Shasta County Registrar of voters office was prepared for the start of a recount. Photo by Doni Chamberlain
Everything was ready for a high-pressure, highly scrutinized day at the Shasta County Registrar of Voters office Monday morning. Empty chairs stood in a neat row. The day’s schedule was given to those waiting for the event to begin. White, flat boxes displayed four names at the center of all the planning: Allen Long, Dan Sloan, Laura Hobbs and Susanne Baremore.
Trained elections employees were ready, willing and capable to oversee a relatively rare event: a recount requested by a candidate. Defeated District 2 candidate Laura Hobbs was that candidate, disputing Allen Long’s certified 50.13 percent win in the March 5 Presidential Primary Election in which Hobbs received 19.23 percent of the votes.
Hobbs filed a lawsuit against Long last week in which Hobbs cited fraud and numerous alleged violations supposedly committed by the Registrar of Voters office in Shasta County’s March 2 Presidential Primary Election.
But literally minutes before the recount process was due to start, Shasta County’s Elections Department became like a jilted bride, stood up at the alter; all dressed up and ready for her big day for an event that would not happen after all.
Monday morning, Hobbs abruptly pulled the plug on the recount after meeting upstairs earlier with Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut, District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye, District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman, Hobbs’ supporter and campaign financer Richard Gallardo, and Hobbs’ spokesperson Patty Plumb.
Speaking of Gallardo, campaign finance records show that he contributed $3,000 to Hobbs on April 5.
The timing is significant because on April 4 — almost a month after the election – Hobbs used her campaign Facebook page to ask for money to help pay for a lawyer,
“IMPORTANT UPDATE – SHARE WIDELY
As you know, the March 5th election hinged on only 14 votes, well within the 100 votes that is typical of an automatic recount, which did not occur.
After digging into the data, I also found other grounds for contesting the March 5 election, and I filed a lawsuit. This data was collected by all of you who worked so hard as election observers! This legal contest is a chance for We the People to obtain transparency and justice in our elections.
The goal is to raise enough to retain a lawyer and help pay for a possible recount, that would continue this contest to the General Election in November. You can give to this effort here.
Together we can do this!
As of this writing on April 8, 2024, both fundraising links on Hobbs’ Facebook fundraising pages are live.
Ironically, while Hobbs seems adept at using the court system to contest an election, she has no problem breaking laws that prohibit political fundraising after an election, or the use campaign donations to challenge an election.
Recount or no recount?
Around 9:30 a.m. Monday, as staff, media and a few confused volunteers milled about and tried to decipher whether the recount would or would not happen, Hobbs quietly descended the election department’s stairs and slipped silently out the front door, leaving Plumb to field questions.
By that time word had spread quickly throughout the room that the recount was called off because Hobbs did not supply a check to pay for the recount. The recount rules are simple for those requesting one: No money, no recount.
Elections staff quickly switched from recount mode to regrouping to calling the approximately 30 volunteers who would have received poll-workers’ pay of $100 per day. They were told their services were not necessary, because the recount would not happen.
When Plumb stepped up to speak on behalf of Hobbs, Plumb did not mention money problems as a reason behind Hobbs’ change of heart about the recount.
Patty Plumb identified herself as Laura Hobbs’ spokesperson.
Instead, Plumb said Hobbs chose to “go in a different direction” with the recount after meeting with Francescut and others. Plumb’s subsequent statements ran around the mulberry bush a few times before settling upon a definitive answer.
“With the procedure and process of what we’re trying to do, to come to a free and fair determination of what’s happened with the election process, as so with that information, we’re excited to say that every day is a field trip,” Plumb said.
“We are learning as we go, and educating people along the way of how to do this well. Out goal is for a hand count, but not in the method that the elections office is providing at this time. So we’re going to go ahead with legal counsel, and the direction we end up with will provide a hand count which will benefit everybody.”
Plumb added that Hobbs rejected the recount processes offered by Francescut, as they did not meet Hobbs’ requirements of full transparency.
“So Laura has gathered the information that makes perfect sense, so we’re going to go in a different direction,” a smiling Plumb said.
Asked about payment for a future recount, Plumb said, “Well, somebody’s going to pay for it, but it’s not going to be me.”
