In Shasta County, a conservative stronghold of 180,000 in the far north of Democratic California, a new vision for the election is brewing: paper ballots, no machines and results tallied entirely by hand.
This view is based on the false belief that voting machines helped steal the presidency from Donald Trump and that the systems by which millions of Americans cast their ballots are insecure. This conception could be realized in the county.
Shasta became a breeding ground for the far-right during the pandemic years, and election deniers have found allies in the Board of Supervisors, the county’s governing body. In March, the far-right majority on the Board cut ties with Dominion Voting Systems, the company at the epicenter of unfounded conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
A few days ago, supervisors took steps to replace Dominion with a manual counting system. The county terminated its contract with the company before establishing a replacement and now, months away from a possible special election and a year from the presidential primary, has no voting system at all, as it embarks on a plan to create from zero an entirely new system.
The elected office that oversees voting in the county had warned that the manual recount is a difficult and long job – requiring more than 1,200 new workers at a cost of at least 1.6 million dollars (1.48 million euros). — and which is even far less accurate than the machines the county has used for years. In addition, the California assistant secretary of state had also warned that the county could violate various federal and state laws if it did not select a certified voting system. However, the Board of Supervisors went ahead.
The county’s decision could have long-lasting consequences for the region and provide a framework for voter denialists on how to advance their agenda across the country. In turn, it fuels false claims that the country’s voting technology is compromised.
“These people are using us as guinea pigs,” says Mary Rickert, one of two county supervisors who voted against the decision, referring to Mike Lindell and others spreading lies about voter fraud. “I find it very disconcerting, it is very worrying that we have supervisors falling for this grand scheme and wanting to be at the forefront.”
This development comes after years of political turmoil in the region, which was the scene of a bitter pushback against pandemic restrictions, which led to a thriving anti-establishment movement. A far-right majority, backed by a Connecticut millionaire and local militant groups, seized control of the Board of Supervisors and aggressively pushed their agenda, driving out county bureaucrats and sparking a “devastating” exodus of workers.
The turmoil garnered national attention, including from prominent figures in the election denier movement, such as Mike Lindell. CEO of MyPillow and a leading promoter of voter fraud falsehoods, Lindell pledged to support the county’s efforts and met with a supervisor. But while outsiders revel in the chaos, residents say a small but vocal minority with extremist beliefs has seized near-total control of the county and created deep divisions.
the process works
The chaos erupted a few days ago during an 11-hour public meeting where the Board of Supervisors discussed the issue of the voting system. With security guards flanking the entrance, the Board’s chambers in Redding began to fill up before 9am, leaving many standing on the sides of the room. During the lengthy public comment period there was applause, scuffles, shouting and booing.
A host of speakers pleaded with the county to reverse, even temporarily, its earlier decision to cut ties with Dominion before thousands of voters were disenfranchised. “Let our poll workers do their job. This is my constitutional right to vote and I hate being messed with,” said one speaker.
Several pointed out that the very supervisors who claim Dominion’s machines are not to be trusted were elected by voters using those very machines.
Others have dedicated themselves to promoting already discredited conspiracy theories about voter fraud, arguing that the manual recount is “our only hope.”
“Sacramento is watching our every move,” a speaker told the Board, urging supervisors to proceed with plans for a manual count system. Another said that replacing Dominion with another state-approved system is “like changing your heroin supplier.”
They described the monitors as “courageous” leaders who stood up to election interference, which experts have repeatedly shown did not occur. They said removing the county voting system and replacing it with a manual recount is feasible and could be done with volunteers, both Democrats and Republicans.
But other speakers differed, opposing the feasibility of such a plan. Cathy Darling Allen, the elected official who oversees voting in the county, reminded the Board that state law requires that anyone handling ballots must be a county employee who has undergone fingerprinting and background checks, so volunteers are not an option. The county, which currently employs more than 2,000 people, would need at least 1,200 additional temporary employees, the funds for their compensation and a space large enough to accommodate them.
His office laid out its concerns in an analysis provided to the Board, warning that a manual recount is “exceptionally complex and error-prone” and “would introduce a very serious risk” that the county would miss state deadlines and ultimately instance, could disenfranchise voters.
“The statutes require that all California voters be able to cast their ballot privately and independently. A voting system that includes technology is the only available way to comply with those laws,” Allen wrote in a letter to supervisors. “Although my office is filled with extremely competent and prepared professionals, we cannot work miracles.”
Supervisors in favor of the manual recount repeatedly sought input from a conservative Southern California attorney who first claimed to have been invited by the Board until several Board members denied the invitation. He declined to say who financed his trip, citing “attorney-client privilege.” Several Board members turned to him with questions about election law and the resources needed for the county’s manual recount, rather than Allen, who has served in the role for nearly 20 years.
Ultimately, the Board voted 3-2 in favor of having the elections office consider developing a manual recount process and contracting with an election technology company for the use of machines that will be made available to people with disabilities. The county process will have to be approved by the Secretary of State’s office, which could take up to a year.
A sense of defeat hung over the room after the vote.
“We have already canceled the contract with Dominion,” said Patrick Jones, president of the Board and one of the three supervisors who voted in favor of that plan, before voting. “We are trying to restore confidence to all voters.”
“You’re not doing it,” someone shouted from the audience.
Allen told the Board that he was unclear on the next steps or how to proceed before leaving the chambers. A special election could be held in August in the county, and by not having selected a system Tuesday, the county risks disenfranchising its citizens, Allen warned in his letter to the board.
“I feel cheated,” she told The Guardian when leaving the meeting. “I’ve been hearing this for two and a half years. The current process is not broken. Because of the misinformation we are having this conversation again.”
Rickert, who tried unsuccessfully to get his fellow supervisors to reverse their decision regarding Dominion, lamented the situation facing the county and its citizens.
“People need to get involved, commit and stand up for their rights. They have lost the right to vote,” she said. “In this county, in the United States of America, they cannot exercise their right to vote.”
Translation by Julian Cnochaert.