The law makes it a crime to remove voted ballots from the custody of local election officials, a provision prompted in part by an incident earlier this year in Riverside County. Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for governor, seized more than 600,000 ballots from the county registrar of voters, saying his office was looking for evidence of fraudulent voting. No evidence has emerged showing that ballots were improperly cast.

Newsom said the state needed to make clear that election materials cannot be taken or handled outside established legal procedures.

“We have to step up, and we have to draw the line,” Newsom told reporters before signing the bill. He said the law is intended to clarify election rules and serve as a warning to those who might try to interfere with California’s voting process.

The measure, Senate Bill 73, was initially introduced by state lawmakers amid concerns about possible federal interference in California elections. Those concerns were heightened by tensions between the state and the Trump administration, as well as the national political stakes surrounding control of Congress.

But the Riverside County ballot seizure shifted the debate from a theoretical concern to an immediate one, prompting lawmakers to move quickly so the restrictions would be in place before voters cast ballots in the primary.

Under the new law, county registrars are prohibited from turning over ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement officers, including county sheriffs and deputies. If the law had been in effect at the time of the Riverside County incident, Registrar Art Tinoco would have been barred from allowing the sheriff’s department to take custody of the ballots, even with the search warrant deputies presented.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democratic coauthor of the bill and former Santa Cruz County registrar of voters, said voters must be able to trust that ballots remain secure.

“Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” Pellerin said. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”

The law also confirms that the state attorney general, secretary of state or local election officials may sue any person, company or entity that takes a package containing ballots from an election official’s custody.

Voting rights advocates welcomed the swift action, calling the Riverside County seizure extraordinary.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, said she was not aware of any similar ballot seizure occurring elsewhere in the country. The Legislature’s response, she said, signals to voters that state officials recognized the seriousness of what happened.

The law includes additional provisions allowing the attorney general and secretary of state, in certain circumstances, to override county election officials. Supporters say those safeguards are intended to prevent local officials from undermining statewide election rules, such as by allowing armed personnel to gather near voting sites.

Those provisions come amid scrutiny of election administration in Shasta County, where Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has drawn attention for his ties to 2020 election deniers and public skepticism of voting machines. Curtis, who had no prior experience running elections before being appointed registrar in 2024, also reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He has faced allegations of workplace violence and harassment, including claims that he threatened to drag employees from his office by their hair. Curtis has denied the accusations.

The new law also bars individuals from allowing law enforcement officers to access, disrupt, alter or take possession of voting technology without a court order.

Another section prevents election observers from challenging voter signatures. That issue gained attention last fall when the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California Republican Party, announced it would send election observers to California during the special election on Proposition 50. The move prompted concerns among Democrats and voting advocates that President Donald Trump was attempting to influence the outcome.

Alexander said the removal of ballots is only one potential threat to confidence in California elections. She also pointed to the state’s extended vote-counting timeline, which has become a frequent target of conspiracy theories and unsupported claims about election results.

Election advocates are urging Newsom to include roughly $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to purchase updated equipment and hire more staff, with the goal of speeding up ballot counting.

Newsom said Wednesday that budget discussions over election funding are progressing and that an agreement is expected soon.

Original source: CalMatters

The post New California Law Bars Law Enforcement From Interfering in State Elections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This is equally true when it comes to private businesses as it relates to nepotism. Often their choices are worthy because it comes with an added sense of proprietorship, responsibility and accountability to ensure a family business succeeds. The business owners take a risk and when it doesn’t work out, they bear the impact of their choices.

It should work differently however, in the public arena. There is a code of ethics but you certainly would not know it from the way Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco takes care of his family on the public dime. As reported by the IE Voice in late October, Bianco has no concerns about nepotism as it relates to hiring his off-spring or promoting a sibling.

In October a reliable source confirmed Bianco had promoted his brother, Michael, to lieutenant over more qualified candidates almost as soon as he was sworn in as sheriff in 2019. And, just days ago, the public learned Bianco has promoted his brother Michael again, as if “Little Mikie” is the only candidate for advancement in the entire Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. This time Mike was elevated to captain of the Thermal Station. We all know the reason . . .. the higher the rank . . . the more money his brother takes home. I guess he is saying to other qualified candidates that filling his brother’s wallet “Trumps” their qualifications.

This is the type of right wing political maneuvering the nation experienced for four years at the national level and it is obvious this is the same level of thinking Bianco is using to run the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. I certainly have nothing against Michael and he may well be qualified. It is just a question of whether he was the most qualified. He might do a good job but did he deserve the opportunity to succeed or fail like other competitive candidates? From what I understand, he did not.

But, who can blame him for grabbing the gold ring when his brother Chad handed it to him merely because he felt empowered to do so.

The California Labor Code defines nepotism as “[T]he practice of an employee using his or her influence or power to aid or hinder another in the employment setting because of a personal relationship.” In this case, Bianco obviously did both.

Guidelines regarding nepotism are clearly detailed in Section 1051.2 (b) of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Standards Manual (DSM). It states, “Employees are prohibited from participating in, contributing to or recommending promotions, assignments, performance evaluations, transfers or other personnel decisions affecting an employee who is a relative or with whom they are involved in a personal or business relationship. Now, knowing Bianco as we do, we can bet he will offer some bumbling explanation about how he did none of these things–because he would certainly be in violation of established standards. But, I would wager we can be certain that he did. Why else would little brother Mikie be promoted twice in two years over others that many believe are better qualified?

Maybe Bianco will try and convince us that no one other than Little Mikie wanted to take the assignment in Thermal. That explanation would appear disingenuous as everyone knows pensions are calculated using a formula that includes years of service, and final average salary, among other factors.

Section I of the department’s DSM speaks to integrity stating, “We are dedicated to honesty and integrity in all our actions and will uphold our ethical beliefs regardless of the consequences. Our actions must be above reproach.”

I wonder if Bianco ever bothered to read the DSM despite its guidelines that state, “It is the responsibility and duty of every member to become thoroughly familiar with the contents of this manual.”

The one thing the DSM does not elaborate on is what are the consequences for violating DSM guidelines related to nepotism.

Apparently, it will be up to the voters to put an end to Bianco’s folly as sheriff and his continued disregard for ethical leadership.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.

—-

Stephanie E. Williams is an award winning investigative reporter, editor and activist who has contributed to several Inland Empire publications. Williams spent more than thirty years as a middle-manager in the telecommunications industry before retiring to pursue her passion as a reporter and non-fiction writer. Beyond writing, Williams’ personal interests include stone-carving, drumming and sculpting.

S.E. WILLIAMS | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Bianco Ignored Department Rules and Promoted Brother, Where’s the Accountability? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.