The Dispute Index

Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized about 650,000 ballots in early 2026 under search warrants, citing a disputed vote discrepancy. The California Supreme Court held the seizure unlawful; Bianco says his investigation was lawful and disagrees with the ruling.

Claim in dispute

The Riverside County Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the county's Proposition 50 ballots and other election materials under search warrants issued by a judge, because Elections Code section 15551(d) can be read to permit a seizure under a valid judicial warrant.

Read the original text (opens in a new tab)

Case period:

Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated

Chad BiancoRiverside County Sheriff's OfficeRob BontaArt TinocoShirley Weber
Election SecurityVoting RightsLaw Enforcement2026 Midterm Elections

Overview

The fixed reference point for classification in this case is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure and handling of about 650,000 ballots taken from the county registrar of voters on February 26, 2026, and the further election materials taken on March 24, including the count his department's staff began and his continuing the investigation after Attorney General Rob Bonta directed him to pause. A statement that says the seizure or handling was unlawful or wrong is recorded as condemning it; a statement that says it was lawful or justified is recorded as defending it. Responses are recorded against that specific matter, not against the result of the Proposition 50 election, the broader debate over election fraud, or the sheriff's earlier election inquiries.

Voters approved Proposition 50 on November 4, 2025, and 56.3 percent of Riverside County votes were in favor (Bonta v. Bianco (opens in a new tab)). In February 2026 a citizens' group, the Riverside Election Integrity Team, told the sheriff's department that its analysis of handwritten intake records showed 45,896 fewer ballots than the 657,322 the registrar counted. On February 10, Registrar Art Tinoco told the Board of Supervisors that the group had relied on preliminary records and that the variance between his two ballot-tracking systems was 103 ballots, or 0.016 percent (Cervantes v. Bianco, Justice Liu concurring (opens in a new tab)). The court said that discrepancy is disputed, that it was not asked to resolve it, and that everyone agrees the claimed gap could not have changed the election's outcome.

The sheriff's department obtained search warrants on February 9, February 23 and March 19. It executed the first on February 26, taking about 1,000 boxes of ballots a day ahead of the planned February 27 date, after the Attorney General's office had asked for a postponement, and executed the second on March 24.

Bonta directed Bianco on February 26 to preserve the materials and pause the investigation. Sheriff's department staff began hand-counting the ballots on March 5 and stopped, and Bianco said at a March 20 news conference that the investigation would continue (Press-Enterprise (opens in a new tab)). Bonta petitioned the courts on March 23, and the UCLA Voting Rights Project, for four county voters, petitioned the California Supreme Court on March 25. On April 8 the Supreme Court ordered the investigation paused and the seized items preserved (Press-Enterprise (opens in a new tab)).

On September 24, 2026, the court unanimously held that the seizure was unlawful because Elections Code section 15551(d) says voted ballots shall "[i]n no event" be taken from the elections official's custody, and ordered Bianco to return the ballots to the registrar (Cervantes v. Bianco (opens in a new tab)). In a companion ruling it held that the Attorney General's constitutional and statutory authority includes binding directions to a sheriff about a particular investigation, and ordered Bianco to comply with them (Bonta v. Bianco (opens in a new tab)). The court denied the rest of the petition without prejudice, saying petitioners had not shown a duty to return non-ballot materials and that the parties had not briefed the effect of Senate Bill 1418, signed September 19.

Bianco and the California State Sheriffs' Association argue the investigation rested on warrants issued by a judge and that the Attorney General cannot halt a sheriff's lawful investigation. Bonta argues the warrants rested on affidavits that did not establish probable cause, and Bonta, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and the petitioning voters argue that state law requires ballots to stay with the registrar. Bianco told supporters after the ruling that he will obey the writs (Politico (opens in a new tab)).

People in this case

Timeline

14 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 6, 2026 to September 24, 2026

  1. February 2026

    4 events

    1. Citizens' group reports a 45,896-ballot discrepancy to the sheriff's department

      Claim

      On February 6, 2026, a representative of the Riverside Election Integrity Team contacted the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to report the group's calculation, from Registrar of Voters records, that 611,426 valid ballots were cast in the November 4, 2025 special election on Proposition 50, which was 45,896 fewer than the 657,322 the registrar counted. The California Supreme Court later described the discrepancy as disputed.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)
      [02]Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

      Source excerpt

      We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

      Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring

    2. Sheriff's department obtains a sealed warrant for all ballots from the special election

      Incident

      On February 9, the sheriff's department obtained from the Riverside County Superior Court a search warrant authorizing the seizure from the registrar of all ballots pertaining to the 2025 special election. The supporting affidavit described the alleged discrepancy and said the ballots were necessary "to prove or disprove any criminal conduct." The warrants were later reported to have been signed by Judge Jay Kiel, whom Bianco had endorsed in 2022; Bianco said it was coincidence that Kiel was the duty judge that day.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)
      [03]Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say

      Source excerpt

      On Wednesday, April 8, the California Supreme Court ordered a pause in the probe until it further reviews the investigation

      Press-Enterprise report on the unsealed warrants, the California Supreme Court's April 8 order pausing the investigation, and reactions from legal scholars and Sheriff Bianco.

      Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the unsealed warrants and the April 8 Supreme Court order
      [04]Chad Bianco defends getting warrant from judge who praised him

      Source excerpt

      “It’s impossible to know who the duty judge is on that day,” he said in an interview Thursday

      CalMatters report on Sheriff Bianco's March 26 interview, the three warrants signed by Riverside Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel, whom Bianco endorsed in 2022, and the sealing of the warrants.

      Chad Bianco defends getting warrant from judge who praised him · CalMattersReport on Bianco's interview and the warrant judge

    3. Registrar tells the Board of Supervisors the reported discrepancy reflects misread records

      Claim

      At a public meeting of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco presented data from the county's two ballot-tracking systems showing 657,219 ballots cast and 657,322 counted, a variance of 103 ballots, or 0.016 percent. He said the citizens' group's figure relied on preliminary, handwritten records that did not account for some categories of ballots. Members of the group spoke afterward and said the handwritten records were accurate and reliable, and sheriff's department personnel attended the meeting.

      [02]Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

      Source excerpt

      We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

      Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring
      [05]Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

      Source excerpt

      Respondent therefore does not oppose the relief requested in the Petition

      The Registrar of Voters' return in the California Supreme Court, verified by Art Tinoco. It states his position on ballot custody, on his own compliance with the warrants, and on the voters' request that the ballots be returned.

      Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Part I, p. 26
      [06]Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office

      Source excerpt

      “conducting an investigation into alleged irregularities in our elections.”

      Press-Enterprise report in which the Sheriff's Office confirmed the investigation and Registrar Art Tinoco's February 10 explanation to the Board of Supervisors was described.

      Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the sheriff's office statement and the Registrar's Feb. 10 presentation

    4. Sheriff's department seizes about 1,000 boxes of ballots; Attorney General directs a pause

      Incident

      After a representative of the Attorney General's office asked on February 24 that execution of the February 9 warrant be postponed from February 27 to March 6, the sheriff's department executed it on February 26 and seized 12 pallets, about 1,000 boxes, of ballots, which were taken to a storage facility accessible only to sheriff's department employees. Later that day Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote to Bianco directing him to preserve everything seized and pause further action until the Attorney General's office could review the matter, and said the affidavits identified no specific felony offenses the sheriff had probable cause to believe were committed.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)

  2. March 2026

    5 events

    1. Sheriff's department staff begin a hand count of the ballots and then stop

      Incident

      On March 4 the Attorney General wrote that he had learned the sheriff intended to ignore his directives and have untrained department staff count the seized ballots. On March 5 sheriff's department employees began a hand count. That day Bianco emailed the Attorney General's office that the department was complying with the directive pending further communications, and the count stopped; the ballots were returned to their boxes and resealed.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)

    2. Sheriff's department obtains a third warrant and asks for a special master

      Incident

      Without notifying the Attorney General, the sheriff's department obtained a third search warrant. Its affidavit said counting had begun on March 5 and that the Attorney General had sent letters that directed or requested a pause, and asked for a special master to oversee counting the ballots "in an effort to avoid any potential appearance of impropriety." The court issued the warrant but did not appoint a special master.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)

    3. Bianco describes the investigation at a news conference; Bonta and Weber respond

      Claim

      At a news conference at sheriff's headquarters, Sheriff Bianco said the investigation would determine whether the alleged 45,000-vote discrepancy was valid by physically counting the ballots and would continue despite the Attorney General's attempts to stop it. Attorney General Bonta's office said the investigation appeared not to be based on facts or evidence, and Secretary of State Shirley Weber said the sheriff's office had acted on allegations that lack credible evidence. The sheriff's office had confirmed the investigation in a statement reported on March 17.

      [07]Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      This investigation is simple. Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.

      Video of the March 20, 2026 news conference at which Sheriff Bianco publicly described the ballot investigation, said a court had ordered a special master, and responded to the Attorney General's directives to halt it.

      Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026) · Riverside County Sheriff's OfficeStatement at 02:41-02:57, 03:20-03:45 and 04:04-04:11
      [08]Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots

      Source excerpt

      “There is no legal justification for the attorney general to stop a lawful investigation,” he said

      Press-Enterprise report on the March 20 news conference, with responses from Attorney General Bonta's office and Secretary of State Weber.

      Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and Weber
      [09]California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., Sets the Record Straight about Accusations of Election Irregularities and Investigation Interference in Riverside County

      Source excerpt

      The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections.

      Secretary of State Shirley Weber's press release responding to the Sheriff's March 20 news conference.

      California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., Sets the Record Straight about Accusations of Election Irregularities and Investigation Interference in Riverside County · Shirley WeberPress release PR26-33, March 20, 2026
      [06]Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office

      Source excerpt

      “conducting an investigation into alleged irregularities in our elections.”

      Press-Enterprise report in which the Sheriff's Office confirmed the investigation and Registrar Art Tinoco's February 10 explanation to the Board of Supervisors was described.

      Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the sheriff's office statement and the Registrar's Feb. 10 presentation

    4. Court of Appeal declines the Attorney General's petition; second warrant executed

      Incident

      The Attorney General filed a petition in the Court of Appeal on March 23. The court denied it on March 24, saying he had not shown he lacked an adequate remedy in the Riverside County Superior Court. On March 24 the sheriff's department executed the February 23 warrant and seized another 11 pallets of election materials from the registrar.

      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)
      [10]Court denies California's bid to halt Riverside sheriff's recount of 2025 election ballots

      Source excerpt

      Bonta’s lawsuit in the 4th District Court of Appeal, filed Monday

      CalMatters report on the Attorney General's petition in the Court of Appeal, filed March 23 and denied March 24, and on the sheriff's response.

      Court denies California's bid to halt Riverside sheriff's recount of 2025 election ballots · CalMattersReport on the Court of Appeal's denial of the Attorney General's petition

    5. Riverside County voters petition the California Supreme Court for the ballots' return

      On March 25, the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for four Riverside County voters, asking it to order the sheriff to return the seized ballots and election materials to the registrar. On March 26 Bianco filed a sworn declaration saying the department would not do any counting and had paused its investigation pending the writ proceeding in the Attorney General's case, and on March 30 he said the investigation was "on hold."

      [11]California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots

      Source excerpt

      “A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws,” said Sonni Waknin

      Press release from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which represents four Riverside County voters, on the August 24 oral argument in Cervantes v. Bianco.

      California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots · UCLA Voting Rights ProjectPress release dated August 24, 2026
      [12]Declaration of Sheriff Chad Bianco in Support of Respondents' Preliminary Opposition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

      Source excerpt

      RSO will not do any counting and has paused its investigation pending the resolution of the writ of mandate.

      Sheriff Bianco's sworn declaration filed in the California Supreme Court, describing the warrants, the basis for the investigation and the pause in counting.

      Declaration of Sheriff Chad Bianco in Support of Respondents' Preliminary Opposition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaDeclaration, paragraphs 3-16, executed March 26, 2026
      [13]Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor

      Source excerpt

      “It’s very refreshing to see local law enforcement take action on these types of issues,” Dhillon said on Newsmax March 28.

      USA TODAY report that quotes Harmeet Dhillon's March 28 Newsmax remarks about Sheriff Bianco's seizure, and Bianco's March 31 interview with the newspaper.

      Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor · USA TodaySection 'Revisiting elections in Georgia and Arizona, too'

  3. 14 days between recorded events

    April 2026

    2 events

    1. California Supreme Court orders the investigation paused and the seized items preserved

      On April 8, the California Supreme Court ordered Bianco and his office to pause the investigation into the November 2025 special election and preserve all seized items while it reviewed the Attorney General's petition. The three search warrants were also made public that day.

      [14]California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to pause election probe and preserve seized ballots

      Source excerpt

      Bianco and his office "are hereby ordered to pause the investigation into the November 2025 special election and preserve all seized items," the order reads.

      Associated Press report, carried by PBS News, on the California Supreme Court's April 8 order in the Attorney General's case.

      California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to pause election probe and preserve seized ballots · Associated PressReport on the April 8 order
      [03]Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say

      Source excerpt

      On Wednesday, April 8, the California Supreme Court ordered a pause in the probe until it further reviews the investigation

      Press-Enterprise report on the unsealed warrants, the California Supreme Court's April 8 order pausing the investigation, and reactions from legal scholars and Sheriff Bianco.

      Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the unsealed warrants and the April 8 Supreme Court order
      [15]Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants

      Source excerpt

      One of the claims made is that ballots were about to be destroyed.

      Election law scholar Rick Hasen's post on the day the three Riverside County search warrants were made public, with links to the warrants.

      Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants · Rick HasenElection Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC

    2. Board of Supervisors votes not to pay for outside counsel for the sheriff

      On April 14, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted not to authorize the hiring or payment of outside counsel to defend the sheriff in the lawsuits arising from his election investigation, according to Justice Goodwin Liu's concurring opinion in Cervantes v. Bianco.

