Shasta County’s Election Denialism Epidemic Spills Over into California

Shasta County, a bastion of election denialism in Northern California, has become a hub for spreading conspiracy theories and undermining faith in American democracy. The county’s latest move to hire Tina Peters, the notorious Colorado election denier recently released from prison, as an elections consultant is the latest manifestation of this crisis.

Peters’ involvement in Shasta County’s elections office raises serious questions about the county’s commitment to securing fair and legitimate elections. Her history of breaching voting equipment and allowing sensitive information to be leaked to far-right media outlets is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by election deniers. By hiring her, Clint Curtis, the top election official in Shasta County, seems to be doubling down on his own efforts to undermine trust in voting machines and promote hand-count systems.

The move is not an isolated incident but rather part of a larger trend of conservative counties and officials embracing election denialism. The county’s governing body has been at the forefront of this movement, attempting to remake the voting process by cutting ties with Dominion Voting Systems and implementing a hand-count system that experts have warned would be costly and less accurate.

Shasta County’s board of supervisors has a history of controversy surrounding elections, including appointing Curtis as the county clerk and registrar of voters despite his vocal opposition to voting machines. His tenure has been marred by allegations of creating a hostile work environment and making violent threats against staff, which he denies. The same board that appointed him censured him earlier this year for “ongoing and flagrant violations” of personnel rules.

The hiring of Peters comes as Curtis’ time in office is drawing to a close, but the implications are far-reaching. Shasta County’s voters have already rejected measures aimed at promoting election security and voting integrity, including photo ID requirements and hand-counts. The state has sued the county over these measures, which were temporarily blocked by a judge.

Peters and Curtis’ involvement in Shasta County’s elections office highlights the need for greater scrutiny and accountability in election administration. As Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado county clerk’s association, noted, “Tina Peters is not an expert on administering secure, lawful elections – she’s an expert on leaving ballots sitting in a ballot box for months after an election.” The hiring of Peters is a disturbing sign that Shasta County remains committed to spreading election denialism and undermining faith in American democracy.

The consequences of this trend are far-reaching. As Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state, pointed out, “Peters was convicted of four felonies and three misdemeanors related to breaching her own voting equipment while county clerk.” The fact that Peters is still being sought after by election deniers on the right is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by this movement.

Shasta County’s election denialism epidemic has spilled over into California, with Peters’ involvement serving as a potent symbol of the crisis. As Curtis’ tenure draws to a close, it’s clear that Shasta County remains committed to spreading conspiracy theories and undermining faith in American democracy. With Peters now on board, questions about the county’s future and its commitment to election security and integrity are mounting.