The Shasta County Board of Supervisors will appoint the next Registrar of Voters tomorrow, April 30th, 2025. In this episode, we examine the five candidates under consideration and explore the controversial dynamics surrounding the selection process. With public trust in local elections at stake, we take a closer look at what this decision means for Shasta County moving forward.
Transcript:
Welcome to The North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. Today, I’d like to discuss the upcoming appointment of Shasta County’s new Registrar of Voters, and why this decision might already be less about qualifications, and more about political loyalty.
Wednesday, April 30th, 2025, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting to appoint a new Registrar of Voters, after the abrupt retirement of Tom Toller for health reasons. The Board, led by Chair Kevin Crye and Supervisor Allen Long, narrowed a pool of applicants down to five finalists.
On the surface, the meeting looks like an open process, where the Board will interview candidates and select the best fit for Shasta County. But appearances can be deceiving. The appointment process is compressed into a one-day schedule and shows clear signs of political maneuvering.
Questions are already mounting: Has the decision already been made? And if so, what does that mean for the future of Shasta County elections?
To understand how we got here, we have to go back to last July, when the Registrar of Voters position first became vacant. The Board held multiple days of public interviews. Among the candidates were Clint Curtis, a controversial lawyer from Florida, and Joanna Francescut, a respected elections official who had already served Shasta County for over a decade.
At that time, the Board was deeply divided. Chair Kevin Crye became the swing vote. He leveraged his position to broker a deal, convincing Supervisors Chris Kelstrom and Patrick Jones to abandon their support for Clint Curtis and instead appoint Tom Toller.
Kevin Crye: “Joanna, we’ve already spoken about this. So, I would be supporting Joanna if we don’t go with Tom. I want Tom to bring the things he spoke about.”
Ultimately, Crye selected Tom Toller. Fast forward to today. Toller has stepped down citing health reasons, as did his predecessor Cathy Darling Allen, who, it is worth noting, trained Francescut.
Crye now seems poised to oppose Francescut’s appointment once again, despite identifying her as his second choice during the last round. That raises serious questions about whether personal politics have taken precedence over public trust.
In the months that followed, the strain on the Elections Office became undeniable. Shasta County elections have already faced enormous upheaval over the past two years. Widespread staff resignations, hostile political pressure, and public misinformation campaigns have eroded both morale and public trust.
Cathy Darling Allen, a Registrar who earned nearly 70 percent of the vote in her last election, cited relentless hostility as a major factor in her departure. Tom Toller, who stepped in with Crye’s support, lasted less than a year before citing similar health and stress concerns.
It is important to note that when questioned about whether Board pressure placed on Allen affected her health, Crye made light of the situation on his radio show.
Kevin Crye: “… She had mentioned that Cathy Darling Allen has a heart condition and is retiring and asked if I felt any responsibility for her heart condition. You know what? You’re right. I just throw my hands up and I said, it’s a hundred percent my fault, because as a strength and conditioning professional of over 20 years, I never had asked Cathy if she had done four to five days of light to moderate cardiovascular activity. I never once asked her if she had weight trained two to three times a week, if she’s taking various vitamins and minerals and if she has hereditary genes or tendencies toward heart disease that maybe her diet could have been affected by if she would have done things earlier. And of course, I was kind of flippant about it because I said, yeah, it’s all my fault.”
Does Crye share the same sentiment about his last ROV pick, Tom Toller?
Now, for the second appointment, the process appears less open. Crye and Supervisor Allen Long personally selected the finalists behind closed doors, offering the explanation that it would save time.
But if time was truly the concern, why not simply appoint Joanna, the person Crye himself previously said was ready with a little more experience?
Since Tom’s appointment, Joanna Francescut has only deepened her qualifications. She helped train Tom Toller. She has maintained operations through two leadership transitions. And she now holds the endorsement of the very Registrar Crye once appointed to the position.
The real question isn’t whether Joanna Francescut is ready. The question is, why has Crye moved the goalposts?
The decision the Board makes this week won’t just affect who sits behind the desk at the Elections Department. It will directly impact every voter in Shasta County and the stability of the county’s election system itself.
This instability hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. In 2024, video footage showed Chair Kevin Crye and his supporters entering the Elections Office and interfering with staff, making demands and questioning basic procedures while employees attempted to carry out official duties. These confrontations weren’t isolated. They reflect an ongoing pattern of scrutiny, fueled by political pressure, conspiracy theories, and misinformation.
Combined with public disinformation about election security, this behavior has contributed to a workplace environment so toxic that the Elections Department has become a revolving door. Employees have been harassed, undercut, and driven out, and the consequences are already affecting voters.
In November 2024, CalMatters reported that Shasta County was experiencing a mass exodus of election workers. The report raised serious concerns about whether future elections in the county could be administered securely and efficiently.
Choosing an experienced, steady hand to lead the department should be a top priority, not just for internal operations, but for every voter who depends on the system to function fairly and reliably.
Just yesterday, in a Facebook comment, Chair Kevin Crye publicly defended Clint Curtis, one of the five finalists, against allegations that Curtis had misrepresented his employment history. Curtis had reportedly failed to disclose that his contract had been terminated, a detail that sparked public concern.
