Shasta County Voters Assert Their Right to Self-Government — State Sues to Nullify Their Will
- Kari Chilson
- 13 hours ago
- 3 min read
Shasta County voters took a clear stand for electoral integrity in the June 2, 2026, primary election, approving Measure B with an unofficial majority of approximately 55%. The citizen-initiated charter amendment would bring greater transparency and security to local elections by requiring government-issued photo ID, single-day in-person voting with limited absentee exceptions, precinct-level hand counting, and locally controlled voter rolls maintained on a secure, air-gapped system.
The full text of the measure emphasizes returning control of elections to citizens, increasing security and transparency, reducing opportunities for fraud, and saving taxpayer money by relying on community volunteers rather than expensive machine contracts and temporary staff.
On June 12, 2026 — ten days after the election and before results were fully certified — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed suit in the Third District Court of Appeal to strike the measure down entirely. Proponents view the lawsuit as a direct challenge to the people’s fundamental right to self-government.
A Lawful Exercise of Self-Government
This reform did not come from Sacramento or the courts. It began with ordinary citizens. In March 2025, Shasta County election observers, deeply concerned about transparency and security, filed their Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition. The statement explained the urgent need to restore public confidence in elections through verifiable, transparent methods.
The measure survived legal challenges. Shasta County Counsel sued to block it from the ballot, and a private citizen later filed suit as well. Both efforts failed. Voters then approved it at the polls through the initiative process protected by the California Constitution.
Now that the people have spoken, state officials are asking the courts to erase their decision before it can take effect.
Why These Reforms Matter
Proponents point to documented problems with the current system. The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database contains multiple California cases involving false registrations, fraudulent absentee ballots, duplicate voting, and impersonation — vulnerabilities that Measure B directly targets.
State regulations also allow discrepancies of hundreds of voter registrations between county systems and the statewide database. In close local races, such gaps create real risks to electoral integrity.
Measure B responds with practical safeguards: photo ID verification, local control of voter rolls, hand counting with public observation, and stricter limits on absentee voting. These changes aim to make elections more verifiable and accountable to the people of Shasta County.
The State’s Lawsuit: An Attack on Consent of the Governed
The Attorney General’s petition argues that Measure B exceeds charter county authority and conflicts with state election laws. It seeks expedited invalidation so the measure cannot affect the November midterms.
Proponents see something different: an attempt by centralized power to override the people’s exercise of self-government. Deidre Holliday, one of the lead proponents, put it plainly:
“This action by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for California — they couldn’t even wait until the election was certified — is just one more stark demonstration of the crushing hostility and contempt that our elected officials hold for citizens who use the initiative process to improve elections and safeguard their freedom.”
Rooted in American Principles
Our nation was founded on the principle that legitimate government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. When a distant capital moves quickly to nullify a lawfully passed citizen initiative on local elections, it raises the same concerns about unaccountable authority that led the American colonies to reject rule from across the ocean.
Shasta County voters are not seeking to upend the system. They are insisting on their basic right to honest, transparent, and accountable elections — elections they can see, verify, and trust. This is the essence of self-government and electoral integrity.
What Happens Next
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors will discuss the lawsuit in closed session on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. (Item R9). Proponents are urging the County to retain independent election law expert Alexander Haberbush to defend Measure B, citing potential conflicts with the current County Counsel.
Make Your Voice Heard
If you want the Board of Supervisors to provide strong, competent legal representation to defend Measure B and the will of the voters — rather than repeat past efforts to block or undermine it — you can attend the meeting in person or submit written comments.
Public input matters.
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
County Administration Center
1450 Court Street, Suite 263
Redding, CA 96001
The Board has added the new state lawsuit to the closed session agenda under Item R9: The People of the State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California; Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., in her Official Capacity as California Secretary of State v. County of Shasta, Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. Unassigned.
Meeting agendas, minutes, and videos are available on the County website.
