SACRAMENTO — The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco unlawfully seized approximately 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 special election and separately held that the state attorney general has authority to issue binding directives to county sheriffs in criminal investigations.
The Sept. 24 decisions in Bonta v. Bianco and Cervantes v. Bianco resolve two closely related disputes arising from Bianco’s investigation of the November 2025 election involving Proposition 50.
In Cervantes, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, writing for a unanimous court, concluded that California election law prohibited Bianco from removing voted ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.
“We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” Guerrero wrote. “California law long has recognized that voted ballots require special care and handling to safeguard them from alteration or tampering.”
The court ordered Bianco to return the ballots to the registrar and refrain from further handling them except as necessary to comply with the ruling.
The dispute began after the Riverside Election Integrity Team alleged a discrepancy between handwritten ballot intake records and the county’s certified vote totals.
The group calculated that 611,426 valid ballots had been cast, 45,896 fewer than the 657,322 ballots reflected in the registrar’s official tally. The registrar disputed that calculation, explaining that the handwritten records were subject to human error and did not account for certain categories of ballots.
The Supreme Court noted in Cervantes that the alleged discrepancy remained disputed. The registrar maintained that any actual difference was closer to 103 votes, or 0.016%, and the court emphasized that even the larger alleged discrepancy could not have changed the outcome of the election.
Acting on the allegations, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department obtained search warrants in February and seized approximately 1,000 boxes of ballots, later obtaining additional election materials.
According to the court, the Attorney General’s Office learned about the warrants before they were executed and requested that Bianco postpone the seizure while the state reviewed the investigation. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department moved up execution of the first warrant and seized 12 pallets of ballots on Feb. 26.
Attorney General Rob Bonta subsequently directed Bianco to preserve the seized materials and pause the investigation while his office reviewed its basis.
In Bonta v. Bianco, the Supreme Court held that the California Constitution gives the attorney general authority to issue binding directions to sheriffs concerning individual criminal investigations when those directives are consistent with the attorney general’s responsibility to ensure state laws are uniformly and adequately enforced.
“We conclude that the authority vested in the Attorney General under the state Constitution and the Government Code includes the power to give binding directions to sheriffs regarding a particular investigation that are consistent with the Attorney General’s duty ‘to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced,’” Guerrero wrote.
The ruling addresses a question the California Supreme Court had never previously decided despite constitutional and statutory language governing the attorney general’s supervisory authority having existed for nearly a century.
The California Constitution designates the attorney general as the state’s chief law enforcement officer and provides the office with “direct supervision” over district attorneys and sheriffs in matters involving their official duties. Government Code Section 12560 additionally authorizes the attorney general, when deemed necessary in the public interest, to direct a sheriff’s activities related to criminal investigations.
Bianco argued that the attorney general could not issue binding directions regarding an ongoing sheriff’s investigation and that criminal investigations necessarily involve discretionary decisions that cannot be controlled through a writ of mandate.
The court rejected that interpretation, concluding the constitutional language “plainly confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a criminal investigation.”
The court nevertheless made clear that the attorney general’s authority is not unlimited and declined to decide hypothetical questions involving orders materially different from those Bonta issued in the Riverside County case.
The companion Cervantes ruling focused on a different question: whether Bianco could legally remove voted ballots from election officials even while conducting a criminal investigation pursuant to search warrants.
The court found that he could not.
California Elections Code Section 15551 provided that “[i]n no event” could voted ballots “be taken from the custody of the elections official.” The court concluded that the requirement applies even during a criminal investigation and that Bianco therefore lacked authority to seize the ballots.
The court acknowledged law enforcement’s responsibility to investigate potential election crimes but said California law provides mechanisms allowing investigators to inspect ballots without removing them from election officials.
“If election misconduct is suspected, the Elections Code provides several mechanisms for law enforcement to review and examine ballots without compromising their integrity,” the court wrote. “But those procedures were not followed and the type of seizure that occurred here directly conflicts with the Elections Code’s carefully considered and controlling provisions.”
Bonta called the pair of decisions an important clarification of the relationship between California’s attorney general and county sheriffs.
“Today’s rulings bring important clarity for our constitutional system in California. I’m grateful that our State Supreme Court reaffirmed my authority as Attorney General to supervise county sheriffs. I take my responsibility to exercise that authority in the public interest seriously. This was an extraordinary situation that required extraordinary action,” Bonta said.
“Election fraud can and should be investigated. But misuse of criminal investigative tools — without any evidence that a crime was committed — needlessly undermines trust in our elections system and in law enforcement,” Bonta added.
Bonta said his initial request was for Bianco to pause the investigation, preserve evidence and provide information so the Attorney General’s Office could evaluate the allegations.
“Instead, Sheriff Bianco pressed forward with the seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots,” Bonta said. “The Court has now made clear that this kind of defiance cannot stand, that the Attorney General has the authority to intervene when sheriffs take improper action, and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom also welcomed the decisions.
“Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government,” Newsom said in a statement. “And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again. People deserve to know their ballot is counted and secure, and in California we will do everything we can to protect that constitutional right — this year, and beyond.”
The rulings come days after Newsom signed Senate Bill 1418, legislation sponsored by Bonta that expands statutory protections for election materials.
The Supreme Court noted that Newsom signed SB 1418 on Sept. 19 and that it took effect immediately. The law broadened Elections Code Section 15551 beyond voted ballots to cover other election records, voting technology, electronic data and election-related materials and equipment.
The court said the new statute did not alter its conclusion concerning Bianco’s seizure because the law in effect before SB 1418 already required the ballots to remain with election officials.
Bianco had maintained in court that the Sheriff’s Department was conducting a criminal investigation rather than an election recount and that the ballots were evidence that could be examined under judicial supervision. In a June filing, his attorneys argued that the investigation was intended to determine whether the number of physical ballots could be reconciled with the certified results, not to change the election outcome.
The Supreme Court rejected that distinction as a basis for removing ballots from election officials, concluding that the Elections Code’s custody requirements apply even when law enforcement is investigating possible criminal misconduct.
The court’s order requires Bianco to return the approximately 650,000 voted ballots to Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco and refrain from further handling them except as necessary to comply with the court’s directive.
Tags:
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
