Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is standing his ground as the California Supreme Court weighs whether he must return roughly 650,000 ballots seized after a November 2025 special election on redistricting; the state, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta, sued to force their return while Bianco insists the ballots are evidence and that his investigation must proceed.
The high court heard argument Monday after Bonta launched a legal challenge in March ordering the ballots back to election officials, but Bianco’s team says the seizure followed a formal complaint and demanded a probe. The dispute has turned into a clash over who controls election evidence and how far state authority can reach into an active law enforcement inquiry. Republican voices in the state frame this as a basic question of preserving evidence, not politics.
Bianco has repeatedly defended the move as law enforcement work rather than a political stunt, arguing that the sheriff’s office has a duty to follow up on credible complaints about ballot handling. The sheriff refused the order to return the ballots, saying his office is obligated to make sure the records are secure and examined. That line between administrative control and criminal inquiry is at the heart of what the court must decide.
“I did this, and this was legal,” Bianco told reporters. “I went a different route. They are legal. Both routes are legal. It’s just their side doesn’t like the route I chose.” Those words captured the sheriff’s posture: confident, unapologetic, and focused on asserting legal cover for the seizure.
Bianco’s lawyer, Bradley Hertz, told reporters the seized ballots are not just disputed paperwork but potential evidence in an ongoing investigation. “The sheriff is holding that evidence, safeguarding it as a custodian for the court,” Hertz said, framing the custody decision as routine for any criminal or administrative probe. From a law-and-order perspective, taking custody of materials that may be central to proving wrongdoing is standard procedure.
The ballots come from a November 2025 special election on Proposition 50, a redistricting measure that passed by more than 3.4 million votes according to state tallies. Even though the measure won decisively, the dispute does not hinge on whether the initiative passed but on the integrity of how votes were handled and counted. That distinction is important to those who say preserving evidence is not the same as trying to overturn an outcome.
Outside the courthouse, Bianco raised a pointed concern about apparent differences between machine counts and the physical ballots seized. “How strange, that now we have evidence that the machines counted something different than the ballots that we have, and an Attorney General runs in to stop that investigation so that we’ll never know,” Bianco said, signaling worry about unresolved discrepancies. For many Republicans, that statement taps into broader skepticism about machine-based processes and the need for transparent audits.
Bonta has pushed back forcefully, joining litigation and arguing the sheriff exceeded his authority under state law by seizing ballots and ignoring supervision. “This is a sheriff that – despite the clear language in the California constitution, and in California government code, providing me direct supervision, authority over him – failed to comply with it,” Bonta told reporters outside the courthouse Monday. His stance is that state oversight must be able to step in when an official overreaches.
“He can read, he knows what it says, it makes his violations even more egregious,” Bonta also said, sharpening the rhetoric and casting the matter as a clear-cut instance of noncompliance. That language underscores how political this fight has become, with an elected state attorney general publicly accusing an elected sheriff of flouting legal duties. The clash is a reminder that disputes over elections often become fights over institutional power.
The Attorney General’s challenge was joined by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which filed its own legal action against the seizure, adding an academic-rights group into the litigation mix. Critics on the right see that pairing as further evidence the state and allied groups are closing ranks to block scrutiny, while supporters of the AG argue that legal review must protect election administration. Either way, the case now sits at the center of a constitutional and procedural debate.
Bianco responded by contesting Bonta’s reading of the relevant code and the limits of supervisory powers over an active investigation. “If you take it word for word, in that context, it means that he has direct authority that if I’m not doing my job he can order me to do it and if I don’t do it he can do it for me. But he cannot stop an investigation.” That assertion reflects a view common in law enforcement that oversight does not equate to an ability to halt probes.
The legal stakes are significant: a ruling forcing return of the ballots could complicate any ongoing inquiry and set a precedent about how much latitude sheriffs have when election-related complaints arise. Conversely, a decision allowing the sheriff to keep custody would empower local law enforcement to seize and hold election materials in future probes. Either outcome will ripple through debates over election integrity, separation of powers, and the role of prosecutors and sheriffs in contested administrative matters.
For now the ballots remain in custody and the court’s decision is pending, with each side vowing to press its interpretation of law and duty. Observers can expect more hearings and filings as both parties frame the stakes not just for one county but for statewide authority over election processes and the preservation of potential evidence.
