The California Supreme Court convened on Monday to consider a dispute that could affect how election materials are handled in the state. At issue is the seizure of about 650,000 ballots from Riverside County’s November 2025 special election on redistricting, a measure that passed by roughly 80,000 votes.
Background of the seizure
In March, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco ordered the removal of 1,000 boxes of ballots after a local citizens group filed a complaint alleging the vote count was inaccurate. The complaint did not claim the error would have changed the election outcome. County election officials had previously dismissed the complaint as unfounded.
Bianco, who was campaigning for governor at the time, justified the action as an investigation under the penal code, obtaining search warrants in February. He later began a recount under the supervision of a court‑appointed special master, but suspended the effort days later amid mounting legal challenges.
State challenge
California Attorney General Rob Bonta promptly filed a legal challenge, asserting that the sheriff lacks authority over election materials and that the seizure was intended to undermine confidence in the electoral process. Bonta ordered Bianco to return the ballots, a directive the sheriff has not complied with.
The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project also sued on behalf of several Riverside voters. UCLA legal director Chad Dunn told the court that existing mechanisms exist to contest election results and that Bianco’s actions bypassed those procedures.
Sheriff’s defense
Representing Bianco, attorney Bradley Hertz argued that the sheriff had a legal duty to investigate a citizen complaint and that the seized ballots constitute evidence that must be safeguarded. Hertz said the sheriff is acting as a custodian for the court and that the refusal to return the ballots stems from an ongoing legal battle, not from willful defiance.
Political context
At the time of the seizure, Bianco was one of two prominent Republicans running in the June primary for governor. He did not advance to the general election and has announced plans to seek reelection as sheriff in 2028. Former state attorney general and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra is also a plaintiff in the UCLA lawsuit.
The case arrives amid continued national debate over election integrity. President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned the 2020 results, and his administration recently seized ballots and related documents from a Georgia election office. Some Republican officials have echoed similar concerns in their own states.
Potential implications
If the California Supreme Court rules that the sheriff must return the ballots, it would reaffirm the principle that election officials, not law‑enforcement officers, control ballot custody. A contrary ruling could expand the scope of sheriff authority in election matters, potentially prompting similar actions elsewhere.
The court’s decision is expected later this year, and both state officials and local voters will be watching closely for its impact on future election oversight.
Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.
