Video Evidence Emerges Backing ROV Curtis’s Claims of Election Interference
- Elisa Ballard
- 1 day ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
Are County Management and Labor Unions Covering Up Potential Crimes by Employees in the Elections Office?
Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has released video evidence he says shows entrenched Elections Office employees bypassing security protocols to enter secure rooms without logging their presence—actions he calls a form of break-in and potential interference in election processes. Curtis presented the footage during an August 19 appearance on Catherine Engelbrecht’s True the Vote podcast, available on Rumble beginning at the 49:50 mark (interview starts around the 38-minute mark):
In the video, one employee appears to slide a card through a double-door entry to unlock a secure room while another stands guard. Employees are required to use their badges so that names and timestamps appear on the room entry logs. Curtis said that after taking over as Registrar of Voters in 2025, he reviewed the logs and found names missing in hundreds of cases. He now believes the video explains those gaps: staff was deliberately avoiding the badge readers.
Curtis has also alleged that a third employee may have distributed more ballots at the Elections Office counter than reported and concealed reports and ballots in ways that interfered with election balancing. He further claims that a couple of workers intentionally shredded election-related documents after he specifically instructed staff not to shred anything.
Background of Conflict with Entrenched Staff
Curtis was appointed Registrar of Voters/County Clerk by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors in 2025. Almost immediately, some longtime employees—who had threatened to quit after former Assistant Registrar Joanna Francescut was passed over for the top post—began leveling accusations against him. Two investigations (one internal by Support Services Director Monica Fugitt and one by the outside firm Oppenheimer Investigations Group) later found that Curtis's claims of abusive language and related conduct were substantiated. Those claims were not made under oath, and newer employees in the office have refuted them. Curtis has consistently denied the allegations.
Rather than resign as some had threatened, certain longtime staff appear to have remained and, according to Curtis, worked to undermine him and sabotage election operations. The newly released video is the latest evidence he cites in support of that view.
Curtis was a computer programmer in Florida in the early 2000s and was asked to create a program that could flip votes in an election without being detected. After he did so, he became a whistleblower in 2004, testifying before a congressional House Judiciary Committee. He later became an attorney helping to uncover election fraud.
County Response: Censure and Public Rebuke
On August 11, 2026, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to censure Curtis. Supervisors Matt Plummer, Chris Kelstrom, and Allen Long supported the action; Corkey Harmon opposed it; Kevin Crye was absent due to surgery but told Shasta Unfiltered he would have voted no. The censure followed the two investigations that described a pattern of unprofessional conduct, including alleged threats of violence, retaliation, and creation of a hostile work environment. Fugitt’s report called the abuse “pervasive” and recommended censure plus physical separation from staff or monitoring. A censure is a formal public reprimand with no legal power to remove Curtis from his elected position. He has rejected the findings as untrue and indicated he may sue over damage to his reputation. The Board had earlier delayed a censure vote in April 2026 until after the June primary.
After the censure, Curtis invited reporters to the Elections Office and shared security footage showing the improper room entries. The county responded with an August 14 news release that “disavows and denounces all ongoing and flagrant violations of Shasta County’s Personnel Rules” by the Clerk/Registrar of Voters. Officials stated that Curtis had been repeatedly advised of proper procedures for personnel matters and the need for confidentiality, that his actions showed “complete disregard for those procedures as well as employees’ due process rights,” and that his behavior was “inconsistent with these standards and harmful to employees involved.” The statement also reminded employees of their rights to report discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or abusive conduct through proper channels. Several of the new employees have stated that their own reports to Fugitt about harassment they have received at the hands of the entrenched employees have been ignored.
Union Votes of No Confidence
On August 20, Action News Now reported that unions representing Elections Office staff issued votes of no confidence and called for Curtis’s resignation. Teamsters Local 137, which represents about 4 employees, voted no confidence in him and asked him to step down. Business agent Heather McFall said the employees find it “very challenging to work with him and to follow his leadership” and that mistreating employees “is not acceptable.” UPEC (United Public Employees of California)/Shasta County General Unit, representing about 12 Elections Office employees, also voted no confidence. Representative Robert DeLong said the groups planned to ask the Board of Supervisors to request Curtis’s resignation.