      [02]Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

      Source excerpt

      We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

      Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring

  4. 132 days between recorded events

    August 2026

    1 event

    1. California Supreme Court hears argument in both cases

      The California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cervantes v. Bianco and Bonta v. Bianco in a 95-minute session, hearing from counsel for the voters, the Attorney General as amicus curiae, the Secretary of State, Sheriff Bianco and the Registrar of Voters. It did not rule that day.

      [11]California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots

      Source excerpt

      “A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws,” said Sonni Waknin

      Press release from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which represents four Riverside County voters, on the August 24 oral argument in Cervantes v. Bianco.

      California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots · UCLA Voting Rights ProjectPress release dated August 24, 2026

  5. 26 days between recorded events

    September 2026

    2 events

    1. Governor signs Senate Bill 1418 and related election-protection bills

      On September 19, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1418, which broadened the Elections Code provision barring the removal of election materials from an elections official's custody. Related bills, including Assembly Bill 282 on criminal liability for seizing ballots before certification, were signed in the days before the ruling, following Senate Bill 73 earlier in 2026. The California Supreme Court discussed Senate Bill 1418 in its ruling.

      [02]Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

      Source excerpt

      We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

      Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring

    2. California Supreme Court rules the seizure unlawful and upholds the Attorney General's directives

      Source release

      In Cervantes v. Bianco the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful under Elections Code section 15551(d) and issued a writ directing Bianco to return all packages containing voted ballots to the registrar and refrain from further handling them. In Bonta v. Bianco it unanimously held that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation and issued a writ directing Bianco to comply with his instructions to take no further action on the investigation, retain seized records and provide requested materials.

      [02]Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

      Source excerpt

      We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

      Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring
      [01]Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

      Source excerpt

      the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.

      The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

      Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)
      [16]Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules

      Source excerpt

      “We are very disappointed and wholeheartedly disagree with the court’s ruling,”

      CalMatters report on the California Supreme Court's two rulings, quoting Sheriff Bianco's written statement, Attorney General Bonta's news conference remarks, and the court's opinions.

      Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules · CalMattersReport on the rulings; Bianco's written statement
      [17]California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight

      Source excerpt

      Bianco said in a telephone interview Thursday he was “extremely disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision.

      Press-Enterprise report on the rulings with statements from Bianco, Bonta, Newsom and petitioner Clarissa Cervantes.

      California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interview

Claims

Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.

What's disputed

Disputed claim

The Riverside County Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the county's Proposition 50 ballots and other election materials under search warrants issued by a judge, because Elections Code section 15551(d) can be read to permit a seizure under a valid judicial warrant.

Chad Bianco

Sources (2)

Disputed claim

The Attorney General has no legal authority to order a sheriff to halt or pause a lawful criminal investigation.

Chad Bianco

Sources (2)

Disputed claim

Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

Shirley Weber

Sources (2)

Disputed claim

The Attorney General's constitutional and statutory supervisory authority over sheriffs includes the power to give binding directions about a criminal investigation, including to preserve seized items and pause the investigation, and Sheriff Bianco was required to comply.

Rob Bonta

Sources (2)

Response record

Responses

Latest recorded positions: 15. Dates: March 20, 2026 to September 24, 2026

Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.

15 responses on this page

  1. Campaign Legal Center
    "Sheriff Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots is a dangerous escalation and blatantly unlawful intrusion by law enforcement … In Riverside County and a growing number of localities across the country, actions like this risk disrupting critical chain of custody procedures, endangering sensitive voter data, sidestepping recount and contest procedures, and amplifying baseless claims, ultimately undermining the freedom to vote."
    Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Win for Democracy: Supreme Court of California Orders Sheriff to Return Unlawfully Seized Ballots · Campaign Legal CenterPress release dated September 24, 2026; statement of Bruce V. Spiva
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    Campaign Legal Center senior vice president Bruce V. Spiva called Sheriff Bianco's seizure a "dangerous escalation and blatantly unlawful intrusion by law enforcement" and said actions like it risk disrupting chain of custody procedures and undermining the freedom to vote.

    Role at the time: Legal organization that filed a brief for Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California; statement by Senior Vice President Bruce V. Spiva

    Before the statement

    The statement was part of a press release on the California Supreme Court's ruling, which noted the organization's brief supporting the petitions.

    After the statement

    The release also quoted the executive director of the League of Women Voters of California and a Common Cause program manager welcoming the ruling.

    Win for Democracy: Supreme Court of California Orders Sheriff to Return Unlawfully Seized Ballots · Campaign Legal CenterPress release dated September 24, 2026; statement of Bruce V. Spiva

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. The organization calls the seizure illegal and blatantly unlawful, which expressly rejects the conduct.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  2. Gavin Newsom
    "Governor Gavin Newsom today released the following statement in response to the California Supreme Court ruling Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco illegally seized hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election … Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government. And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again. People deserve to know their ballot is counted and secure, and in California we will do everything we can to protect that constitutional right — this year, and beyond."
    Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Governor Newsom on the California Supreme Court ruling Sheriff Bianco illegally seized ballots · Gavin NewsomPress release, statement of Governor Gavin Newsom
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    Governor Gavin Newsom's office said the California Supreme Court had ruled that Sheriff Bianco "illegally seized" hundreds of thousands of ballots, and Newsom said the ruling shows California will "defend democracy" and that new laws he signed add protections "so attacks like this cannot happen again".

    Role at the time: Governor of California

    Before the statement

    The statement responded to the California Supreme Court's ruling in Cervantes v. Bianco on the day it was issued.

    After the statement

    The release noted that Newsom had signed a 13-bill election protection package the previous week.

    Governor Newsom on the California Supreme Court ruling Sheriff Bianco illegally seized ballots · Gavin NewsomPress release, statement of Governor Gavin Newsom

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. The Governor describes the seizure as illegal and as an attack that new laws are meant to prevent, which expressly rejects the conduct.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  3. Rob BontaDirectly involved
    "Election fraud can and should be investigated. But misuse of criminal investigative tools — without any evidence that a crime was committed — needlessly undermines trust in our elections system and in law enforcement. After the Sheriff took the extraordinary step of obtaining warrants to seize control over voted ballots, I made a modest request to him: pause your investigation, preserve all evidence, and provide the information needed for my office to review the allegations. Instead, Sheriff Bianco pressed forward with the seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots. 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."
    Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Attorney General Bonta Secures Major Victories from State's Highest Court, Confirming Authority to Issue Binding Directives to Riverside Sheriff and Ordering Sheriff to Return Voted Ballots to the Registrar of Voters · Rob BontaPress release, statement of Attorney General Rob Bonta
    Condemned

    Responding to: The Attorney General's constitutional and statutory supervisory authority over sheriffs includes the power to give binding directions about a criminal investigation, including to preserve seized items and pause the investigation, and Sheriff Bianco was required to comply.

    Read more

    Attorney General Rob Bonta said election fraud can be investigated but that misusing criminal investigative tools without evidence of a crime undermines trust, and that after he asked Sheriff Bianco to pause and preserve evidence, Bianco "pressed forward" with the seizure. He said the court had made clear that "this kind of defiance cannot stand" and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials.

