Given that the Voter Information Guide (VIG) is the single most important source of information for voters in deciding how to vote on issues, and, that it is sent to every single Shasta County voter, I was particularly careful and put in many hours writing both the “Argument Against Measure B”, and, the “Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure B”.
Also, knowing that, having read both of the arguments against and in favor of Measure B, and the rebuttals to each of those arguments, voters would then look at the names of the people (and their titles, if any) who signed the Arguments and the Rebuttals.
I was particularly careful in choosing whom to ask to sign their names – looking for individuals who were not only known and respected but also, people who represented a wide range of political beliefs in our community.
The names (and titles) of those people both for the “Argument in Favor of Measure B” and the “Argument Against Measure B” are listed on page 30 of the VIG. However, the names of those who signed the Rebuttal to the “Argument for Measure B” are not listed anywhere in the VIG!!
Had those names of the people been printed in the VIG as they should have been, you would know that these people signed the Rebuttal – Randall Hempling, CEO SRMC Retired; Susan Seamans, School Administrator Retired; John S. Kenny, Municipal Lawyer (and former Shasta County Counsel); Michael P. Ashby, Retired; and, Jerry “Abe” Hathaway, former District 3 County Supervisor and rancher.
California Elections Code Section 9167 (b) reads in part “Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments.” The two page “Clint Curtis County Clerk/Registrar of Voters Argument/Rebuttal Signature Statement Form” reads in two places “Names and titles listed will be printed in the order provided.” Yet the names of the people signing the Rebuttal were NOT printed anywhere in the VIG.
Given that I was out of town for several weeks and only recently had the opportunity to study my VIG, I noticed and brought this situation to the attention of the ROV on Tuesday, May 19. That resulted in an exchange of emails over several days. On Friday morning (May 22) an agreement was reached with Brent Turner, Clint’s assistant, that the following notifications would be sent out to inform the public of the necessary corrections so that voters would have all of the correct information –
• Update the VIG’s online on the Election Department website
• Send out a press release with the corrected information.
• Provide a notice on their website and social media for the department .
• Provide a flyer with the correct information at Early Vote.
• Report to the SOS the corrections being made as required by state law.
Then, out of the blue later on Friday, Clint Curtis backed out of the agreement asserting “Until we receive a definitive report from the SOS (Secretary of State) we will not change anything. I see nowhere in the code that any changes are required.”
In spite of my pointing out to him that both the plain words of the Elections Code, and, the plain words on his own “Signature Statement Form”, Clint Curtis replied “As an attorney ghat (sic) did election law for over a decade, it is not clear to me. We will wait till (sic) the SOS can give us their interpretation.”
Oh, and given the lateness of the hour, do not expect to hear anything from the Secretary of State so this situation can be both publicized and remedied (voters actually fully informed) before the election.
Additionally, it is very important to know that the voters would have never seen the “Rebuttal to the Argument for Measure B” at al! Except that on Wednesday, March 25 Charlie Manoher and I went to the ROV Office and challenged the ROV’s refusal to allow the rebuttal to even be submitted in the first place . . . asserting that the refusal was a direct and flagrant violation of Elections Code Section 9167 (a).
After apparently acquainting himself with the Elections Code (EC Section 9167), Clint Curtis agreed to allow submission of the Rebuttal with a three-day deadline . . . which I did do.
And, this is only part of the story. So you be the judge . . . is it incompetence, negligence, election bias . . . the intentional withholding of information from the voting public . . .? You decide . . .
The running of elections is simply too important of a job . . . an actual cornerstone of our democracy to be left in the hands of a person who cannot or will not do the job . . . for whatever reason . . .
We deserve better than this! Vote for Competence and Experience . . . NOT this . . .
Cork McGowan