Curtis dismissed the idea of resigning and described ongoing difficulties with staff cooperation. Supervisor Kelstrom has said he is open to discussing a request for resignation while noting the limits imposed by Curtis’s elected status. The county has also flagged concerns to the Secretary of State. Curtis’s term ends in January 2027 after he lost the June primary to Joanna Francescut.
Securing the Ballots and Federal Outreach
Curtis has secured the ballots from the 2026 June primary and the November 2024 general election in a locked room, installing a padlock and destroying the key. He has contacted the FBI, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security, asking them to seize the ballots under a court order before September 11, when the 2024 ballots are scheduled to be shredded. FBI agents have spoken with about a dozen people who say they witnessed what they believe to be fraudulent ballots in the primary election. Citizens who handled the ballots during the machine and manual tallies reported that some ballots appeared preprinted, with all squares filled in perfectly. Others stated the texture and weight of the paper ballots felt different, and some had an inky smell. Also, there were reports of color variations in the ink on some ballots.
National Attention and Tina Peters
National interest has grown, particularly after Curtis said he has been speaking with former Mesa County, Colorado, Clerk Tina Peters about a possible consultant or Assistant ROV role. Mainstream coverage has focused on Peters’s conviction for using someone else’s credentials to access Dominion tabulation machines and take a forensic copy of computer files before a scheduled “trusted build” update. Peters was not permitted to present a full defense, was sentenced to nine years, and later had her sentence commuted after serving a portion of that time following repeated calls from President Trump for a pardon. A gold-star mother, Peters has said she believed it was her duty as clerk to preserve election records; her findings are documented in the film [S]election Code. To view the film, click on the link below:
White House correspondent Corinne Cliford has traveled from Washington, D.C., to Redding to report on the situation on her X account (active on X under the handle @corinnecliford) and has called for federal intervention to retrieve the ballots.
Digital content creator Arne Edward List, a former champion bodybuilder with an interest in election integrity, has also been covering this story on his Facebook page.
Lewis Herms, a recent California gubernatorial primary candidate, has posted an interview with Curtis on www.ScrewBigGov.com.
Election-integrity advocates have questioned why Sheriff Johnson has not assisted Curtis in securing the ballots, investigated threats written on the Election Office windows, or investigated the employees shown in the released videos.
In 2022-2023, citizens in Shasta County asked the Sheriff's office to look into irregularities in the county's voter registrations. The Sheriff’s investigation was handled by Deputy Casey L. Barnhart, and the final report is dated August 30, 2023. In it, he concluded that violations of California Elections Code sections 18100(a), 18100(b), and 18560(b) had occurred (related to fraudulent or improper registrations and issues involving voting), but he was “unable to identify a true source or person to file criminal charges against.” The voter rolls are controlled by the California Secretary of State, and when counties request names be removed from the list, it is up to the Secretary of State (Shirley Weber) to do so. The citizens of Shasta County voted in June to implement Measure B, an election-integrity initiative charter amendment that would give the charter county power to control its voter rolls, among other measures such as hand-counting ballots at the precinct and requiring in-person voting unless the voter requests an absentee ballot. Weber and Attorney General Rob Bonta have filed suit and obtained a temporary injunction against implementing Measure B for the upcoming November election.
A Pattern of Protection?
County administrative staff have reportedly prevented Curtis from obtaining additional video footage he requested and have publicly denounced his allegations against the employees. At the same time, the Board’s censure, the county’s August 14 statement, and the unions’ votes of no confidence have focused heavily on Curtis’s conduct and procedural compliance while giving little apparent weight to the security-bypass video and related claims.
Curtis and his supporters argue that the county’s emphasis on personnel rules and employee due process, while ignoring or downplaying evidence of unauthorized access to secure election rooms, missing log entries, possible ballot discrepancies, and document shredding, looks like a coordinated effort to protect entrenched staff. If the video and related allegations prove accurate, the conduct may go beyond simple workplace misconduct and approach interference in a federal election—a serious crime. Local officials and unions appear more intent on sidelining the Registrar of Voters than on fully investigating the evidence he has placed before the public.
