RIVERSIDE, Calif. — The California Supreme Court is set to review a lawsuit brought by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of four Riverside County voters who allege Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco illegally seized voter ballots during the November 2025 statewide election, according to a recent report by The Riverside Record.
The lawsuit centers on claims that Bianco, a Republican candidate for governor, retrieved ballots as part of an active investigation into election fraud allegations. The report notes that Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who is running against Bianco, serves as a voting rights adviser for the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
According to the report, Bianco’s investigation stems from allegations made by a local resident group known as the Riverside Election Integrity Team, or REIT. The group claimed there was a discrepancy of 45,896 fewer ballots cast in the final election count than what was initially reported by the county’s Election Management System.
However, Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco later refuted those allegations during a public workshop, clarifying that the actual variance was only 103 ballots.
A month before the May 13 court order, the UCLA Voting Rights Project submitted a letter to the California Supreme Court raising concerns about what it described as a “breach in election security and possible additional Elections Code violations,” according to The Riverside Record.
The report states that those concerns arose after documents tied to Bianco’s election fraud investigation were inadvertently made public.
In an interview with The Riverside Record, UCLA Voting Rights Project Senior Voting Rights Counsel Sonni Waknin said the organization is seeking an order requiring all ballots and election materials to be returned to the county registrar. Waknin argued that under California Elections Code, “ballots, even in the event of a criminal prosecution, remain in the custody of county elections officials.”
The urgency surrounding the lawsuit intensified after attorney Robert Tyler disclosed a recent data breach that reportedly exposed sensitive voter information, including names, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses and party affiliations.
According to the report, the UCLA Voting Rights Project argued that the sheriff’s ongoing investigation, combined with the data breach, threatened to “irreparably [harm] the integrity of the electoral process in California.”
In response, Bradley Hertz, the newly appointed lead attorney representing Bianco, defended the sheriff department’s actions in a filing submitted to the court, according to The Riverside Record.
Hertz disputed descriptions of the data exposure as a “public link,” asserting instead that the files were intended to remain private and only became publicly accessible because of an error.
Hertz further maintained that the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office did not release any files obtained through search warrants executed as part of the investigation.
Instead, he contended that the documents were leaked by REIT after the group legally obtained them from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.
Despite those arguments, and Hertz’s assurances that the sheriff’s department was “not aware of any malicious use of any of the data in the files,” the California Supreme Court ordered expedited legal proceedings in the matter.
Waknin told The Riverside Record that the court’s decision marks the first time the California Supreme Court has signaled it will review the dispute and noted that the justices placed the matter on an expedited timeline.
Under the court’s order, both Bianco and Tinoco must submit detailed briefs by June 12 explaining why the relief requested by the UCLA Voting Rights Project should not be granted.
At the same time, The Riverside Record reported that the court denied the UCLA Voting Rights Project’s request to temporarily halt Bianco’s ongoing election fraud investigation.
The dispute unfolds alongside a separate legal battle involving Bianco and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. According to the report, Bianco’s legal team argued that Bonta lacked authority to intervene in the sheriff’s investigation and had failed to “[establish] a clear ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus.”
Bianco’s attorneys further argued that Bonta’s office did not possess the “plenary operational authority to intervene in and terminate a lawful criminal investigation conducted by an independently elected sheriff or to invalidate judicially issued search warrants,” according to The Riverside Record.
As the June 12 deadline approaches, Bianco’s legal team has urged the court to “adopt a balanced approach that preserves ballot integrity, respects judicial authority, and maintains public confidence through neutral court supervision.”
Meanwhile, the UCLA Voting Rights Project and other voting rights advocates continue to seek the return of all ballot materials, arguing that strict adherence to California election law remains essential to protecting both the integrity of the state’s electoral process and individual voting rights.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
