Shasta Election Lawfare: Citizens Crush Latest Lawsuit – Now County Must Reimburse Measure B Proponents

Shasta County’s election integrity battles keep delivering wins for We the People. After another round of lawfare aimed at blocking Measure B, private citizens stepped up, defended the qualified ballot measure in court, and won decisively. With the June 2, 2026, election approaching, it’s time for Shasta County to reimburse those proponents for the legal fees they never should have had to pay out of their own pockets.

Vote on Measure B campaign sign - Image shastascout.org

Measure B — the Shasta County Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative — qualified with more than 10,000 verified signatures. It proposes charter amendments requiring photo ID for in-person voting, limiting mail-in/absentee ballots, mandating precinct-level hand counts by volunteers, and restricting most elections to a single in-person day.

Jennifer Katske (initially filing as “Jane Doe”) sued to keep it off the ballot, arguing the provisions conflict with state/federal law and would waste taxpayer money. The suit named the County of Shasta, the Board of Supervisors, and Registrar Clint Curtis as defendants. Yet the Board voted 4-1 to take no position (Supervisor Kevin Crye dissented), and County Counsel stayed neutral, appearing in court but repeatedly declining to comment when the judge asked for a defense. Clint Curtis was ordered by the county not to present a defense, leaving Katske with only her one-sided arguments in Court.

Proponents — including Laura Hobbs, Deidre Holliday, Kari Chilson, Jim Burnett, Richard Gallardo, and others — had to intervene. They were only notified a few days before the hearing and were thankful to be able to hire election attorney Alexander Haberbush at the last minute to fight back.

On March 26, 2026, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna dismissed Katske’s petition entirely. He sustained the proponents’ demurrer, ruling that the challenge failed to state facts sufficient for a writ of mandate and that pre-election judicial review of qualified initiatives is inappropriate. Challenges to substance belong post-election.

Shasta County, New Redding Courthouse | Judicial Branch of California courts.ca.gov

Haberbush called the ruling “a complete vindication of the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process.” Kari Chilson stated: “Today’s ruling is a refreshing victory for We the People who care about election integrity… Today, We the People won.”

The Broader Pattern of Lawfare

This wasn’t isolated. Earlier, the county itself sued the proponents to block qualification, citing conflicts with state and federal law. After a judge denied expedited action, the county dropped the suit, and Supervisor Crye invited proponents to submit legal costs.

The pattern echoes across California. In Huntington Beach, a voter ID measure passed but faced successful post-election legal challenges from the state Attorney General. Post-election fights over ballot measures are common when opponents try to short-circuit the voting process — see recent battles over Uber-backed attorney-fee caps and competing lawyer-backed initiatives, which sparked multimillion-dollar pre-election litigation wars.

Time for Reimbursement and Accountability

The county had a ministerial duty to process and defend a lawfully qualified citizen initiative. By twice staying neutral, officials forced private citizens to bear a heavy legal burden merely for exercising their fundamental rights as citizens.

Reimbursing reasonable legal fees is fair accountability — not a reward. Taxpayers have seen millions spent on election-related litigation; making proponents whole acknowledges the county’s role and discourages future lawfare. This is a call for accountability + restitution as a check against politicized legal bullying in local government disputes.

Supervisor Crye previously signaled openness to reviewing costs. The Board should place reimbursement on the next open-session agenda. Proponents should submit itemized invoices promptly for public review and a straight vote.

Measure B now heads to voters on June 2. Whether you support the reforms or not, the principle is clear: when citizens qualify a measure through the proper process, the county shouldn’t abandon them to fight lawfare alone.

What do you think, Shasta? Should the county reimburse the Measure B proponents? Contact your supervisors. Vote informed on June 2. Stay unfiltered. Submit comments contact@shastaunfiltered.com