Nevada County Seeks State Permission to Appoint Its Registrar of Voters

Board to vote June 24 on petition to amend Government Code §26802.5

Nevada County Supervisors will decide next week whether to ask the Legislature for a small but potentially far-reaching change in state law: adding Nevada County to the list of counties authorized to appoint—rather than elect—a Registrar of Voters.

What the agenda item does

Item 25-1795, scheduled for the Board’s June 24 meeting, would authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Senate Local Government Committee supporting inclusion of Nevada County in the 2025 Local Government Omnibus Act (SB 858). That bill, routinely used to clean up and revise various and often unrelated statutes, is the vehicle the county must ride to amend Government Code §26802.5. The section already currently allows 14 counties—from El Dorado to Tulare—to appoint a registrar separate from the county clerk. Kern County has already asked to be added this year; Nevada County’s request would make it the 16th county on the list.

If the Legislature agrees, nothing changes immediately at home. The amendment merely gives the Board permission to consider—at some future date and after separate public hearings—whether to convert the registrar’s post from an elected function housed within the Clerk-Recorder’s office to a professional appointment. “Neither making this request, nor the legislation passing … results in any change to the structure of the Nevada County government,” the staff memo stresses. 

Why now?

Timing is driven by both opportunity and circumstance. The opportunity is the omnibus bill itself, introduced in March and now moving through committee; missing this legislative window would force Nevada County to wait another year. The circumstance is the sudden vacancy in the registrar’s chair. Clerk-Recorder/Registrar Natalie Adona resigned effective June 6 to lead Marin County’s elections office, leaving Assistant Registrar Corey O’Hayre in charge until the Board appoints an interim replacement. The transition has revived perennial questions about whether an elections administrator should be picked by voters or hired for professional qualifications.

How the current system works

Under California law a county clerk is automatically the county’s elections official unless §26802.5 says otherwise. In Nevada County, that means a single elected official oversees birth, death, and marriage records, real-estate filings, business licenses, and every step of election administration—from verifying signatures to certifying results. Proponents of separation argue the modern elections portfolio—cybersecurity, ballot tracking, voting-center logistics—has outgrown the historic clerk’s domain.

The proposal in detail

The county’s legislative advocate, Karen Lange of SYASL Partners, filed a formal request outlining the change Nevada County seeks and the reasons for it. Chair Heidi Hall’s draft letter repeats those arguments: granting the Board “the opportunity, via future public action, to make structural changes in support of a high-performing elections office”. Staff recommends approval with no fiscal impact because the amendment itself neither adds positions nor alters salaries; any local ordinance adopted later would carry its own cost analysis.

Potential benefits

• Professionalization and focus. A standalone registrar can devote full attention to elections technology, voter outreach, and regulatory compliance instead of juggling competing clerk-recorder duties.

• Succession planning. Appointed positions are insulated from sudden departures because recruitment can begin immediately and candidates can be drawn statewide.

• Accountability without politics. Supervisors argue they can evaluate performance with clear metrics—accuracy, turnout, customer service—rather than rely on the broad strokes of an at-large election.

Those arguments echo recent moves by neighboring counties. Sonoma successfully petitioned to be added in 2024; Kern’s request is pending in the same bill Nevada County hopes to join. Natalie Adona’s departure underscores the trend toward professional management. Marin County, where she will now serve, abandoned the elected model nearly 30 years ago, a fact highlighted in local press coverage this month. Nevada County’s proposal suggests its leaders are contemplating the same pivot.

Concerns and counterpoints

Critics of appointments typically cite transparency and voter control. 

• An appointment would take away the voice of the people. Elections officials, they argue, should answer directly to the electorate, not to politicians who might appear on the ballot themselves. The staff memo cites an effort to mitigate, stating that any future ordinance to appoint a registrar would require two noticed public hearings, giving residents ample chance to weigh in. However, the appointment would still not be the choice of the people. 

• A rise in administrative spending is likely. Taxpayers may also question whether creating a separate department would duplicate administrative overhead. County staff say that impacts on the budget—staffing levels, office location, equipment—would be analyzed later if the Board chooses to restructure.

The legislative path ahead

If Supervisors approve the letter on June 24, the county’s ask must survive the committee’s July bill-drafting deadline and then clear both houses of the Legislature before the August recess. Omnibus bills are traditionally non-controversial, but each new insertion can invite scrutiny. Assuming passage, the Governor would sign the Act this fall, making Nevada County eligible to adopt an appointive system as early as 2026—just months before the registrar’s current elected term expires in January 2027.

What happens if Nevada County never follows through?

Supervisors could simply keep the status quo. The amendment grants flexibility, not a mandate. For residents wary of change, that nuance matters: voters will still elect the registrar in 2026 unless the Board first proposes, and then adopts, an ordinance saying otherwise.

Looking ahead

Public testimony on June 24 will provide the first gauge of community sentiment. Supporters of the shift are likely to argue that professionalizing election oversight will bolster security and voter confidence. Opponents of this change may frame the move as unnecessary or politically motivated. Either way, the agenda item marks the opening of a larger conversation about how Nevada County should run its elections in an era of rapid technological and political change.

Meeting details
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Time: 9 a.m. (consent agenda; item may be heard later in the morning)
Location: Eric Rood Administration Center, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City
Remote access: livestream via county website; public comment accepted in person and by Zoom.