California Sheriff Ordered To Return Ballots Confiscated in Voter ‘Fraud’ Inquiry
The California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco acted unlawfully when his department seized roughly 650,000 ballots and election materials from the county registrar as part of an investigation into alleged voting irregularities. The court ordered Bianco to return the ballots and said he must not handle them further except as necessary to comply with the order.
The dispute began after a local group raised questions about an apparent discrepancy between a handwritten tally and Riverside County’s official vote count from the November 2025 special election involving congressional redistricting. Election officials explained that the discrepancy could be attributed to limitations and errors in the unofficial hand-counting process. Bianco nevertheless pursued an investigation and obtained search warrants authorizing the seizure of the ballots.
Bianco’s department ultimately took custody of more than half a million ballots. The sheriff said the materials were being treated as potential evidence in a criminal investigation into possible election misconduct. The seizure occurred after voters had approved Proposition 50, which changed California’s congressional district boundaries. The measure had passed statewide and also received a majority in Riverside County.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged the sheriff’s actions and directed Bianco to pause the investigation and preserve the seized materials while the state reviewed the matter. Bianco disputed the attorney general’s authority to give him binding instructions concerning the investigation. That disagreement became a separate constitutional and statutory question before the state Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the court determined that California law requires voted ballots to remain in the custody and control of election officials. The justices rejected the argument that a sheriff’s criminal investigation provided authority to remove the ballots from that custody. The court emphasized that California’s election laws already provide established procedures for investigating and examining ballots without transferring control of them to law enforcement.
The court also issued a separate ruling concerning the attorney general’s authority over sheriffs. It held that the California Constitution gives the attorney general direct supervision over sheriffs in matters connected to their official duties and that state law allows the attorney general to direct a sheriff’s activities concerning criminal investigations when necessary in the public interest.
As a result, Bianco must comply with the attorney general’s directions to halt further investigative action concerning the 2025 election while the state conducts its review. He must also provide requested investigative materials to the attorney general and preserve records that were seized, except for materials the court has separately ordered returned to election officials.
Bianco has said he will comply with the court’s order, although he continues to dispute the broader principle behind the ruling. His position is that local law enforcement should retain authority to investigate suspected criminal conduct within the county. His legal arguments also maintained that the attorney general’s supervisory authority did not permit the state to effectively take control of his investigation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not establish that election fraud occurred in Riverside County. The court instead addressed whether the sheriff had lawful authority to seize and handle the ballots in the manner he did. Local election officials had previously rejected the underlying discrepancy as evidence of fraud, explaining that the unofficial tally did not account for all ballot categories and was susceptible to human error.
The decision comes just weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections, giving the ruling added significance for election administration in California. State lawmakers have already responded to the controversy by adopting legislation intended to prevent similar seizures of ballots and election equipment. The governor signed those measures shortly before the Supreme Court issued its decision.
The case also establishes an important legal boundary between election administration and local law enforcement. The court made clear that allegations of election irregularities can be investigated, but those investigations must follow the procedures established by election law. It also clarified that the state’s attorney general has meaningful supervisory authority over county sheriffs when statewide enforcement of California law is involved.
For now, the immediate legal result is clear: the ballots must be returned to the appropriate election officials, Bianco must stop further handling of them, and his investigation is subject to the attorney general’s supervision. The ruling does not determine whether any voter fraud actually occurred; it determines that the method used by the sheriff to investigate those allegations violated California law.
Key Legal Outcome
- California’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled the ballot seizure unlawful.
- Bianco must return the seized ballots to the appropriate election authorities.
- The sheriff must stop further handling of the ballots, except as required to comply with the court’s order.
- The attorney general has binding supervisory authority over the investigation under California law.
- Bianco must pause the investigation and provide requested records while the attorney general conducts a review.
Why It Matters
- Election security: The ruling reinforces rules governing who may possess and handle voted ballots.
- Law enforcement authority: It clarifies the relationship between California sheriffs and the state attorney general.
- Election investigations: Alleged irregularities must be investigated through legally established procedures.
- November elections: The decision arrives shortly before the 2026 midterm elections and could influence how election officials and law enforcement approach ballot-related investigations.
- Future safeguards: California lawmakers have already enacted additional protections against unauthorized seizure of ballots and election equipment.
