California Supreme Court Rules Sheriff Unlawfully Seized 650,000 Ballots
Sacramento, Thursday, 24 September 2026.
The California Supreme Court ruled that a county sheriff unlawfully seized 650,000 ballots based on unfounded fraud claims, reaffirming that election officials maintain exclusive custody over voted ballots.
Supreme Court Mandates Return of Seized Ballots
On Thursday, 24 September 2026, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling ordering Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return approximately 650,000 seized ballots to election officials [1][3]. The court determined that Sheriff Bianco violated state election law by removing the ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters during a localized inquiry into voter fraud [4]. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that the Elections Code requires voted ballots to remain in the continuous custody of election officials from the moment of deposit until destruction [1]. The ruling explicitly halts the unauthorized investigation and reaffirms the state Attorney General’s authority to issue binding directions to county sheriffs regarding election materials [2].
Origins of the Ballot Seizure
The legal conflict originated in February 2026, when Sheriff Bianco dispatched armed deputies to seize ballot boxes following a special election held in November 2025 regarding Proposition 50 [2][3]. Sheriff Bianco initiated the seizure based on claims of a discrepancy involving approximately 46,000 ballots, though election officials later clarified the actual discrepancy was only 103 ballots [1][4]. During oral arguments in August 2026, justices challenged the Sheriff’s legal theory, questioning whether search warrant authority could justify removing materials from election officials [1]. The court noted that existing mechanisms for investigating misconduct do not compromise ballot integrity, unlike the means employed by the Sheriff’s office [2].
Legal Authority and AI Errors
In the opinion, the court rejected the argument that local law enforcement operates independently of state election jurisdiction, describing the view that the Attorney General must remain a bystander as unsustainable [4]. Chief Justice Guerrero stated that allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots creates a substantial risk to election integrity [4]. Additionally, the court referred Sheriff Bianco’s legal counsel to the State Bar of California due to AI-assisted errors in their filings, including misquoted passages and incorrect descriptions of prior rulings [1]. Justice Goodwin H. Liu noted during arguments that specific election laws trump general search warrant authorities [2].
Implications for November Elections
This ruling arrives less than two weeks before Californians are scheduled to begin casting ballots for the November 3, 2026, midterm elections [2]. In response to the incident, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation on 19 September 2026 designed to prevent unauthorized seizure of ballots by law enforcement [3]. Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that the court made clear defiance of state election law cannot stand, urging voters to participate with confidence [2]. Sheriff Bianco, who did not advance to the general election in the June 2026 gubernatorial primary, has announced plans to run for reelection as sheriff in 2028 [3].