When Clint Curtis was appointed to oversee voting in California’s Shasta County earlier this year, the Florida-based lawyer and election skeptic promised to “fix” the voting process.

Curtis, who had never administered an election and did not reside in this rural northern California region, is well-known among followers of the U.S. election denial movement. He argues that voting systems are insecure and shares the belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. A former congressional candidate, Curtis has long maintained that voting machines can be hacked and that the government can manipulate election results.

The ultra-conservative majority on Shasta County’s Board of Supervisors expressed hope that Curtis could reform their elections and set a precedent for the rest of the nation.

That vision is now being put to the test. On November 4, California voters will participate in a high-stakes redistricting proposal in the first election Curtis is tasked with administering.

This special election holds national significance: the ballot measure seeks to suspend the work of California’s independent redistricting commission, allowing the legislature to redraw congressional districts to create five additional Democratic seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This initiative directly targets Texas’s partisan gerrymandering, orchestrated under Trump’s influence, which has fostered several secure Republican districts.

Curtis asserts that he is overseeing the most transparent election in the county’s history, featuring a livestream of ballot processing and designated areas for observers. “We’re showing people everything, which means they have no reason to mistrust it, because they can watch it with their own eyes,” he said.

Critics argue that Curtis’s changes have fostered distrust in an election system they once believed in. They have raised concerns about a statement from the California Secretary of State’s office, which revealed that Curtis had not coordinated with them on his plans, contrary to his claims. The Board of Supervisors threatened to censure him after he halted press releases to a notable local media outlet.

Concerns have also emerged regarding a reduction in drop boxes and the hiring of several temporary staff members, some of whom have been vocal critics of the elections office and its workers. One even filed a lawsuit against the county after losing a local race last year.

“How is this going to increase trust in the community?” asked resident Dawn Duckett, a former member of the county elections commission. “You had a vocal minority of people raising concerns. Now, everyone is apprehensive about elections. The whole county is in a state of chaos and turmoil.”

Shasta County, home to 180,000 people, has garnered national attention for its far-right politics and the persistence of the election-denier movement over the years. Following the 2020 election, local activists convinced of widespread voter fraud mounted a campaign against former election officials, leading to the resignation of many staff members.

Cathy Darling Allen, the former registrar of voters, testified before a Senate committee in 2022 about being subjected to harassment and bullying by residents accusing her and her team of election fraud. These tensions escalated to the point where “election integrity” activists, unaffiliated with the elections office, visited voters’ homes in gear labeled “official voter taskforce,” an act Allen indicated could be construed as voter intimidation.

Once regarded as competent and knowledgeable, Allen’s office faced relentless attacks from activists who found support from some county leaders eager to reshape voting processes dramatically. Prominent figures, such as MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, have propagated unfounded claims regarding the integrity of voting machines. Some have alleged, without evidence, that the county’s elections have long been manipulated.

This year, Shasta’s governing body severed ties with Dominion Voting Systems, a company implicated in unfounded conspiracy theories around election fraud, without consulting the elections office. The Board sought to implement a hand-count system warned against by experts for its potential costs and inaccuracy. Their attempts to establish a controversial elections commission faced rejection from the state.

When health issues prompted Allen’s retirement with over two years left in her term, the Board chose to appoint a former prosecutor, Tom Toller, instead of Allen’s more experienced deputy, Joanna Francescut. Toller defended the office, asserting he had witnessed no fraud and recognized the talents and dedication of the staff. However, the campaign against the office persisted, with a failed supervisor candidate, Laura Hobbs, suing over a perceived error on her ballot that she claimed altered the election’s outcome. A judge dismissed her lawsuit due to a “profound” lack of evidence.

Toller later resigned due to health issues, endorsing Francescut, but earlier this year, the Board moved to appoint Curtis rather than the assistant elections clerk. Curtis, during a public interview, touted his appearances on shows like those of Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon, claiming decades of experience in election law. He recounted an anecdote about developing software capable of altering votes, declaring, “I broke it. I better fix it.”

Upon voting for Curtis, Supervisor Chris Kelstrom remarked that his appointment could “change voting not only in Shasta County but possibly the whole state and possibly the whole nation.”

