Shasta Registrar Clint Curtis Blasts County Counsel, Warns of Million-Dollar Fallout from Jane Doe Lawsuit Delay
- Kari Chilson
- 24 hours ago
- 4 min read
In a fiery hallway press conference following a Shasta County court hearing on February 26, 2026, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis lambasted County Counsel Joseph Larmour for what he called unethical conduct and a failure to defend the Voter ID and Hand-Counted Ballots initiative (Measure B). The judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Jane Doe lawsuit against Curtis and the Board of Supervisors, blocking the measure from the June ballot pending further review. Speaking candidly to reporters, Curtis highlighted the irony of Jane Doe's cost-based arguments, emphasized his plans to file a bar complaint against Larmour, and suggested the judge could face recall by the initiative's 10,000+ supporters. He stressed that the decision should ultimately rest with the voters, not the courts: "I think the people get to decide," he declared. "When judges decide, when people hiding in the shadows decide, I think it's a bad thing. They really need to let the people vote on it."
The Cost Irony: Lawsuit vs. Ballot Expenses
The lawsuit, filed by an anonymous plaintiff known as Jane Doe, claims that implementing Measure B would impose undue costs on the public. However, Curtis argued that the real financial burden stems from the lawsuit itself, which could force a costly delay and separate election. "The problem is that they've got the date out, so once I get the attorney to come in, they've got the date out there. It's too far out. It's going to be past our mailing, which means we can't print," Curtis explained. He estimated that overturning the TRO too late would require reprinting ballots or holding a second election, potentially costing Shasta County up to $1 million, underscoring how the suit's delay could cause "irreparable harm" far exceeding any ballot inclusion expenses.
Curtis repeatedly dismissed Jane Doe's cost claims as baseless, noting that adding Measure B to the existing ballot incurs "no additional cost." "The printing's the same, the mailing's the same, the processing's the same," he stated. He contrasted this with the lawsuit's potential fallout: "We have to print a whole new 200,000 things... Unless we can get that printed at the same time or get it printed quickly enough to get it in that same envelope, even if it's on a second card, you've doubled your cost." In Curtis's view, the anonymous challenger's preemptive action undermines democracy while ironically inflating taxpayer expenses—exactly the harm she claims to prevent.
Disdain for County Counsel
Much of Curtis's disdain was directed at County Counsel Larmour, whom he accused of forbidding him from speaking in court and advising the Board against mounting a defense. "I think it's deplorable," Curtis said of the county's inaction. He described Larmour’s approach as a "breach of ethics," explaining: "He's the one who advises them not to take an action, and then he comes in here and represents not taking an action. That's completely improper." Curtis, a licensed attorney in New York, revealed he had consulted the New York Bar and plans to file a complaint that afternoon. "It's illegal, it's unethical, and I think the bar will have something to say about that. So I'll file a bar complaint this afternoon," he declared. He went further, urging the Board to fire Larmour or at least seek second opinions, criticizing him as a "one-sided attorney" who "doesn't give you both sides." "I wouldn't hire him to sharpen pencils," Curtis quipped, adding, "I have no confidence in him. And after this, you know, I think the board should get rid of him."
Path Forward for Petitioners
Curtis also touched on potential recourse for the over 10,000 citizens who signed the petition to get Measure B on the ballot. He suggested they could initiate a recall against the judge, noting the signatures already gathered provide a strong foundation. "If the judge blocks it, you could recall him. You've got 10,000 signatures. That's enough for a recall right there," he said. Additionally, he encouraged writing letters to the Board demanding Larmour’s removal or balanced legal advice, emphasizing that law involves "a lot of shades of gray" and requires robust debate.
Throughout the exchange, Curtis championed democratic principles, arguing that pre-ballot challenges like Jane Doe's erode public voice. "You can't let your democracy be peeled away by someone who wants to hide in the shadows," he warned. While agreeing with the judge's ruling to reveal Jane Doe's identity (but shield her address and employer), Curtis speculated the filing was professionally drafted, possibly by an attorney or AI, and stressed accountability. He reiterated that the initiative "deserves to be on the ballot. It is the American way," regardless of its ultimate legality or passage.
Championing Openness and Accountability
Curtis argued that there should be consistency in how we apply principles of openness and accountability in democracy. In his view, if the legal system prevents the public from voting on a qualified ballot measure (one that thousands of citizens worked to place there through signatures), then challengers shouldn't be allowed to file lawsuits to block it while remaining completely anonymous. He believed full anonymity in such high-stakes legal actions gives one person unchecked power to override the collective will without facing public scrutiny or responsibility for their motives—much like how unchecked anonymity online can lead to irresponsible behavior.
Addressing Conflicts and Transparency Improvements
Curtis addressed other concerns, including a perceived conflict of interest involving elections staff member Laura Hobbs, one of the five proponents behind Measure B. He assured transparency by explaining that Hobbs would be insulated from sensitive tasks—limited to checking in early voters and possibly pushing the tabulator button—while the entire process remains under constant camera surveillance from multiple angles. This represents a major improvement over previous elections before Curtis became Registrar of Voters, when cameras and strict chain-of-custody procedures were almost nonexistent. He also noted that the April 10 hearing could allow proponents to intervene and urged the court to accelerate the timeline to avoid unnecessary extra costs to the county.
This raw footage, captured by Shasta Unfiltered, offers an unfiltered glimpse into Curtis's frustration amid ongoing election controversies. As the case unfolds, the potential million-dollar price tag from delays highlights the high stakes for Shasta County taxpayers.
Watch the full video [embedded above] and share your thoughts below. Shasta Unfiltered remains committed to honest, transparent local reporting—support us by subscribing or donating today.
