California High Court Weighs Sheriff Authority in Ballot Seizure Case

California Supreme Court justices signaled deep skepticism on Monday during oral arguments in San Francisco regarding Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of more than 650,000 ballots following allegations of vote discrepancies in last year's redistricting referendum.

The high court heard two linked lawsuits challenging the March raid, one filed by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of local voters and another by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to halt his investigation.

Deputies under Bianco, a Republican who mounted an unsuccessful gubernatorial bid this year, confiscated approximately 1,000 boxes of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters after a local citizens group alleged a 45,800-vote discrepancy. Election officials repeatedly clarified that the variance was closer to 100 votes and stemmed from an inaccurate mail-in ballot hand-counting pilot program.

Defense attorney Bradley W. Hertz argued that Bianco acted lawfully under judicially-approved search warrants issued by a local superior court judge to investigate potential criminal fraud. Hertz contended that state election codes prohibiting the removal of ballots apply strictly during formal criminal prosecutions rather than preliminary investigations.

The justices repeatedly challenged the defense's statutory interpretation regarding ballot custody during legal proceedings.

"That seems bizarre," said Justice Goodwin H. Liu, questioning the premise that law enforcement could remove ballots during an inquiry but must return them once formal charges are filed.

The defense maintained that state election statutes were not intended to create an absolute bar against criminal evidence gathering.

"If search warrants were allowed during the election or preelection, that would obviously wreak havoc," said Hertz during questioning about pre-election warrant powers. "There would be, kind of, a cat out of the bag, so to speak. You can't count ballots if they're not in the possession of the registrar."

The court also examined Bonta's constitutional authority to oversee county sheriffs after Bianco ignored executive directives to pause the inquiry before the high court halted it in April.

"So it's 'in some event,' despite the fact that it says 'in no event?'" asked Justice Kelli Evans, pointing to explicit language in the state election code regarding ballot custody.

The state Attorney General's office asserted that the California Constitution explicitly grants the state's top prosecutor direct supervisory power over local law enforcement officers.

"It's more than counterintuitive," said Justice Joshua Groban, criticizing the defense argument that the attorney general acts merely as an advisory figure. "'I'm your new supervisor, but funny thing, I don't have any control over your actions.'"

Legal representatives challenging the seizure emphasized the broader national implications for election security ahead of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

"This is going to send a message around the country. That our election ballots are the voters' ballots to be protected at all costs," said Chad Dunn, legal director for the UCLA Voting Rights Project. "We couldn't be more satisfied with how the hearing went today."

Dunn emphasized that established statutory frameworks exist specifically to govern election challenges without compromising ballot custody.

"The election code provides a process," said Dunn during oral arguments. "Nowhere else in election law, in this state and any other that I'm familiar with, does anybody get to handle ballots on their own in the back room with their deputies."

Attorneys representing local voters reiterated that non-transparent ballot handling damages public confidence in democratic outcomes.

"[It's] absolutely unacceptable," said Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, noting that the confiscated ballots remain secured in an undisclosed location.

Former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, serving as counsel on the lawsuit, urged the bench to establish clear protections for voter access and custody.

"We hope that the Supreme Court of California will issue a swift decision protecting the right to vote, protecting the right to vote, protecting the ballots that are cast by our voters," said Becerra. "So we can once again give our voters the confidence to know that when they go out and do their democratic duty and cast their vote, not only will it be counted, but it will be protected."

Following the session, Bianco defended his actions outside the courthouse and indicated his office would follow whatever ruling the bench hands down.

"There's not one state constitution that allows for an individual to stop a lawful investigation into a crime," said Bianco. "This is about whether or not a corrupt attorney general can stop a lawful investigation."

The sheriff confirmed he would comply with an order to relinquish the physical materials while continuing the broader inquiry.

"I would expect that that's what every Californian should expect," said Bianco regarding his department's ongoing efforts.

State prosecutors maintained that historical precedent supports state supervision over county law enforcement.

"The directives issued by Attorney General Bonta here are fully consistent with that historical tradition and fall squarely within the broad constitutional and statutory text," said California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt.

The bench also questioned how to address public concerns regarding election administration while adhering strictly to statutory frameworks.

"The attorney general learned that a sheriff was proceeding to seize ballots in contravention of the elections code, that he was filing an application for search warrants without furnishing probable cause of a crime, that he was making allegations about purported improprieties in an election that had already been publicly explained," Harbourt told the justices.

The Riverside County Executive Office confirmed it remains committed to following judicial directives regarding the voting materials.

"[Riverside County] will continue to comply with all lawful court orders and with all legal obligations applicable to election materials and election administration," said County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen.

The California Supreme Court is expected to issue its formal written ruling within 90 days.