Shasta Scout, a local news outlet, and statewide news agency CalMatters filed a lawsuit today against Shasta County for refusing to release a federal grand jury subpoena that was served on Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis in September. The plaintiffs argue that the subpoena should be made public under the California Public Records Act so voters can assess whether the federal investigation has merit.
Background
According to the complaint, the subpoena was issued just two months after Curtis began publicly claiming that ballots from the June primary election “didn’t feel, look or smell right.” Those statements attracted the attention of a federal grand jury, which reportedly summoned Curtis to appear and to bring thousands of voted ballots from the June election – an election in which Curtis was a candidate and ultimately lost.
Shasta Scout first learned of the subpoena through confidential sources, and Curtis later confirmed its existence publicly. Both Shasta Scout and CalMatters submitted public‑records requests for the subpoena, but Shasta County denied the requests, citing a federal law that protects grand‑jury proceedings from disclosure.
Legal action
First Amendment Coalition Legal Director David Loy sent a letter to Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour on September 25, reiterating the legitimacy of the request and warning that the county could face litigation if it continued to withhold the document. The county did not respond to the letter.
In a press release, the First Amendment Coalition emphasized the importance of transparency, stating, “The county must disclose the subpoena so the people can see for themselves whether the grand jury investigation has any valid basis or is improperly contributing to unwarranted distrust in the integrity of elections.” Shasta Scout Executive Director and Managing Editor Annelise Pierce echoed that sentiment, adding that Curtis’s actions have “embroiled Shasta County’s elections office in turmoil, conspiracy, and allegations of misconduct,” and that the public has a right to know what the federal grand jury is seeking.
Broader context
The coalition noted that Curtis’s subpoena is one of several issued to election officials across California, some of which were part of the Trump administration’s effort to investigate alleged non‑citizen voting in the state. While the administration has defended its focus on election integrity, critics argue that many of these investigations stem from unsubstantiated claims.
The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling Shasta County to release the subpoena, arguing that the public interest in election transparency outweighs the federal grand‑jury secrecy exemption cited by the county.
What’s next?
The case has been filed in Shasta County Superior Court. If the court orders disclosure, the subpoena will become part of the public record, allowing voters and journalists to examine the scope of the federal inquiry. If the county continues to resist, the plaintiffs have indicated they will pursue further litigation to enforce the California Public Records Act.
Both parties have been urged to consider the broader implications for public confidence in the electoral process, especially as the state moves toward upcoming elections.
Original reporting: Shasta Scout (Redding) — read the source article.
