The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco violated state election law by seizing more than 650,000 ballots from the Proposition 50 special election earlier this year. The court issued two unanimous decisions ordering Bianco to immediately return all seized ballots to county officials and cease his investigation into alleged election improprieties.
The court found the seizure unlawful, stating in its ruling that voted ballots must remain in the custody of elections officials under state law. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that while allegations of election misconduct are serious, the Elections Code provides established mechanisms for investigating such claims without compromising ballot integrity. The court emphasized that only a public prosecutor may initiate a criminal prosecution, and even then, ballots cannot be removed from the registrar’s physical custody.
The ruling comes less than two weeks before Californians begin voting in the gubernatorial race and several hotly contested congressional contests. Advocates warned during oral arguments that similar interference could recur in upcoming elections unless the court issued clear directives.
Sheriff’s Actions and Legal Challenges
Bianco, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate and prominent MAGA-aligned figure, seized the ballots in February as part of an investigation into alleged discrepancies in the Proposition 50 vote count. He claimed his agency was conducting a "fact-finding mission" after a local group alleged that 45,800 more votes were reported to the Secretary of State than appeared in the registrar’s hand tally.
The seizure triggered immediate legal challenges from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the UCLA Voting Rights Project, and local Riverside County leaders. Bonta’s office filed a lawsuit arguing that Bianco overstepped his authority by removing ballots from the registrar’s custody, while the UCLA Voting Rights Project led a separate suit challenging the legality of the seizure. County elections officials also disputed Bianco’s claims, asserting that the discrepancy was administrative, not evidence of fraud.
In its ruling, the court rejected Bianco’s argument that sheriffs have unfettered authority to commandeer election materials. The justices stated that state law explicitly prohibits the removal of ballots from the registrar’s physical custody, even for investigative purposes. The court also noted that Bianco ignored directives from the Attorney General, further undermining his legal position.
Political and Legal Fallout
The court’s decision marks a significant setback for Bianco, who has long been associated with election integrity conspiracy theories and has previously aligned himself with former President Donald Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud. Critics argue that his actions were politically motivated, intended to undermine confidence in the election results ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Supporters of Bianco, however, contend that his investigation was a legitimate effort to ensure election integrity, pointing to the discrepancy in vote tallies as a potential red flag. They argue that local law enforcement should have the authority to investigate alleged irregularities, even if it involves seizing ballots.
Legal experts and voting rights advocates warn that the court’s ruling sets a clear precedent for future elections, reinforcing that only designated election officials—not law enforcement—have the authority to handle voted ballots. Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, who led one of the lawsuits against Bianco, stated that the ruling sends a message that "no one is above the law, not even a sheriff."
The court’s order requires Bianco to refrain from further handling the ballots except to comply with the ruling. The Riverside County Registrar’s Office is expected to regain custody of the ballots promptly. The decision does not address potential disciplinary action against Bianco, leaving that matter unresolved.
Background: Proposition 50 and the Seizure
Proposition 50, a redistricting measure passed by California voters in a special election last fall, eliminated five Republican-held congressional districts in response to gerrymandering efforts in other states. The measure was part of a broader Democratic strategy to reshape the state’s electoral map ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Bianco’s seizure of the ballots occurred amid heightened scrutiny of election integrity in the state. His actions drew widespread criticism from election officials, civil rights groups, and Democratic leaders, who accused him of undermining democratic processes for political gain. The court’s ruling underscores the legal limits of such interventions, emphasizing that election disputes must be resolved through established legal channels, not unilateral actions by law enforcement.