Crye responded that Curtis wasn’t fired, his contract was ended.
It’s a semantic dodge that avoids the real issue. The public deserves transparency, not technicalities, especially when it comes to someone who may soon be overseeing elections.
In the same comment thread, Crye falsely claimed that Shasta County has 25 ballot drop boxes. That is simply not true. Shasta County has 16 drop boxes, not 25, and many of those are located in deeply rural areas like Shingletown, Happy Valley, and Burney.
Misleading the public about something so basic either shows a profound ignorance of local election operations or a willingness to distort facts for political advantage.
And the consequences of that kind of distortion are real. Reducing the number of ballot drop boxes wouldn’t just save pennies, it would disenfranchise rural voters, many of whom have no easy way to reach a polling place without them. The right to vote shouldn’t depend on how close you live to a city center.
Rather than reinforcing trust, Crye’s public defenses and false claims only compound the growing sense that this appointment process is being manipulated behind the scenes, favoring politically convenient candidates over the one with the clearest qualifications.
With the political pressures now clear, it’s time to take a closer look at the five candidates the Board will be interviewing.
Joanna Francescut is the most experienced and locally trusted candidate. She has worked inside Shasta County’s Elections Office for 16 years. She helped train former Registrar Tom Toller. She has maintained operations through two leadership transitions. And she is endorsed by both Toller and Cathy Darling Allen, a rare bipartisan vote of confidence. Joanna represents institutional memory, stability, and deep knowledge of California election law.
Denay Harris is an elections official from Virginia. Harris brings strong administrative experience, having worked in registrar offices and as a prosecuting attorney. However, Virginia’s election laws differ significantly from California’s, particularly around vote-by-mail processes, ballot curing, and voter protections. Adapting to California’s legal and procedural framework would be a learning curve.
Ellie Leigh Sharp, a former elections deputy from Nevada, helped implement cost-saving measures for vote-by-mail operations in both Nevada and Placer County. However, her resume lacks clarity on exact dates and formal titles, making it difficult to fully assess the depth of her leadership experience.
Robin Underwood, a former municipal clerk from Michigan, holds several certifications as a municipal clerk. But her direct experience with California elections is limited, and her resume does not outline substantial leadership in elections administration relevant to this region.
Clint Curtis, a Florida-based attorney and political activist, is best known for his controversial testimony before Congress alleging vote rigging, a claim that was later dismissed by Congress as speculative and unsupported by any official investigation.
Of all the candidates, Curtis has the most publicly available history. And that history warrants deeper scrutiny.
Of all the candidates up for appointment, the one with the most publicly available information is Clint Curtis.
Curtis is best known for his 2004 testimony before Congress, where he claimed he was asked to create vote-flipping software for a Florida politician. When asked under oath if he had done so, Curtis said:
“Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for Congressman Tom Feeney, at the company I worked for in Oviedo, Florida, that did just that.”
When asked to clarify, he responded. “It would flip the vote 51–49.”
Congress ultimately reviewed his claims and dismissed them as speculative and lacking credible evidence.
Curtis repeats these same debunked claims in a 2008 documentary titled Murder, Spies, and Voting Lies, delivered in dramatic fashion but still without supporting documentation. The film helped cement his place in election conspiracy circles, even as congressional investigators found no credible basis for his allegations.
His political record also raises questions. Curtis previously ran for Congress as a Democrat, supported Black Lives Matter, and used hashtags such as #VoteBlue2020.
And yet today, he is backed by far-right election deniers like Laura Hobbs and Patrick Jones, figures whose values appear to contradict much of Curtis’ public history.
This raises a deeper question: Is Curtis being championed for his experience, or simply because he reinforces a convenient narrative?
And just like last time, this may all be a distraction. Clint Curtis could once again be the red herring, drawing attention, stirring controversy, and ultimately clearing the way for a predetermined appointment.
When we step back and look at the full picture, the reality becomes clear.
The instability inside Shasta County’s Elections Office hasn’t been accidental. It is the direct result of relentless political pressure, public disinformation, and a Board majority that has treated experienced professionals as obstacles rather than assets.
What’s at stake is more than just this appointment. It’s whether Shasta County voters, especially those in rural and remote areas, will continue to have access to free and fair elections administered by professionals who understand and follow the law.
Joanna Francescut, the most qualified and proven candidate, represents stability, expertise, and continuity in a department desperate for all three.
Francescut isn’t just respected internally. A recent, though unscientific, online poll conducted by the Record Searchlight asked voters who they wanted as the next Registrar. Joanna received nearly 90 percent of the vote.
The public knows who’s qualified. Now the question is whether the Board will listen.
We have a choice: stability or chaos, experience or manipulation, integrity or political theater.
If you care about public trust. If you care about protecting your right to vote. We encourage you to act.
Email your supervisors. Tell them you want an Elections Office led by experience, not politics.
Attend the meeting this Wednesday, April 30th, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in the Shasta Lake City Council Chambers.
Speak during public comment. Let your voice be part of the record.
The path forward is obvious, if the Board chooses to take it.
If we don’t demand better now, we’ll be left asking after the next crisis why no one stood up when it mattered.
And that’s The Breakdown.
