Shasta County’s clerk and registrar of voters said Sunday he plans to hire Tina Peters, the former Colorado county clerk convicted in 2024 in a scheme tied to claims the 2020 election was rigged against former President Donald Trump. The announcement, made by Clerk Clint Curtis on a conservative radio program, immediately divided the northern California county and prompted a state review.
Contested hire draws sharp local reaction
Curtis told the radio host he intends to appoint Peters next month as an assistant registrar of voters, saying she "has experience" and is "able to take the rocks and arrows." The comments, as reported, prompted praise from some supporters of Peters and alarm from county residents, local elected officials and state leaders.
"She has experience," Curtis said. "And she's able to take the rocks and arrows."
Matt Plummer, a Republican member of the county's officially nonpartisan board of supervisors, said he received an influx of emails from constituents opposed to Peters overseeing elections. "It would continue to stoke controversy, divisiveness and increase distrust in our elections," Plummer said, expressing concern about the controversy the hire would invite.
Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat, also weighed in on social media, writing that the hiring "should be stopped immediately." The office of Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state was investigating reports of the potential hire.
Legal and logistical questions about Peters’ eligibility
Peters was convicted in Colorado in 2024 for tampering with voting machines as part of efforts to show fraud in the 2020 election. Her prison sentence was commuted earlier this year, but the terms of her parole place limits on her ability to leave Colorado. Her attorney, Peter Ticktin, said Peters was considering an offer from Shasta County but that "there’s no decision made" at the time the report was published.
It was not clear from Curtis’ announcement whether any formal hiring process had begun, whether Peters would accept an offer, or how her parole conditions would be resolved if she sought to take a job in California. Curtis also faces an uncertain tenure: he lost a June election to a former elections official he had fired and will hold his current position only until January.
Political and civic implications in Shasta County
The county sits in a part of the state where conservative sentiment runs strong and where some residents have, at times, expressed interest in separating from California to form a so-called "State of Jefferson." That political culture helped fuel support among some local Trump loyalists for Peters’ potential arrival; others warn the hire would bring increased scrutiny and ridicule to the county’s elections.
Opponents say appointing a nationally known election denier to a local elections post could undermine confidence in vote administration and draw lawsuits, media attention and federal scrutiny. Supporters say Peters brings hands-on experience in election operations and could stand up to criticism and political pressure.
- Supporters argue: Peters has practical election experience and could defend local election operations.
- Opponents argue: Her conviction, continued parole restrictions and national notoriety risk undermining public trust and subject the county to legal and political headaches.
Timeline and key facts
| Event | Date / Status |
|---|---|
| Peters’ criminal conviction (Colorado, tampering with voting machines) | 2024 |
| Prison sentence commuted; released | Earlier in 2026 |
| Curtis announces plan to hire Peters | August 2026 (reported Sunday) |
| Curtis’ term as Shasta County clerk | Ends January (lost June election) |
The sequence of events raises practical questions for Shasta County administrators and legal officials about whether an appointment could be finalized in time and whether state or federal restrictions might apply. The state office's investigation could lead to clarifications about conflicts with parole or other legal barriers.
What’s next
At the moment, Curtis’ statements appear to be an intention rather than a completed personnel action. County officials will likely face requests for records, formal objections from residents and possibly petitions or legal challenges if hiring discussions proceed. The state review by Gov. Newsom’s office will focus on whether Peters’ hiring would violate parole restrictions or state law, or otherwise jeopardize election integrity.
For now, residents in Shasta County are engaged and divided. The decision, if it moves beyond rhetoric, could have consequences that extend beyond the county’s borders and reignite national debates about election administration and the role of officials with histories of publicly disputing certified results.
Kevin Nakamura, WE NEWS.
