(Ms. Lozano’s challenge to Susan Salcido for the position of Santa Barbara Superintendent of Schools SBUSD has been stymied by Joe Holland, the Registrar of Voters, and others who have – at this point – successfully removed Christy’s name from the June Primary ballot.)
In my last article (“They’re Trying to Kick me Off the Ballot Again,” SBCurrent, 25 March 2026), I told the story of how the “people in charge” aka, this time, the Registrar of Voters, Joe Holland, were attempting to take the choice of SBUSD Superintendent from voters.
I said I would do my due diligence to ensure that did not happen, and unfortunately to my dismay, it has.
I was able to secure the counsel of one of the best attorney organizations I have ever come into contact with: Advocates for Faith and Freedom. This organization won the right to refuse the Covid vaccine for the teachers of Santa Barbara, saved our jobs, and protected the children of Santa Barbara in 2021 when Santa Barbara Unified issued a vaccine mandate.
The case to get my name back on the ballot was heard on April 8 in Santa Barbara Superior Court by Judge Colleen Sterne, who also presided over the lawsuit filed against me in 2022.
The first step was for Advocates for Faith and Freedom to send a letter to Joe Holland at the elections office. The letter demanded the immediate reinstatement of my name onto the ballot for the June 2026 Statewide Direct Primary Election.
They argued that the decision made by Mr. Holland’s office on March 9, 2026, to disqualify me from candidacy for the position of Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Schools is legally incorrect, stating that I met all necessary qualifications under California Education Code § 1208, holding a valid Administrative Services Credential.
The letter emphasizes that my credential allows me to seek employment in an administrative position and that recent legislative changes (Assembly Bill 872) do not limit my eligibility; it only clarifies that I am eligible. It also references a prior court ruling that upheld my candidacy, asserting that election statutes should be interpreted in favor of ballot access.
Further, in 2022, the Santa Barbara Superior Court (Case No. 22CV01113, Hon. Colleen M. Sterne) rejected an identical challenge to my credentials, denied a petition for writ of mandate, and allowed my candidacy to proceed.
That ruling remains persuasive and is consistent with California law requiring that election statutes be liberally construed in favor of ballot access, with any doubts resolved in favor of the candidate and voters.
The authors demanded reinstatement by April 6, 2026, warning that failure to comply will lead to legal action, including possible recovery of legal fees.
Joe Holland’s Response
Holland states that, per Elections Code Section 13.5, candidates must submit documentation that demonstrates they meet all qualifications established for the office. He posited that the amended Education Code requires county superintendents to possess either a preliminary or clear administrative credential, but that I had only submitted a Certificate of Eligibility, which does not meet this requirement.
The letter further details the minimum requirements for obtaining an administrative credential and highlights that a Certificate of Eligibility is issued only when a candidate has completed all but one requirement, which involves securing an employment offer in an administrative role.
What Holland fails to acknowledge is that if I am elected that is the offer of employment. There is no further requirement for me to fulfill the role of Superintendent.
Petition for Writ filed April 6. Court Hearing April 8.
The document is a Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by me and represented by Julianne Fleischer from the Advocates for Faith & Freedom, seeking to include my name on the ballot for the June 2, 2026, Statewide Direct Primary Election as a candidate for County Superintendent of Schools in Santa Barbara County.
Key Points
1) Background: I submitted my declaration of candidacy and supporting documents, including a Certificate of Eligibility for administrative services, but was disqualified by County Registrar Joseph Holland on March 9, 2026.
2) Legal Basis: The petition argues that I meet all qualifications under California Education Code § 1208 and that my Certificate of Eligibility qualifies me to seek election. The petition asserts that the decision to disqualify me is erroneous and must be reversed.
3) Priority of the Case: Under California Election Code §13314(a)(3), this petition is entitled to priority over other civil matters due to its nature involving ballot placement.
4) Qualifications: The petition details my educational background and extensive experience in teaching, emphasizing my qualifications for the position. It also states that a Certificate of Eligibility should be considered valid for candidacy. It was valid for both me in 2022 and for Abernathy vs. Tuolumne County Registrar of Voters in 2022, when Mr. Abernathy sued the Registrar of Voters because they did not accept his Certificate of Eligibility.
In the Abernathy case, he won his lawsuit, got his name on the ballot, and won his election by 100 votes.
5) Judicial Precedents: The document references a previous court case (Culver v. County of Santa Barbara) which upheld my candidacy on similar grounds, arguing that the current disqualification contradicts that ruling in 2022.
6) Request for Relief: The petition requests a writ of mandate to order the inclusion of my name on the ballot, as well as an award of costs and attorney fees if the petition is opposed.
7) Conclusion: The petition emphasizes the importance of my right to seek public office and argues that failure to reinstate me will cause irreparable harm.
Outcome
Judge Colleen Sterne shifted from her previous position of keeping my name on the ballot in 2022 – with the exact same qualifications for the exact same position – to denying the Writ of Mandate for the Registrar of Voters to “allow” me to run. Judge Sterne did not give clear reasoning, but simply stated that “something must have changed,” so she went along with the Registrar of Voters. The judge took the easy road, did not look into the details of the case, did not deliver justice, and did not do the right thing for me or the voters of Santa Barbara County.
The question is:
Why?
Joe Holland also did not do the right thing, and did not serve justice. He did the easy thing. He is listening to whoever is advising him and he is going along with it.
Is this what the people of Santa Barbara County elected Joe Holland to do?
In 2022, the Santa Barbara Superior Court (Case No. 22CV01113, Hon. Colleen M. Sterne) rejected an identical challenge to my credentials, denied a petition for writ of mandate, and allowed my candidacy to proceed.
That ruling remains persuasive and is consistent with California law requiring that election statutes be liberally construed in favor of ballot access, with any doubts resolved in favor of the candidate and voters.
Holland did not do that.
Furthermore, both the Registrar of Voters and the elections office have refused to refund the $3191.00 filing fee, even though they refused to accept my application to run for Superintendent.
As of now, Ms. Salcido gets to hold on to her position and the Registrar of Voters gets to hold on to my money, without opposition, as Susan Salcido will be the only name on the ballot.
But this isn’t ending here.
My fight continues.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Santa Barbara Current to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.