California’s Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical on Monday that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco acted within his legal authority when he seized approximately 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 special election on Proposition 50, according to oral arguments heard in San Francisco on August 24, 2026. The high court considered two separate lawsuits challenging the unprecedented seizure, which Bianco claimed was part of an investigation into alleged voter fraud after a citizen group alleged a 45,000-ballot discrepancy.
Bianco’s attorney, Bradley Hertz, argued that local law enforcement officers have the right to take ballots after obtaining a warrant, regardless of state election laws governing how challenges and investigations should be handled. But Justice Goodwin Liu pressed back, noting that Bianco’s logic of being able to seize ballots during an investigation but then being forced to return them during prosecution seemed “bizarre.”
The ballot seizure centered on claims made by a conservative citizen group that alleged an error in the Proposition 50 vote count. Riverside County’s registrar of voters has stated repeatedly that those claims were based on a misinterpretation of preliminary vote count data, according to CalMatters. The measure passed in the county by roughly 80,000 votes, meaning even if the disputed 45,000-ballot claim had been true, it would not have altered the outcome.
The first lawsuit came from Riverside voters, including two local Democratic elected officials, alongside the UCLA Voting Rights Project. Their legal argument focused on a California election law that states: “In no event shall the [ballots] be taken from the custody of the elections official.” Chad Dunn, arguing for the Voting Rights Project, told the court that state law provides a clear process for how ballots in contested elections should be handled—through public, transparent recounts conducted by trained, properly sworn officials and initiated by a district attorney, county board of supervisors, and the California secretary of state.
Justice Joshua Groban highlighted the national stakes, pressing Hertz on whether, under his broad view of warrant power, a sheriff could seize ballots even before election day. Hertz acknowledged that allowing search warrants during or before an election would “wreak havoc,” yet his legal theory still sought to permit post-count seizures. The justices did not appear convinced.
The second lawsuit, brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenged whether Bianco was required to abide by the attorney general‘s orders to halt the seizure. Bonta argued that the California Constitution grants the attorney general “direct supervision” over sheriffs. Bianco’s legal team countered that this authority was more like that of an “elder statesman”—someone able to offer advice but otherwise restricted from exercising control. Justice Joshua Groban rejected this framing, noting that “direct supervision” has a clear, intuitive meaning. He posed a hypothetical: “‘I’m your new supervisor, but funny thing, I don’t have any control over your actions,'” he said, illustrating how counterintuitive Bianco’s argument was.
Bianco’s ballot seizure drew national attention during his unsuccessful 2026 gubernatorial campaign and amid broader concerns about how local law enforcement aligned with election-denial movements might interfere in future elections. Voting rights advocates see the case as a crucial test ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, especially as President Trump has spent years making unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud and recently sought election records from counties in Georgia and Arizona.
Speaking to reporters on the courthouse steps after Monday’s hearing, Bianco said he hoped the court would rule in his favor. If the court orders his office to return the ballots, he said he would comply but suggested his office would continue its investigation. The justices may not release a ruling for months, according to CalMatters.
Sources
- AP News — confirmed the California Supreme Court hearing on August 24, 2026, the seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots, and the two separate lawsuits challenging Bianco’s authority.
- CalMatters — provided detailed reporting on the oral arguments, justices’ skepticism, the UCLA Voting Rights Project’s legal arguments, the registrar’s statement on the ballot count claims, and the expected timeline for a ruling.
- Los Angeles Times — reported on Bianco’s unsuccessful gubernatorial run, the justices’ concerns about pre-election ballot seizures, and the broader implications for the “constitutional sheriff” movement.
- Democracy Docket — confirmed the 45,000-ballot claim and Bianco’s characterization of it as credible enough to investigate as a potential felony election offense.
- Courthouse News — reported on the citizen group’s audit claim and the seizure of ballots as part of Bianco’s investigation.
