California Supreme Court Orders Sheriff Bianco to Return 650,000 Seized Ballots

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to hand back roughly 650,000 ballots his department seized during a probe into alleged irregularities in a November 2025 special election, finding the seizure unlawful under state election law.

In a unanimous decision, the justices held that voted ballots must remain in the custody and control of election officials even when law enforcement is investigating suspected election misconduct. The court directed Bianco to refrain from any further handling of the ballots beyond what is needed to comply with its order.

How the seizure unfolded

The ballots were cast in Riverside County in the November 4, 2025, special election on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure backed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

Bianco opened the investigation after a local citizens' group claimed a discrepancy between the official vote count and its own tally. Election officials rejected those allegations.

According to the 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 a court-appointed special master but suspended the effort as legal challenges mounted.

Court rejects warrant argument

The Supreme Court turned down the contention that the search warrants entitled the sheriff's office to keep the ballots as evidence. It said California's Elections Code sets out procedures for investigating election misconduct allegations without undermining the integrity and security of voted ballots.

While allegations of election improprieties are a very serious matter, the court said, the code offers mechanisms to investigate and prove misconduct that do not compromise voted ballots. It issued a writ ordering the ballots returned to the Riverside County registrar.

Parallel challenge by attorney general

California Attorney General Rob Bonta separately challenged Bianco's actions, arguing the sheriff had no authority to take control of election materials. Bonta ordered the ballots returned, but the sheriff did not comply, leading to further litigation. The state Supreme Court considered Bonta's case alongside a lawsuit brought by Riverside County voters.

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

Sheriff's defence

Bianco's attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued the sheriff was legally obliged to investigate after receiving the complaint and had followed the penal code by obtaining search warrants. Hertz maintained the ballots had not been returned because they were evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

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

The dispute drew national attention as it played out amid continuing political debate over election security and claims 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.