    Role at the time: California Attorney General; petitioner in Bonta v. Bianco and amicus curiae in Cervantes v. Bianco

    Before the statement

    The statement accompanied the California Supreme Court's two rulings and followed the Attorney General's February 26 directive to Bianco to preserve the seized materials and pause the investigation, which the court held lawful.

    After the statement

    The release added that Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1418, sponsored by the Attorney General, the previous week to strengthen protections for election materials.

    Attorney General Bonta Secures Major Victories from State's Highest Court, Confirming Authority to Issue Binding Directives to Riverside Sheriff and Ordering Sheriff to Return Voted Ballots to the Registrar of Voters · Rob BontaPress release, statement of Attorney General Rob Bonta

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Bonta says the seizure misused criminal investigative tools and that Bianco's refusal to pause was defiance that cannot stand, which expressly rejects the conduct; his statement that fraud can be investigated does not soften that.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  4. Chad BiancoDirectly involved
    "We are very disappointed and wholeheartedly disagree with the court’s ruling … The investigation was a lawful and legal investigation into potential election fraud. The facts of this case have never been disputed, this was an obvious legal attempt to prevent the investigation from occurring that was successful. … The AG now has unchecked power over any investigation in the state of California … I will obey the writs. I will not obey the message behind them — that local law enforcement works for Sacramento, not for the people who elected us."
    Open source (opens in a new tab)Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules · CalMattersReport on the rulings; Bianco's written statement
    Open source (opens in a new tab)California Supreme Court orders Riverside County sheriff to return 650,000 seized ballots · Associated PressReport on the rulings; Bianco statement and email to supporters
    Open source (opens in a new tab)California Supreme Court orders seized ballots returned in Riverside County case · PoliticoReport on the rulings; Bianco fundraising email
    Open source (opens in a new tab)California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interview
    Defended or excused

    Responding to: The Riverside County Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the county's Proposition 50 ballots and other election materials under search warrants issued by a judge, because Elections Code section 15551(d) can be read to permit a seizure under a valid judicial warrant.

    Read more

    After the California Supreme Court's rulings, Sheriff Chad Bianco said in a written statement that he was "very disappointed" and disagreed with the ruling, and that the investigation was a lawful investigation into potential election fraud. In a fundraising email he said he would obey the writs but not "the message behind them".

    Role at the time: Riverside County Sheriff

    Before the statement

    The California Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful and that the Attorney General's directives to Bianco were binding.

    After the statement

    Bianco told the Press-Enterprise that his attorneys would discuss possible next steps, including a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's opinion described the alleged vote discrepancy as disputed and did not resolve it.

    Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules · CalMattersReport on the rulings; Bianco's written statement
    California Supreme Court orders Riverside County sheriff to return 650,000 seized ballots · Associated PressReport on the rulings; Bianco statement and email to supporters
    California Supreme Court orders seized ballots returned in Riverside County case · PoliticoReport on the rulings; Bianco fundraising email
    California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interview

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that the court was wrong, so he defends the seizure; his statement that he will obey the writs concerns compliance and does not retract that position.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  5. Justin Levitt
    "The applications, like earlier investigations in Riverside, identified no probable cause to believe that the ballots to be seized would yield evidence of any criminal act. And that makes the warrants not only improper but also a misplaced displacement of authority from one sphere to another that the California Supreme Court can and should address."
    Open source (opens in a new tab)Search Warrants for Election Materials Get Their Day in Court · LawfareLawfare article published 2026-09-02
    Condemned

    Responding to: The Riverside County Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the county's Proposition 50 ballots and other election materials under search warrants issued by a judge, because Elections Code section 15551(d) can be read to permit a seizure under a valid judicial warrant.

    Read more

    Election law scholar Justin Levitt wrote in Lawfare that the warrant applications identified no probable cause to believe the ballots would yield evidence of a crime, and that the warrants were therefore "not only improper but also a misplaced displacement of authority".

    Role at the time: Professor of law at Loyola Law School and election law scholar, writing in Lawfare

    Before the statement

    The article was published after the August 24 oral argument in the California Supreme Court.

    After the statement

    Levitt wrote that systems for reviewing and auditing elections belong to civil processes, while the criminal process is meant to address intentional malfeasance.

    Search Warrants for Election Materials Get Their Day in Court · LawfareLawfare article published 2026-09-02

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Levitt says the applications showed no probable cause and calls the warrants improper, which expressly rejects the basis for the seizure.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  6. UCLA Voting Rights Project
    "Sheriff Bianco did not follow those procedures before seizing the ballots and beginning to count them outside the custody of Riverside County election officials. … What we’ve asked the court today to do is make sure sheriffs and everybody else in this state understand the Elections Code applies to them as well … A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws"
    Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots · UCLA Voting Rights ProjectPress release dated August 24, 2026
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    After the August 24 oral argument, the UCLA Voting Rights Project said Sheriff Bianco did not follow California's procedures before seizing the ballots and beginning to count them outside election officials' custody, and its counsel Sonni Waknin said "A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws".

    Role at the time: Legal advocacy organization representing four Riverside County voters in Cervantes v. Bianco

    Before the statement

    The Project filed the voters' petition on March 25 and argued Cervantes v. Bianco before the California Supreme Court on August 24.

    After the statement

    Xavier Becerra, a senior adviser to the Project and an attorney of record, said the group hoped for a swift decision protecting the ballots.

    California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots · UCLA Voting Rights ProjectPress release dated August 24, 2026

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. The Project says Bianco bypassed the procedures for custody and counting and that a criminal investigation does not excuse ignoring election law, which expressly rejects the seizure.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
View all 15 responsesShow fewer responses
  1. Art TinocoDirectly involved
    "As a county election official, Respondent is required to comply with all facially valid warrants and orders issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. His compliance with such judicial process should not be construed to mean that he acted unlawfully or failed to fulfill his obligations under the Elections Code. … Consistent with his obligations as an elections official, Respondent agrees that voted ballots and related election materials should be maintained, preserved, transported, inspected, retained, and administered in accordance with the Elections Code and under procedures designed to protect ballot security, transparency, accountability, and public confidence in election administration. Respondent therefore does not oppose the relief requested in the Petition and respectfully submits that issuance of the requested writ would further those objectives by ensuring compliance with California law governing the custody and handling of election materials. … Sheriff Bianco contends that section 15551 does not impose an absolute custodial requirement because courts must harmonize the Elections Code with the Penal Code by permitting seizure of voted ballots pursuant to a valid judicial warrant. … Respectfully, that interpretation is erroneous, as it cannot be reconciled with the text and structure of section 15551. … There is no evidence of suspected criminal wrongdoing by personnel within the Riverside County Registrar of Voters’ office. Likewise, there is no evidence that the integrity, preservation, or security of the ballots would be jeopardized by their continued custody by the Registrar, the very official to whom California law assigns responsibility for maintaining and preserving election materials."
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Part I, p. 26
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    In a verified return to the California Supreme Court, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco said Sheriff Bianco's contention that a valid judicial warrant can permit seizing voted ballots under Elections Code section 15551 "is erroneous," agreed that voted ballots should be handled under the Elections Code, and said he "does not oppose" the voters' requested writ. He also said he was required to comply with facially valid warrants and that doing so did not mean he acted unlawfully.

