Tinoco calls the sheriff's reading of the ballot-custody law erroneous and does not oppose the writ

Riverside County Registrar of Voters and respondent in Cervantes v. Bianco (through counsel)·Statement date: June 12, 2026

“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.”