The state of California has moved to shut down a pathway for local or outside interference in elections by making it unlawful for law enforcement to seize or remove cast ballots. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law, which takes effect immediately and was rushed through the Legislature after high-profile incidents raised alarms about the security of ballots and the potential for misuse of police power ahead of the June 2 primary.
This legislation, introduced as Senate Bill 73, specifically criminalizes taking a package containing ballots from the custody of a local election official and forbids surrendering ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement without proper legal authorization. The move responds directly to a recent episode in which Riverside County Sheriff and gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco seized more than 600,000 ballots from the county registrar’s office. Bianco said he sought evidence of fraud, but officials found no proof that ballots had been cast improperly.
Key provisions and legal tools
The law establishes several concrete protections intended to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. It bars a county registrar from handing over ballots or voting systems to law enforcement agents, and it prohibits any person from allowing law enforcement to “access, disrupt, modify or take possession of” election technology without a court order. In addition, the statute reiterates that the attorney general, secretary of state or local election officials can sue anyone or any entity that removes a ballot package from an election official’s custody.
State override and enforcement mechanisms
Lawmakers inserted provisions that allow state officials to step in when a local situation presents a threat to safe elections. Under the new rules, the attorney general and the secretary of state have limited authority to override local election officials if, for example, registrars permit armed personnel to stage near polling sites or otherwise create conditions that could intimidate voters or poll workers. These override powers are designed as preventive measures to stop rogue actors at the county level from undermining statewide standards.
Context: incidents that accelerated the bill
The legislation was originally conceived to guard against potential federal interference, but recent local actions made the threat immediate. Sheriff Bianco’s seizure of ballots in Riverside County transformed a hypothetical risk into a concrete example that lawmakers used to accelerate the bill so it would be in force before the upcoming primary. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco’s decision to allow the sheriff access to ballots—based on a search warrant—illustrates the kind of chain-of-custody question the measure seeks to prevent.
Concerns about rogue officials
Part of the urgency also stems from episodes in other counties where election officials have acted in ways some observers consider unorthodox. One cited example is Shasta County’s registrar of voters, whose tenure has included reductions in ballot drop boxes and public skepticism toward voting machines. Lawmakers and advocates said such local practices, combined with threats of outside observation and intervention, create a patchwork of risks that the state law aims to address.
Protections for procedures and future funding
The law also includes a provision that prevents election observers from contesting voter signatures — a response to earlier federal involvement when the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would send observers at the request of the state Republican Party during a special election. Election advocates welcomed the change as closing loopholes that could be used to sow distrust in election outcomes.
Separately, voting rights groups and county officials are pressing the governor to secure roughly $55 million in budgetary support so counties can modernize equipment and hire extra staff to speed ballot processing. Faster counting and better-resourced election offices are seen as complementary strategies to the new criminal and supervisory measures: both aim to reduce opportunities for confusion and conspiracy theories about timing and results.
Reactions and political framing
Supporters argue the law clarifies the “rules of engagement” for law enforcement and local officials, preventing the misuse of police authority in politically charged contexts. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a coauthor and former county registrar, said voters should never have to wonder whether ballots were mishandled. Advocates called the response swift and necessary given what many described as an unprecedented seizure of ballots.
Governor Newsom framed the bill as the first tile in a broader “mosaic” of protections to address voter concerns about safety and legitimacy. He indicated that funding talks to bolster election administration were progressing positively. Together, the criminal prohibitions, state override authority and funding proposals are intended to shore up confidence in California’s electoral system ahead of future contests.