    Role at the time: Riverside County Registrar of Voters and respondent in Cervantes v. Bianco (through counsel)

    Before the statement

    The voters sued Tinoco alongside Bianco, alleging that the registrar failed to uphold his duty to keep custody of the ballots when he acquiesced to the seizure.

    After the statement

    Justice Liu's concurring opinion said the registrar could not be faulted for complying with a facially valid warrant issued under seal, and described his position as the same as the petitioners'.

    Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Part I, p. 26
    Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Tinoco says the sheriff's reading of section 15551, which would permit seizing voted ballots under a warrant, is erroneous and does not oppose the writ ordering their return, so he rejects the legal basis for the seizure. His defense of his own compliance with the warrants concerns his conduct, not the sheriff's, so condemns applies rather than mixed or conditional.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  2. Shirley WeberDirectly involved
    "In the Secretary of State’s view, the legally required and proper course is an order directing Sheriff Bianco and his office to immediately return the seized ballots and election materials to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. … Sheriff Bianco violated Section 15551’s clear mandate when he removed voted ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. For that reason alone, the Court should issue an order compelling the return of those ballots and related materials to the proper custodian dictated by the Elections Code."
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Brief of Real Party in Interest California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber Concerning the Relief Requested in the Petition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction, p. 5; Argument I, p. 7
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    In a brief to the California Supreme Court, Secretary of State Shirley Weber said the proper course was an order directing Sheriff Bianco to return the seized ballots and election materials to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and that Bianco "violated Section 15551's clear mandate" by removing voted ballots from the registrar's custody.

    Role at the time: California Secretary of State and real party in interest in Cervantes v. Bianco (through counsel)

    Before the statement

    The voters' petition named the Secretary of State as a real party in interest under Elections Code section 13314, and her brief addressed the relief requested.

    After the statement

    The brief added that Senate Bill 73, enacted after the seizure, reaffirmed the custody mandate and added civil and criminal penalties for taking ballots from an elections official's custody.

    Brief of Real Party in Interest California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber Concerning the Relief Requested in the Petition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction, p. 5; Argument I, p. 7

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Weber says Bianco violated the Elections Code's custody mandate and asks the court to compel the ballots' return, which expressly rejects the seizure as unlawful.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  3. California State Sheriffs' Association
    "Boiled down, the case asks a single fundamental question: Whether the Attorney General may unilaterally interfere with, terminate, or nullify a sheriff’s lawful criminal investigation conducted pursuant to search warrants issued by a neutral magistrate. … The Attorney General may disagree with the underlying investigation, but disagreement does not, and should not, amount to constitutional authority."
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Application for Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae California State Sheriffs' Association in Support of Respondents (Bonta v. Bianco, S295901) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction and Statement of the Case
    Defended or excused

    Responding to: The Attorney General has no legal authority to order a sheriff to halt or pause a lawful criminal investigation.

    Read more

    In an amicus brief supporting Sheriff Bianco, the California State Sheriffs' Association said the case asks whether the Attorney General may "unilaterally interfere with, terminate, or nullify" a sheriff's "lawful criminal investigation conducted pursuant to search warrants issued by a neutral magistrate", and argued that disagreement with an investigation does not amount to constitutional authority.

    Role at the time: Professional association of California sheriffs; amicus curiae supporting Sheriff Bianco in Bonta v. Bianco

    Before the statement

    The brief was filed in the Attorney General's petition, which concerned whether the Attorney General could direct Bianco to pause the investigation.

    After the statement

    The California Supreme Court later held that the Attorney General's authority includes binding directions to sheriffs about a criminal investigation.

    Application for Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae California State Sheriffs' Association in Support of Respondents (Bonta v. Bianco, S295901) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction and Statement of the Case

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots, including his continuing after the Attorney General's directives. The association describes the investigation as lawful and conducted under judicial warrants and argues the Attorney General lacks authority to halt it, which defends the sheriff's position.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  4. Steve Hilton
    "I'm not going to weigh in on something that I don't have the knowledge of the facts on. I trust that Chad is interested in what we should all be interested in, which is ensuring the integrity of our elections and restoring faith in our elections in California."
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET) · CNNTranscript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)
    Explicitly stayed out

    Case context: Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

    Read more

    Asked whether Sheriff Bianco took the right step in seizing the ballots, Steve Hilton said he was "not going to weigh in" because he did not have knowledge of the facts, and added that he trusted Bianco was interested in ensuring the integrity of elections.

    Role at the time: Republican candidate for governor of California

    Before the statement

    Moderator Kaitlan Collins asked Hilton to clarify whether Sheriff Bianco took the right step in seizing the ballots, after Xavier Becerra said Bianco had violated the law.

    After the statement

    Hilton then said he supports voter ID and turned to allegations about Becerra's former chief of staff.

    The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET) · CNNTranscript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Hilton was asked directly whether the seizure was the right step and expressly declined to weigh in; his expression of trust in Bianco's interest in election integrity does not say the seizure was lawful or justified.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  5. Xavier Becerra
    "The sheriff is supposed to enforce the law. In this case, Sheriff Bianco violated the law. There are ways that you treat ballots. You have to maintain the integrity of every ballot so you know, I know, we all know, that no one will tamper with your ballot. There is a chain of custody requirement that the law says you have to follow in order to let that ballot move anywhere. … He cannot claim under cover of an investigation that he has the right to take these ballots and break that chain of custody. That's against the law. That's why we're suing, and that's why he's going to lose in the Supreme Court."
    Read the original text (opens in a new tab)The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET) · CNNTranscript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)
    Condemned

    Responding to: Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.

    Read more

    Asked at a televised debate whether Sheriff Bianco committed a crime, Xavier Becerra said Bianco "violated the law" by not following the chain-of-custody requirement for ballots, that he "cannot claim under cover of an investigation" the right to take them, and that this is why he and others were suing.

    Role at the time: Democratic candidate for governor of California and an attorney of record for the petitioning voters in Cervantes v. Bianco

    Before the statement

    CNN moderator Kaitlan Collins noted that Becerra was part of a lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco over the seizure and asked whether he believed the sheriff had committed a crime.

    After the statement

    Bianco replied that none of it was true and that there was absolutely nothing his office did that was illegal. Steve Hilton, asked the same question, declined to weigh in.

    The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET) · CNNTranscript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Becerra says the seizure broke the chain of custody the law requires and was against the law, which expressly rejects the conduct.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  6. Rick Hasen
    "As to the Prop. 50 election, the warrants cite only claims, that have been completely discredited, of a so-called “election integrity” group that claimed fraud based upon misunderstanding the Riverside County election office’s reporting of ballot counts. … If that was the case, then the proper remedy would be an order to retain the ballots, not to have them seized rendering them outside the chain of custody and unreliable for any further investigation."
    Open source (opens in a new tab)Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants · Rick HasenElection Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC
    Condemned

    Case context: Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

    Read more

    Election law scholar Rick Hasen wrote that, as to the Proposition 50 election, the warrants cite only claims that have been "completely discredited", and that if ballots were about to be destroyed the proper remedy was an order to retain them, not seizing them and placing them "outside the chain of custody".

