California Supreme Court Weighs Riverside County Ballot Seizure in San Francisco

Justices consider whether a sheriff can retain ballots after an election investigation

SAN FRANCISCO, California — The California Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over whether Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must return roughly 650,000 ballots and election records seized during his investigation into a 2025 special election on redistricting.

The dispute centers on Bianco’s March seizure of about 1,000 boxes of election materials from Riverside County. The sheriff acted after a local citizens group questioned the vote count in the November 2025 election, although county election officials had already determined the complaint was unfounded. The redistricting measure passed in Riverside County by about 80,000 votes, far beyond the discrepancy alleged by the group.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta quickly challenged the seizure, arguing that a county sheriff does not have authority to take control of ballots and warning that the action could undermine confidence in elections. Bonta ordered the materials returned to the Riverside County registrar of voters, but Bianco has continued to hold them while the litigation proceeds.

The state high court is considering the attorney general’s case alongside a separate lawsuit filed by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of several Riverside County voters. Former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now a Democratic candidate for governor, is also involved in the voting-rights lawsuit.

Voting-rights lawyers say election law provides other remedies

Chad Dunn, the UCLA Voting Rights Project’s legal director and co-founder, told the justices that California election law already provides formal procedures for challenging results, including recount requests and complaints to election authorities. He argued that Bianco bypassed those established safeguards by taking ballots into the sheriff’s custody.

“The elections code provides a process,” Dunn told the court, saying voters could have sought a recount shortly after the canvass was completed or asked state officials to pursue one. He argued that election materials should not be handled independently by law-enforcement deputies outside the county’s election administration system.

Bianco had initially started a recount using sheriff’s personnel under the supervision of a court-appointed special master. That work was paused days later as legal challenges from Bonta’s office and voting-rights advocates mounted. The ballots, however, have not been returned.

Bradley Hertz, representing Bianco, told the court that the sheriff was obligated to investigate after receiving the citizens group’s complaint. Hertz said Bianco obtained search warrants in February and followed state criminal-law procedures. The ballots remain evidence, he argued, and the sheriff is safeguarding them as a custodian for the court.

Case carries broader implications for election administration

The California Supreme Court ballot seizure case could clarify the limits of law-enforcement involvement in election disputes. Election officials generally maintain custody of ballots to preserve chain-of-custody protections, while state law sets deadlines and procedures for recounts and election contests.

Bianco defended his actions after Monday’s hearing, telling reporters he would take the same course if presented with a similar complaint. He said his investigation was legal and maintained that he had chosen a lawful route that his opponents disliked.

The seizure occurred while Bianco was one of two high-profile Republicans seeking the governorship in a crowded June primary. He did not advance to the general election and later said he plans to seek reelection as Riverside County sheriff in 2028.

Becerra said he hopes the court issues a prompt ruling that protects voters and ballots. The legal battle comes amid continuing national disputes over election integrity, including unfounded fraud claims promoted by President Donald Trump following the 2020 election. The California Supreme Court has not announced when it will issue a decision, and the Riverside County ballots remain in the sheriff’s custody.