The California Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must return ballots seized during his investigation of alleged vote counting irregularities and halt his probe unless authorized by the state attorney general. The justices directed Bianco to cease his investigation and ordered the immediate return of about 650,000 ballots to county election officials, stating that only the attorney general may permit such an inquiry to proceed.
Explainer California Elections: Low Turnout, Vote Counting Controversies, and Political Implications
The decision underscores a core dispute over whether local law enforcement or the state’s top legal officer has ultimate authority to investigate potential election misconduct.
The ruling follows months of legal and political tension after Bianco launched a criminal investigation into the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, prompted by claims from the Riverside Election Integrity Team that nearly 45,896 more ballots were counted than were recorded on official receipts during the special election on Proposition 50. That election approved Democrat-drawn congressional maps after a mid-decade redistricting, bypassing the state’s independent commission. While the alleged overcount was not enough to alter the election outcome, Bianco obtained warrants, seized ballots and equipment, and began his own count, drawing sharp opposition from both local election officials and Democratic leaders in Sacramento.
Supreme Court’s Directives
In its published opinion, the court found that ballots are not ordinary evidence and must remain in the custody of election officials to prevent tampering or alteration, even during a criminal investigation. The justices wrote that state law “manifests a legislative intent that ballots remain in the elections official’s custody even in the event of a criminal investigation,” and concluded Bianco’s seizure was unlawful. The court further held that the attorney general has the power to direct sheriffs to start or stop investigations, with no discretion for the sheriff to refuse.
The court’s opinion stated, “Once the Attorney General exercises this authority by issuing a clear and specific directive to a sheriff regarding a matter within the scope of the sheriff’s duties, the sheriff has no discretion to decide whether to comply.” The investigation is paused until Attorney General Rob Bonta completes his review, but the court signaled it is unlikely Bianco will be allowed to resume.
Attorney General and Governor Respond
Attorney General Bonta, a Democrat, welcomed the decision, saying Bianco’s actions were “extraordinary” and amounted to a “misuse of criminal investigative tools.” Bonta said, “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.”
Governor Gavin Newsom praised the ruling, stating, “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.”
Sheriff Bianco and Election Integrity Team’s Claims
Sheriff Bianco has not publicly responded to the Supreme Court’s decision. However, before the ruling, he warned that such a decision would give “a corrupt attorney general” the power “to prevent investigations he doesn’t like or what would be uncovered,” pledging to “always fight government corruption and serve Riverside County residents.”
The Riverside Election Integrity Team, whose claims prompted Bianco’s investigation, said in April that the attorney general’s office had already dismissed their concerns, with Bonta’s lawyers expressing “serious concerns as to whether ‘probable cause’ existed to support issue of the warrants” and calling the investigation “misguided” and “predicated on baseless claims of election irregularities.”
"Californians deserve better."
— Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff
Broader Political Context
The dispute over the Riverside County probe comes amid heightened partisan battles over election administration and redistricting in California. The Democrat-led legislature’s decision to redraw congressional districts and put the maps to a referendum, bypassing the independent commission, has drawn criticism from Republicans and election integrity groups. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the limits of local law enforcement’s authority in election matters and affirms the attorney general’s supervisory power, a precedent likely to shape future election-related investigations in the state.
All but one member of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors. The investigation remains paused pending further action from Attorney General Bonta.