Curtis promptly terminated Francescut’s employment and began reshaping the electoral landscape in Shasta County. He installed additional cameras in the elections office to enhance ballot processing oversight, removed a gate at the front, and significantly cut the number of ballot drop boxes. His deputy, Brent Turner, a Bay Area attorney and elections reform advocate, previously served on the board of the California Association of Voting Officials.

“This was a very contentious place. They were fighting with the public. They locked them behind basically spiked walls,” Curtis remarked. As hostility toward election workers escalated, Allen had previously installed metal fencing in the office to manage confrontations.

When Curtis and Turner provided a tour of the office, they noted an atmosphere of camaraderie as former critics processed ballots in the lead-up to the election. While California law prevents hand-counting, Curtis focused on improved security measures. However, experts caution that cameras alone fail to alleviate the fears of those obsessed with transparency, who remain convinced of wrongdoing.

“We always see room for improvement, but the idea that someone can just wave a wand and alter the results is misleading,” Lindeman stated. “It does a real disservice to Americans to attempt to mislead them this way.” Curtis contended that his office was successfully meeting its goals of establishing a trustworthy election process. “I’ve looked at a million elections. This is the first [where] I don’t have to sue people,” he claimed. “From a lawyer’s perspective, we’re very solid.”

Despite his assurances, Curtis has faced threats of lawsuits, particularly in response to his decision to exclude the local media outlet Shasta Scout from receiving press releases. This outlet reported discrepancies between Curtis’s claims and the Secretary of State’s office, which stated that it had not approved Curtis’s plans for the election. Curtis has accused Shasta Scout of “meddling” in elections, thereby sparking concerns over potential election interference.

In a surprising move, the Board of Supervisors recently voted unanimously to condemn Curtis’s actions, warning he could face censure if similar incidents occurred in the future. “The Board’s vote was a surprising development for our community,” said Shasta Scout editor Annelise Pierce. “They’ve been somewhat lenient regarding First Amendment rights, but in this case, they strongly supported media access.”

In the aftermath, the elections office decided to publish all its press releases online. Turner clarified that Shasta Scout had received “bad information” and was communicating with the wrong people regarding the Secretary of State’s office’s stance.

Curtis claimed the Board only heard one side of the story and reported Shasta Scout to the IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging improper nonprofit status. Pierce asserted that the outlet is legally compliant and challenged Curtis to provide evidence to support his claims.

At a Board of Supervisors meeting in October, several residents expressed concern about Curtis’s attack on the media outlet. This sentiment was echoed by apprehension over recent changes and the hiring of local activists who had long campaigned against the elections office. Among the new recruits was Hobbs, who filed another lawsuit against the office earlier this year.

“It’s extremely concerning to have election deniers essentially have total access to the ballots and the elections office,” stated local business owner Steven Kohn. “Shasta County has a history of fair elections, and I am losing confidence in the office.”

Curtis maintained that he encouraged people of all political backgrounds to apply for positions within the office, positioning the changes as necessary security upgrades. Turner reinforced this sentiment, acknowledging that while residents rightfully feel anxious, the upgrades aim to enhance system transparency and reliability.

He described the integration of former critics with elections office staff as a “psychological integration,” claiming morale is currently high. The office has maintained ongoing dialogues with the state regarding recent changes, with hopes of serving as a model for other counties. However, the California Secretary of State’s office reiterated its non-approval of Curtis’s proposed plans.

The developments in Shasta County set a distinct precedent compared to other locales, with Lindeman characterizing Curtis as a “most clearly unqualified” elections official nationally. He raised alarms about Curtis’s recent remarks calling logic and accuracy testing for voting equipment a “waste of time,” equating it to claiming an umbrella is unnecessary because a brick might fall. “Good logic and accuracy testing is the first line of defense to protect voters’ votes,” he stressed.

Despite the challenges, Lindeman expressed hope for the people of Shasta County, stating, “I will be hoping that Clint Curtis manages to lead a successful election for the residents who absolutely deserve it.”

Curtis has announced his intent to run for office when his term concludes, proclaiming on his campaign website that “if politicians gain this seat back, America will never return to real elections again.” Similarly, Francescut is also running, receiving endorsements from other election officials, retired sheriffs, and her predecessor Toller, who praised her for transforming from a former election skeptic to a reliable candidate.