Rick Hasen says the warrants rested on discredited claims and that a retention order, not seizure, was the proper remedy

Election law scholar; professor at UCLA School of Law and director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project

“As to the Prop. 50 election, the warrants cite only claims, that have been completely discredited, of a so-called “election integrity” group that claimed fraud based upon misunderstanding the Riverside County election office’s reporting of ballot counts. … If that was the case, then the proper remedy would be an order to retain the ballots, not to have them seized rendering them outside the chain of custody and unreliable for any further investigation.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)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 UTC

Source and context

Analysis

Just Released Riverside County Warrants Relied on Bogus Evidence of Likely Felony to Seize Ballots; Links to Warrants (opens in a new tab) · Rick HasenElection Law Blog post published 2026-04-08 23:15 UTC

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.

Before the quotation

Hasen posted the analysis on the day the three warrants were made public, after the California Supreme Court paused the sheriff's investigation.

After the quotation

He added that judges would need a lot of education before November about the dangers of allowing ballots to be seized.

How this statement is classified

Condemned

Case context: Was Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of about 650,000 ballots lawful?

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. Hasen says the warrants relied on discredited claims and that, if ballots were about to be destroyed, the proper remedy was an order to retain them rather than seizure, which expressly rejects the seizure.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
Chad Bianco
Editorial composite of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco beside the California Supreme Court opinion in the ballot-seizure case.
Credit: Riverside County Sheriff's Office; Supreme Court of California; composite by The Dispute Index

More from this case

Read the full case

Campaign 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

Gavin Newsom

“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

Rob Bonta

“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