But the is far from normal and will be closely watched 鈥� including by the Secretary of State鈥檚 office.
Shasta County鈥檚 Board of Supervisors has been embroiled in a series of battles between its conservative and more moderate members 鈥� all of whom are Republican. In January, the board voted 3-2 to cancel its contract with Dominion Voting for ballot-counting machines, which were the focus of unproven allegations about election fraud. The cancellation has prompted outcry at board meetings and a recall effort against Supervisor Kevin Crye, who recall proponents say was the swing vote in the decision.
In response to the contract termination, the Legislature passed a bill 鈥� which went into effect as soon as 鈥� that limits hand-counting of votes to , none of which apply to Shasta County鈥檚 upcoming election. The bill prohibits a manual vote count in regular elections with more than 1,000 registered voters, or special elections with more than 5,000 registered voters.
And while early voting has been underway for the election since Oct. 9, some voter groups are raising the red flag that the county may not comply 鈥� and are urging Secretary of State Shirley Weber to enforce the law.
鈥� sent last week by six voting rights and good government groups, including California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California 鈥� notes that Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chairperson Patrick Henry Jones made 鈥渧arious public statements indicating an . The groups say that even if the county does comply, there is 鈥渁 high risk of voter confusion, distrust, and disenfranchisement due to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.鈥�
They鈥檙e calling on the Secretary of State鈥檚 office to:
- Remind supervisors that Shasta County is required to follow federal and state laws in conducting elections;
- Arrange for staff to monitor the Nov. 7 and March 5 elections;
- Provide assistance to the county鈥檚 registrar of voters.
While her office didn鈥檛 confirm whether it would send staff to monitor the final day of voting, Secretary of State Shirley Weber did to debunk the claim that the election isn鈥檛 subject to the new law because it was 鈥済randfathered in.鈥� Weber wrote: 鈥淪uch a claim is wholly without merit and has no basis in law .鈥� I expect that you will uphold your obligation to comply with the law. Failing that, my office stands ready to take any actions necessary to ensure that Shasta County conducts all elections in accordance with state law.鈥�
Shasta County Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen said early voting has proceeded without incident. She said her office was pleasantly surprised to see the advocates鈥� letter: 鈥淲e think a lot more sunshine always helps.鈥�
Jones told CalMatters he plans to continue discussing legal action with the board of supervisors after a law firm the county initially hired affirmed that the state law applies to Shasta County. But any further legal action is unlikely to happen before the Nov. 7 election, in which state-approved Hart tabulation machines are being used.
Still, Jones referred to them as 鈥渦nauthorized, breach-of-contract Hart machines,鈥� saying the board was led to believe the machines had no electronic tabulation capabilities. He鈥檚 focused instead on the March primary and said he plans to discuss future legal action at a supervisors meeting Tuesday.
Mary Rickert, one of the supervisors who was in favor of retaining the Dominion machines, said the concerns raised by the voter advocacy groups were legitimate. 鈥淚 was very pleased that they brought it to the attention of Sacramento, because, quite honestly, I do think there is reason for concern,鈥� she said.
She said she was also concerned about the safety of the registrar of voters and the staff, stating: 鈥淚t鈥檚 been a volatile situation for a long time. I am concerned about the welfare of these citizens of Shasta County 鈥� the people that work at the clerk鈥檚 office.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.