SAN FRANCISCO – Recently, the California Supreme Court has been deliberating on a significant case involving a sheriff from Southern California. This case revolves around Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who seized a large number of ballots from a recent election and is now being challenged on whether he must return them to the county election officials.
In November 2025, Riverside County held a special election concerning redistricting, which was passed by a margin of about 80,000 votes. Following this, Bianco took the controversial step of seizing around 650,000 ballots to investigate a complaint from a local group claiming the count was inaccurate. However, local election officials had already deemed this complaint baseless.
Recommended Videos
Bianco’s actions took place while he was also a candidate for governor, raising questions about his motivations. In response to the seizure, California Attorney General Rob Bonta quickly filed a legal challenge, asserting that the sheriff lacks authority over election materials and suggesting his actions created unnecessary distrust in the electoral process.
The UCLA Voting Rights Project joined the legal fray, filing a suit on behalf of several voters from Riverside County. During the Supreme Court hearing, Chad Dunn, a legal expert from UCLA, emphasized that there are established procedures for contesting election results. He stated, “Citizens could have triggered a recount within, I think, it’s five days of the canvass, and they chose not to do that.”
Bianco began recounting the votes with the help of his deputies, monitored by a court-appointed special master, but halted this process amid rising legal challenges. He has yet to return the seized ballots to the officials responsible for the election.
In court, Dunn pointed out, “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.” This statement underscores the unconventional nature of Bianco’s actions.
Bianco’s attorney, Bradley Hertz, defended the sheriff’s actions by stating that he had a legal obligation to investigate the complaint and followed the protocols laid out in the penal code. Hertz argued that the ballots are considered “evidence” related to the investigation.
After the hearing, Bianco expressed his willingness to seize ballots again if faced with a similar complaint, insisting that his actions were legally justified. He stated, “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.”
At the time of the ballot seizure, Bianco was vying for the governor’s position but did not advance to the general election. He later announced plans for reelection as sheriff in 2028.
Former state attorney general Xavier Becerra, who is also running for governor, is part of the UCLA lawsuit aimed at stopping Bianco’s actions. Becerra emphasized the importance of protecting voters’ rights, stating, “We hope that the Supreme Court of California will issue a swift decision protecting the right to vote, protecting the ballots that are cast by our voters.”
This case has garnered attention in the context of the ongoing national conversation about election integrity, especially as many political figures, including former President Donald Trump, have made claims about election fraud without substantial evidence. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for how election disputes are handled in the future.