Bottom line: Hobbs plans to pursue legal means to secure a court-ordered recount. The deadline for a candidate to request a recount via the Registrar of Voters office has expired. Consequently, no District 2 recount will take place in the Shasta County Registrar of Voters office unless one is court-ordered at a future date.
According to Francescut, she was unaware of a court-ordered vote recount in Shasta County’s recent history.
After Plumb’s departure, Francescut made a statement and answered a few questions.
Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut speaks about the canceled recount Monday.
Her explanation for the cancelled recount differed somewhat from Plumb’s in that Plumb’s answers focused on Hobbs’ stated desire for election transparency, as well as Hobbs’ unwillingness to accept Francescut’s recount system.
However, Francescut’s responses had more to do with a potential recount’s financial components that would be cost more than $8,000 the first day, but perhaps a few thousand less per day in subsequent days. Although Francescut said the number of the days for a recount depended a lot on available staff and volunteers, she had anticipated the recount would have been finished by Friday.
Using those projections, a District 2 recount could have cost Hobbs as much as $32,000 or more.
“Laura Hobbs decided not to pay for the recount, so we will not be processing the recount per that request,” Francescut said.
“She just had to make some decisions regarding funding. It’s expensive; very expensive … Understand that it wasn’t just $8,000 today, it was plus more the next day, and more the next day.”
When informed that Hobbs had cited a lack of transparency as a reason to not move forward with the recount and accept Francescut’s recount procedures, Francescut countered that transparency is important to her, too.
“She wanted it done a specific way,” Francescut said of Hobbs. “However, we needed to follow the law and the regulations in place. According to regulations we were going to follow the California regulations, and she wanted to add to that process, and that process would have taken more time, and I said no.”
Francescut addressed the possibility of another recount request.
“At this point no one else has asked for a recount right now,” Francescut said.
“The law requires that you request a recount within five days of certification. That was last Tuesday, April 2. So at this point, if she hasn’t paid today, then the recount is null and void according to law.”
Asked if she and her staff had been prepared for a recount today, Francescut said an emphatic yes.
“We had staff come in on days they’d scheduled off, we had staff working this weekend to prepare for this recount,” Francescut said. “We worked really hard to make sure we were in compliance with the law.”
Francescut said her office will not bill Hobbs for any pre-recount preparations.
Now, with the specter of the recount behind her, Francescut said she and her staff will return to the next tasks at hand, such as the following day’s Board of Supervisors meeting, and after that the upcoming November election, which is about 200 days away.
Did Francescut feel relief at the canceled recount?
“No, I don’t. I was really hoping we’d be able to add more transparency in the process, for them to have a really deep down look about what they were wanting,” Francescut said.
“We’ve been getting negative feedback. They wanted people to be right on top of the counters, and I was hoping to give them that opportunity to see. So I’m actually kind of disappointed that they couldn’t understand what it takes to count ballots, what it takes to go through this work. So I’m really a little bit discouraged that we didn’t get to give them that transparency.”
It’s official: District 2 Supervisor Allen Long
Allen Long
Long, the overwhelming winner of the District 2 Supervisors race, had shown up early outside the elections office in the chilly air before the doors were opened, where he was the only District 2 candidate in the elections office.
There, he’d watched the morning transform from the expected drama of a possible recount of the election that had named him the winner, to the unexpected news that Hobbs changed her mind, and there would be no recount after all.
Following Plumb’s comments, Long took a moment to gather himself and share his thoughts about the recount’s failure to launch.
“Well, I’m relieved, and I’m glad this process has finally been decided, and this is the right decision,” Long said. “Here we go.”
District 2 Supervisor election winner Allen Long responds to news of the canceled recount.
Regarding Hobbs’ stated intentions to seek legal means for a future recount, Long conceded that Hobbs has that right to do so, as does anyone.
“I don’t think it will be successful — personally — but that’s their option to go forward with that,” Long said.
Asked whether he believed a District 2 recount was warranted in the first place, Long said no, he did not, with a caveat.
“I mean, I think if she wanted to follow the procedures set by the Registrar of Voters, this recount this morning was absolutely warranted. That’s her right to do that,” Long said, adding the stipulation that if the recount conditions as required under the elections department weren’t met, then the recount wasn’t warranted.
