Just weeks after Shasta County, California voters decisively rejected his bid to remain the county’s elections chief, Clint Curtis is attempting to hire Tina Peters, the former Colorado official convicted in a voting-system tampering case that became a national symbol of election denialism.

The move has sparked alarm from election security advocates and Democratic officials, who say it underscores how Shasta County remains ground zero for the political and institutional fallout from former President Donald Trump‘s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla condemned the proposal Monday, saying that Peters’ involvement in California elections should be barred because of her criminal convictions for election interference. Curtis defended Peters and said he reached out to her about filling a role in his office after the expected departure of Assistant Registrar Brent Turner.

The dispute marks another turning point for Shasta County, one of California’s most reliably conservative regions and a county that strongly backed Donald Trump.

Over the past several years, it has become a national flashpoint in fights over election administration, with activists pushing to eliminate voting machines, require hand-counting of ballots and adopt voter ID requirements. All of that comes amid persistent concerns about election integrity despite repeated assurances from state and local officials that California’s voting systems are secure

Here’s what to know about Peters, Curtis and the controversy around voting procedures in Shasta County.

Why Tina Peters remains a nationally polarizing figure

Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado clerk and recorder, became one of the most prominent election deniers in the country after promoting claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump.

In 2024, a Colorado jury convicted Peters on seven criminal counts, including four felonies, after prosecutors said she allowed an unauthorized person affiliated with MyPillow founder Mike Lindell to gain access to election equipment and copy sensitive voting system data. The information was later circulated online and became part of broader efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

A judge initially sentenced Peters to nine years in prison. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis later commuted part of her sentence and she was released on parole in June 2026.

Peters has continued to argue that election fraud occurred in 2020 despite repeated audits, recounts and court rulings across the country finding no evidence that voting machine manipulation altered the outcome of the election. Curtis said that, if hired, Peters would serve only as a consultant and would not have access to voting systems.

Who Is Clint Curtis, the defeated Shasta County election official?

Curtis, a self-described election-integrity advocate, was appointed Shasta County clerk and registrar of voters in 2025 after the retirement of Darling Allen. He entered office without prior experience running elections and quickly became one of California’s most controversial local election officials.

Since taking office, Curtis has alleged election irregularities, accused county employees of sabotage and repeatedly clashed with county leadership. Independent investigations commissioned by the county found instances of managerial misconduct, leading the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to formally censure him earlier this August.

Curtis also suffered a major political setback in June, when voters rejected his bid to retain the office. Former Assistant County Clerk Joanna Francescut defeated him in the primary election, meaning Curtis is scheduled to leave office at the end of the year.

Despite that electoral defeat, Curtis remains in charge of Shasta County elections through the remainder of his term and retains authority over personnel decisions in his office.

How Shasta County became California’s Ground Zero for election conspiracy theories

Few places illustrate the impact of Trump’s election-fraud narrative on local government as dramatically as Shasta County.

Since 2020, the county has become a national case study in how election conspiracy theories can influence public institutions. Residents and activists inspired by Trump’s claims targeted election officials, pushed to eliminate voting machines, advocated for hand-counting ballots and promoted voter ID measures that conflict with California election law.

The turmoil contributed to the early retirement of longtime Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen, who said years of harassment, threats and accusations stemming from false election-fraud allegations took a personal toll. National media outlets and election observers have repeatedly pointed to Shasta County as one of the clearest examples of election denialism reshaping local governance.

More recently, county voters approved Measure B, a controversial initiative requiring voter identification, hand-counting ballots and sharply limiting vote-by-mail options. Curtis strongly supported the measure and argued it would improve election integrity, while critics warned it would undermine election administration and face major legal challenges.

The measure has since become the subject of extensive legal wrangling. California officials challenged key provisions, arguing they are preempted by state election law, and courts have ruled that major portions of the initiative cannot be implemented because counties lack authority to override statewide election requirements.

Measure B’s future now rests largely with the courts. Judges have already blocked or invalidated major portions of the initiative that conflict with state election law, leaving significant questions about whether its provisions can ever take effect.