California Supreme Court orders return of 650,000 ballots seized by Riverside sheriff

Key points

• The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on September 24, 2026, ordering Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return more than 650,000 ballots he had confiscated earlier in the year.
• Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero stated that allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots creates a substantial risk to election integrity, violating the state’s Elections Code which requires ballots to remain in the custody of election officials.
• The seizure followed a complaint from a local citizen group alleging a vote discrepancy in the November 2025 Proposition 50 special election, which redrew California’s congressional districts to counteract Republican-led gerrymandering in Texas.
• Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged the seizure, arguing it was designed to sow distrust in elections, and the court upheld his constitutional authority to direct the sheriff to halt the investigation.
• Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill on September 26 to prevent anyone from seizing ballots, stating that the ruling affirms California’s commitment to defending democracy and protecting the constitutional right to a secure vote.
• Sheriff Bianco, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in June 2026, called the decision wrong and suggested his attorneys might appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though legal experts deem such an appeal unlikely.

Background

This ruling follows a series of legal challenges beginning in February 2026, when Bianco’s department obtained search warrants to seize ballots from the November 2025 special election. The case gained national attention as part of a broader trend of election skepticism, with some Republicans mirroring President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on voting. Earlier in 2026, the Trump administration had seized ballots from a Georgia election office, and federal efforts to cast doubt on voter rolls had drawn scrutiny. The California Supreme Court had previously paused the investigation in April 2026 pending further legal review, with oral arguments held in August 2026.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian and NBC News emphasized the court’s focus on election integrity and the unprecedented nature of the seizure, highlighting the risk to public confidence in elections. The Press Enterprise provided detailed coverage of the legal arguments, noting Bianco’s claim that the investigation was a legitimate criminal probe into a 45,000-vote discrepancy, which local election officials dismissed as a misreading of data. Bloomberg Law focused on the constitutional implications, stressing that the court affirmed the Attorney General’s authority to supervise sheriffs, a move Bonta described as an important safety valve. Bianco’s attorneys argued that the state’s chief law enforcement officer could not interfere with an active investigation, a view the court rejected as unsustainable. All sources agreed that the ruling was a significant setback for Bianco, who had defied Bonta’s orders to return the ballots, and that the case would likely not proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court due to its basis in state law.

Why it matters

The ruling sets a precedent for the limits of law enforcement’s authority over election materials, reinforcing the principle that ballots must remain in the custody of election officials. It also strengthens the Attorney General’s power to oversee local investigations, a move that could have implications for future election disputes. The decision comes weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections, and the new legislation signed by Governor Newsom aims to prevent similar incidents. The case highlights ongoing tensions between election oversight and local law enforcement, particularly in the context of national debates over voter fraud and election integrity.

What to watch

Bianco’s attorneys are expected to discuss possible next steps, including a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though legal experts consider this unlikely. The ballots are to be returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, and the new legislation signed by Governor Newsom will take effect to prevent future ballot seizures. The case may also influence how other states handle similar disputes, particularly in the lead-up to the November 2026 midterm elections.