Nevada County’s Appointment of a Non-Resident Clerk-Recorder Is No Coincidence

When local law is treated as optional, democracy itself is weakened

On September 22, 2025, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted to appoint Armando Salud-Ambriz as the new Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters, with his term to begin October 13. The appointment came after a public interview process with two finalists: local candidate Tina Belding and Salud-Ambriz, who at the time of the vote was not a resident of Nevada County and not registered to vote here.

This appointment is more than unusual. It is unlawful. And it is not a coincidence.

A Law Still on the Governor’s Desk

The backdrop to this appointment is Senate Bill 858, the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2025. Among its many provisions, SB 858 proposes to add Nevada County to the list of counties permitted to appoint a Registrar of Voters rather than having that role filled automatically by an elected Clerk-Recorder.

What is striking is that nowhere in the Board’s public discussion, staff reports, or County Counsel’s memo was SB 858 ever mentioned. There was no transparency about the fact that this legislation was pending or that it would, if signed, fundamentally change how this office is filled. Instead, the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior staff quietly looked ahead to SB 858 and behaved as though it were already law — all while the public was kept entirely in the dark.

The Legislature passed SB 858 in early September and enrolled it on September 5, sending it to the Governor for his signature. But as of September 22, when the Board made its appointment, the bill was not yet law. Nevada County remained a general law county, and its vacancy-filling rules were clear: any appointee to the office of Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters must already be a resident and registered voter of the county. These eligibility requirements are not flexible, not subject to deferral, and not optional.

A Recruitment Process Out of Step with the Law

Yet instead of proceeding as the law required, the Board of Supervisors, working with County CEO Alison Lehman, Interim HR Director Susan Kadera, County Counsel Kit Elliott, and other senior staff, created an Ad Hoc Selection Committee and went out to hire WBCP, Inc., a national executive recruitment firm, to conduct a nationwide search. Public funds were budgeted for the contract, and the search produced two finalists, one of whom lived outside the county.

Ask yourself: why would the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior county staff spend taxpayer money on a nationwide search for an office that, by law, can only be filled by a local voter? The simplest answer is that these insiders already knew SB 858 was on the Governor’s desk. They expected the law would change and acted as if it already had.

County Counsel’s Word Games

On the very day the Board interviewed the two finalists, County Counsel Kit Elliott delivered a memorandum summarizing the law. The memo acknowledged that, to qualify for appointment, a candidate “must meet all requirements as if they had been elected … at the time they are appointed … including being a registered voter of this County.” On its face, that statement was correct.

But Elliott’s verbal explanations and framing to the Board told a different story — one that blurred the distinction between the time of appointment and the time of taking office. By suggesting that residency and voter registration could be satisfied by the effective start date rather than the date of the vote, Elliott created a kind of legal word salad: technically correct phrases arranged in a way that misled the Board and the public about what the law actually requires.

That play on words gave political cover for a conditional appointment that California courts and Attorney General opinions have long held to be unlawful. It was not an accident of wording. It was a rhetorical maneuver that opened the door for the Board to appoint a non-resident, even while the plain text of the law barred it.

Transparency in Form, Not in Substance

On September 22, the Board conducted public interviews with the two finalists. The interviews and deliberations were held in open session, with cameras rolling and members of the public invited to comment.

On paper, this looked like transparency. In reality, it was theater. County Counsel had already written that eligibility must exist “at the time of appointment.” The CEO’s office already had a press release drafted and ready to issue. The outcome was never in doubt.

The public interview was not designed to genuinely weigh qualified candidates; it was designed to legitimize a pre-cooked decision. By putting the process on display while steering toward a foregone conclusion, the insiders gave the appearance of openness while concealing the most important fact: one of the two finalists was legally ineligible.

A Public Narrative That Omits the Problem

Within minutes of the September 22 appointment, the County issued a press release celebrating the decision. It highlighted the Board’s unanimous vote, the national search conducted by WBCP, and the transparency of public interviews. What the release did not mention was the essential fact: the chosen candidate was ineligible at the time of appointment.

By moving so quickly to frame the process as open, thorough, and merit-based, the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior staff sought to present an air of legitimacy. Yet the speed of the release underscores how carefully choreographed the process was — the narrative was prepared in advance, ready to go, even though the appointment itself rested on shaky legal ground.

A Tale of Two Standards

The contrast with three recent county appointments underscores how deliberate this process was. In January 2023 the Board installed Assistant Auditor-Controller Gina Will to fill a vacancy—without hiring a national search firm and despite the appointee taking a nearly full term. In spring 2023 the Board appointed Assistant Treasurer-Tax Collector Michelle Bodley to finish a retiring treasurer’s nearly full term. And in 2021 the Board selected a new District Attorney by public vote and the appointee ran the next cycle. Those appointments were handled through internal succession or straightforward Board selection.

By contrast, for the Clerk-Recorder vacancy — with roughly fifteen months left in the term — the Board, County CEO, County Counsel, and senior staff funded a nationwide executive search, interviewed two finalists in staged public sessions, and appointed a non-resident conditionally. The mismatch is hard to explain as mere coincidence; it reads instead as a tailored, resource-intensive effort to place an outside candidate into a locally-reserved office.

Why It Matters

This is not just a procedural glitch. The office of Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters is central to the functioning of our democracy. It oversees elections, records deeds, and maintains vital records. The law’s residency and voter registration requirements exist to ensure that the official holding this powerful office is accountable to the people of Nevada County, not the insiders that manipulated this appointment.

By appointing someone who was not a county resident and not a registered voter, the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior staff undermined both the letter of the law and the trust of the community. And by spending taxpayer money on a recruitment firm to conduct a national search for a local office, they demonstrated either a disregard for statutory limits or a calculated bet that the law would soon shift in their favor.

Drawing the Line Between Law and Anticipation

No one disputes that SB 858 is likely to become law. As an omnibus bill with broad legislative support, it sits on the Governor’s desk with every expectation of signature. But laws do not apply until they are signed and effective. Acting “as if” a bill has already passed is not governance — it is manipulation.

The sequence is clear:

• June 2025: Vacancy created by resignation.

• Summer 2025: Ad Hoc Committee formed, national recruiter hired.

• September 5, 2025: SB 858 enrolled and sent to the Governor.

• September 22, 2025: Board interviews two finalists, appoints a non-resident with conditions.

• Minutes later: County issues press release celebrating the appointment, omitting the eligibility problem.

Taken together, these steps form a pattern that cannot be explained as coincidence. They reflect an orchestrated process by the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior staff that proceeded not under the law as it stood, but under the law as they anticipated it would soon become without transparency!

Conclusion

The people of Nevada County deserve elected officials — and appointed successors — who meet the requirements of law, not just the expectations of insiders. The conditional appointment of a non-resident Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters is not only void as a matter of law; it also signals a troubling willingness by the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, and senior staff to treat statutory limits as optional when they get in the way of a preferred outcome.

As citizens, we should expect better: transparency that includes inconvenient facts, appointments that honor the law, and leadership that respects the difference between what is legal today and what may be legal tomorrow.