A surprising decision in Shasta County, California, is causing significant controversy as the local registrar plans to hire a convicted election felon as a consultant. Clint Curtis, the county’s registrar of voters, has announced his intention to onboard Tina Peters, a former Colorado election official with a criminal conviction tied to election interference.

Peters gained notoriety after her involvement in a 2021 incident where she was found guilty of illegally accessing voting equipment and manipulating election records. This has raised eyebrows among legal experts, including attorneys Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian, who recently discussed the implications on their podcast, Legal AF’s Civil Action.

Karnikian expressed disbelief at the decision, stating, “Convicted felons don’t usually get rehired to work near the scene of the crime unless, I guess, the crime scene is an election office and the crime was election integrity.”

The plot thickened when details about Peters’ criminal past emerged. According to Karnikian, her actions included disabling security cameras and allowing unauthorized access to election systems for outside operatives, including professional surfer Conan Hayes, who had ties to prominent conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell.

Kabateck emphasized the severity of Peters’ actions, calling the situation “espionage-level election interference stuff.” He highlighted that her past included a nine-year prison sentence, which was later commuted by Colorado Governor Jared Polis after she served 20 months.

In an interesting political twist, former President Donald Trump attempted to grant Peters a pardon, unaware that the Constitution does not allow him to pardon state crimes. “His pardon was absolutely meaningless,” Kabateck pointed out.

The initial proposal was to hire Peters as an assistant registrar, but officials quickly reversed course after realizing the potential legal and public relations ramifications. “They walked it back to a consultant role because people probably pointed out all the legal and PR issues,” Karnikian added.

Clint Curtis, who is regarded as a “lame duck” registrar finishing out his term in January 2027 following a primary election loss, seems undeterred by the backlash. Nevertheless, the proposed consulting role that he envisions for Peters may encounter significant hurdles.

Legal experts have noted that Peters’ employment would require a background check—a process she may struggle to clear due to her current parole status in Colorado. Kabateck noted, “She might have a problem,” emphasizing that Peters is still bound by the conditions of her release.

Complications arise from her parole, which may prevent her from traveling outside Colorado to fulfill the requirements of a consulting job in California. Kabateck quipped, “What could possibly go wrong?”

The plan has ignited fierce debate surrounding election integrity in a time when public trust in electoral systems is particularly tenuous. Critics argue that hiring someone with Peters’ background sends a dangerous message about accountability and transparency in the electoral process.

Some local community members have expressed outrage, questioning the judgment of the county registrar. They worry about the implications of such a staffing decision on the credibility of future elections.

Calls for accountability are mounting, with various advocacy groups urging the county’s election office to reconsider the decision. These groups are pushing for a hiring process that prioritizes integrity and public trust in the electoral system.

The contentious hire has also sparked discussions on broader themes of election security and the repercussions of misinformation surrounding the electoral process. As the debate rages on, the implications of Peters’ alleged actions linger over public confidence in election integrity.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how Shasta County’s election operations will handle the fallout from this decision. The narrative around Peters’ hiring will likely influence future policy discussions regarding election oversight and the treatment of reformed criminals in public office.

This development in Shasta County is certainly a story to watch, as it encapsulates the complex interplay of law, politics, and public trust that defines contemporary American electoral practices.