From left, KRCR’s Mike Mangas wraps up filming as newly elected District 2 Supervisor Allen Long chats with recount volunteers Steve Davidson and Frank Treadway as Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut answers questions. Photo by Doni Chamberlain.
Frank Treadway was one of several recount volunteers who showed up early Monday to begin his task. Treadway, who lives in District 2, said he was pleased at the announcement that the recount was canceled, but also grappled with the understanding that Hobbs intended to pursue a new recount via the court system.
“I wish them luck, but I suspect that without evidence this case will be dismissed,” Treadway said. “And in the meantime, Long is our new supervisor, and he will represent all his District 2 constituents.”
About that early morning meeting
District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman.
As had been mentioned earlier, Hobbs’ decision to forgo the recount was announced following an upstairs meeting with Hobbs, Francescut, Plumb, Gallardo and supervisors Garman and Crye.
Garman is the current District 2 supervisor, placed in that seat following a lie-based recall of former District 2 Supervisor Leonard Moty, whose term expired in December. However, because of redistricting that deemed Garman now resides in District 5, Garman could not campaign for his open seat. He has said several times in public that will return for a run for that District 5 seat in the 2026 election.
According to Garman, who was reached for comment later Monday, he said Crye contacted him yesterday and invited Garman to join the meeting.
Garman surmised the invitation was in part because Crye and Garman are often on opposite sides of issues. He said Crye described the invitation as a way to “find a new path forward”.
Garman said that because of a previous board commitment, he was only able to stay for about 15 minutes of the meeting. But he said during that time he got the gist of what happened between Hobbs and Francescut, a process that boiled down to about nine bullet points Hobbs presented to Francescut.
“Laura said it was as if she was looking to buy a used car, she’d want to first look under the hood,” Garman said.
Some of Hobbs’ sticking points Garman recalled included Hobbs’ request for the recount to be held on one floor, not split between upstairs and downstairs, as Francescut had planned. Garman said Francescut attempted to compromise, and said that if the recount was to be in all one space, it would likely take longer, a scenario not favored by Hobbs, especially considering that with a recount, time literally translates to more money spent.
He said Hobbs also balked when Francescut said that the other District 2 candidates could have their observers attend the recount, too.
Garman believes that all Hobbs’ bullet points and stipulations and demands have nothing to do with a true recount.
“To me, it seems what she’s wanting is excuses to make the elections department look bad,” Garman said. “Joanna offered to help, but it doesn’t matter what she offered. Laura Hobbs knows the numbers are correct. They just want to create chaos in the ROV’s office.”
Finally, Garman went one step further with a more sinister speculation about the truth behind Hobbs’ recount request and lawsuit against Long.
“They are looking for any reason to get the elections department into court,” Garman said.
A conversation between State of Jefferson devotee Terry Rapoza and his guest election-denier Marley Hornick on Sunday’s Jefferson State of Mine radio show would confirm Garman’s suspicions.
Hobbs’ response
Laura Hobbs
A News Cafe reached out to Hobbs for comment, and received this reply:
“Today we were unable to come to mutually agreeable terms for the hand count to occur efficiently and in complete transparency, while maintaining chain of custody. It is my hope that a recount can still occur if deemed necessary by a court of law, in such a way that evidence will be maintained. Dr. Laura Hobbs
Candidate for Shasta County Supervisor District 2”
Finally, Jennie O’Connell, who’d signed up as a recount volunteer, sat in a chair, and shook her head in disbelief.
“I mean, this is all so extremely confusing,” O’Connell said.
“Laura Hobbs said she wanted a recount because new information came in. She said it would be paid for, so everyone here pulled everything to make it happen. But then, at the last minute she’s all, ‘We’re going to go a different direction. We’re still going to get that recount, but not like this.’ That’s kind of confusing. And it doesn’t sound like she’s changing anything. She still wants a hand count, which is what this was, but she doesn’t want this hand count.”
So it goes in Shasta County, made more memorable because the recount cancelation happened on same day as the 2024 total solar eclipse.
Anything can happen. The day’s young. Stay tuned.
