The ongoing challenges with the election process in Shasta County serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of hasty decisions. This issue was brought into sharp focus when Nevada County announced delays in their election results due to a printer’s error affecting their vote-by-mail ballots. The error involved ink overspray on some ballots, making them unreadable by the election equipment. The problem, invisible to the naked eye, was only discovered after ballots had started arriving at the Elections Office. Approximately 13,500 ballots had been received out of nearly 77,000 issued when the issue was identified. Nevada County quickly devised a plan to review and rescan all affected ballots using in-house printers to maintain the election’s integrity and transparency.
This was a handout passed out at the 10-31-2024 Shasta County Election office press conference to illustrate how readable and unreadable ballots are impossible to discern with the naked eye.
Thursday morning at the Shasta County Elections Office in Redding, Tom Toller, the county’s new Registrar of Voters, held a press conference to answer questions and address the fact that Shasta County now grapples with the same-scanning ballot issues as Nevada County, and other places. Toller spoke to several in-person media people and citizens in the lobby of the elections office, as well as a few others via the virtual meeting.
Shasta County’s ballot-scanning problem surfaced concurrently with Nevada County’s, where the printer error involving ink overspray was first discovered on October 23, 2024. Since then, the Shasta County Elections Office has been collaborating with Hart InterCivic, the printer Runbeck, and the Secretary of State’s office to ensure every vote is accurately counted. To address the issue, precinct ballots have been replaced to ensure in-person voting remains unaffected. Registrar of Voters Tom Toller emphasized that despite the technical issues, the crafted solution prioritizes vote accuracy.
“Accuracy is being prioritized over efficiency, which may delay results but ensures count integrity,” Toller stated, acknowledging the importance of reliable outcomes over speed.
The solution requires meticulously scanning ballots, with unreadable ones being duplicated for accurate tabulation. Initially, more than 70 percent of ballots were rejected, causing significant concern, though the rejection rate began to decrease with continued processing. While the reason for this improvement remains unclear, Toller has stated that accuracy is being prioritized over efficiency, which may delay results but ensures count integrity.
The duplication process is performed in a highly controlled environment, involving county employees and strict verification to ensure transparency. During a recent press conference, failed District 2 candidate Laura Hobbs asked Toller whether hand-counting ballots would be acceptable. Toller quickly dismissed the idea, clarifying that hand-counting is illegal for general ballot tabulation in California, even under emergency circumstances.
At one point during the press conference, a reporter questioned Toller, suggesting that he had previously expressed distrust in the election process. Toller did not hesitate to shut down this insinuation with a firm reply.
“I’ve always been concerned about elections because they’re so important,” he said. “What I’ve learned as I’ve been on the job is that there’s an incredible amount of operational technicality that is absolutely essential to conducting a fair election.”
(Video screenshot) Tom Toller addresses allegation that he expressed distrust in the election.
It’s noteworthy that this situation arose following the Board of Supervisors’ vote to switch to hand-counting ballots. Governor Gavin Newsom subsequently signed into law AB969, which limited hand-counting ballots in elections, leading Shasta County to go with Hart InterCivic systems instead. This switch was driven by unproven claims of election fraud, championed by the majority of the Board of Supervisors: Patrick Jones, Chris Kelstrom, and Kevin Crye.
From left, District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones, District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom and District 1 Supervisor/Chair Kevin Crye.
This decision-making approach aligns with other instances when Kevin Crye prioritized intuition over expert advice. A recent example involves the allocation of Shasta County’s opioid settlement funds. Crye wants to concentrate funding into one or two programs, expanding them significantly. In contrast, Supervisor Mary Rickert, with years of experience, advocates for a commission of experts to determine the most effective distribution across various community needs. This reflects a broader pattern where Crye bypasses evidence-based recommendations—a pattern that also led to the county’s hasty shift from Dominion voting systems to Hart InterCivic, and the current ballot-scanning issues.
The decision to terminate the contract with Dominion was made without substantial evidence. Ironically, Supervisor Crye, who cast the deciding vote, later admitted in a podcast that he personally didn’t believe there were issues with Shasta County’s elections.
(Video) This clip is from the Patriot State of Mind Podcast, taken shortly after the 2022 election.
This contradiction is troubling, especially considering there are no documented instances of similar scanning issues occurring with Dominion machines, which the county would still be using if not for the board’s impulsive decision.
After the press conference, I had a candid conversation with Toller. I apologized if some of my previous coverage of his work seemed overly critical of his limited elections experience. In response, Toller smiled and said, “You can please some of the people all of the time, none of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time. I find myself in the middle camp.”
Toller attributed the quote to Abraham Lincoln
The last thing he said to me is what gave me hope for this election. Toller said, “I didn’t know what I didn’t know.”
This interaction gave me a better understanding of Toller’s commitment to his role. While he may have come in with doubts, his involvement in the process has made it clear to him—and to others, including Supervisor Tim Garman—just how robust the safeguards in place truly are.
Shortly after the press conference, District 2 Supervisor Garman shared a similar sentiment with me.
District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman.
“It’s just how it was when I came in,” he said. “I was skeptical too, but once you learn how it’s done and all the safeguards in place, you realize you were wrong.”
The unfolding situation in Shasta County is a testament to the importance of evidence-based decision-making, especially when it concerns the foundation of democracy: voting. It underscores the need for experienced, informed leaders who prioritize accuracy, transparency, and the public good over political theatrics.
The full Press Conference can be seen here:
If you appreciate Benjamin Nowain’s reporting, please consider supporting A News Cafe. Thank you!
###
