The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of roughly 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election on redistricting. The measure in question passed by approximately 80,000 votes.
Bianco seized 1,000 boxes of election materials in March after receiving a complaint from a local citizens group alleging a counting discrepancy, though election officials previously characterized the complaint as unfounded. Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately filed suit, contending the sheriff lacked authority over election materials and characterizing the seizure as an effort to undermine confidence in elections. The UCLA Voting Rights Project also sued on behalf of Riverside County voters. Bonta ordered the ballots returned, but Bianco refused to comply.
During oral arguments, Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, told the court that election law provides established mechanisms for contesting results, which the complainants did not pursue. He noted that citizens could have requested a recount within five days of the canvass or appealed to state officials. Dunn argued that allowing a sheriff to handle ballots independently from established procedures set a problematic precedent.
Bianco’s attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued the sheriff had a legal obligation to investigate after receiving a complaint and followed proper procedures by issuing search warrants. Hertz characterized the ballots as evidence being held in custody for the court. Bianco stated after the hearing that he would repeat the same action if faced with a similar complaint, asserting both his approach and alternative legal routes were permissible.
At the time of the seizure, Bianco was among two prominent Republicans in a crowded gubernatorial primary; he did not advance to the general election and subsequently announced plans to seek reelection as sheriff in 2028.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI