- 📌 California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber continue legal action against Shasta County’s Measure B, which seeks to end mail voting, require hand counting, and mandate photo ID for voters.
- đź“Ś The lawsuit, initially filed in the Third District Court of Appeal, has been moved to Shasta County Superior Court for trial-level consideration.
- đź“Ś Measure B would eliminate most early voting and vote-by-mail options, create a separate county voter registration system, and limit voting to a single in-person Election Day.
- 📌 State officials argue Measure B exceeds the county’s charter authority, is preempted by state law, and was legally flawed from inception.
- đź“Ś Deadlines for the November midterm election are imminent, including reporting active voter registrations by September 14 and mailing ballots by October 5.
Introduction
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber have renewed their legal challenge against Shasta County’s Measure B, a controversial election overhaul that would eliminate mail voting, require hand counting of ballots, and mandate government-issued photo ID for voters. The lawsuit, now pending in Shasta County Superior Court, argues the measure violates state election laws and exceeds the county’s authority as a charter county.
What Measure B Would Do
Measure B, approved by Shasta County voters, would fundamentally change how elections are conducted in the county. Key provisions include:
- Requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID to register and vote in person.
- Eliminating vote-by-mail and most early voting options.
- Mandating hand counting of all ballots.
- Creating a separate county voter registration system disconnected from the state’s uniform system.
- Limiting elections to a single in-person Election Day, with exceptions only for voters with disabilities, military members, and U.S. citizens abroad.
State Officials’ Legal Arguments
Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber contend that Measure B is legally indefensible. Their lawsuit argues that:
- Charter counties do not have the authority to control voter registration or election procedures under California law.
- Even if the county had such authority, Measure B is preempted by state law, which requires uniform election rules across all 58 counties.
- The measure was legally flawed from the start; the county previously sought court guidance to avoid preparing a ballot title due to legal concerns, and the measure’s lead proponent openly acknowledged parts of it are illegal.
“Our position remains unchanged: Measure B is legally indefensible,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No city or county gets to unilaterally rewrite our election rules.”
Timeline and Urgency
The case was initially filed in the California Third District Court of Appeal due to the need for prompt resolution ahead of the November midterm election. However, the appellate court determined the case should first be considered in trial court. State officials are now seeking expedited relief to prevent Measure B from interfering with voter registration and election processes. Critical deadlines are approaching: county election officials must report active voter registrations by September 14, mail voter information guides by September 24, and begin sending vote-by-mail ballots by October 5.
Local California Context
Shasta County, located in Northern California, is one of 58 counties in the state. The legal challenge underscores the tension between local charter county authority and statewide election uniformity. If Measure B were allowed to stand, it could set a precedent for other counties to adopt similar measures, potentially fragmenting California’s election system. State officials emphasize that uniform election rules are essential to protect voting rights and ensure fair elections across all counties.
Conclusion
The legal battle over Shasta County’s Measure B is far from over, with the case now in Shasta County Superior Court. Both state and county officials await a ruling that could have significant implications for election procedures in California. As deadlines for the November election loom, the court’s decision on expedited relief will be closely watched by voters and election officials alike.