Kevin Crye recall: Elections office, Supervisor Jones tussle over disclosing petitioners

With less than two months before District 1 voters decide the fate of Supervisor Kevin Crye, the newly formed Shasta County Elections Commission wants to review the signed petitions that put Crye’s recall on the ballot.

Whether it has the authority to do that is the latest turf battle between the county elections office and District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones, who created the elections commission when he was the Board of Supervisors chair last fall because he said it is a way to restore trust in the voting process.

On Monday, the commission voted 3-2 to send a recommendation to supervisors to hire outside counsel to review whether the commission has the authority to review petition signatures and other election materials related to the Crye recall effort.

Commissioners Bev Gray, Ronnean Lund and Lisa Michaud voted yes.

Gray was appointed to the commission by Jones, while Lund and Michaud were appointed by Supervisors Chris Kelstrom and Crye, respectively. All three supervisors are far-right conservatives who voted last January to terminate the county's contract with Dominion Voting Systems, leading to the assumption that their appointees will share their political views and their desire to eliminate voting machines.

It's why the county’s first-of-its kind citizens election group has some members of the community worried that the citizens' group could influence supervisors to strip some duties now held by Shasta County Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen.

Allegations that voters don't trust the election process run counter to voters' actions.

In 2022, Darling Allen, who has been county clerk and registrar of voters since 2004, was re-elected convincingly with nearly 70% of the vote.

Meanwhile, on Monday, commissioners Dawn Duckett and Susanne Baremore voted no on forwarding a recommendation to supervisors to look into whether the commission has the authority to review materials related to the Crye recall petition.

District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert appointed Baremore and District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman appointed Duckett. Those two supervisors, who are Republicans, are considered more moderate and did not vote to get rid of the Dominion machines.

The elections commission has added another layer to Shasta County government. And now with the potential of hiring outside counsel to provide an opinion on the Crye recall petition and election materials review, it could cost the county more money.

At Monday’s elections commission meeting, Joanna Gin of Best Best & Krieger, the firm the county uses for outside counsel, sat in for county counsel to referee the public proceedings. Gin also sat in at the Dec. 18 commission meeting.

Before voting, Baremore recommended that Gin render an opinion for the commission “so that we have that information sooner rather than later because I think there’s a solid chance that we’re working on misinformation.”

Lund, who chairs the commission, suggested that they do have the legal authority.

More: Do you care if election ballot drop-boxes get watched by surveillance cameras?

“We have legal standing because the ordinance that created the commission said one of the duties is to observe and inspect election-related records and documents for accuracy,” she said.

Duckett countered, “But you’re assuming that the ordinance trumps state law.”

Lund said she was not.

Joanna Francescut, Shasta County assistant registrar of voters, told the Record Searchlight before Monday’s meeting that their office is charged with protecting the confidentiality of the Crye recall petitions and signatures.

“We will not release (the records) without (the) binding authority from someone like the Secretary of State, Attorney General or a court,” she said.

Jones and other opponents of the attempt to recall Crye contend that the low signature invalidation rate of 3.5% raises questions and that is why the petitions should be reviewed — to restore trust in the process.

The Committee to Recall Kevin Crye submitted 5,106 signatures on Sept. 12, 2023, and Darling Allen’s office found 4,929 of those signatures were valid, which qualified it for the March 5, 2024, ballot.

Jeff Gorder, spokesman for the Crye recall committee, said organizers made strong efforts to make sure the signatures they had were valid before they turned them in to the elections’ office in September.

“We did exercise as much due diligence as we could to try to determine whether somebody who wanted to come up and sign was in the proper district” and was a registered voter, Gorder said.

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 X, formerly 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: Shasta office, supervisor tussle over disclosing recall petitioners