Republican California Sheriff’s 650,000-ballot seizure declared ‘unlawful’ — What the court said
The unanimous ruling said voted ballots must remain in the custody and control of election officials, even when law enforcement is investigating suspected election misconduct.
On September 24, the California Supreme Court declared a seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to be unlawful, ruling that the action violated state election law. The court emphasized that voted ballots must remain under the control of election officials, even during investigations into alleged voting irregularities.
The 2025 special election, which centered around Proposition 50—a congressional redistricting measure backed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom—saw Bianco seize the ballots following a complaint from a citizens' group. Despite election officials rejecting the allegations, Bianco obtained search warrants in February 2026 to seize the ballots and other election-related materials.
He subsequently began recounting the ballots under a court-appointed special master but halted the process due to legal challenges. The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the search warrants granted Bianco the right to retain the ballots as evidence. The justices clarified that California's Elections Code outlines specific procedures for investigating election misconduct without jeopardizing the security and integrity of the ballots.
The court issued an order directing Bianco to return the ballots to the Riverside County registrar. California Attorney General Rob Bonta had previously challenged Bianco's actions, contending that the sheriff lacked authority to control election materials. Bonta's case was heard alongside Riverside County voters' lawsuit. The court's decision also addressed the interplay between state authority and county law enforcement, as well as the relationship between state and county legal jurisdictions in election matters.
Bianco's attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued that investigating the complaint and following the penal code warranted obtaining search warrants. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the warrants did not override California's election-law requirements concerning the custody of voted ballots. The case garnered national attention amid ongoing debates on election security and reported voting irregularities.
Written by urgent.news from Live Mint's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
