On August 24th, the California Supreme Court in San Francisco held a hearing combining two cases. Seven justices questioned the legality of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots between February and March this year. The issues of “who has the authority to handle ballots,” “who has the authorization,” and “the power of the state attorney general” have become topics of nationwide attention.
The consolidated cases, Cervantes et al. v. Bianco et al. (Case No. S295866) and Attorney General for the State of California v. Bianco et al. (Case No. S295901), sparked two controversies: 1) whether a county sheriff can seal and recount ballots; 2) whether a state prosecutor can order an elected sheriff on what to do – they do not have a direct reporting relationship.
The judgment in this case will also impact other states in the United States. Previously, the federal law enforcement conducted investigations on elections in Fulton County, Georgia, and Maricopa County, Arizona, sealing used ballots and election records.
In November 2025, California held a special election on Proposition 50 with a 64.4% approval, proposed by the state legislature to give Democrats an advantage in 48 out of 52 congressional districts. A civilian group in Riverside County questioned the election results, claiming a discrepancy of 46,000 ballots between manually recorded votes and those submitted to the Secretary of State’s office.
Judge Jay Kiel of Riverside County Superior Court issued three search warrants to seal the ballots for recounting. The Riverside County authorities conducted operations on February 26th and March 24th, sealing around 1,000 boxes of election material, including approximately 650,000 ballots.
During this time, California Attorney General Rob Bonta ordered Bianco to cease the investigation and submit all case files and documents to his office, but Bianco did not comply. Bonta filed a lawsuit, stating that Bianco’s investigation was “baseless and aimed at sowing seeds of distrust in elections and undermining public confidence.”
On March 23rd, Bonta filed a petition with the California Fourth District Court of Appeal to stop the investigation. After the appeal was rejected, Bonta turned to the California Supreme Court for redress. Simultaneously, Chad Dunn, a voting rights attorney from UCLA, representing four Riverside County voters, also filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to return the sealed ballots. The California Supreme Court issued an order on April 8th, requiring Bianco to halt all investigative activities and preserve all materials properly.
Art Tinoco, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, stated at a county board meeting that the final discrepancy in the recount was only 103 votes, well within the normal range, and not tens of thousands as alleged.
According to the nonprofit news organization CalMatters, during Monday’s hearing, attorney Chad Dunn argued that a county sheriff lacks the authority to seal and recount ballots. He pointed out that the California Election Code stipulates that “under no circumstances should such a package or contents thereof be removed from the custody of election officials”; election counting must be carried out by trained and sworn election officials, initiated only by district attorneys, county boards, or the Secretary of State; the review process must be conducted in public with party representatives and neutral observers present.
Representing the Secretary of State’s office, lawyer Kevin Calia stated that under no circumstance should ballot packages be removed from the Riverside County registrar’s office.
Bianco’s lawyer Bradley Hertz argued that the sheriff has a duty to investigate allegations of election fraud. According to the Courthouse News Service, Bianco followed the provisions of the penal code, including obtaining a judge’s search warrant through a sworn declaration.
Hertz argued that the term “in no event” does not mean ballots cannot be removed from election officials’ custody; rather, it allows for such actions under specific circumstances when considered against the background.
Justice Kelli Evans expressed skepticism about his explanation. Justice Goodwin Liu questioned whether, according to Hertz’s argument, the sheriff could remove ballots during the “investigation” and then instantly return them when the “prosecution phase” starts?
Justice Joshua P. Groban asked if the sheriff could seal ballots before or during an election? Hertz replied that before the election, the Election Code’s provisions take precedence over the execution of search warrants, and judges are unlikely to grant search warrants during the election as it would cause “chaos”; however, this changes once the election results are certified.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero asked how to reconcile fundamentally different viewpoints – that seizing ballots could be irregular while also acknowledging public concerns about election integrity are reasonable.
Regarding whether the State Attorney General has the authority to issue binding directives to elected county sheriffs, both sides have differing interpretations. In 1966, the state constitution, approved by 73% of voters, states that the State Attorney General has “direct supervisory power over all matters within the scope of their respective powers involving every district attorney and sheriff.”
Supporters of the “Constitutional Sheriff” movement believe that elected county sheriffs have the highest legal authority within their jurisdiction, surpassing state and even federal officials, and can lawfully ignore laws they deem unconstitutional.
Deputy Attorney General for California, Samuel Harbourt, argued that the Attorney General acts on behalf of the “public interest,” and his authority is “broad.” Justice Groban stated that if it is left solely to the Attorney General to decide what is in the public interest, it sounds nearly limitless.
Hertz argued that the Attorney General does not have the power to supersede the sheriff’s authority but plays a role of “supervision, advice, and consent” in local law enforcement affairs. “The sheriff is not subordinate to the Attorney General… the Attorney General’s powers are limited,” he stated.
Justice Leondra R. Kruger referred to California law, stating that the Attorney General has “direct supervisory authority” over all county sheriffs in California; Justice Liu believed that the phrase “shall direct” is expansive, covering a wide range of concepts.
If the court rules against Bianco, it would mean that the State Attorney General will have real and compelling power over all county sheriffs, making it mandatory for sheriffs not to seize and retain ballots from registrar offices based on search warrants.
If the court rules in favor of Bianco, there will be no clear restrictive principles to prevent California sheriffs; in case of future complaints during elections, sheriffs will have the authority to investigate and seal ballots.
After the debate, Bianco stated that he did not accuse the election registrar of crimes but expressed concern over corruption within the department. “Interestingly, the whole focus of the debate is about returning evidence to those who may be responsible for crimes,” he said. “In the context of election fraud investigations across America, there is a significant issue involving discrepancies between machine-counted results and actual ballots, and due to the obstruction by the Attorney General, we are unable to uncover the truth.”
Bonta criticized Bianco, saying, “As a law enforcement officer who swore to uphold the law, he not only violated the law but also abused his investigative powers, disregarded my authority granted by the constitution and laws, resisted my instructions, repeatedly violated the law, and acted recklessly.”
When asked if criminal charges would be brought against Bianco, Bonta stated that his office would “objectively and fairly” evaluate, “ensuring that our electoral system is free from any interference and attacks to maintain the fairness and integrity of the electoral system.”