Special Agenda Preview - Board of Supervisors 10-14-2025

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The agenda lists one item: a closed-session conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation (one potential case). This special meeting was called after a press-access dispute involving the Elections Office.

The First Amendment Coalition (FAC) is representing local media outlet Shasta Scout after the newly appointed Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis excluded the newsroom from the Elections Office press-release distribution list. FAC sent a legal demand on Oct. 9, arguing the selective exclusion is unconstitutional and warning the county of imminent litigation unless access is restored; the Board scheduled the Oct. 14 closed session to discuss that threat.

Also after the Election's office received FAC’s letter, Curtis paused all press releases to all outlets.

The Constitutional question in play

FAC’s letter frames the dispute as a press-access/equal-treatment issue: once an agency distributes information to news outlets, it can’t selectively exclude a publication based on perceived viewpoint or “legitimacy.” That’s the core First Amendment argument behind the potential litigation supervisors will consider.

Legal stakes in plain terms

This dispute isn’t about whether the Elections Office must issue press releases; it’s about how a public office treats the press once it chooses to send them. If one newsroom is singled out for exclusion because of its coverage or viewpoint, that’s likely viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. California adds extra protection: the state constitution favors transparency, and the Public Records Act requires equal, prompt access to existing records (including past press releases, distribution policies, and related emails) unless a specific exemption applies.

Context on recent election communications

Separate earlier reporting from Shasta Scout documented a factual dispute over Curtis’s claim that the Secretary of State had “approved” his plans; the Secretary of State’s office stated that claim was false. That back-and-forth set the stage for heightened scrutiny of the Elections Office’s communications.

What to watch on Oct. 14

• Closed-session outcome: The Board could announce whether it will direct counsel to negotiate, settle, or otherwise respond to the demand, or report no action. (Any reportable action will be announced after closed session.)

  
  

• Near-term communications: Whether the Elections Office restores distribution lists and resumes routine press releases.

  
  

• Longer-term guardrails: Expect questions about clear, viewpoint-neutral criteria for media distribution to prevent future disputes.

  
  

Elections administration relies on timely, even-handed communication, especially with a November special election approaching. The outcome of this dispute will affect access to basic election information, public trust, and the county’s potential legal exposure.

And that’s the agenda preview.