    Role at the time: Election law scholar; professor at UCLA School of Law and director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project

    Before the statement

    Hasen posted the analysis on the day the three warrants were made public, after the California Supreme Court paused the sheriff's investigation.

    After the statement

    He added that judges would need a lot of education before November about the dangers of allowing ballots to be seized.

    Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants · Rick HasenElection Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Hasen says the warrants relied on discredited claims and that, if ballots were about to be destroyed, the proper remedy was an order to retain them rather than seizure, which expressly rejects the seizure.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  7. Harmeet Dhillon
    "It’s encouraging to see local law enforcement take action — Not everything can be done by the federal government! @CivilRights knows confidence in our elections depends on transparency and the ability to ask questions. … It’s very refreshing to see local law enforcement take action on these types of issues … Too often everyone runs to the federal government, asks us to be the police of everything, but actually this type of thing should be investigated by local law enforcement. So I look forward to seeing what the sheriff and lawyers there find out."
    Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Harmeet Dhillon post on local law enforcement action (X, March 28, 2026) · Harmeet DhillonFull X post with attached video, published 2026-03-28 13:49 UTC
    Open source (opens in a new tab)Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor · USA TodaySection 'Revisiting elections in Georgia and Arizona, too'
    Defended or excused

    Case context: Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

    Read more

    Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, said on X that it was "encouraging to see local law enforcement take action" and, in a Newsmax interview about Sheriff Bianco's ballot investigation, called it "very refreshing" and said she looked forward to seeing what the sheriff and lawyers found.

    Role at the time: Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice

    Before the statement

    The post shares a Newsmax interview in which the anchor introduced Bianco's seizure of ballots from the November 2025 special election and Attorney General Bonta's pushback.

    After the statement

    In the interview Dhillon added that it is important that citizens have high confidence in election outcomes and asked how that is possible when questions are not allowed.

    Harmeet Dhillon post on local law enforcement action (X, March 28, 2026) · Harmeet DhillonFull X post with attached video, published 2026-03-28 13:49 UTC
    Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor · USA TodaySection 'Revisiting elections in Georgia and Arizona, too'

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Dhillon, speaking about Bianco's ballot investigation, welcomes the local action and says such matters should be investigated by local law enforcement, expressing approval of it without addressing the custody rule.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  8. Jose Medina
    "There is no basis for his claim of voter fraud on the part of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. … It is past time to put an end to this sham of a so-called investigation into election irregularities. … Sheriff Chad Bianco must return all 650,000 ballots where they belong, to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and find another way to campaign for Governor of the State of California other than the stunt we all witnessed Friday."
    Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Supervisor raises concerns over ballot seizure and misuse of county resources · Jose MedinaPress release dated March 23, 2026
    Condemned

    Case context: Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

    Read more

    Riverside County Supervisor Jose Medina said there was no basis for a voter fraud claim against the registrar, called the ballot investigation a "sham of a so-called investigation", and said Sheriff Bianco must return all 650,000 ballots to the Registrar of Voters.

    Role at the time: Riverside County Supervisor, First District

    Before the statement

    The release responded to the sheriff's March 20 news conference, which Medina described as a campaign rally held at sheriff's headquarters.

    After the statement

    Medina wrote that he had earlier suggested Bianco take a leave of absence while running for governor.

    Supervisor raises concerns over ballot seizure and misuse of county resources · Jose MedinaPress release dated March 23, 2026

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Medina says the fraud claim has no basis, calls the investigation a sham and demands that the ballots be returned, which expressly rejects the seizure.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement
  9. Chad BiancoDirectly involved
    "I was contacted by a representative of Attorney General Bonta and asked to halt this investigation until after March 6th. No reason was provided and there is no legal justification for the Attorney General to stop a lawful investigation. … Under direction of the court and the court's jurisdiction over all evidence, this investigation will continue despite A.G. Bonta's attempts to stop it. A.G. Bonta is part of the executive branch of this state. Under the separation of powers principle, A.G. Bonta does not have authority over the court or evidence, and I will carry out my constitutional duty to pursue justice impartially. … This investigation is simple. Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported."
    Watch the original video (opens in a new tab)Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026) · Riverside County Sheriff's OfficeStatement at 02:41-02:57, 03:20-03:45 and 04:04-04:11
    Open source (opens in a new tab)Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and Weber
    Defended or excused

    Responding to: The Attorney General has no legal authority to order a sheriff to halt or pause a lawful criminal investigation.

    Read more

    At a March 20 news conference, Sheriff Chad Bianco said the Attorney General's office had asked him to halt the ballot investigation without giving a reason, that there was "no legal justification for the Attorney General to stop a lawful investigation", and that the investigation would continue under the court's jurisdiction. He described it as a physical count of the ballots compared with the reported vote total.

    Role at the time: Riverside County Sheriff, then a candidate for governor of California

    Before the statement

    Bianco opened the news conference by saying it was called to inform the public of the investigation, to discuss what he called interference by Attorney General Rob Bonta, and to assure residents that elections are secure. He described a 45,896-vote difference alleged by a citizens' group and said a judge had ordered a special master to oversee the count.

    After the statement

    Attorney General Bonta's office responded the same day that there were serious questions about the merits of the investigation and legal deficiencies in the warrant affidavits, and Secretary of State Shirley Weber said her office had thus far found the allegations unsubstantiated. The California Supreme Court later said the March 19 warrant did not appoint a special master.

    Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026) · Riverside County Sheriff's OfficeStatement at 02:41-02:57, 03:20-03:45 and 04:04-04:11
    Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and Weber

    Why this label?

    The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. Bianco calls the investigation lawful and says the Attorney General has no authority to stop it, which defends both the seizure and his continuing after the Attorney General's directives.

    This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

    Read statementLink to this statement

Sources

(29)

Original text

Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu

Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Opinion of the Court, pp. 1-2, 6 (holding), 25-26; Liu, J., concurring

Excerpt

"We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful."

About this source

The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the voters' petition. It holds that Sheriff Bianco's seizure of the ballots violated Elections Code section 15551(d), orders the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and summarizes the facts and the warrants.

Author
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, for a unanimous court; Justice Goodwin Liu, concurring
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to pause election probe and preserve seized ballots

California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to pause election probe and preserve seized ballots (opens in a new tab) · Associated PressReport on the April 8 order
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the April 8 order

Excerpt

"Bianco and his office "are hereby ordered to pause the investigation into the November 2025 special election and preserve all seized items," the order reads."

About this source

Associated Press report, carried by PBS News, on the California Supreme Court's April 8 order in the Attorney General's case.

Author
Associated Press
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

Chad Bianco defends getting warrant from judge who praised him

Chad Bianco defends getting warrant from judge who praised him (opens in a new tab) · CalMattersReport on Bianco's interview and the warrant judge
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on Bianco's interview and the warrant judge

Excerpt

"“It’s impossible to know who the duty judge is on that day,” he said in an interview Thursday"

About this source

CalMatters report on Sheriff Bianco's March 26 interview, the three warrants signed by Riverside Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel, whom Bianco endorsed in 2022, and the sealing of the warrants.

