Republican California Sheriff’s 650,000-ballot seizure declared ‘unlawful’ — What the court said

The unanimous ruling said voted ballots must remain in the custody and control of election officials, even when law enforcement is investigating suspected election misconduct.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday (September 24) ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return roughly 650,000 ballots seized as part of an investigation into alleged voting irregularities in a November 2025 special election, ruling that the seizure was unlawful under state election law.

The unanimous ruling said voted ballots must remain in the custody and control of election officials, even when law enforcement is investigating suspected election misconduct. The court also ordered Bianco to refrain from further handling the ballots except as necessary to comply with its order.

Why did Chad Bianco seize the ballots?

Bianco's department seized approximately 650,000 ballots cast in Riverside County during the November 4, 2025, special election on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure backed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

The sheriff launched the investigation after a local citizens' group alleged a discrepancy between the official vote count and its own calculations. Election officials had rejected the allegations.

According to the Supreme Court's opinion, sheriff's personnel obtained two search warrants in February 2026 authorising the seizure of the ballots and other election-related materials from the county registrar.

Bianco later began recounting the ballots under the supervision of a court-appointed special master but suspended the effort amid legal challenges.

Court says election law protects ballot custody

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the search warrants allowed Bianco's office to retain the ballots as evidence.

The justices said California's Elections Code establishes procedures for investigating allegations of election misconduct without compromising the integrity and security of voted ballots.

“While allegations of election improprieties are a very serious matter,” the court said, the Elections Code provides mechanisms for investigating and proving misconduct that do not compromise voted ballots.

The court therefore issued a writ directing Bianco to return the ballots to the Riverside County registrar.

Attorney General Bonta challenged the seizure

California Attorney General Rob Bonta separately challenged Bianco's actions, arguing that the sheriff lacked authority to take control of election materials.

Bonta had ordered Bianco to return the ballots, but the sheriff did not comply, leading to further litigation. The state Supreme Court considered Bonta's case alongside the lawsuit brought by Riverside County voters.

The court's Thursday decision also addressed the relationship between state authority and county law enforcement. The separate Bonta v. Bianco case concerned the attorney general's constitutional and statutory authority to supervise and direct a county sheriff.

Bianco's defence

Bianco's attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued that the sheriff had a legal obligation to investigate after receiving the complaint and had followed the penal code by obtaining search warrants.

Hertz maintained that Bianco had not returned the ballots because they constituted evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the warrants did not override California's election-law requirements governing custody of voted ballots.

The dispute attracted national attention because it unfolded amid continuing political debate over election security and allegations of voting irregularities.

Bianco, a Republican, was running for California governor when he seized the ballots. He did not advance from the primary and later announced plans to seek reelection as Riverside County sheriff in 2028.

(With AP inputs)

Stay updated with the latest Trending, India, World and US news.

HomeNewsUs NewsRepublican California Sheriff’s 650,000-ballot seizure declared ‘unlawful’ — What the court said