Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco refuses to return 650,000 ballots seized from a November 2025 special election as the California Supreme Court deliberates his legal challenge.
Sheriff Defiant as Court Considers Ballot Return
Bianco’s attorneys argue the seizure was lawful, citing a citizen complaint that triggered an investigation. They claim the complaint gave him authority to investigate potential irregularities. The sheriff told reporters, “I did this, and this was legal. Both routes are legal. It’s just their side doesn’t like the route I chose.”
State Attorney General Challenges Seizure
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in March, demanding the ballots be returned. He asserts the sheriff ignored clear statutory duties that require compliance with the state constitution and government code. Bonta said the sheriff’s defiance “makes his violations even more egregious.”
Evidence or Obstruction?
Sheriff’s lawyer Bradley Hertz maintains the ballots remain in custody as evidence for a pending recount. “The sheriff is holding that evidence, safeguarding it as a custodian for the court,” Hertz told the press. The legal battle centers on whether the seizure constitutes proper evidence handling.
Ballot Seizure Details
The ballots come from a November 2025 special election on Proposition 50, a redistricting measure approved by over 3.4 million voters, according to the California Secretary of State. Bianco questions the official count, suggesting machine tallies differ from the physical ballots. He claims the discrepancy warrants a full investigation.
Political Reactions
Bonta warned that the sheriff’s defiance “makes his violations even more egregious.” A UCLA Voting Rights Project attorney joined the attorney general’s case, alleging the sheriff exceeded his authority. The attorney general emphasized that the sheriff must obey state law without interfering with investigations.
Legal Standoff Continues
Bianco challenged Bonta’s reading of California code, asserting the attorney general cannot halt an investigation. The dispute highlights a broader clash over election integrity and state versus local power. Both sides await the Supreme Court’s decision, which could set a precedent for local election officials.
