Bonta says the sheriff misused investigative tools and defied his request to pause
California Attorney General; petitioner in Bonta v. Bianco and amicus curiae in Cervantes v. Bianco
“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.”
Source and context
Official statement
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.
Before the quotation
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 quotation
The release added that Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1418, sponsored by the Attorney General, the previous week to strengthen protections for election materials.
How this statement is classified
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.
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. 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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Chad Bianco
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
“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.”Read statement