Author
Jeanne Kuang
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Respondents' Return to Order to Show Cause; Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

Respondents' Return to Order to Show Cause; Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pp. 8-10
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Introduction and Summary of Argument, pp. 8-10

Excerpt

"Petitioners identify no clear, present, ministerial duty requiring the Sheriff to return or abandon evidence seized under court-issued warrants"

About this source

Sheriff Bianco's written return in the California Supreme Court opposing the voters' petition. It states his position that evidence seized under judicial warrants may be preserved and examined under court supervision and that the Elections Code does not repeal the courts' warrant authority.

Author
Tyler Law LLP and Law Offices of Bradley W. Hertz, counsel for Sheriff Chad Bianco
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say

Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say (opens in a new tab) · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the unsealed warrants and the April 8 Supreme Court order
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the unsealed warrants and the April 8 Supreme Court order

Excerpt

"On Wednesday, April 8, the California Supreme Court ordered a pause in the probe until it further reviews the investigation"

About this source

Press-Enterprise report on the unsealed warrants, the California Supreme Court's April 8 order pausing the investigation, and reactions from legal scholars and Sheriff Bianco.

Author
Jeff Horseman
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight

California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight (opens in a new tab) · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interview
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interview

Excerpt

"Bianco said in a telephone interview Thursday he was “extremely disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision."

About this source

Press-Enterprise report on the rulings with statements from Bianco, Bonta, Newsom and petitioner Clarissa Cervantes.

Author
Jeff Horseman
Published
Accessed

Reporting

Court denies California's bid to halt Riverside sheriff's recount of 2025 election ballots

Court denies California's bid to halt Riverside sheriff's recount of 2025 election ballots (opens in a new tab) · CalMattersReport on the Court of Appeal's denial of the Attorney General's petition
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the Court of Appeal's denial of the Attorney General's petition

Excerpt

"Bonta’s lawsuit in the 4th District Court of Appeal, filed Monday"

About this source

CalMatters report on the Attorney General's petition in the Court of Appeal, filed March 23 and denied March 24, and on the sheriff's response.

Author
Cayla Mihalovich and Jeanne Kuang
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Declaration of Sheriff Chad Bianco in Support of Respondents' Preliminary Opposition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

Declaration of Sheriff Chad Bianco in Support of Respondents' Preliminary Opposition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaDeclaration, paragraphs 3-16, executed March 26, 2026
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Declaration, paragraphs 3-16, executed March 26, 2026

Excerpt

"RSO will not do any counting and has paused its investigation pending the resolution of the writ of mandate."

About this source

Sheriff Bianco's sworn declaration filed in the California Supreme Court, describing the warrants, the basis for the investigation and the pause in counting.

Author
Chad Bianco
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Official statement

California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., Sets the Record Straight about Accusations of Election Irregularities and Investigation Interference in Riverside County

California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., Sets the Record Straight about Accusations of Election Irregularities and Investigation Interference in Riverside County (opens in a new tab) · Shirley WeberPress release PR26-33, March 20, 2026
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release PR26-33, March 20, 2026

Excerpt

"The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections."

About this source

Secretary of State Shirley Weber's press release responding to the Sheriff's March 20 news conference.

Author
California Secretary of State
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office

Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office (opens in a new tab) · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the sheriff's office statement and the Registrar's Feb. 10 presentation
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the sheriff's office statement and the Registrar's Feb. 10 presentation

Excerpt

"“conducting an investigation into alleged irregularities in our elections.”"

About this source

Press-Enterprise report in which the Sheriff's Office confirmed the investigation and Registrar Art Tinoco's February 10 explanation to the Board of Supervisors was described.

Author
Jeff Horseman
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots (opens in a new tab) · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and Weber
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and Weber

Excerpt

"“There is no legal justification for the attorney general to stop a lawful investigation,” he said"

About this source

Press-Enterprise report on the March 20 news conference, with responses from Attorney General Bonta's office and Secretary of State Weber.

Author
Jeff Horseman
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Application for Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae California State Sheriffs' Association in Support of Respondents (Bonta v. Bianco, S295901)

Application for Permission to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae California State Sheriffs' Association in Support of Respondents (Bonta v. Bianco, S295901) (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction and Statement of the Case
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Introduction and Statement of the Case

Excerpt

"The Attorney General may disagree with the underlying investigation, but disagreement does not, and should not, amount to constitutional authority."

About this source

Amicus brief of the California State Sheriffs' Association filed in the California Supreme Court supporting Sheriff Bianco in the Attorney General's petition.

Author
California State Sheriffs' Association
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Analysis

Search Warrants for Election Materials Get Their Day in Court

Search Warrants for Election Materials Get Their Day in Court (opens in a new tab) · LawfareLawfare article published 2026-09-02
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Lawfare article published 2026-09-02

Excerpt

"And that makes the warrants not only improper but also a misplaced displacement of authority from one sphere to another that the California Supreme Court can and should address."

About this source

Election law scholar Justin Levitt's Lawfare analysis of the Riverside County warrants after the August 24 oral argument.

Author
Justin Levitt
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Analysis

Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants

Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants (opens in a new tab) · Rick HasenElection Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Election Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC

Excerpt

"One of the claims made is that ballots were about to be destroyed."

About this source

Election law scholar Rick Hasen's post on the day the three Riverside County search warrants were made public, with links to the warrants.

Author
Rick Hasen
Published
Accessed

Official statement

Win for Democracy: Supreme Court of California Orders Sheriff to Return Unlawfully Seized Ballots

Win for Democracy: Supreme Court of California Orders Sheriff to Return Unlawfully Seized Ballots (opens in a new tab) · Campaign Legal CenterPress release dated September 24, 2026; statement of Bruce V. Spiva
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release dated September 24, 2026; statement of Bruce V. Spiva

Excerpt

"Sheriff Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots is a dangerous escalation and blatantly unlawful intrusion by law enforcement"

About this source

Campaign Legal Center press release on the California Supreme Court's ruling. The organization filed a brief supporting the petitions on behalf of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California.

Author
Campaign Legal Center
Published
Accessed

Official statement

California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots

California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco's Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots (opens in a new tab) · UCLA Voting Rights ProjectPress release dated August 24, 2026
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release dated August 24, 2026

Excerpt

"“A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws,” said Sonni Waknin"

About this source

Press release from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which represents four Riverside County voters, on the August 24 oral argument in Cervantes v. Bianco.

Author
UCLA Voting Rights Project
Published
Accessed

Official statement

Supervisor raises concerns over ballot seizure and misuse of county resources

Supervisor raises concerns over ballot seizure and misuse of county resources (opens in a new tab) · Jose MedinaPress release dated March 23, 2026
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release dated March 23, 2026

Excerpt

"Sheriff Chad Bianco must return all 650,000 ballots where they belong, to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters"

About this source

Press release from the office of Riverside County Supervisor Jose Medina responding to the March 20 news conference at which Sheriff Bianco described the ballot investigation.

