10/12/2026
WHO IS FUNDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY’S JUDICIAL RACE — AND WHY IT MATTERS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Calif. — As voters return their ballots for the November 3 election, campaign finance records reveal significant differences in who is financially supporting the two candidates seeking Riverside County Superior Court Judge, Office No. 10.
Andrea Garcia, a San Bernardino County deputy public defender, is running against Michelle Paradise, a Riverside County assistant district attorney.
According to campaign finance records analyzed by Inland Empire Law Weekly on October 11, Garcia raised approximately $67,000 from 172 donors, compared with Paradise's $213,000 from 113 donors.
Garcia's campaign has attracted more donors despite raising substantially less money. Her reported contributors include attorneys and individual supporters. Recent reporting identifies a $1,000 contribution from the law office of former Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco, followed by a $500 contribution from immigration attorney Douglas Jalaie.
Paradise's campaign has received substantially larger contributions from organizations representing prosecutors and law enforcement.
Among Paradise's reported financial supporters are:
• Riverside County Deputy District Attorneys' Association PAC: $80,000
• Sheriff Chad Bianco's campaign funds: $20,000
• Riverside Sheriffs' Association Public Education Fund: $48,231.85, according to earlier campaign finance records
• Local developer Frederick Noble & affiliates: $17,500
The Sheriff's Association figure comes from an earlier reporting period and has not been reconciled with the latest fundraising totals.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Judges are responsible for independently reviewing evidence, interpreting laws, protecting constitutional rights, and making decisions involving prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and members of the public.
The organizations financially supporting judicial candidates may also represent individuals and agencies whose actions are reviewed in those same courtrooms.
Campaign contributions are lawful and do not, by themselves, establish judicial bias or improper influence. However, understanding who finances judicial campaigns is an important part of government transparency and public accountability.
The election also follows the California Supreme Court's unanimous September 24 ruling that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of more than 650,000 voted election ballots violated California election law.
The ballots had been seized under search warrants issued by Riverside County Superior Court judges. The Supreme Court determined that the seizures were not authorized under existing state law.
The ruling did not establish that campaign contributions influenced those warrants, but the case demonstrated the importance of independent judicial review and the checks and balances within California's justice system.
The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury has also raised concerns about political contributions, public trust, and government accountability in its 2025–2026 report, “Uncapped Influence: Campaign Contributions and Public Trust in Riverside County.” That investigation focused on county government campaign finance rules, not judicial elections.
As Riverside County voters consider the two candidates, the financial disclosures reveal a notable contrast: Garcia has attracted more reported donors, while Paradise has received substantially larger contributions, including financial support from organizations representing prosecutors and law enforcement.
The election will determine who serves a six-year term on the Riverside County Superior Court.
Campaign finance records provide a public accounting of who is helping finance the candidates seeking authority within the county's justice system.
SOURCES:
Inland Empire Law Weekly — Judicial Election Updates, October 11, 2026
