California Supreme Court orders Riverside County sheriff to return 650,000 seized ballots

Audio By Carbonatix

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A Republican California sheriff must return more than a half-million ballots he seized for an investigation into unfounded voting improprieties in a special election last year, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in February seized approximately 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on statewide congressional redistricting favorable to Democrats and pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure easily passed statewide, and won in Bianco's county by roughly 80,000 votes.

The court called the ballots’ seizure “unlawful,” saying California law requires ballots to remain in the custody and control of election officials, even during a criminal investigation.

Bianco said in an email message to his supporters that he will comply with the court’s order.

Bianco’s ballot investigation came as President Donald Trump repeatedly disputed the results of the 2020 election, citing unsubstantiated instances of fraud. Trump’s administration in January seized ballots and other documents from an election office in Georgia. Some Republicans have mirrored Trump’s rhetoric on voting in their states.

Election officials and civil rights groups have been following the Bianco case carefully as they brace for the possibility that Trump or his allies may try to seize ballots in November.

Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately launched a legal challenge after the seizure, arguing the sheriff had no authority over election materials and warning his action was designed to sow distrust in elections. He ordered Bianco to return the ballots, but Bianco did not.

“The Court has now made clear that this kind of defiance cannot stand, that the Attorney General has the authority to intervene when sheriffs take improper action, and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials,” Bonta said Thursday.

Bianco said he confiscated the election materials after receiving a complaint from a local citizens group that the count was off. The group said it found a gap between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots received in the election for the measure, sparked by a nationwide redistricting fight.

The group said it found a roughly 45,000-vote gap between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots received by Riverside County in the special election for Proposition 50, the measure that redrew California’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.

Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco said the group misread ballot data and that the actual gap was 103, well within the margin of error set by California’s secretary of state.

At the time, Bianco was one of two prominent Republicans running for governor in a crowded June primary. He did not advance to the general election and later announced plans to seek reelection as sheriff in 2028.

The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project also sued the sheriff and the Riverside County Registrar of Voters on behalf of several voters. Xavier Becerra, a former state attorney general and Democrat running for governor, was part of the UCLA lawsuit.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases last month.

Bianco began recounting the vote shortly after seizing the ballots, using sheriff’s officials under the supervision of a special master appointed by a court. But he suspended it days later, citing mounting legal challenges. He stopped the count after the California Supreme Court ordered him to do so.

Attorney Bradley Hertz, representing Bianco, argued before the court that the sheriff had a legal duty to open the investigation after receiving the complaint and followed the penal code to carry out that investigation, first issuing search warrants in February, but the court disagreed.

“If election misconduct is suspected, the Elections Code provides several mechanisms for law enforcement to review and examine ballots without compromising their integrity,” the court wrote.

The court ruled Thursday that a search warrant does not override the state’s electoral law.

“These are the voters’ ballots. They must be protected through the processes the Legislature has established. This ruling provides important clarity for election officials, law enforcement, and voters across California,” said Chad Dunn, legal director and co-founder of the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

On Saturday, Newsom signed a bill that would prevent anyone from seizing ballots.

The court also settled whether the state's attorney general has authority over county sheriffs, saying the attorney general's orders are binding. Bianco had argued that an attorney general's role is that of an adviser.

Bianco said in his email message Thursday that while he will comply with the court's rulings, he “will not obey the message behind them — that local law enforcement works for Sacramento, not for the people who elected us.”