New California law bans law enforcement from interfering in state elections
Newsom said the new law was just the first in a “mosaic” of legislation to address the “legitimate anxiety” that voters have about the safety and security of California’s elections.
Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.
The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.
“We have to step up, and we have to draw the line. We have to clarify the rules of engagement,” Newsom told reporters before signing the legislation. “It’s a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”
State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.
But Bianco’s decision to seize ballots turned a hypothetical threat into a real one, spurring legislators to seize the moment and rush the bill through so it could take effect before Election Day.
The new law makes it illegal for a county registrar to surrender ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement agents such as Bianco or his deputies. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco would have violated the law by allowing the sheriff’s department to take the ballots, despite the search warrant they presented.
“Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, one of the bill’s Democratic coauthors and a former Santa Cruz County registrar. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”
The law also reiterates that the attorney general, secretary of state or local county elections officials can sue any person, business or entity that takes “a package containing ballots” from an election official’s custody.
Election and voting advocates praised the Legislature for responding quickly to what they say was an “unprecedented” act of local law enforcement seizing ballots from an elections office.
“That never happened anywhere in the country before,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. She added that the Legislature’s decision to push for this law shows voters “they are aware that something unprecedented has taken place.”
Legislators included safeguards in the law that allow the attorney general and secretary of state in some circumstances to override the authority of a county election official — such as if a registrar permitted armed personnel to stage near polling places.
Those override privileges are pointed, preemptive maneuvers likely spurred by the threat of a rogue county election official such as Shasta County’s embattled registrar of voters, Clint Curtis. The self-proclaimed “elections integrity advocate” lived in Florida and had no experience administering elections before the county board of supervisors appointed him registrar in 2024.
Lawmakers are seeking to ensure state officials are “able to override a local effort to undermine the state’s rules,” Alexander said. “This is not the first time the state is being responsive to events happening in Shasta County.”
Curtis has aligned himself with 2020 election deniers, publicly expressed skepticism about voting machines and significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He faces several accusations of workplace violence and harassment, including threats to drag staffers out of his office by their hair. Curtis has denied all accusations.
The new law also prohibits any individual from allowing any law enforcement agent to “access, disrupt, modify or take possession of” any voting technology without a court order.
Another provision prohibits election observers from challenging voter signatures. Last fall, the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California GOP, announced it would send election observers to California for the special election on Proposition 50, which sparked fears that President Donald Trump was meddling in an effort to change the outcome.
Ballot seizure is just one way outside actors could interfere with California’s elections, Alexander said. Another is the state’s lengthy ballot counting process, which has fueled conspiracy theories and baseless claims that the results should not be trusted.
Advocates are pushing Newsom to include about $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to buy new equipment and hire more staff to speed up counting.
Newsom told reporters Wednesday that funding negotiations are “very, very positive” and “we’re going to land on a number very, very shortly.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Author
Comments (9)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
ICE has detained more than 650 children in California under Trump’s deportation crackdown
Deportations dramatically rose under the Trump administration — 61% of detained children in California were deported, compared to 8% under Biden.
New commission takes aim at California’s broken public defense system
California is one of just two states that provides no money for the basic defense of poor people accused of crimes.
California admits using high-risk AI — including systems it failed to report last year
State officials have found they are using six high-risk AI-like systems. One year ago, they reported using zero.
Law was signed by governor 5/27/26 … text of law found here, , states in section 3 F – “(f) A vote by mail voter observer shall not be permitted to challenge a signature on a vote by mail ballot return envelope pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3019, or on statements completed pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 3019, on the basis that they believe the signature does not compare with the signatures appearing in the voter’s registration record.”
…. That is troubling. Many more people are voting by mail. Signatures must be checked on ballot envelops that is the only way to determine that the registered voter is the person who put the ballot in the envelope.
Well said, Stewarth.
“…. Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.”
Rather than let Bianco’s investigation to proceed to prove there was no ballot cast improperly the State Attorney General Rob Bonta stepped in to stop the investigation.
Obvious coverup by the state AG is not transparency.
This is not true. The truth is that no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Riverside County has been produced. What is true is that the election deniers were found to be wrong and that the California Supreme Court found that Bianco had not shown evidence of a crime sufficient to justify what he was doing, sizing ballots.
.
What is true is that the seizure follows a new playbook for election denial: Amateur, citizen activists claim election fraud. Refutations of the claims or contradictory evidence are ignored. These same unfounded claims are used as the basis of official law enforcement action. This troubling trend could fuel further election conspiracies, drain law enforcement resources, and undermine confidence in elections.
.
What is true is that Clint Curtis has asked the FBI and DOJ to seize our ballots. This is a playbook out of Trumpian authoritarianism that leans towards fascism.
Not true Christian. The Ca. Supreme court has not yet made a ruling.
The California Supreme Court has not made that specific final ruling.
The California Supreme Court (in April 2026) halted Bianco’s investigation, ordered a pause, and required preservation of all seized items (including ballots) while the court reviews the legal challenges. This was in response to petitions from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and voters (via the UCLA Voting Rights Project in Cervantes v. Bianco). The court granted review and issued a stay, but it has not issued a final merits decision.
More wild and broad accusations without a shred of reality. If you cult members would turn off the Fox Lies indoctrination channel and invest a few hours to actually read The Elections Code and other State Codes, you would find that no local or county law enforcement officer is authorized to investigate
elections. In fact the law does not allow a judge to even issue warrants allowing search and seizure, as was done in this case by a Maga Judge, who should be censuered for doing so.
California law clearly invests power to investigate elections primarily by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, County Election Officials and District Attorneys; and perform recounts, challenges and oversee all issues by the Superior Courts, led by the Presiding Judge, holding open hearings, not secret warrants!
So, since nothing that Chad Bianco and his deputies and the one judge did complies with the requirements of State Law, which also directly says that ballots are to remain in the custody of election officials, the Attorney General had to step in. Cover-up of lies and reality is from uninformed or brainwashed Maga followers who forgot basic high school civics class.
So, I wonder how this will affect ‘Ol Clint’s idea to have “closers” ( which he dropped just a week or 2 before the election) take ballots from each poll location, sort them into good or bad ballots and them take them from the poll locations and deliver these ballots to the Elections Office? Seems like an opportunity to lose a few or maybe mess with a few. So, does the new law deal with this?
This is a very important question!
Error in this CalMatters article: Clint Curtis was appointed in 2025, not 2024.