California Sues to Block Shasta County Measure B, Saying It Conflicts With State Election Law Ahead of 2026 Midterms

California officials sued Friday to block Shasta County from overhauling how it runs elections before the November 2026 midterms, arguing the county cannot override state law with a local measure that would sharply restrict voting options and create its own election rules.

The lawsuit targets Measure B, a county ballot measure that would require government-issued photo ID to register and to vote in person, eliminate universal vote-by-mail and most early voting, limit elections to a single in-person Election Day with narrow exceptions, require hand-counting of ballots as the official canvass and set up a separate county voter-registration system outside California’s statewide system.

Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber filed a petition for writ of mandate and other extraordinary relief in the California Third District Court of Appeal on June 12. The petition asks the court to invalidate Measure B in full, permanently block its implementation and enforcement, and move quickly enough to provide immediate relief by Aug. 24, 2026. The respondents are Shasta County and Clint Curtis, in his official capacity as county clerk and registrar of voters.

At the center of the case is a broad preemption argument: that counties must administer elections within California’s statewide legal framework, and cannot adopt local rules that conflict with state statutes. The filing argues that Shasta County’s charter status does not give it authority to take over voter registration or rewrite election procedures set by Sacramento.

State law broadly provides access to voting by mail, requires counties to use certified voting systems and limits when manual ballot counting can be used. In the state’s view, Measure B conflicts with each of those requirements and would fracture the uniform rules California applies across all 58 counties.

The timing is central to the state’s request for fast action. With the 2026 midterms months away, Bonta and Weber say the courts should resolve whether Measure B can take effect before election planning advances further in Shasta County.

The dispute follows a June 2 county election in which local outlets reported unofficial results showing Measure B ahead with about 55% support. Those tallies were unofficial, but they put the measure on track for approval and set up a direct clash with state officials over whether a county can independently reshape voting rules.

Shasta County has already been a flashpoint in California election administration because of earlier pushes toward hand-counting ballots, making the new lawsuit more than a local fight. It is also the latest test of how far local governments can go in setting election policy when state law establishes a uniform system.

The petition points to a recent appellate decision as support. In November 2025, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Huntington Beach’s Measure A voter-ID law was unlawful and preempted by state law. The Shasta filing cites that decision as a relevant precedent for striking down a local election rule that conflicts with statewide requirements.

Bonta framed the case as a straightforward legal one. “Measure B is legally indefensible. It directly conflicts with state law and threatens to upend the orderly administration of elections,” he said in a Justice Department press release.

The Third District Court of Appeal now must decide whether to grant expedited review and, ultimately, whether Shasta County can enforce Measure B in time for the 2026 election cycle.