Two California news organizations are suing Shasta County to force it to hand over a copy of the federal grand jury subpoena that was served on the county's own elections chief — a document the county is refusing to release, and that would show what federal investigators are actually asking for in one of the most turbulent elections offices in the state.

Source: CalMatters

The lawsuit, North State Community Journalism v. County of Shasta, was filed on Friday, November 6, in Shasta County Superior Court. The plaintiffs are the North State Community Journalism Project, which publishes Shasta Scout, and CalMatters, the statewide nonprofit newsroom. They are represented by attorneys for the First Amendment Coalition, according to the coalition's announcement of the filing.

Source: First Amendment Coalition

What the lawsuit asks the court to do

Both news organizations asked Shasta County for the subpoena under the California Public Records Act. The county refused, saying the subpoena is “shielded from disclosure” under federal law. The lawsuit argues that this is wrong: the secrecy rule the county relies on, the plaintiffs say, restricts what federal courts themselves can release about their own records — it “does not prevent the County … from disclosing the subpoena.” On that reading, the county is violating the state public-records law by withholding the document, and the Superior Court should order it released.

“Transparency should be the default setting for every public official,” CalMatters managing editor John D'Anna said. “Citizens shouldn't have to file suit to get their government to obey the law.” In the coalition's statement, D'Anna added that the refusal came “on the eve of one of the most consequential elections in recent history, one where the integrity of the process has been under attack for months,” and called it “a slap in the face not just to the voters of Shasta County, but to democracy itself.”

How Shasta County got here: the padlocked ballots

The subpoena grew out of the June 2026 primary. After that election, Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis drew the attention of the Trump administration by claiming that ballots looked, felt and smelled funny, CalMatters and Shasta Scout reported. Curtis was himself running for re-election in that contest and was defeated by Joanna Francescut, a former Shasta County elections official. The fraud claims he raised have been described by the First Amendment Coalition and the two newsrooms as unsubstantiated, and the coalition notes there are substantial questions whether they rest on anything more than conspiracy theories — an allegation, not a court finding, and Curtis has stood by his claims in his public statements.

In August, Curtis said he had put a padlock on the door of the room where the ballots were stored and then thrown away the key, saying he wanted to preserve the ballots as evidence. In September he told several news organizations that he had received a federal grand jury subpoena related to the ballots, and that same month FBI agents arrived to inspect the locked room, Curtis said. “I just showed them what we had,” Curtis told CalMatters in September. “The FBI never says anything to you, by the way … it's information in and nothing out.”

One subpoena in a statewide wave

Shasta County is not the only place this has happened. The subpoena served on Curtis is one of a series issued to local elections officials across California, some of them part of the Trump administration's wider effort to find evidence of noncitizens voting illegally in the run-up to the midterm election — a drive Awaaz Punjab has covered as the subpoenas landed on election officials around the state. The lawsuit points out that eight other counties, including Fresno, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino, disclosed copies of the federal grand jury subpoenas issued to their own election officials. Shasta County, the plaintiffs argue, is the outlier refusing to do the same.

That contrast is the heart of the case the newsrooms are making. The suit argues the public has a compelling interest in knowing “whether any such (federal) investigation is motivated by well-grounded allegations of wrongdoing” or whether the probe is based on no credible evidence and instead intended to “sow unwarranted doubts about elections.” The subpoena itself — which should detail what the grand jury is investigating — is the document that would let voters judge that question, the plaintiffs say.

“Clint Curtis has embroiled Shasta County's elections office in turmoil, conspiracy, and allegations of misconduct,” said Annelise Pierce, executive director and managing editor at Shasta Scout. “The people have a right to know what a federal grand jury seeks from our top election official.” David Loy, the First Amendment Coalition's legal director, said: “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.” The coalition had already set out its legal position in a September 25 letter to Shasta County Counsel before filing suit.

Why this matters beyond Shasta County

Shasta County, in far Northern California around Redding, is a long way from the Central Valley — but the same wave of federal subpoenas reached Fresno County, home to one of the largest Punjabi communities in the United States, and Fresno chose to disclose its subpoena. For naturalized citizens who vote in California, the fight matters twice over: federal investigators are looking for evidence of noncitizen voting, while local officials decide how much of that investigation the public is allowed to see. Election-integrity fights conducted out of public view tend to produce exactly the distrust both sides say they want to avoid, the plaintiffs argue.

What happens next

The case now sits in Shasta County Superior Court. The county will have to defend its withholding decision in court, and a judge will decide whether federal secrecy law actually bars a county from releasing a subpoena it holds, or whether the California Public Records Act requires disclosure. No hearing date has been reported yet. If the newsrooms win, the subpoena's contents — what the grand jury asked Curtis for, and on what stated basis — become a public record that any voter can read. If the county wins, the document stays sealed unless a higher court says otherwise.