What Just Happened in Shasta County: The Election Reform Initiative, the Lawsuit, and What Comes Next

By now, you may have heard that the Shasta County Superior Court denied the County’s request to temporarily block a citizen-led election reform initiative from moving forward. That decision has left a lot of people wondering: Does this mean the initiative is legal? What happens now? Is the County in trouble with the State?

Let’s break it down — clearly, plainly, and with a bit of behind-the-scenes context.

First, What Was the County Trying to Do?

Earlier this month, Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour filed a legal motion asking the court to grant a temporary stay — essentially a legal pause — so he wouldn’t have to provide a ballot title and summary for a proposed local initiative that would change how elections are conducted in the county.

The initiative — filed by a group of local citizens — would:

• Require all ballots to be hand-counted

• Limit voting to a single Election Day

• Require photo ID to vote

• Create a separate voter roll for Shasta County, disconnected from the state system

  
  

Larmour argued that these changes could be unconstitutional and violate state and federal election laws. He also pointed out that processing the initiative would cost public money — especially if it’s destined to be struck down later. So he went to court to ask: Can I just skip this?

The Court Said No — But It’s Not That Simple

On March 19, Judge Ben Hanna denied the County’s request for a temporary stay. That means the County must continue the ballot initiative process for now, including writing a ballot title and summary as required by law.

But — and this is important — the judge did not rule on whether the initiative is constitutional or legal. That part of the case is still open. The court just said the County has to follow through with the normal steps while the legal battle continues.

So if you heard that the citizens “won,” not quite — they won this one round, but the broader legal fight is far from over.

Why This Initiative Is Legally Risky

Here’s where things get serious. Some of the most controversial parts of the initiative aren’t just ambitious — they’re likely illegal under existing law.

Let’s look at a few examples:

❌ Voter ID Requirement:

California Elections Code §10005 — which just went into effect this year — explicitly bans counties from requiring voter ID to cast a ballot. That authority rests solely with the state.

❌ Separate Voter Rolls:

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires every state to use a centralized, computerized voter registration system. Counties can’t just go off-grid and build their own. Doing so could cost the county federal funding and trigger a state response.

❌ Blocking DMV Registrations:

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires states to integrate DMV applications with voter registration. If the county tries to screen out DMV-based voters, it’s almost guaranteed to spark a legal battle.

Why the County Was Trying to Get Ahead of This

The County Counsel’s strategy was about more than just saving money — it was about avoiding a much bigger problem: a lawsuit from the State of California or even the federal government.

If this initiative passes and the County tries to implement voter ID laws or disconnected voter systems, it could face:

• A lawsuit from the California Attorney General

• Legal enforcement from the Secretary of State

• Loss of election funding or certification

• Federal litigation under voting rights laws

  
  

So the County was likely trying to say: “Let’s get this ruled illegal now before we’re in hot water with Sacramento or Washington.”

What Happens Now?

Here’s the current status:

• The County must proceed with drafting the title and summary.

  
  

• The initiative will likely move toward signature gathering and possible ballot qualification.

  
  

• But the lawsuit is still active, and the County may still seek a ruling declaring parts of the initiative unenforceable.

  
  

• If the initiative qualifies or passes, the legal battle will heat up fast.

At that point, the County will either have to:

• Try to implement an initiative that violates higher law (and get sued), or

  
  

• Publicly reject or decline to enforce certain provisions, citing state and federal supremacy.

  
  

What Can the County Do to Protect Itself?

Here’s what a smart legal strategy looks like moving forward:

1. Continue the lawsuit — especially after the measure qualifies or passes.

   
   

2. Disclaim any obligation to enforce provisions that conflict with state or federal law (like voter ID or voter roll separation).

   
   

3. Communicate transparently with the public and Secretary of State — show they’re following the law in good faith.

   
   

4. Publicly release a legal memo clarifying which parts of the initiative could be implemented and which would be blocked by higher authority.

   
   

This approach allows the County to say:

This case is a perfect example of what happens when local activism meets legal reality. While communities have every right to propose changes, not every idea is legally viable — and sometimes initiatives push beyond what local government has the power to do.

For now, the County is stuck in the middle — trying to follow the law, respect voter input, and avoid a political and legal crisis with the State of California.

This story isn’t over — it’s just beginning.