LOS ANGELES, CA – The California Supreme Court has ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return approximately 650,000 ballots seized during an investigation into the November 2025 special election, ruling that voted ballots must remain in the custody of election officials even when law enforcement is investigating alleged election misconduct.
The decision came Thursday, Sept. 24, in two related cases involving Bianco, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The court also ruled that Bonta had authority under state law to direct the sheriff to pause the investigation and comply with his instructions concerning the seized election materials.
The court’s ruling in Cervantes v. Bianco specifically addressed the seizure of the ballots. The justices directed Bianco to return the ballots to the registrar’s custody and prohibited further handling of them except as necessary to comply with the court’s order.
The California Supreme Court’s published opinions are part of a broader legal dispute over who has authority to investigate alleged election irregularities and how voted ballots can be handled during such an investigation.
Sheriff Seized Ballots During Election Investigation
The dispute began after the November 2025 special election involving Proposition 50, a measure concerning congressional redistricting.
In February 2026, Bianco’s department obtained search warrants and subsequently seized approximately 1,000 boxes containing about 650,000 ballots and other election-related materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.
According to the California Courts’ account of the case, the investigation followed allegations of a discrepancy between the registrar’s official vote count and figures calculated by a local group.
The group, known as the Riverside Election Integrity Team, alleged that approximately 45,000 more votes had been counted than ballots received.
Riverside County election officials disputed that calculation. The dispute over the numbers became the basis for Bianco’s decision to launch a criminal investigation and seek warrants allowing his department to take possession of the election materials.
Bianco previously defended the investigation and said his office was conducting a fact-finding effort to determine whether the alleged discrepancy could be substantiated.
Court Says Ballots Must Remain With Election Officials
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was not whether election fraud can be investigated, but whether law enforcement could physically remove voted ballots from the custody of the county’s election officials while conducting such an investigation.
The court ruled that California’s Elections Code does not allow that removal.
The California Secretary of State’s Office said the court relied on Elections Code Section 15551, which requires voted ballots to remain in the physical custody of the elections official, including when a criminal investigation is underway.
The court emphasized that California already has procedures allowing ballots to be examined, recounted and reviewed while maintaining their custody within the election system.
The ruling therefore establishes that a criminal investigation does not, by itself, allow law enforcement to remove voted ballots from the election official responsible for their custody.
Attorney General Also Wins Separate Case
The ballot case was one of two decisions issued Thursday involving Bianco.
In Bonta v. Bianco, the Supreme Court considered whether the California attorney general has authority to supervise and direct a county sheriff during a criminal investigation.
The court ruled that the attorney general does have that authority and ordered Bianco to comply with Bonta’s directives concerning the election investigation.
The California Attorney General’s Office said Bonta had instructed Bianco to pause the investigation, preserve or return seized materials as directed and provide information to the Attorney General’s Office.
Bianco did not follow those instructions before the Supreme Court issued its ruling.
The court’s decision now requires compliance with those directives.
Bianco Disagrees With Ruling
Bianco has maintained that his investigation was lawful and that his office was responding to allegations of potential election misconduct.
Following Thursday’s decisions, Bianco said he would comply with the order while continuing to disagree with the court’s ruling.
In a statement, Bianco said he was “very disappointed” and that his office “wholeheartedly disagree[s]” with the decision. He also maintained that the investigation was a lawful effort to examine potential election fraud and argued that the ruling could affect future investigations involving public safety and election-related allegations.
His position differs from the legal conclusion reached by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the seizure of the voted ballots violated the state’s election-law requirements.
Governor Newsom Responds to Decision
Gov. Gavin Newsom also responded to the ruling, describing it as a reaffirmation of protections surrounding California elections.
Newsom said the decision affirmed that the state would use its governmental institutions to protect election procedures and that voters should have confidence that their ballots will be counted and secured.
The governor’s statement came as California prepares for the Nov. 3, 2026, general election.
The California Secretary of State’s election calendar lists the November election as the next statewide general election.
New Election-Materials Protections
The Supreme Court decisions also came shortly after Newsom signed legislation strengthening protections for election materials.
According to the California Attorney General’s Office, Senate Bill 1418 was signed the previous week and adds protections involving election materials, including provisions addressing unlawful interference with their custody.
The Secretary of State’s Office said it will coordinate with the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and the Sheriff’s Department to ensure the seized materials are transferred back to the registrar in an orderly and secure manner.
The court’s decision also makes clear that California’s existing election procedures provide mechanisms for investigating questions about vote counts without physically removing voted ballots from election officials.
What Happens to the Seized Ballots
The immediate consequence of the ruling is that the approximately 650,000 seized ballots must be returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.
The Supreme Court specifically directed Bianco to return the ballots and refrain from further handling them except as required to carry out the court’s order.
The Riverside County Registrar of Voters remains responsible for the custody and administration of election materials in the county.
The ruling does not change the certified outcome of the November 2025 special election. Instead, it resolves the legal question surrounding the sheriff’s seizure and establishes the limits on how voted ballots may be handled during a law-enforcement investigation.
For the sheriff’s investigation, the decision also means that any further examination of election materials must comply with the procedures and authority recognized by the state Supreme Court.
The two rulings bring the months-long dispute over the seized ballots and the attorney general’s authority to intervene in the investigation into a new legal phase, with the immediate requirement that the ballots return to election officials’ custody.
