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.
BackgroundWho runs U.S. elections?What does the Fourth Amendment protect?
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's department obtained search warrants in February and March 2026 and, on February 26, seized about 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 Proposition 50 special election from the county registrar of voters. Bianco said he was investigating a discrepancy of 45,896 ballots reported by a citizens' group; Registrar Art Tinoco said the reported gap reflected a misreading of preliminary records and that the actual variance was 103 ballots. Attorney General Rob Bonta directed Bianco on February 26 to preserve the materials and pause the investigation, and sued after Bianco said on March 20 that it would continue despite the Attorney General's attempts to stop it. On September 24, 2026, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Cervantes v. Bianco that the seizure violated Elections Code section 15551(d) and ordered the ballots returned, and held in Bonta v. Bianco that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions about an investigation. Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that he disagrees with the rulings, but has said he will obey the court's writs; the court did not resolve whether the claimed discrepancy exists.
Background: Terms in this case
Read the full background
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
Chad BiancoDirectly involved
Rob BontaDirectly involved
Shirley WeberDirectly involved
Timeline
23 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 6, 2026 to October 16, 2026
February 2026
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]Supreme Court of California
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]Supreme Court of California
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., concurringSheriff'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]Supreme Court of California
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]The Press-Enterprise
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]CalMatters
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 judgeRegistrar 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]Supreme Court of California
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]Supreme Court of California
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]The Press-Enterprise
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 presentationSheriff'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]Supreme Court of California
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)
March 2026
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]Supreme Court of California
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)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]Supreme Court of California
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)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]Riverside County Sheriff's Office
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]The Press-Enterprise
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]Shirley Weber
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]The Press-Enterprise
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 presentationCourt 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]Supreme Court of California
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]CalMatters
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 petitionRiverside 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]UCLA Voting Rights Project
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]Supreme Court of California
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]USA Today
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'Bianco files a preliminary opposition in Cervantes v. Bianco
Bianco files a preliminary opposition to the March 25 writ petition in Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing listsJoint amicus letter urges the court to grant the Riverside voters' petition
In a letter dated March 30, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California asked the California Supreme Court to act promptly in Cervantes v. They argued that the seizure violated ballot-custody rules and voter privacy, and that each day the ballots stayed outside lawful custody harmed voters. They argued that ballot custody rules and voter privacy required returning the seized materials to election officials.
[15]Common Cause and LWVC amicus letter supporting the Cervantes petition
The joint amicus letter supports the voters' writ petition and argues the seizure violated ballot-custody and voter-privacy protections.
Common Cause and LWVC amicus letter supporting the Cervantes petitionCervantes v. Bianco, S295866; dated March 30, 2026; introductory request on page 1 and section II.A, pages 8-9.Petitioners reply to Bianco's preliminary opposition
The petitioners file their reply to Bianco's preliminary opposition in Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing lists
April 2026
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.
[16]Associated Press
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]The Press-Enterprise
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[17]Rick Hasen
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 UTCBoard 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]Supreme Court of California
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
May 2026
Bianco and the sheriff's department file their return in the Attorney General's case
The respondents file their written return in the Attorney General's separate proceeding, S295901. The submission forms part of the briefing before the court's August argument.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing listsAttorney General files a reply in his case against Bianco
The court's brief archive lists the Attorney General's reply in S295901. The filing follows the respondents' written return and precedes further letter briefing in June.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing lists
June 2026
Bianco files his written return in Cervantes v. Bianco
Bianco submits his written return in S295866. The court separately lists a brief that day from real party in interest Shirley Weber and a written return from Art Tinoco.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing lists
July 2026
Bianco responds to the Attorney General's amicus brief
Bianco files a response to the Attorney General's amicus brief in S295866. This is part of the briefing before the August 24 oral argument.
