The California Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a constitutional dispute that pits state authority against local law enforcement discretion, with 650,000 ballots from a special election hanging in the balance.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized the ballots following the November 2025 special election on Proposition 50, a legislative redistricting measure. The sheriff maintains he acted within his legal authority after receiving a complaint about the election’s integrity. State Attorney General Rob Bonta, however, contends the seizure violates California’s constitutional framework and has demanded the ballots be returned immediately.
The fundamental question before the court is whether a county sheriff possesses the authority to seize and retain ballots from a certified state election, and if so, under what circumstances such action would be permissible.
Bianco has refused to relinquish the ballots since March, when Bonta first issued his order. Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse Monday, the sheriff defended his actions as both legal and necessary.
“I did this, and this was legal,” Bianco stated. “I went a different route. They are legal. Both routes are legal. It’s just their side doesn’t like the route I chose.”
Bradley Hertz, representing the sheriff, argued that the ballots constitute evidence in an ongoing investigation and must be preserved. “The sheriff is holding that evidence, safeguarding it as a custodian for the court,” Hertz told reporters following Monday’s hearing.
The ballots in question come from the statewide vote on Proposition 50, which passed by more than 3.4 million votes according to the California Secretary of State’s official certification. The measure addressed legislative redistricting procedures.
However, Bianco suggested outside the courthouse that discrepancies may exist between the official count and the physical ballots. “How strange, that now we have evidence that the machines counted something different than the ballots that we have, and an Attorney General runs in to stop that investigation so that we’ll never know,” the sheriff said.
Attorney General Bonta’s position rests on California’s constitutional structure, which he argues provides his office with direct supervisory authority over county sheriffs in matters of state law. The UCLA Voting Rights Project has filed a separate legal challenge supporting the state’s position.
“This is a sheriff that – despite the clear language in the California constitution, and in California government code, providing me direct supervision, authority over him – failed to comply with it,” Bonta told reporters Monday.
The case represents an unusual confrontation between state and county authority in California’s political landscape. While sheriffs are elected officials with broad discretion within their jurisdictions, questions of statewide elections and voting procedures have traditionally fallen under the purview of state officials and the Secretary of State’s office.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will likely establish important precedent regarding the balance of power between state and local law enforcement when election integrity questions arise. The court did not indicate when it would issue its decision.
As the legal battle continues, the 650,000 ballots remain in Sheriff Bianco’s custody, secured as what his legal team characterizes as evidence, pending the court’s determination of whether that custody is constitutionally permissible.
Related: Up to 200,000 Foreigners Face Visa Revocation Over Asylum Applications
