Guilty of election fraud, Powell plans to file more lawsuits

September 22, 2026

Gaea Powell, photo by Jeff Specht

By KAREN VELIE

Shortly after a San Luis Obispo County jury found a woman guilty of election fraud, she released a statement saying she plans to focus on filing lawsuit against those involved in her criminal case.

Guilty of nine counts – eight felonies and one misdemeanor – Gaea Powell is likely to be sentenced to under three years in county jail. SLO County District Attorney’s Office staff announced earlier in the case that they would not ask for the maximum sentence and expected her to be sentenced to jail rather than prison.

Powell is scheduled for sentencing on Oct. 19.

In the months before her trial, Powell filed four lawsuits against witnesses in her case and voiced plans to file additional lawsuits against SLO County District Attorney Dan Dow and Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano.

After the jury found her guilty on all charges, Powell released a statement arguing she should not have been found guilty and noting her plan to file lawsuits against government employees:

“I want to begin by thanking the jurors for their service, their attention throughout this trial, and the seriousness with which they approached an extraordinarily difficult responsibility,” Powell wrote.

“I respect the jury’s role. But I am deeply disappointed by today’s verdict.

“I have maintained from the beginning, and I maintain today, that I did not knowingly deceive anyone and did not act with fraudulent intent. I openly discussed my living circumstances, sought guidance from election officials concerning my eligibility to run for office, and believed I was acting lawfully.

“I may have lost this battle.

“But this is not the end of the legal fight.

“I intend to pursue every appropriate post-trial remedy and to appeal this case. And just as importantly, another chapter is only beginning.

“For more than two years, I have lived through an extraordinarily invasive government investigation and prosecution. My cell phones were seized and have not been returned. The government obtained extensive T-Mobile, Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Nextdoor data spanning years of my life. The investigation ultimately encompassed an extraordinary volume of private electronic information—not only mine, but information involving people who communicated with me, along with my private contacts and communications.

“Yet one of the central questions I continue to ask is remarkably simple:

“How did what began as a dispute over election eligibility become a multiple-felony criminal prosecution?

“And how was this investigation actually conducted?

“Those questions matter.

“They matter because the Constitution does not cease to exist when the government decides to investigate someone.

“The First Amendment matters.

“The Fourth Amendment matters.

“Due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment matter.

“And 42 U.S.C. § 1983 exists for a reason: it provides a federal civil remedy when government officials, acting under color of state law, deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

“That is where my focus will now turn.

“Representing myself in this criminal trial gave me an extraordinary opportunity to examine the discovery, investigative reports, witness interviews, electronic searches, chronology, and communications underlying this prosecution.

“And I have questions that were not answered in this courtroom.

“Why wasn’t Nicholas Coughlin — the primary investigator whose work was at the center of this investigation — called by the prosecution to testify?

“Why did this investigation move so rapidly into sweeping searches of my electronic life?

“Why wasn’t the City of Arroyo Grande election official — an official the County Clerk-Recorder directed investigators on day one—interviewed before some of those invasive investigative steps were taken?

“And what does the complete chronology of this investigation reveal?

“There was evidence I wanted the jury to see and issues I wanted the jury to hear that the prosecution strongly objected to and that ultimately were restricted or excluded during this trial.

“I believe that matters.

“Why wouldn’t the prosecution want the jury to hear the entire story?

“The prosecution’s objections, the evidence that was excluded or restricted, and the Court’s rulings can now be examined through the appropriate legal processes.

“I do not fault the jurors. They did not determine what evidence would ultimately be admitted or excluded. They were required to decide this case based upon the evidence they were permitted to hear and the legal instructions they were given.

“They fulfilled their responsibility.

“Now I will fulfill mine.

“My focus turns elsewhere.

“I may have lost this battle, but my fight to vindicate my constitutional rights is not over.

“In many ways, it has just begun.

“I intend to pursue my appeal.

“And I intend to turn the same laser-like focus I brought to defending myself in this courtroom toward examining the actions taken under color of law that brought me here and, where supported by the evidence and the law, pursuing those constitutional claims in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other applicable federal law.

“That fight will take place where it belongs: in court, through all of the evidence, documents, testimony, and the Constitution.

“I am not intimidated by the size or power of the institutions involved.

“Power is not proof.

“Government officials are not above the Constitution.

“And accountability does not end with a guilty verdict.

“So today, I thank the jurors for their service.

“I thank my husband, Michael, my friends, and all the people who have stood beside me throughout this ordeal.

“And I want them to know something:

“I will keep fighting. Lawfully. Publicly. And relentlessly. This battle may be over. My appeal begins. And the constitutional fight has just begun. Thank you.