California Supreme Court: Weighs Bianco Ballot Seizure Legality

• The California Supreme Court is reviewing whether Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco must return 650,000 ballots seized from a November special election.
• Sheriff Bianco obtained search warrants to investigate a citizens' group claim of 46,000 more ballots counted than cast for Proposition 50.
• Attorney General Rob Bonta and the UCLA Voting Rights Project challenged Bianco's actions, arguing he violated the California Elections Code's strict ballot custody rules.
• Bianco's attorney contended the sheriff had a duty to investigate fraud and followed the Penal Code, but justices expressed skepticism.
• The Supreme Court previously ordered Bianco to halt his investigation and preserve all seized materials pending its final review.

This ruling will establish a critical precedent, defining the boundaries of police authority to seize election materials and conduct investigations into voting irregularities.

The California Supreme Court is currently deliberating a pivotal case concerning the authority of law enforcement to intervene in election processes, specifically whether Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must return approximately 650,000 ballots from a November special election. This high-stakes legal battle, heard during a special session on August 24, 2026, involves two consolidated cases: Cervantes et al. v. Bianco et al. and Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco et al.

Sheriff Bianco initiated the seizure of these ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters as part of a criminal investigation. His actions were prompted by claims from a citizens' group, which alleged an audit revealed a discrepancy of 46,000 more ballots counted than cast in the Southern California county's November election. This particular election involved California’s Proposition 50, a redistricting proposal aimed at adding five Democratic seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time of the seizure, Bianco was also a gubernatorial candidate. He maintained that his office intended only to conduct a manual recount to compare the total number of ballots with reported votes.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta swiftly moved to halt the sheriff's recount, characterizing Bianco's investigation as a "fishing expedition" designed to erode public trust in elections. Bonta issued a directive for Bianco to cease all work and provide his office with relevant case files. The Attorney General later asserted that Bianco disregarded this directive and continued to misuse the criminal process. After his initial petition to the Fourth Appellate District was denied on procedural grounds, Bonta escalated the matter to the California Supreme Court. Concurrently, the UCLA Voting Rights Project, representing four Riverside voters, filed a separate petition requesting the return of the seized ballots to election officials. In response to these challenges, the California Supreme Court issued an order on April 8, instructing Sheriff Bianco to pause his investigation and preserve all seized materials pending judicial review.

During the special session in San Francisco, the core of the legal dispute centered on the interplay between criminal investigative powers and established election protocols. Chad Dunn, representing the petitioners from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, argued that Sheriff Bianco bypassed the state's Elections Code, which explicitly outlines procedures for ballot recounts through various authorized bodies, including grand juries, district attorneys, the board of supervisors, the secretary of state, and the attorney general. Dunn highlighted that Bianco obtained a warrant to seize the ballots and commenced a recount using sheriff’s department personnel, supervised by a Superior Court judge-appointed special master, but notably without the presence of election officials, neutral observers, or political party representatives. Dunn emphasized that voters' ballots were handled in a manner contrary to legislative intent.

Further reinforcing the petitioners' stance, Kevin Calia, representing the California Secretary of State’s Office, asserted that ballots should never have been removed from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. Calia cited a specific provision within the California Elections Code that unequivocally states, “in no event shall the package or its contents be taken from the custody of the election officials.” Conversely, Bradley W. Hertz, counsel for Sheriff Bianco, defended his client's actions by arguing that the sheriff was obligated to investigate claims of election fraud. Hertz contended that Bianco adhered to the Penal Code by securing sworn declarations to obtain a warrant from a neutral magistrate judge. However, the justices expressed skepticism regarding Hertz’s interpretation of the Elections Code’s "in no event" clause, questioning whether it truly allowed for any circumstances under which ballots could be removed from election officials' custody.

The California Supreme Court Bianco ballot seizure case holds significant implications for the future of election administration and law enforcement's role in investigating alleged fraud. This ruling will establish a critical precedent, defining the boundaries of police authority to seize election materials and conduct investigations into voting irregularities. The central tension lies in reconciling the Penal Code's provisions for criminal investigations with the California Elections Code's strictures on ballot custody and recount procedures.

Attorney General Bonta's concerns about the investigation being a "fishing expedition" that could "sow distrust and undermine public confidence in our elections" underscore the broader societal impact of this case. The court's decision will clarify whether law enforcement, even when pursuing claims of fraud, can override the established safeguards designed to protect the integrity and chain of custody of ballots. This outcome will be crucial for election officials, legal practitioners involved in election integrity litigation, and the public, as it will determine the permissible scope of investigative actions and the protocols governing ballot custody in California.

This California Supreme Court case will set a crucial precedent defining the boundaries of law enforcement's power to seize election ballots and investigate alleged fraud, clarifying the interplay between criminal procedure and the state's Elections Code. Lawyers advising election officials or involved in election integrity litigation must monitor the ruling for its impact on permissible investigative actions and ballot custody protocols.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News