California Supreme Court Bars Sheriff from Seizing Ballots, Upholds Election Law
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Sheriff Chad Bianco illegally seized more than 650,000 ballots from the Riverside County registrar, breaching state election law.
In two unanimous decisions, the California Supreme Court held that Sheriff Chad Bianco broke state election law when his office seized over 650,000 ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters earlier this year. The court also ruled that Bianco must obey Attorney General Rob Bonta’s directive to cease the investigation, affirming the attorney general’s supervisory role over sheriffs. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero emphasized that the plain text of the Elections Code requires ballots to remain with election officials.
The ruling comes amid new legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom that makes unauthorized seizure of election materials a felony. Voting-rights groups praised the verdict as a safeguard against attempts by right-wing sheriffs to influence the upcoming midterm elections. Bianco, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate, had argued that a search warrant justified the raid, a claim the court dismissed as “bizarre.” The matter remains open pending further review by the attorney general's office.
Why it matters
The decision reinforces state control over election materials and curtails partisan interference in upcoming midterm votes.
How the sides frame it
MODERATE AGREEMENTBoth camps report that the California Supreme Court ruled the Riverside County sheriff lacked authority to seize over 650,000 ballots and ordered their return, but left-leaning coverage emphasizes the seizure as unlawful and overreach, while centrist coverage stresses the court’s enforcement of election law and the felony penalty for unauthorized seizures.
LEFT
The seizure was unlawful and an overreach by the sheriff.
CENTER
The ruling upholds election law and penalizes unauthorized ballot seizures.
The left emphasises
- Sheriff Chad Bianco lacked authority to keep the ballots
- The court called the seizure ‘unlawful’
- The action was based on unfounded voting improprieties
In this story
Related stories
7 in this thread