[14]California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure casesS295866 and S295901 filing lists
August 2026
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]UCLA Voting Rights Project
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
September 2026
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]Supreme Court of California
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., concurringCalifornia 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]Supreme Court of California
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]Supreme Court of California
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)[18]CalMatters
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[19]The Press-Enterprise
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 interviewRegistrar confirms return of seized ballots and election materials
Riverside County's registrar confirmed that the sheriff returned the seized ballots and other election materials following the court rulings.
[20]Riverside registrar confirms return of seized ballots
Riverside County's registrar confirmed that the sheriff returned the seized ballots and other election materials following the court rulings.
Riverside registrar confirms return of seized ballotsRegistrar's statement to The Riverside Record, opening paragraphs
October 2026
Bianco seeks county reimbursement for his legal defense
Claim
The Riverside Record reports that Bianco files an administrative claim seeking reimbursement for legal costs in four ballot-investigation lawsuits. His lawyer says he may sue if the county rejects the claim. The county says it will review the request; Supervisor Jose Medina expects rejection.
[21]Bianco files claim to get county to cover legal fees
Original reporting on an administrative reimbursement claim, not a damages award or a newly filed lawsuit.
Bianco files claim to get county to cover legal feesAlicia Ramirez, October 23 report; administrative claim and county response.
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.
Sources (2)
- 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
- Respondents' Return to Order to Show Cause; Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866) · Supreme Court of CaliforniaIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pp. 8-10
Disputed claim
The Attorney General has no legal authority to order a sheriff to halt or pause a lawful criminal investigation.
Sources (2)
- 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
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.
Sources (2)
- 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
- 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
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.
Sources (2)
- 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)
- 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
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
5 matching responses. Newest first.
Rob BontaCalifornia Attorney General; petitioner in Bonta v. Bianco and amicus curiae in Cervantes v. BiancoDirectly involvedBefore this 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.
"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."
CondemnedResponding 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.
Full statement and sources
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.
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 BontaWhy 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.
Chad BiancoRiverside County SheriffDirectly involvedBefore this 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.
"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."
Defended or excusedResponding 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.
Full statement and sources
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".
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 statementCalifornia Supreme Court orders Riverside County sheriff to return 650,000 seized ballots · Associated PressReport on the rulings; Bianco statement and email to supportersCalifornia Supreme Court orders seized ballots returned in Riverside County case · PoliticoReport on the rulings; Bianco fundraising emailCalifornia Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the rulings, including Bianco's telephone interviewWhy 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.
Art TinocoRiverside County Registrar of Voters and respondent in Cervantes v. Bianco (through counsel)Directly involved Before this 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.
"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."
CondemnedResponding 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.
Full statement and sources
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.
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. 26Cervantes 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., concurringWhy 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.
Shirley WeberCalifornia Secretary of State and real party in interest in Cervantes v. Bianco (through counsel)Directly involvedBefore this 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.
"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."
CondemnedResponding 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.
Full statement and sources
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.
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. 7Why 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.
- Chad BiancoRiverside County Sheriff, then a candidate for governor of CaliforniaDirectly involved
Before this 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.
"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."
Defended or excusedResponding to: The Attorney General has no legal authority to order a sheriff to halt or pause a lawful criminal investigation.
Full statement and sources
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.
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 04:04-04:11Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots · The Press-EnterpriseReport on the March 20 news conference; statements by Bonta and WeberWhy 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.
Sources
(37)
Original text
Cervantes v. Bianco (S295866), opinion of the Court and concurring opinion of Justice Liu
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
Reporting
Bianco files claim to get county to cover legal fees
Relevant passage: Alicia Ramirez, October 23 report; administrative claim and county response.
About this source
Original reporting on an administrative reimbursement claim, not a damages award or a newly filed lawsuit.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
California Supreme Court briefs in the Riverside ballot-seizure cases
Relevant passage: S295866 and S295901 filing lists
About this source
The court lists submissions and their filing dates in the two proceedings argued on August 24, 2026. Briefs are party arguments; the court later decided the cases on September 24.
- Accessed
Original text
Common Cause and LWVC amicus letter supporting the Cervantes petition
Relevant passage: Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866; dated March 30, 2026; introductory request on page 1 and section II.A, pages 8-9.
