The appellate court granted the stay. As a result, both the Superior Court and the Appellate Court have now allowed preparations for Measure B to proceed pending further court orders.
Key Arguments Presented: Katske argued for the restraining order primarily on the grounds that including the measure on the ballot would lead to significant county expenses from inevitable lawsuits (citing the example of legal challenges to a similar Voter ID charter amendment in Huntington Beach). She urged the court to rule on the measure's legality before it reaches voters.
Haberbush countered that pre-election judicial review of initiative measures is strongly disfavored by courts. He emphasized that:
County boards of supervisors have only a ministerial duty to place qualified initiatives on the ballot and cannot pre-judge their legality.
The Huntington Beach case involved a narrower city-level issue, whereas this is a broader county charter amendment addressing 32 distinct changes, many of which could potentially be severed if portions are found invalid.
The hearing focused solely on timeline and procedural issues (not the substantive merits), with full briefs and arguments on legality reserved for the March 25 hearing.
In summary, the court's actions have lifted the effective block on preparations, accelerated the process to preserve the possibility of inclusion on the June 2 ballot, and ensured proponents have a voice in the litigation. The outcome will depend on the upcoming March 25 hearing.