Bianco says the investigation was lawful and that he will obey the writs but not their message
Riverside County Sheriff
“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.”
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
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.
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
Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseCampaign 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 statement
“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 statement
“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 statement