Voter advocacy groups ask California to monitor upcoming Shasta County election

Six nonprofit, nonpartisan voter advocacy groups have sent a letter to Secretary of State Shirley Weber requesting that she take action because they have “grave” concerns about Shasta County’s upcoming Nov. 7 special election.

It's the latest chapter in a potential legal battle that would pit Shasta County against the state over tallying votes.

The nonprofit groups are asking that Weber's office, among other things, monitor the election to make sure the county is following the law and give Shasta County Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen any help she requests.

The letter also was sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Shasta County's five supervisors and Darling Allen.

Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz, who authored Assembly Bill 969, which essentially bans tallying votes by hand except in the tiniest towns and was signed into law by Newsome on Oct. 4, was also sent the letter.

California Voter Foundation, ACLU of Northern California, California Common Cause, Disability Rights California, League of Women Voters of California and Verified Voting sent the letter.

"Our requests are based on the following grave concerns, which we believe call for urgent, decisive, and sustained response from your office, not the least because of the rapid approach of a special election in Shasta County on November 7, 2023, and the presidential primary election on March 5, 2024," the letter in part states.

Shasta Supervisor Patrick Jones, who chairs the board, has insisted that votes will be counted by hand and has threatened litigation if the state tries to stop the county by invoking the provisions of AB 969.

The voter coalition group's concerns include Jones' vow to ignore the law.

The Board of Supervisors discussed the ramifications of AB 969 at its  Oct. 17 meeting, but took no action on the issue. Darling Allen did not attend the meeting.

Jones said after the meeting that the supervisors are still weighing their options about whether to pursue legal action to force a hand count of ballots for the Nov. 7 election.

Jones said the county counsel’s office has provided the board with legal advice on the issue, but he could not disclose what that was, citing attorney-client privilege.

The supervisors are expected to discuss the issue again at their Oct. 31 meeting.

Jones couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

In an email to the Record Searchlight, Darling Allen stated:

"I appreciate that there are many advocates across the state watching what’s happening here in Shasta and speaking up to defend the voters of Shasta County and the process. As I have said many times, I believe that is the job of my staff and I: to defend the voters and ensure their voices are heard.

I believe that AB969 is lawful and that it applies here. I intend to follow the law in conducting November's election, which means using our voting system to tabulate the results and performing the legally required manual tally audit."

Even if Shasta County follows the new law, the voter groups have concerns.

"There is a high risk of voter confusion, distrust, and disenfranchisement due to the spread ofmisinformation and disinformation by Supervisor Jones and others who arealigned with his views and approach," their letter states.

Jones and his supporters during board meetings have more than once voiced unproven claims of election fraud due to voting machines.

More: Shasta County fights back, plans media campaign against Fountain Wind project

"As can be seen at nearly every Board of Supervisors meeting, it truly threatens the electorate’s ability to discern the truth about how their upcoming elections will be administered and their confidence that their votes will be counted accurately and in accordance with the law," the letter says.

Jones and Supervisors Kevin Crye and Chris Kelstrom were in the 3-2 majority to terminate Shasta County's contract with Dominion Voting Systems last January, leading the charge to hand count votes in future elections.

That vote was the inspiration for AB 969.

To address their concerns, the nonprofit coalition request's that Weber's office:

• Remind Jones and Crye that Shasta County must follow federal and state election laws, including AB 969.

• Conduct in-person monitoring of the Nov.7 and March, 5, 2024, elections in Shasta County, including vote tabulation, for compliance with state election laws.

• If she requests it, help Darling Allen do her job in the event she is faced with interference by other county officials or staff, individuals or others.

• Supplement and support Shasta County elections office’s voter education efforts leading up to the Nov. 7 election and both of the 2024 presidential elections so that voters get accurate information, which also would also engage Shasta County residents in the democratic process.

The Secretary of State's office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Weber's office has told the Record Searchlight that Shasta County must abide by AB 969.

David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly "Buzz on the Street" column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Why voter groups have 'grave' concerns about Shasta's Nov. 7 election