A group of citizens in the county drafted a ballot initiative intending to amend the county’s charter, through a charter amendment initiative, to guarantee election integrity. The proposition includes a provision for single-day voting, manual counting of ballots, limiting absentee ballots, requiring voter ID, and a variety of other proposals.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors filed a lawsuit against the five individuals who submitted the initiative, requesting a preliminary injunction against the group, which would have relieved County Counsel Joseph Larmour from creating a title and summary for the ballot measure.
The title and summary would allow the group to then collect signatures to get this ballot initiative on the ballot.
Larmour had argued that the ballot initiative was illegal under California law.
Judge Benjamin Hanna in a ruling on Wednesday denied the county’s request for emergency relief, citing insufficient evidence. His decision now means Larmour would be required to write the impartial title and summary of the election reform measure, which he wrote on Friday following the judge’s ruling.
“We’re very happy to see that the county of Shasta did vote to require him to create that title and summary, which he has now done,” Alexander Haberbush, the attorney for the five defendants, told The Epoch Times. The County of Shasta has also agreed to pay those legal fees.
Haberbush views the district matter as resolved.
“Now the initiative that they’ve written can be distributed to the voter, and they can collect signatures and get that petition circulated and get it on the ballot,” he said.
Haberbush said courts generally only review the legality of those measures after voters have decided the proposition should be enacted into the law.
“Pre-election review of the illegality of a ballot proposition is extremely rare, and courts will only give pre-election review under exceptional circumstances,” Haberbush said. “Those circumstances were not present here. Ordinarily, it is the right of the people to have matters put before the voter so that the voter can decide whether or not they want something to become law.
“To keep it from getting to the voter ahead of time is an extreme remedy that we do not feel, and the court agreed with us, ... appropriate in this case.”
Haberbush said the outcome was a significant victory for the right of the people to be heard in the initiative process.
