‘You won’t be seeing sheriffs unlawfully seizing ballots’: California rulings shut down roadmap for rogue law enforcement to upend midterms

With the midterms fast approaching, two unanimous California Supreme Court rulings stemming from a GOP sheriff’s seizure of roughly 650,000 ballots have vastly strengthened the hand of Golden State officials as they prepare plans to stop any attempt by rogue law enforcement to disrupt the elections.

The twin decisions, released Thursday, do more than force Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco (R) to return the ballots he seized after last year’s special redistricting election. 

Together, they establish two clear rules for future elections in California: Cast ballots must remain in the custody of election officials even during criminal investigations. And the state attorney general can issue binding directions to county sheriffs when local investigations conflict with state law.

Those holdings could prove particularly important if rogue local officials attempt to use unsupported fraud allegations to interfere with ballot custody during this fall’s elections — the type of scenario California officials say they have been preparing for.

Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said after the rulings that California is now in a “stronger, clearer position” to confront similar threats and suggested the episode could provide lessons outside the state.

“I think with the affirmation of my authority, with the affirmation of the Elections Code, which prevents a sheriff from removing ballot materials from an elections officer, we are in a stronger, clearer position going forward with respect to how to address these issues should they come up in the future,” Bonta said. “And I think other states across the country can learn from this example as well.”

Bonta also made clear that his office would again use the state authority confirmed by the ruling if another sheriff created a similar confrontation. 

“You won’t be seeing sheriffs unlawfully seizing ballots when they’re not allowed under Elections Code without significant consequence and, as necessary, intervention by my office to prevent it,” he said.

The most immediate safeguard comes from the court’s ruling in Cervantes v. Bianco, a case brought by California voters.

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that California law requires ballots to remain under the control of election officials, concluding that Bianco’s seizure violated the Elections Code despite the search warrants he obtained.

“In sum, the Elections Code contemplates that voted ballots remain in the continuous custody and control of elections officials from the moment the voter deposits them until the moment they are destroyed,” Guerrero wrote. 

The court ordered Bianco to return the ballots and prohibited him from handling them further.

The court also confronted one of the central dangers posed by Bianco’s theory: that ordinary law-enforcement powers could permit officers to remove, privately handle and count ballots outside the procedures governing elections.

“Bianco’s argument also overlooks that allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity,” the court wrote. “There is no need to introduce this risk because the Elections Code already contains its own comprehensive procedures for recounting and examining ballots, including for law enforcement purposes, without exposing them to alteration or tampering — unlike the unlawful seizure that occurred here.”

That distinction matters beyond Bianco’s abandoned attempt to count the special election ballots. It forecloses the argument that merely labeling something a criminal investigation allows a sheriff to bypass state rules governing who can possess, inspect and count votes.

“Today’s ruling has made it clear that a criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election law,” Sonni Waknin, senior voting rights counsel at UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and an attorney for the Riverside voters, said in a statement. “​​The Court has affirmed that when questions arise about an election, there are lawful and transparent procedures that must be followed. Those safeguards are essential to protecting voted ballots and maintaining public confidence in our elections.”

The companion ruling in Bonta v. Bianco, the case brought by the California attorney general, closes another potential avenue for rogue, local election disruption: a sheriff claiming independence from statewide oversight.

The state Supreme Court held for the first time in a dispute between California’s attorney general and a sheriff that the state Constitution “plainly confers” authority on the attorney general to give a sheriff binding directions concerning a criminal investigation. 

The court said the existence of a sheriff-led investigation does not itself prevent state intervention when the attorney general concludes it is not contributing to the uniform and adequate enforcement of California law. 

The court ultimately ordered Bianco to take no further action in the election investigation while Bonta reviews it, preserve seized election records not covered by the ballot-return order and provide the attorney general with requested investigative materials.

Bonta stressed that the power is intended for unusual situations, not routine state control over local sheriffs.

“This was an extraordinary case — a sheriff who ignored my clear and lawful directives and blatantly violated the law,” Bonta said. “Sheriff Bianco broke the law, violated the law, acted illegally. We acted because we had to.”

California has added another layer of protection since Bianco’s seizure.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently signed a package of election laws that expands protections for election materials and establishes additional mechanisms for responding to attempted seizures. 

“Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government. And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again,” Newsom said Thursday. “People deserve to know their ballot is counted and secure, and in California we will do everything we can to protect that constitutional right — this year, and beyond.”

Justice Goodwin Liu, concurring separately in the Cervantes case, made the stakes unusually explicit.

He described Bianco’s actions as the unlawful removal and handling by armed deputies of more than 1,000 boxes containing “the most precious documents of the citizenry in a democracy: their votes.”

Liu also pointed directly to the approaching election, noting that the court expedited the cases with the November 2026 general election nearing and issued its unanimous opinions just 31 days after oral argument.

“This court is prepared to act with dispatch and clarity to ensure that our elections are conducted in accordance with the law. But it should not have come to this,” Liu wrote. “Court orders aside, every public official has an independent duty to follow the law. The judiciary serves as an essential backstop, but the rule of law depends in the first instance on the conscientious discharge of that duty by all officials.”

The rulings themselves bind only California, not officials elsewhere. But the confrontation could provide a concrete example for election officials, attorneys general and voting rights advocates in other states confronting efforts by local law enforcement to seize control of ballots.