When Law Becomes Politics: Kit Elliott and Nevada County’s Electionmandering
The good news is County Counsel Katharine Lynn “Kit” Elliott has announced she will retire by year’s end. For many residents, that news comes as relief. Elliott’s tenure has been marked by legal strategies that often looked less like neutral lawyering and more like political manipulation.
Her office has played a central role in Nevada County’s most divisive controversies; Rise Gold, Measure V, lavish pay for senior staff, flawed ordinances for housing solutions, selective code enforcement, drone surveillance, and even an aborted attempt to cancel an election of the three Board appointed “elected” positions for treasurer-tax collector, auditor-controller, and clerk-recorder/register of voters in 2026. What emerges is not the record of a lawyer bound to constitutional principles, but of a political operator using her office as a weapon of government control.
Before Nevada County, Elliott’s work in Mendocino included litigation such as Howe v. County of Mendocino (No. 21-16665, 9th Cir., Aug. 31, 2022). Even then, her approach reflected a tendency to treat law as a tactical tool for institutional advantage, naming her specifically.
Elliott structured Nevada County’s administrative enforcement program around contract hearing officers who exercised final authority.
Conflict: These officers were repeatedly re-appointed by the County, raising independence concerns.
Precedent: Lippman v. Oakland (2018) and Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. Fremont (2024) require appeals to independent bodies.
Bias Risks: Haas v. San Bernardino (2002) warned of due-process violations when hearing officers are financially dependent on the government that hires them.
Elliott’s office both designed and is defending this system—blurring lines between neutral counsel and institutional self-protection avoiding every administrative hearing case having to be overturned for lack of due process.
Under Elliott’s legal guidance, the Community Development Agency launched a drone program for code enforcement.
Low-altitude flights recorded private property; most raw footage is destroyed, with only incriminating clips kept.
This ran against Camara v. Municipal Court (1967), Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), and People v. Cook (1985), which limit warrantless surveillance.
Destruction of raw footage also raised Trombetta (1984) and Youngblood (1988) issues requiring preservation of potentially favorable evidence,
This was lawyering aimed not at upholding constitutional rights, but at protecting an unlawful surveillance tool and program. If a warrantless drone program had been used as part of a CDA code compliance enforcement action, it was unlawful enforcement, then including penalties and fees, could be challenged and potentially overturned as well.
Residents have documented inconsistent application of code enforcement, with administrative fees added to property tax rolls, creating the risk of property loss and tax sales. Elliott’s dual role advising, defending, and litigating these cases blurred impartiality, raising due-process concerns.
When the Idaho-Maryland Mine proposal divided the county, Elliott’s office dismissed risks and left the County exposed. County permits for exploratory drilling and dewatering the mine were issued, then revoked Rise Gold’s ability to get to the gold under legal confusion. The mess deepened public mistrust and showcased poor lawyering masquerading as policymaking.
In July 2025, Elliott’s office reviewed an ordinance that would have extended the terms of three appointed “elected” positions, including the Registrar of Voters until 2028, canceling the 2026 election for them.
This conflicted with Gov. Code §25304 and Elections Code §1300.
The timing was suspect: just weeks earlier, a candidate had declared for Auditor-Controller, meaning the ordinance would have voided a live election in 2026.
The measure appeared suddenly at the end of a crowded agenda. Only public outcry forced its withdrawal.
In June 2025, Elliott told the Board: “We don’t confiscate people’s property over these kinds of taxes.”
Moments later, the appointed Treasurer-Tax Collector confirmed properties had in fact been auctioned for these assessments. Deputy County Counsel Doug Johnson added that “other counties do this and courts have upheld it”—despite no published California decision supporting the claim.
These statements shielded policy by misleading both the Board and public.
Bar complaints against Elliott and Johnson cite:
Misrepresentations about tax-roll enforcement (SR 25-1750, 2025).
The unlawful hearing-officer system, warrantless drone program, and destruction of evidence.
The attempted election cancellation (SR 25-1940).
Alleged violations include Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, 2.1, 4.1, and 8.4, plus Bus. & Prof. Code §§6068 and 6128.
Active and recent cases reinforce the theme:
Local restaurants challenge to selective enforcement during Covid.
The Rise Gold litigation.
Election-records lawsuits the County lost on transparency grounds.
Across these episodes, the same elements repeat:
Centralization of power.
Selective enforcement.
Misrepresentation of facts.
Election interference attempts.
Litigation losses.
During her tenure Kit Elliot has not demonstrated ethical legal counsel while representing Nevada County.
Elliott’s retirement is welcome news for Nevada County. Yet the concern remains: her legacy may endure. The attorneys she hired and trained will continue shaping policy, defending questionable enforcement practices, and blurring the line between law and politics.
Residents should celebrate her departure, but also recognize the deeper issue—that until Nevada County’s legal culture changes, the next SR 25-1940 may not be withdrawn, and next time it may succeed.
