Shred Date Moved Up to Saturday as County Orders Destruction of Records Still Under a Public Records Act Request
Shasta County is Involved in a Possible Unlawful Destruction of Public Records
Redding, CA
October 2, 2026
On the morning of September 30, while a shredding company employee stood ready to wheel ballots to the shredding truck parked behind the Elections Office, Shasta County Registrar of Voters opened sealed ballot boxes for the November 2024 election and found log sheets in the boxes. Those log sheets should not have been commingled with the ballots and are supposed to be kept in a separate file and retained for at least two years absent a County Board of Supervisors request that they be destroyed sooner. Kari Chilson requested those logs under a Public Records Act (PRA) request she submitted to the county on September 4 (#26-1766), which the county has not fulfilled. Specifically, Chilson had requested eight categories of records concerning the December 3, 2024, canvass:
1) notices and other communications giving the dates, times, and locations of vote-by-mail processing, tabulation, and observation on December 2–4, 2024;
2) observer sign-in sheets, observer logs, and visitor or security logs for December 3,
2024;
3) ballot logs, batch sheets, tabulator tapes, scanner reports, and any handwritten or
electronic records of batch counts (ballots scanned, accepted, rejected) for December 3, 2024, including records created after 5:00 p.m.
4) chain-of-custody, transfer, and room-access logs for the tabulation room and related work rooms;
5) video or audio recordings of the public observation areas and the tabulation room;
6) staff assignment or time records;
7) the written procedures used that day; and
8) correspondence with the Secretary of State, the District Attorney, or other agencies about the December 3, 2024 observation or tabulation.
Kari Chilson made the request because she said she saw employees allegedly putting wrong ballot counts on log sheets on December 3, 2024. Later that day, Elections Office staff escorted her and another election observer out just after 5 p.m. The schedule said ballot processing would be done by 5 pm. With most staff gone and no observers, apparently newly discovered ballots were counted until after 9 pm that night. This occurred under the direction of then Registrar of Voters Thomas Toller and Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut.
Curtis asked his assistant, Marjorie Andrews, to call County Counsel Joseph Larmour and ask him to come to the Elections Office to see what was in the boxes and decide what to do. Larmour allegedly told Andrews he would not come, nor would he send anyone else from his office. Curtis then decided to halt the shredding and let the Secretary of State determine the next step. The shredding company employee left the building since he had other jobs to do that day and could not wait around indefinitely for a decision. Shasta Unfiltered and two other media companies were there and recorded the interaction.
Approximately 20 minutes later, Larmour and County Executive Officer David Rickert came to the Elections Office and met with Curtis.
At 11:30 a.m. on September 30, Curtis emailed Shasta Unfiltered copies of emails that were exchanged between Larmour and Curtis that morning. The first email was sent by Larmour to Curtis at 9:45 a.m. and stated that per Curtis’s request, he was responding to his legal inquiry via email. He stated that Curtis’s “unilateral decision to send the shred truck away continues an already existing violation of law. Please again review 52 U.S.C.A. § 20701 and its provisions. As you will see, this statute carries criminal sanctions of not more than $1,000 fine and not more than one year of imprisonment or both. I have continued to advise you to follow statute, and at this point you are out on your own; neither County Counsel nor the Board will be liable for your independent decisions in this matter.”
The code Larmour cites is a preservation code, not a mandate to destroy the records as Larmour suggests. 52 U.S.C.A. § 20701 applies to federal elections and mandates that election officers retain and preserve all records and papers that come into the officer's possession and relate to the election for 22 months from the date of that election. California Elections Code § 17301 mandates that packages of voted ballots must be destroyed or recycled 22 months after the election, which was on September 5, 2026. It does not include logs, batch sheets, tapes, reports, or sign-in sheets in the destruction requirement.
At 11:06 a.m., Curtis responded to Larmour and copied various media agencies and attorneys, as well as the five county board of supervisors. In that email, Curtis states “Your email is a complete lie.” Curtis goes on to state that Larmour told Andrews that he would not come over and would not be sending anyone else, and he indicates that the media witnessed everything and that the records Larmour is directing to be shredded are those that were requested in the PRA. Curtis also states that he will be contacting the Secretary of State and asking them for direction.
At 11:13 a.m. Larmour responded to Curtis stating that “Marjorie was told I could not come over at that moment….I made it to your office as quickly as I could and told you to continue with destruction as is consistent with prior advice…In addition your waiver of attorney client privilege which is held by the board and not you is also subject to criminal sanctions which I will discuss with the board.”
At 11:30 a.m. Curtis responded to Larmour by stating “Threats are useful for my whistleblower complaint. The board should have fired you.”
According to Curtis, the Secretary of State responded to his request about destroying the records that were pertinent to the records request by stating that he should destroy everything. He then contacted the shredding company, and they gave him the first available date of Friday, October 9 at 9 a.m., which he communicated to Shasta Unfiltered on October 1 at 9 a.m. through a text message from his assistant. Shasta Unfiltered then texted back asking if that would be enough time to go through the boxes to pull out the commingled records. We then learned through a text reply from Curtis that the records would not be sorted out. This was Curtis’s reply:
We are not going through the boxes. Larmour and the sos has directed us to shred the boxes knowing that there are documents that are presently under a pra and should be retained at court street.
At 5:08 p.m., Curtis texted Shasta Unfiltered that the shredding date had been changed to Saturday, October 3, at 8 a.m. Later communications with Curtis revealed that he received a communication from the County Administrative Office about the shredding date change. Curtis does not know who communicated with the shredding company and how they were able to schedule the shredding on a Saturday when the company is usually not working.
Chilson filed an ex parte petition at 8:00 a.m. this morning (Friday, October 2) in Shasta County Superior Court through her attorney, Alexander Haberbush, of the Lex Rex Institute, to stop the destruction of the records . She was denied a hearing today by Judge Benjamin L. Hanna, who stated he was too busy to hear the petition, scheduling it for Tuesday, October 6, three days after the shredding company will arrive to destroy everything in the boxes. The destruction of these records will allegedly cause her irreparable harm. Haberbush had previously warned the county through emailed letters on behalf of Chilson on September 10, 28, and 29, not to destroy any records pertaining to Chilson's PRA Request. This leaves concerned citizens wondering why the county is rushing to destroy records that should be retained and produced in a valid PRA request.
