Appellate court won’t halt Riverside sheriff’s ballot count; AG says ruling only about filing venue as feud over seized ballots grows
An appellate court refused to halt Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure and counting of roughly 650,000 ballots tied to November 2025’s Proposition 50, saying its denial rested on filing venue — not the underlying legal merits.
- Court: An appellate court denied the Attorney General’s request to stop the count on procedural venue grounds, not on substance. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters.
- Scope: Sheriff Chad Bianco seized roughly 650,000 ballots under judge-approved warrants and says his office is performing a physical count to compare totals. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters.
- Pushback: State elections officials and experts say there is no credible evidence of widespread error; county totals differed from machine counts by roughly 100 votes, not tens of thousands. Sources: CalMatters, American Community Media.
Main story
Riverside County has become the center of a high-stakes legal and political fight after Sheriff Chad Bianco ordered judge-approved warrants to seize roughly 1,000 boxes — about 650,000 ballots — from the county Registrar of Voters in February 2026. A second action in March added 426 more boxes to materials under review. The activity was prompted by a complaint from a local group alleging a roughly 45,896-vote discrepancy between ballots logged and votes reported.
Timeline of events
- February 2026: Judge-approved warrants (kept under seal) led to an initial seizure of about 1,000 boxes (~650,000 ballots). Source: Los Angeles Times.
- March 2026: Bianco’s office executed a second seizure adding 426 boxes to the review. Source: Los Angeles Times.
- State response: Attorney General Rob Bonta filed in Riverside Superior Court and sought higher-court review, arguing lack of authority and probable cause and warning of harm to public trust ahead of primaries. Sources: CalMatters, Los Angeles Times.
- Court action: A judge denied the AG’s request to stop the count on procedural grounds tied to filing location and appointed a special master to supervise any physical count. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters.
What Bianco says
Sheriff Chad Bianco frames the action as a narrow, fact-finding mission: “Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported,” he told reporters in March. He denies any political motive and says the probe is unrelated to his gubernatorial campaign. Sources: Los Angeles Times, LAist.
State and expert pushback
The Attorney General’s office emphasized the appellate court’s denial was procedural and that “the facts have not changed.” The AG asserts Bianco is defying state instructions and is evaluating next steps to ensure resolution under state law. Secretary of State Shirley Weber and election experts caution that sheriffs are not election administrators and warn against outside probes that could erode public trust. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters, American Community Media.
Sealed warrants and transparency questions
Much of the court paperwork that authorized the initial seizures remains sealed. That has fueled debate over the legal basis for the action and the public’s ability to assess Bianco’s claims. The AG says he reviewed the sealed warrants and still found the sheriff’s action unlawful; Bianco’s office counters that only a physical count will reveal the truth. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters.
Counting under a special master
Because of the legal disputes, a court-appointed special master will supervise any physical count to protect chain of custody and legal standards. Bianco has said the count will proceed under that supervision; county officials say they will comply with lawful court orders. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters, American Community Media.
Implications for California
- Political: The dispute deepens partisan divides ahead of the gubernatorial primary and could both energize Bianco’s base and alienate moderate conservatives concerned about the rule of law. Sources: Los Angeles Times, CalMatters, Democracy Docket.
- Legal: The case tests limits on county law enforcement authority over elections and could set precedents for criminal probes that touch ballots and election materials. Sources: CalMatters, Los Angeles Times.
- Civic: Unproven claims of massive discrepancies risk undermining voter confidence and could depress turnout if left unresolved; many call for transparent, expert-led reviews. Sources: CalMatters, Cyberscoop.
- Local government: The seizures and ensuing litigation add costs and administrative burdens to the Registrar of Voters and county operations. Source: Los Angeles Times, American Community Media.
Voices from election experts
Election law scholars and state officials caution that outside probes by officials without election expertise can harm public trust. They cite prior reviews where similar allegations were examined and found not to indicate fraud, urging reliance on established procedures and qualified investigators. Sources: CalMatters, Cyberscoop.
Media and public statements
Bianco’s office criticized news coverage and the AG, accusing the press of repeating “an attorney general with a history of lying” and labeling coverage “clickbait” and “misleading.” The sheriff’s office reiterated it is “counting ballots, not yes and no votes” and challenged Democratic officials who oppose the probe. Source: Los Angeles Times.
Reporting note
This story draws on reporting from multiple outlets: Los Angeles Times; CalMatters; LAist; American Community Media; Riverside Record; Democracy Docket; and Cyberscoop.
