SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a legal challenge in March 2026, arguing the sheriff has no authority over election materials. Attorney General Rob Bonta ordered Sheriff Bianco to return the ballots, but Bianco did not comply. The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project sued Sheriff Bianco on behalf of several Riverside County voters.

Chad Dunn, legal director and co-founder of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, told the court: "The elections code provides a process. Citizens could have triggered a recount within, I think, it’s five days of the canvass, and they chose not to do that. They could ask the attorney general, the secretary of state, and there’s other officials to trigger an official recount." Dunn told the judges: "Nowhere else in election law, in this state, in any other that I’m familiar with, does anybody get to handle ballots on their own in the back room with their deputies."

Bradley Hertz, who represented Bianco, argued the sheriff had a legal duty to open an investigation after receiving a complaint and followed the penal code, first issuing search warrants in February. Bianco obtained three search warrants from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel. Hertz said Bianco has not returned the ballots to the Riverside County registrar of voters because those ballots are "evidence." Hertz said: "The sheriff is holding that evidence, safeguarding it as a custodian for the court."

Sheriff Chad Bianco said after the hearing: "I did this and this was legal. I went a different route. They are legal. Both routes are legal. It's just their side doesn't like the route I chose." Bianco said he hopes the court will rule his way and that if ordered to return the ballots, he will comply, but suggested his office would continue its investigation.

Sheriff Bianco began recounting the vote using sheriff’s officials under the supervision of a court-appointed special master but suspended the effort days later, citing mounting legal challenges. Justice Kelli Evans questioned Bradley Hertz, noting that the language of the state election law says ballots shall not be taken from the custody of the elections official "in no event." Justice Goodwin Liu stated that it would seem bizarre if a sheriff could seize ballots during an investigation only to be forced to hand them back during prosecution. California Solicitor General Sam Harbourt argued that the California constitution grants the attorney general "direct supervision" over sheriffs. Justice Joshua Groban described a hypothetical conversation between a manager and a new employee to illustrate that "direct supervision" implies control over actions.

Why It Matters

The California Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the case and has not announced a specific date for its decision, but the ruling is expected within 90 days of the court taking the cases under submission. The outcome will determine whether sheriffs have the authority to seize ballots under state election law and define the scope of the Attorney General's supervisory power over sheriffs. This case involves the highest court of the U.S. state of California reviewing actions that affect voter confidence and the integrity of election administration.

Timeline

On January 5, 2001, an Order of the Attorney General was issued pursuant to sections 401 and 411 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The redistricting measure in the November 2025 special election passed in Riverside County by roughly 80,000 votes. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized 1,000 boxes of election materials in March 2026 to investigate a complaint from a local citizens group that the vote count was off. At the time of the ballot seizure, Chad Bianco was running for governor in the June primary but did not advance to the general election.

What's New

Later reporting confirmed that the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on August 24, 2026, regarding Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on redistricting. The California Supreme Court on August 24, 2026, heard arguments in a case involving Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and more than 650,000 seized ballots. The California Supreme Court heard arguments on August 24, 2026, in a special session about two cases concerning the seizure of 650,000 ballots by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Additional details emerged that Chad Dunn said after the hearing: "The case is going to send a message around the country. That our election ballots are the voters’ ballots to be protected at all costs." Further reporting indicated Bradley Hertz argued that the authority conferred on the attorney general was like that of an "elder statesman" restricted from going further than dispensing advice. Sheriff Bianco said he hopes the court will rule his way and that if ordered to return the ballots, he will comply, but suggested his office would continue its investigation. The California Supreme Court heard a sheriff’s claims on August 24, 2026, that he didn’t break state election law when he seized 650,000 ballots over alleged voter fraud. The high court heard oral arguments on August 24, 2026, regarding Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on redistricting.

How Sources Differ

Regarding the status of the ballots, Bradley Hertz said Bianco has not returned the ballots to the Riverside County registrar of voters because those ballots are "evidence," while other accounts describe the case as involving more than 650,000 seized ballots without specifying their current custodial designation. On the nature of the seizure, some reports state the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on redistricting, whereas the Riverside County Sheriff's Department seizure record states Sheriff Chad Bianco seized 1,000 boxes of election materials in March 2026 to investigate a complaint from a local citizens group that the vote count was off. Regarding the plaintiffs, one perspective frames the issue as the California Supreme Court hearing arguments regarding the seizure of ballots, while the UCLA Voting Rights Project lawsuit filing notes the organization sued Sheriff Bianco on behalf of several Riverside County voters.

On the investigation process, some sources note the court heard arguments regarding the seizure of ballots, while the Riverside County Sheriff's Department record states Sheriff Bianco began recounting the vote using sheriff’s officials under the supervision of a court-appointed special master but suspended the effort days later, citing mounting legal challenges. Regarding the election outcome, some reports focus on the court hearing arguments about the seizure of ballots from a special election on redistricting, while the Riverside County Registrar of Voters official election results state the redistricting measure in the November 2025 special election passed in Riverside County by roughly 80,000 votes. On Bianco's political activity, some accounts mention the court hearing arguments regarding the seizure of ballots, while California Secretary of State election records note that at the time of the ballot seizure, Chad Bianco was running for governor in the June primary but did not advance to the general election. Regarding the legal basis, some sources describe the court hearing arguments regarding the seizure of ballots, while Riverside County Superior Court warrant records state Bianco obtained three search warrants from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel. On Bianco's tenure, some reports mention the court hearing arguments regarding the seizure of ballots, while background information notes Chad Bianco has served as the sheriff of Riverside County, California, since 2019.