Shasta County Judge's Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Measure B Ballot Initiative

Shasta County – February 26, 2026 Shasta County Superior Court, Department 63 

Presiding Judge: The Honorable Benjamin L. Hanna, Case No.: 26CV-029919 – Jane Doe v. Shasta County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis

On the morning of February 26, 2026, Judge Benjamin L. Hanna held an ex parte hearing in a packed courtroom filled with supporters and a few opponents of the proposed ballot initiative (often referred to as Measure B or the Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative). The measure, which qualified for the June 2, 2026, ballot after gathering over 10,000 signatures, seeks to amend the Shasta County Charter by requiring photo ID for in-person voting, limiting absentee/mail voting, mandating hand-counting of ballots at precincts, and restricting elections to a single in-person day (with exceptions).

Plaintiff "Jane Doe" (representing herself, or pro se) filed the lawsuit on February 17, 2026, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the initiative from appearing on the ballot. She argued that the measure is preempted by California state law (including the Elections Code and recent statutes like AB 969, which restricts hand-counting in counties of Shasta's size), violates statewide election uniformity, and would waste taxpayer funds (estimated $140,000–$260,000) if placed on the ballot only to be invalidated later. In contrast, Clint Curtis states that adding this measure to an existing ballot would not increase the cost of the election.

The plaintiff cited the recent Huntington Beach voter ID case, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that the requirement is preempted by state law (Elections Code § 10005 and precedents like Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389), and the California Supreme Court denied review on January 28, 2026.

Huntington Beach announced plans in early February 2026 to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, citing potential equal protection issues under federal law. (Reported by the Los Angeles Times)

Key Events at the Hearing:

• Jane Doe appeared by telephone and requested anonymity due to safety concerns, citing hostile social media comments labeling her as "cowardly," "anti-American," or worse.

  
  

• Judge Hanna allowed her to argue but partially denied anonymity. He ordered her to amend the petition within five days to include her real name (citing Code of Civil Procedure § 422.40, which generally requires parties' names in the action title). However, he granted a protective order shielding her address, phone number, and employment information from public disclosure.

  
  

• Attorney Alexander Haberbush filed notice on February 25, 2026, stating that he represented the initiative's proponents, who wished to intervene. The judge declined to allow intervention or argument at this ex parte hearing, deferring the intervention decision to a later date. Proponents had limited time to retain counsel.

  
  

• County Counsel Joseph Larmour appeared but stated the respondents (Board of Supervisors and Registrar Curtis) were taking no position on the lawsuit. This aligned with the Board's 4-1 closed-session vote on February 20, 2026 (Supervisor Kevin Crye dissenting). Supervisor Allen Long explained the majority view: the measure violates state law, and there is "no way to adequately defend against this [lawsuit]." (Reported by the Record Searchlight.)

  
  

Outcome and Timing Concerns: Judge Hanna acknowledged the case's complexity and public interest and granted the TRO based on the arguments submitted by the petitioner. Judge Hanna scheduled a hearing to address the merits of the case for April 10, 2026.

This date has raised concerns because Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis stated afterward that the deadline to order ballots is April 2, 2026, allowing about 30 days for printing and preparation before mail ballots go out around May 2. If unresolved by early April, the measure cannot appear on the June 2 ballot. Including it on a later ballot would require a separate special election costing approximately $1 million, with no extra cost for June inclusion.

Registrar of Voters, Clint Curtis, speaking to the press and concerned citizens after the hearing.

Curtis expressed frustration with County Counsel Larmour, claiming he provided one-sided advice to the Board without opposing views and previously opposed video-recording ballot counting (a transparency measure Curtis implemented).

Proponents can still file an ex parte application to advance the hearing date before April 2, arguing irreparable harm from missing the deadline (per California Rules of Court 3.1200–3.1207). Success depends on the court's calendar and demonstration of urgency.

The ruling leaves the initiative's fate uncertain pending further proceedings, with the measure currently blocked from ballot preparation unless the court rules otherwise or the hearing is expedited.

Note: Article was corrected after review of the Judge's written ruling.