Episode 28 - Ninja Politics: Crye’s SCOE Funding Fight and Voter Rights Showdown

This week we cover district one supervisor Kevin Crye’s opposition to funding the SCOE Community Connect Program, and the Shasta County Board’s controversial stance against AB-2642, a law aimed at preventing voter intimidation by restricting firearms near polling places.

Transcript:

Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowink. Today we will discuss two important topics, Kevin Crye and the SCOE funding for the Community Connect program, and Shasta County's opposition to a law aimed at reducing voter intimidation.

First, let's talk about Kevin Crye's position regarding the Shasta County Office of Education, SCOE, and its funding for the Community Connect program.

Community Connect is an essential service that helps families in need by connecting them to the right resources, including mental health services, educational support, and much more.

The program operates under a no-wrong-doors policy, meaning no matter where you come from in the community, you can find help. The program's goal is to ensure that families, especially children, get the support they need to thrive. The data shows that this program has made a real difference in our community.

Families have reported positive outcomes, including improvements in mental health, behavioral support, and overall well-being. The program's success is clearly reflected in SCOE's data, with measurable improvements in student mental health, school attendance, and family engagement. Despite this, Kevin Crye has recently expressed opposition to continuing funding for the program.

A retroactive contract came up for discussion, and Crye claimed that Community Connect is

Crye said,

Implying a lack of competition and oversight.

He has indicated that without restructuring the program to his liking, he may withhold or redirect funds. This argument aligns with the ideologies pushed by groups like Moms for Liberty, which has been advocating for defunding public education in favor of private options. While the group claims to support parental rights, its agenda often involves opposing LGBTQ+ rights and promoting school censorship.

Crye's position echoes these sentiments, casting doubt on the Community Connect program's value, despite clear evidence of its effectiveness. What's even more troubling is Crye's own involvement in receiving public funds.

His company, Ninja Coalition, has been awarded over $300,000 through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program.

Facilitated by the California Department of Education, Ninja Coalition provides physical activity and wellness programs for children, which is certainly beneficial to the community, but there's little oversight into how these funds are used, especially compared to the scrutiny Crye's applying to Community Connect. Crye's criticism of Community Connect for being,

and lacking oversight rings hollow when his own programs receive public funds with far less scrutiny. The question becomes, is Crye's opposition to the program genuinely about improving services for the community, or is there a deeper political or personal motive at play?

Let's shift to AB 2642, which the board majority, Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom, and Patrick Jones, voted to send a letter to the state in opposition.

AB 2642 is a California state law designed to prevent voter intimidation by prohibiting the carrying of firearms within a certain distance of polling places, ballot drop boxes, and election offices on election day or during early voting. This law aims to ensure voters can cast their ballots free from fear or coercion, reinforcing existing protections for election security and public safety. It clarifies and strengthens the current laws to reduce risk of voter suppression, particularly in politically charged environments where the presence of firearms could intimidate voters or election workers.

While this law primarily reinforces existing protections, Patrick Jones and Kevin Crye have framed it as an infringement on constitutional rights, particularly the First and Second Amendments. During the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 24th, Jones and Crye voiced their opposition, arguing that AB 2642 is unnecessary and unconstitutional. However, Supervisor Mary Rickert provided a different perspective.

She stated that her decision not to support the opposition letter was rooted in her concern for the safety of election workers.

The discussion was particularly contentious as Patrick Jones replied with this:

Rickert responded,

Jones retorted:

Rickert emphasized that supporting the letter would send a message to these workers that their concerns about safety don't matter. She reiterated that these workers, who have faced increasing threats and harassment since 2020, deserve protection and recognition.

Recently, Johanna Franciscut, Assistant County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, brought attention to the broader issue during an interview with News 21's Fractured America series.

She explained that election workers, once hailed as democracy's heroes, are now being treated as villains, thanks to the spread of election misinformation. This shift in public perception has led to many workers leaving their posts, creating staffing shortages and serious safety concerns during elections.

The September 23, 2024 meeting of the Elections Commission also shed light on this growing issue. The majority of those in attendance were members of the unofficial Elections Task Force, a group led by individuals like Patty Plumb and Laura Hobbs, which claims to oversee election integrity but lacks any official county recognition.

This task force has raised serious concerns due to its questionable legitimacy and influence it wields over certain members of the commission. Although Laura Hobbs is not an official member of the Elections Commission, her involvement in the task force has blurred the lines between legitimate election oversight and politically motivated actions. During that meeting, members of the task force pushed for measures that would severely limit absentee ballots and shift entirely to one-day, in-person voting.

These changes would disproportionately affect those who rely on mail-in ballots, such as working families and elderly voters, and are a clear attempt at voter suppression.

Brad Garbutt, a member of the commission, expressed concerns about these moves, warning that they could lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement. In response to Garbutt's comments, Ronan Lund, the commission chair, attempted to dismiss his concerns by stating that everyone had the same opportunities under the commission's guidelines.

Lund went on to read the definition of voter suppression, which states that it involves singling out a specific group by strategy or design. However, Lund failed to acknowledge that certain political groups, particularly those that lean to the left, have historically preferred to vote by mail. The task force's efforts to restrict absentee ballots are a deliberate strategy to suppress those votes, essentially creating voter suppression by design.

Getting back to the discussion of AB 2642, former Shasta County public defender Jeff Gorder wrote a letter expressing his concerns about the board's opposition to AB 2642. Gorder emphasized the risks of promoting policies that enable voter intimidation, stating that the board's stance on allowing firearms near polling places was not only legally questionable, but also a direct threat to the safety of voters.

Previously this year, Chief Deputy Attorney General Venus D. Johnson had written a letter regarding the January 23, 2024 County Board of Supervisors resolution, which authorized the carrying of concealed weapons on county property, and was quite critical.

While the board's opposition letter to AB 2642 will likely be ignored by state leaders, it's sending a dangerous message to Shasta County citizens. The actions and rhetoric by the board's majority raise serious concerns about the future of voting rights and election safety in our community.

And that's the Breakdown