2020 Election rhetoric

Representative Doug LaMalfa’s actions following the 2020 presidential election have contributed to a climate of democratic distrust and administrative instability in Shasta County, California. His continued embrace of unfounded election-fraud claims and refusal to acknowledge contrary evidence helped undermine faith in electoral institutions among his own constituents.

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Texas v. Pennsylvania, LaMalfa continued to support efforts to overturn the election results. He was among 147 Republicans who voted against certifying electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania—an action widely criticized as an attempt to subvert the democratic process (Zhou, 2021; Kim, Thevenot, & McClure, 2021).

In Shasta County, this rhetoric translated into real-world disruption. In late 2020, individuals entered the Registrar of Voters’ office without authorization, demanding access to ballots and voting machines—part of a broader pattern of intimidation against election officials (Huseman, 2024). By 2024, election workers were resigning after self-appointed “observers” roamed the elections office, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among staff (Olmos, 2024).

The appointment of Clint Curtis as registrar in 2024 compounded tensions. Curtis, a Florida attorney known for controversial claims about election software, proposed a sweeping overhaul of county election operations, including livestreaming every step of ballot processing. His appointment sparked public protests and contentious board meetings as residents questioned his motives and qualifications (Sosa & LaFever, 2025).

While LaMalfa publicly echoed Trump’s claims of widespread fraud, internal investigations by Trump’s own campaign found no evidence to support them. The campaign hired data analysis firms—including Simpatico Software Systems—to review alleged fraud across multiple states; every claim was found to be baseless (Durkee, 2023). A subsequent Washington Post investigation confirmed that these internal reports were suppressed while public rhetoric continued (Dawsey et al., 2023).

Meanwhile, courts across the country rejected 63 lawsuits challenging the election results—many of which were dismissed by judges appointed by Trump himself (Dawsey et al., 2023). The sheer number and bipartisan composition of those judicial rulings underscored the absence of credible evidence.

Even after these defeats, a “fake electors” scheme emerged. Trump allies convened illegitimate electors in several states to submit falsified certificates claiming Trump had won (Lerner, 2022; Gardner et al., 2022). Legal experts and the U.S. Department of Justice described the plan as an attempt to obstruct certification.

On January 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and demanded he “find 11,780 votes”—an extraordinary request widely viewed as a solicitation to alter election results (Yen, Amy, & Balsamo, 2021; Miller Karalunas & Kinsella, 2023). Fact-checks and official reviews concluded the claims Trump cited were false.

Through all this, LaMalfa never addressed either the fake-electors plot or Trump’s Georgia call. He continued to amplify election-fraud rhetoric, ignoring the overwhelming factual and legal evidence to the contrary.

The national election-denial movement filtered directly into Shasta County’s political culture. Following the 2020 cycle, local election staff endured harassment, and resignations accelerated. When Curtis became registrar, he immediately dismissed longtime deputy Joanna Francescut, a 17-year veteran, triggering protests (Green, 2025).

Curtis’s livestreaming proposal—estimated at $2.6 million—was billed as "transparency" but widely criticized for fueling conspiracy theories and wasting limited county resources (Sosa & LaFever, 2025). Supervisors were forced to debate expensive reforms rather than address pressing county priorities, such as infrastructure and emergency services.

This cascade of resignations, fear, and politicization directly harmed ordinary residents: administrative efficiency declined, community polarization deepened, and voter confidence eroded.

LaMalfa’s refusal to accept certified results, his silence on proven misconduct, and his continued endorsement of discredited claims made him a central contributor to Shasta County’s democratic decay. Instead of defending electoral integrity, he mirrored national disinformation and empowered local extremists who translated it into harassment and destabilization.

By denying fact-based conclusions from his own party’s investigators and courts—and by ignoring schemes and calls that threatened the rule of law—LaMalfa undermined his constituents’ faith in fair governance. The cost is visible in Shasta County’s administrative upheaval, staff attrition, and a persistent sense that truth in elections is optional.