Author
Riverside County Supervisor Jose Medina
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Reporting

Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor

Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor (opens in a new tab) · USA TodaySection 'Revisiting elections in Georgia and Arizona, too'
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Section 'Revisiting elections in Georgia and Arizona, too'

Excerpt

"“It’s very refreshing to see local law enforcement take action on these types of issues,” Dhillon said on Newsmax March 28."

About this source

USA TODAY report that quotes Harmeet Dhillon's March 28 Newsmax remarks about Sheriff Bianco's seizure, and Bianco's March 31 interview with the newspaper.

Author
Josh Meyer
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original post

Harmeet Dhillon post on local law enforcement action (X, March 28, 2026)

Harmeet Dhillon post on local law enforcement action (X, March 28, 2026) (opens in a new tab) · Harmeet DhillonFull X post with attached video, published 2026-03-28 13:49 UTC

Excerpt

"It’s encouraging to see local law enforcement take action — Not everything can be done by the federal government!"

About this source

Post from the verified official account of Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, with a video of her Newsmax interview about Sheriff Bianco's ballot seizure.

Author
Harmeet Dhillon
Published
Accessed

Original text

The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET)

The California Governor Primary Debate (CNN transcript, May 5, 2026, 10-11p ET) (opens in a new tab) · CNNTranscript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Transcript, exchange beginning with the moderator's question to Xavier Becerra about the lawsuit against Sheriff Bianco (about 22:08-22:11 ET)

Excerpt

"Sheriff Bianco didn't follow that process."

About this source

CNN's transcript of the televised Democratic and Republican gubernatorial debate. Moderator Kaitlan Collins asked Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton about Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of the Riverside County ballots, and Bianco replied.

Author
CNN
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Part I, p. 26
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Introduction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Part I, p. 26

Excerpt

"Respondent therefore does not oppose the relief requested in the Petition"

About this source

The Registrar of Voters' return in the California Supreme Court, verified by Art Tinoco. It states his position on ballot custody, on his own compliance with the warrants, and on the voters' request that the ballots be returned.

Author
Riverside County Counsel and Strumwasser & Woocher LLP, counsel for Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco (verified by Art Tinoco)
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Brief of Real Party in Interest California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber Concerning the Relief Requested in the Petition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)

Brief of Real Party in Interest California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber Concerning the Relief Requested in the Petition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction, p. 5; Argument I, p. 7
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Introduction, p. 5; Argument I, p. 7

Excerpt

"Sheriff Bianco violated Section 15551’s clear mandate when he removed voted ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters."

About this source

The Secretary of State's brief filed in the California Supreme Court, stating her position that the seized ballots and election materials should be returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

Author
Illovsky Gates & Calia LLP, counsel for Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber
Published
Accessed

Reporting

California Supreme Court orders seized ballots returned in Riverside County case

California Supreme Court orders seized ballots returned in Riverside County case (opens in a new tab) · PoliticoReport on the rulings; Bianco fundraising email
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the rulings; Bianco fundraising email

Excerpt

"“I will obey the writs. I will not obey the message behind them — that local law enforcement works for Sacramento, not for the people who elected us.”"

About this source

Politico report on the two rulings, quoting a fundraising email from Sheriff Bianco, Attorney General Bonta's remarks to reporters and Governor Newsom's statement.

Author
Jeremy B. White
Published
Accessed

Reporting

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

California Supreme Court orders Riverside County sheriff to return 650,000 seized ballots (opens in a new tab) · Associated PressReport on the rulings; Bianco statement and email to supporters
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the rulings; Bianco statement and email to supporters

Excerpt

"“We are very disappointed and wholeheartedly disagree with the court's ruling,” Bianco said in a statement shared later Thursday with The Associated Press."

About this source

Associated Press report on the rulings, including Sheriff Bianco's statement to the AP and his email to supporters saying he will comply with the court's rulings.

Author
Olga R. Rodriguez
Published
Accessed

Reporting

Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules

Sheriff broke law by seizing ballots, CA Supreme Court rules (opens in a new tab) · CalMattersReport on the rulings; Bianco's written statement
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Report on the rulings; Bianco's written statement

Excerpt

"“We are very disappointed and wholeheartedly disagree with the court’s ruling,”"

About this source

CalMatters report on the California Supreme Court's two rulings, quoting Sheriff Bianco's written statement, Attorney General Bonta's news conference remarks, and the court's opinions.

Author
Ben Christopher and Nigel Duara
Published
Accessed

Official statement

Governor Newsom on the California Supreme Court ruling Sheriff Bianco illegally seized ballots

Governor Newsom on the California Supreme Court ruling Sheriff Bianco illegally seized ballots (opens in a new tab) · Gavin NewsomPress release, statement of Governor Gavin Newsom
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release, statement of Governor Gavin Newsom

Excerpt

"Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government."

About this source

Official press release with Governor Newsom's statement on the California Supreme Court's ruling in Cervantes v. Bianco.

Author
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom
Published
Accessed

Official statement

Attorney General Bonta Secures Major Victories from State's Highest Court, Confirming Authority to Issue Binding Directives to Riverside Sheriff and Ordering Sheriff to Return Voted Ballots to the Registrar of Voters

Attorney General Bonta Secures Major Victories from State's Highest Court, Confirming Authority to Issue Binding Directives to Riverside Sheriff and Ordering Sheriff to Return Voted Ballots to the Registrar of Voters (opens in a new tab) · Rob BontaPress release, statement of Attorney General Rob Bonta
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Press release, statement of Attorney General Rob Bonta

Excerpt

"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."

About this source

Official press release with the Attorney General's statement on the two California Supreme Court decisions in Bonta v. Bianco and Cervantes v. Bianco.

Author
California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General
Published
Accessed

Original video

Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026)

Election Fraud Investigation Press Conference (Riverside County Sheriff's Office, March 20, 2026) (opens in a new tab) · Riverside County Sheriff's OfficeStatement at 02:41-02:57, 03:20-03:45 and 04:04-04:11

Excerpt

"This investigation is simple. Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported."

About this source

Video of the March 20, 2026 news conference at which Sheriff Bianco publicly described the ballot investigation, said a court had ordered a special master, and responded to the Attorney General's directives to halt it.

Author
Chad Bianco
Published
Accessed
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Original text

Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court

Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaOpinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)
Read source (opens in a new tab)

Relevant passage: Opinion of the Court, Part I (background), Part II.A.2 (application), Part III (conclusion)

Excerpt

"the language of article V, section 13 plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation."

About this source

The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion on the Attorney General's petition. It holds that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about a criminal investigation, that his directions to Sheriff Bianco were lawful, and orders compliance. Part I also gives the court's dated account of the warrants, the seizure and the exchanges between the Attorney General and the sheriff.

Author
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, for a unanimous court
Published
Accessed

The newsletter

Follow disputes like this one.

New cases and significant updates to the record, in your inbox. Free.

You’ll confirm your subscription on Substack.