Sheriff Bianco’s Seizure of Prop 50 Ballots Was Unlawful

Monday, September 28, 2026

Page 1

California Supreme Court:

Sheriff Bianco’s Seizure of Prop 50 Ballots Was Unlawful

High Court Says Attorney General Has Power to Order Former Gubernatorial Candidate to Pause Election-Integrity Investigation, Search Warrant Insufficient to Allow Agency to Take Custody

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

The California Supreme Court held Thursday, in a pair of unanimous decisions, that Riverside County Sheriff—and former Republican candidate for governor—Chad Bianco violated California law by seizing ballots from the November 2025 special election in which voters approved Proposition 50, a redistricting measure designed to capture additional congressional seats for Democrats in response to similar efforts by GOP lawmakers in Texas.

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero authored both opinions, granting petitions for writ relief filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, in one case, and four Riverside County residents who alleged that their ballots were improperly seized by the sheriff along with those belonging to approximately 650,000 other voters, in the other.

Bonta, a Democrat, had attempted to intervene upon discovering that Bianco had obtained search warrants, signed by Riverside Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel, in February. Earlier that month, a community group, the Riverside Election Integrity Team (“REIT”), announced that it had obtained records from the county’s Registrar of Voters indicating that 657,322 valid ballots had been counted in the special election but that only 611,426 had been cast.

The Sheriff’s Department responded to the allegations by seeking search warrants authorizing the seizure of “[a]ll ballots pertaining to the 2025 Special Election” and other “election materials.” Registrar Art Tinoco defended the official results to the Board of Supervisors later that month, saying that the handwritten records relied upon by REIT were prone to human error and did not account for all types of ballots.

Request for Time

After the Attorney General’s Office asked the sheriff’s department to wait until the state agency had time to review the matter before executing the warrants, Bianco’s office went ahead with the seizure, collecting approximately 1,000 boxes of ballots and transporting them to a secure storage facility accessible only by its employees on Feb. 9.

A few weeks later, Bonta sent additional correspondence, “direct[ing]” Bianco to preserve all materials and to pause any further action in the investigation. The sheriff’s department went ahead with a hand count of the ballots, starting on March 5, before halting the efforts and seeking a third warrant.

In late March, Div. Two of the Fourth District denied Bonta’s petition seeking a writ of mandate compelling Bianco to obey the directions of his office, finding that the attorney general had not shown that he lacked an adequate remedy in the trial court.

The office then sought review, and the California Supreme Court ordered that the petition filed in the Court of Appeal be refiled in the high court and directed Bianco’s office to pause and preserve all seized materials.On March 25, Clarissa Cervantes, together with three other Riverside County residents, petitioned the high court directly for a writ of mandate requiring the sheriff to return the seized election materials.

Authority to Direct

As to Bonta’s petition, Guerrero wrote:

“We conclude that the authority vested in the Attorney General under the state Constitution and the Government Code includes the power to give binding directions to sheriffs regarding a particular investigation that are consistent with the Attorney General’s duty ‘to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.’…We further conclude that the Attorney General’s clear, specific, and lawful directions to respondents in this matter are all within the scope of his authority and that the Attorney General is entitled to a writ of mandate that orders respondents to comply with these directions.”

The chief justice cited §13 of Article V of the California Constitution, which provides, in part:

“The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff…in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime….Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney.”

Underenforcement of Law

Rejecting the argument, asserted by Bianco’s office, that the constitutional provision only reveals a concern with the statewide official’s ability to step in when there has been an underenforcement of the law, Guerrero wrote:

“A rule denying the Attorney General the ability to issue binding instructions regarding an investigation already initiated by a sheriff would…frustrate the Attorney General’s ability ‘to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.’…The fact that a sheriff’s investigation is underway does not necessarily mean it is effectively contributing to the uniform and adequate enforcement of the laws.”

She reasoned that Government Code §12560, which was adopted following the 1934 passage of a proposition adding the language now found at §13 to the Constitution, supports the court’s interpretation as it specifies that, “[w]henever the Attorney General deems it necessary in the public interest the Attorney General shall direct the activities of any sheriff relative to the investigation or detection of crime.” The jurist remarked:

“Put succinctly, while there are undoubtedly limits to the powers vested in the Attorney General under the state Constitution and Government Code, the orders before us do not test these boundaries, and no valid reason appears why the Attorney General cannot exercise his authority here to issue binding directions consistent with the uniform and adequate enforcement of the law.”

Voters’ Petition

Addressing the residents’ petition, Guerrero declared:

“We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful. California law long has recognized that voted ballots require special care and handling to safeguard them from alteration or tampering. Consistent with this principle, the Elections Code narrowly limits the circumstances in which a court may order the production of ballots for inspection, and even in those narrow circumstances, requires that ballots remain in the physical custody of the responsible elections official.”

She added:

“Bianco’s seizure of the ballots violated the plain language of section 15551, subdivision (d), commanding that ‘[i]n no event’ shall voted ballots ‘be taken from the custody of the elections official.’ This provision manifests a legislative intent that ballots remain in the elections official’s custody even in the event of a criminal investigation.”

The chief justice acknowledged that §15551(a) provides that “the package containing the voted ballots shall be subject to the order of the court in which the contest or criminal prosecution is pending” but said that the issuance of a warrant does not qualify as either of the two enumerated circumstances. She wrote:

“[E]ven if a criminal prosecution had commenced, allowing for a court-ordered production, section 15551’s plain text prohibits the removal of the ballots from the registrar’s physical custody. Section 15551, subdivision (a) identifies limited circumstances in which a court might order the production of ballots for inspection, i.e., election contests or criminal prosecutions. And even in those limited circumstances, section 15551, subdivision (d) expressly provides that ‘[i]n no event’ shall voted ballots be ‘taken from the custody of the elections official.’ ”

Guerrero remarked:

“Bianco breached this duty when his department seized the ballots in violation of section 15551, subdivision (d). The appropriate remedy is for Bianco to return the ballots to the registrar’s custody forthwith, without further review or counting of them.”

Concurring Opinion

Liu penned a concurring opinion to highlight the “difficult predicament” faced by Tinoco, who was “caught between a rock and a hard place.” He opined:

“An alternative path was available to the Registrar, and it is available to election officials who face similar dilemmas: The Registrar could have gone to court himself to vindicate his duties and authority under the law.”

Adding that “elections officials have additional recourse” going forward, the justice pointed out:

“In response to these events, the Legislature amended the Elections Code to prohibit peace officers from interfering with elections and to authorize enforcement actions by the Attorney General, Secretary of State, and county elections officials (§15007), to provide for civil and criminal liability for such interference (§§ 18564.5, 18568), and to require the Attorney General to advise election officials on how to respond to requests from law enforcement (§15006).”

The justice continued:

“It is a lot to ask of our election officials that they not only do their jobs competently but also stand ready to sue anyone who unlawfully interferes with their duties. Yet here we are. For our democracy to flourish, our elections must be conducted in accordance with the law.”

The cases are Bonta v. Bianco, 2026 S.O.S. 3015, and Cervantes v. Bianco, 2026 S.O.S. 3024.

Proposition 50 passed by a substantial margin statewide, and Riverside County official results showed that 56.3 percent of votes cast were in favor of the measure.