SLO County woman accused of election fraud questions process

February 24, 2026

Gaea Powell

By KAREN VELIE

The preliminary hearing for a San Luis Obispo County woman charged with nine election fraud counts begins on Wednesday. Gaea Powell argues the charges against her are politically motivated and unfounded.

Prosecutors charged former Arroyo Grande mayoral candidate Gaea Powell with voter registration fraud, filing a false declaration of candidacy, fraudulent voting, failure to file campaign finance reports, and for perjury by declaration. She pleaded not guilty in July and later announced plans to represent herself.

Powell allegedly registered to vote at an address in Arroyo Grande where she did not reside as required by law. Instead, she lived in the county on the outskirts of Arroyo Grande, according to the charges against her.

Powell questions the initial accusations and later charges against her in a statement to the community:

“Public integrity prosecutions carry unique weight,” Powell said. “When a district attorney invokes fraud theories in the context of election residency, statutory clarity and constitutional restraint are paramount.

“On Sept. 22, 2024, Tom Fulks the Chair of the San Luis Obispo Democratic party emailed a complaint regarding my residencies to County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano, who then forwarded the complaint to the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office. District Attorney Dan Dow decided to open a preliminary investigation.

“Email communications show rapid collaboration between the County Clerk-Recorder and her staff with District Attorney investigator Nicholas Coughlin immediately upon receipt of that complaint.

“This structure mirrored a prior residency-related investigation involving Michelle Morrow, publicly reported in this county.

“In that matter, residency concerns were also brought to the District Attorney by Clerk-Recorder officials. A five-month investigation ensued, including multiple search warrants. On Sept. 11, 2024, fraud-related charges were filed. Public records do not reflect citation of a specific residency statute in those charges.

“Fourteen days later, a similar investigative structure was initiated in my case.

“On Sept. 26, 2024 my landlords confirmed valid rental agreements. On Sept. 27, 2024, a search warrant was obtained alleging a suspected felony.

“Subsequent warrants targeted phone data and social media accounts. The affidavits did not cite a specific statutory residency violation and did not disclose that the municipal official responsible for residency procedure guidance had not yet been consulted, per Elaina Cano’s advice.

The escalation from complaint to felony search warrants began within 48 hours, absent clearly cited statutory grounding, raises constitutional considerations under the Fourth Amendment and due process doctrine which not only impacts my privacy but that of others.

“When similar residency concerns involving different candidates are escalated through the same officials, prosecuted under fraud theories, and supported by search warrants rather than clearly cited residency statutes, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding the legal framework being applied.

“In my case, the voluminous discovery production by the District Attorney’s office further complicates the record. Initial disclosure exceeded 5,400 pages of mostly irrelevant digital data.

“Following court intervention, additional relevant materials were produced months later. Incremental disclosure in cases involving electronic numerous search warrants implicates both Brady obligations and broader due process principles.

“Additionally, acknowledgment of private social media discussions by the elected District Attorney raises preservation and disclosure considerations in matters pending prosecution.

“These issues transcend any individual defendant. They implicate prosecutorial discretion, statutory interpretation, and constitutional boundaries in election-related enforcement.

“Public integrity enforcement must be guided not only by vigilance, but by statutory specificity and constitutional discipline.

“Transparency strengthens institutions. Precision protects legitimacy.

“That principle applies universally — including to those who prosecute — as the most consequential decision a District Attorney will make is whether to charge an individual with a felony.

“Regardless of the outcome, that individual’s life will forever be changed.”

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, this requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.