About this source
The joint amicus letter supports the voters' writ petition and argues the seizure violated ballot-custody and voter-privacy protections.
- Author
- Campaign Legal Center, counsel for Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Riverside registrar confirms return of seized ballots
Relevant passage: Registrar's statement to The Riverside Record, opening paragraphs
About this source
Riverside County's registrar confirmed that the sheriff returned the seized ballots and other election materials following the court rulings.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
UCLA Voting Rights Project statements on the Riverside ballot ruling
Relevant passage: Dunn quotation; Clarissa Cervantes quotation; Robinson quotation; Kempe quotation; Ortiz quotation; Becerra quotation
About this source
Contains statements by Chad Dunn, Clarissa Cervantes, Becki Robinson, Nathan P. Kempe, Oscar Ortiz, Xavier Becerra about the riverside ballot ruling.
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
Baseless Allegations Drive Law Enforcement Seizures of Election Records
Relevant passage: Introduction, second paragraph
Excerpt
"The seizure follows a new playbook for election denial: Amateur, citizen activists claim election fraud."
About this source
Analysis on the Brennan Center's website, bylined to guest author Stephen Richer, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute and former Maricopa County Recorder, and Brennan Center staff member Ruby Edlin. It compares the Riverside County ballot seizure with the FBI's search in Fulton County, Georgia, and a grand jury subpoena in Maricopa County, Arizona.
- Author
- Stephen Richer and Ruby Edlin
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
ACLU: Sheriff Bianco is Meddling with Elections
Relevant passage: Press release, statement of Executive Director Chandra Bhatnagar
Excerpt
"We join Attorney General Bonta and our state officials in demanding Bianco put an immediate end to this frivolous investigation."
About this source
Press release from the ACLU of Southern California responding to reports that the Riverside County sheriff had seized voters' ballots.
- Author
- ACLU of Southern California
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Senator Cervantes Statement on California Supreme Court Decision on Unlawful Ballot Seizure
Relevant passage: First paragraph (quoted statement) and the paragraph after the description of Senate Bills 73 and 1418
Excerpt
"I applaud the California Supreme Court for standing on the side of voting rights, California voters, and our democracy."
About this source
Press release from the office of California State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, dated September 24, 2026, responding to the California Supreme Court rulings in Bonta v. Bianco and Cervantes v. Bianco.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
California Supreme Court orders GOP sheriff to pause election probe and preserve seized ballots
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
Reporting
Chad Bianco defends getting warrant from judge who praised him
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
Original text
Respondents' Return to Order to Show Cause; Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)
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
Reporting
Warrants that seized 650,000-plus Riverside County ballots are flawed, experts say
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
Reporting
California Supreme Court rules against Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in ballot seizure fight
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
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
Original text
Declaration of Sheriff Chad Bianco in Support of Respondents' Preliminary Opposition (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)
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
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
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
Reporting
Alleged irregularities in elections probed by Riverside County Sheriff's Office
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
Reporting
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco defends seizure of 656,000 ballots
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
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)
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
Analysis
Search Warrants for Election Materials Get Their Day in Court
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
Analysis
Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants
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
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
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
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
Reporting
Why CA Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots while running for governor
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
Original post
Harmeet Dhillon post on local law enforcement action (X, March 28, 2026)
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)
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
Original text
Respondent Riverside County Registrar of Voters' Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate (Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866)
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's statement at his office's election fraud investigation news conference, March 20, 2026.
Excerpt from 2:38 to 4:14 of the California government video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: Riverside County Sheriff's Office
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Statement 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
Original text
Bonta v. Bianco (S295901), opinion of the Court
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
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/was-riverside-county-sheriff-chad-bianco-s-seizure-of-about-650-000-ballots-lawful
The Dispute Index. "Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?". First published: 2026-09-25. Last updated: 2026-10-09. https://disputeindex.com/cases/was-riverside-county-sheriff-chad-bianco-s-seizure-of-about-650-000-ballots-lawful