Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that he will obey the writs but not their message
Chad BiancoRiverside County Sheriff
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".
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.
“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.”
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Other statements by Chad Bianco in this case
- Bianco says there is no legal basis for the Attorney General to stop the ballot investigationEarlier: Defended or excused
Where this statement fits
Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?
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.
Source and context
Reporting
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.
Reporting
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.
Reporting
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.
Reporting
About this source
Press-Enterprise report on the rulings with statements from Bianco, Bonta, Newsom and petitioner Clarissa Cervantes.
Before the quotation
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 quotation
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.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Rob Bonta
More from this case
Read the full caseXavier Becerra opposes Bianco's ballot seizure
“a great victory”Read statement
Oscar Ortiz opposes Bianco's ballot seizure
“political advantage”Read statement
Nathan P. Kempe opposes Bianco's ballot seizure
“reject similar attacks”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that he will obey the writs but not their message
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/2418-after-the-california-supreme-court-s-rulings-sheriff
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that he will obey the writs but not their message". First published: 2026-09-25. Last updated: 2026-09-25. https://disputeindex.com/events/2418-after-the-california-supreme-court-s-rulings-sheriff