California Supreme Court weighs return of sheriff's seized ballots

Bonta argues sheriff had no authority over election materials

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on whether Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must return approximately 650,000 ballots he seized from a November 2025 special election on redistricting.

The court heard arguments in two cases challenging the seizure: one filed by Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, and another by the University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project on behalf of several Riverside County voters.

Bianco seized 1,000 boxes of election materials in March to investigate a complaint from a local citizens group that the vote count was off. The complaint did not allege a discrepancy large enough to alter the outcome, and local election officials had previously said the complaint was unfounded.

The redistricting measure that triggered the dispute passed in Riverside County by roughly 80,000 votes.

Bonta argued in his filing that the sheriff has no authority over election materials and warned that the seizure was designed to sow distrust in elections. He ordered Bianco to return the ballots; Bianco did not comply.

The UCLA Voting Rights Project sued the sheriff separately on behalf of several Riverside County voters. The state Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases on Monday.

Bianco was running for governor at the time of the seizure.

The cases before the court ask whether the sheriff must return the ballots to county election officials and whether his seizure exceeded his authority.