California Appeals Court Blocks Shasta County Voter ID and Hand-Count Election Measure

In Sacramento on August 28, 2026, the California Third District Court of Appeal issued an order preserving a lower court's preliminary injunction against Shasta County's Measure B. The appellate decision denies a request by the measure's proponents to enforce the charter amendment—which mandates photo identification and hand-counted ballots—during the November 3 general election.[1][2]

The ruling maintains the status quo for the county's 116,000 registered voters, ensuring that the upcoming election will be administered under standard state regulations. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed the lawsuit on June 12, arguing that the local initiative directly conflicts with state election codes and exceeds the authority granted to charter counties.[1][4]

Measure B was approved by 55.6% of Shasta County voters during the June 2 primary election. The initiative requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot, eliminates most early voting options, and restricts mail-in voting exclusively to military personnel, citizens living overseas, and those classified as infirm.[4][5]

Beyond voter identification, the measure mandates that all ballots be counted by hand at the precinct level and directs the county to create a voter registration system entirely disconnected from the state's uniform rolls. Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna, who issued the initial injunction on August 7, noted that establishing a separate electoral system and re-registering existing voters would be nearly impossible three months before a general election.[4]

The legal defense of the measure has fallen to its citizen proponents, represented by the Lex Rex Institute and attorney Alexander Haberbush. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on June 16 against defending the measure in court, and former Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis signed a stipulation agreeing not to contest the state's lawsuit.[3][5]

Richard Gallardo, a leader of the Save Shasta Elections group that gathered over 10,000 signatures to qualify the initiative, acknowledged the conflict with Sacramento. "We don't like the state laws," Gallardo said in an interview prior to the election. "We want to enact our own local election reform. … There's a lot in there, so, yes, we do expect the state to sue us."[5]

State officials maintain that the administration of elections is a matter of statewide concern, preempting local charter amendments. "Measure B illegally attempted to undermine the legitimacy of state elections and create barriers that would prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to participate in our democracy," Bonta stated following the appellate court's decision.[1]

The push for manual tallies in Shasta County predates Measure B. In early 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted to terminate the county's contract with Dominion Voting Systems and transition to hand-counting. That move prompted the California legislature to pass a law banning manual vote tallies in jurisdictions with more than 1,000 registered voters.[5]

Election administrators have highlighted the logistical hurdles of the proposed changes. Cathy Darling Allen, the former longtime Shasta County registrar, estimated in 2023 that a full manual tally during a presidential election year would require hiring at least 1,255 temporary employees at a cost exceeding $1.6 million to meet state reporting deadlines.[5]

The appellate court's refusal to lift the injunction means the underlying lawsuit will now proceed to a full trial in Shasta County Superior Court. While the November 2026 election will operate under existing state law, the final judicial ruling will determine whether any components of Measure B can be implemented in future election cycles.[1][2]