CA Sheriff Doubles Down On Seizing Ballots As State Supreme Court Deliberates

A major election-integrity battle has reached California’s highest court after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco refused to surrender approximately 650,000 ballots seized during an investigation into the November 2025 special election.

The California Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over whether Bianco had the legal authority to seize and retain roughly 1,000 boxes of ballots cast in the election involving Proposition 50, California’s controversial congressional redistricting measure.

Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta is demanding that the sheriff return the election materials, arguing that California law requires them to remain under the control of election officials.

Bianco remains defiant.

“I did this, and this was legal,” the sheriff told reporters outside the courthouse.

“I went a different route. They are legal. Both routes are legal. It’s just their side doesn’t like the route I chose,” he added.

Bianco’s department obtained judicially approved warrants before taking possession of the ballots in March. His attorneys maintain that the election materials became evidence in a legitimate law-enforcement investigation and must remain secured until the legal dispute is resolved.

“The sheriff is holding that evidence, safeguarding it as a custodian for the court,” attorney Bradley Hertz said.

The controversy began after the Riverside Election Integrity Team submitted a complaint alleging a substantial discrepancy between election records and the official vote count.

The citizen group claimed that nearly 46,000 more votes were reported than its review of handwritten tally records appeared to show.

Riverside County election officials rejected that interpretation, saying the group compared incomplete preliminary records with the final certified totals. Officials maintained that the actual discrepancy involved only 103 ballots.

Bianco nevertheless opened an investigation and obtained warrants authorizing his department to seize the election materials.

A court-appointed special master was expected to supervise a physical count of the ballots, but the investigation was halted after Bonta and the UCLA Voting Rights Project launched separate legal challenges.

The California Supreme Court subsequently ordered Bianco not to continue examining the ballots while the justices considered whether his department had exceeded its authority.

Bianco has continued to retain the materials under secure custody.

Proposition 50 temporarily redrew California’s congressional districts in a manner expected to benefit Democrats during the 2026 midterms.

The measure passed statewide by approximately 3.34 million votes. It also carried Riverside County by roughly 80,000 votes, meaning the original discrepancy alleged by the citizens group would not have changed the countywide result.

That fact does not resolve the central legal question now before the court: whether a county sheriff may treat ballots as potential evidence and independently investigate alleged irregularities outside California’s established recount and election-contest procedures.

Bianco argues that the issue extends beyond whether the disputed number would have changed Proposition 50’s final outcome.

“How strange, that now we have evidence that the machines counted something different than the ballots that we have, and an Attorney General runs in to stop that investigation so that we’ll never know,” Bianco said outside the courthouse.

That statement represents Bianco’s characterization of evidence gathered by his department. No court has concluded that voting machines produced an inaccurate result or that the certified election outcome was invalid.

Bonta maintains that Bianco’s investigation violates California law and encroaches on the attorney general’s constitutional authority to supervise county sheriffs.

“This is a sheriff that, despite the clear language in the California constitution, and in California government code, providing me direct supervision, authority over him, failed to comply with it,” Bonta told reporters.

“He can read, he knows what it says, it makes his violations even more egregious,” the attorney general added.

Bianco disputes Bonta’s interpretation.

The sheriff argues that the attorney general may intervene if a local law-enforcement official refuses to perform a required duty, but cannot order that official to terminate a lawful investigation.

“If you take it word for word, in that context, it means that he has direct authority that if I’m not doing my job he can order me to do it and if I don’t do it he can do it for me,” Bianco said. “But he cannot stop an investigation.”

Bianco’s attorneys argued that sheriffs possess broad authority to investigate potential crimes and that election materials do not become immune from a valid search warrant merely because they contain ballots.

Bonta and the voters represented by UCLA’s Voting Rights Project countered that California provides specific procedures for recounting and challenging election results. They argued that a sheriff cannot bypass those protections by opening a criminal investigation based on an unsubstantiated complaint.

Several justices appeared skeptical of Bianco’s position during Monday’s arguments.

Justice Joshua Groban questioned whether the sheriff had identified an actual crime supporting his investigation and suggested that Bianco’s argument could permit law-enforcement officials to seize ballots whenever they disagreed with election administrators.

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero also pressed Bianco’s attorneys about California statutes restricting access to ballots and requiring election officials to maintain custody of the materials.

Questions during oral argument do not necessarily predict the final ruling, but they indicated that Bianco could face a difficult path before the seven-member court. CalMatters

The case places two of California’s most powerful law-enforcement officials on opposite sides of an extraordinary constitutional dispute.

Bonta says Bianco defied state authority and disrupted the legally protected chain of custody for election materials.

Bianco says surrendering potential evidence before his investigation is completed would amount to abandoning his responsibilities as sheriff.

The dispute also raises broader questions with consequences beyond Riverside County.

If the court sides with Bianco, county sheriffs could gain significant authority to seize and examine election materials pursuant to criminal search warrants.

If the justices rule for Bonta and the voters, the decision could sharply limit the ability of local law enforcement to investigate ballot complaints independently of state election officials and formal recount procedures.

The California Supreme Court did not issue an immediate decision after Monday’s hearing.

Until the justices rule, the investigation remains suspended and the approximately 650,000 ballots will stay secured in Bianco’s custody.