California court considers whether sheriff must return 650,000 seized election ballots

California’s highest court is considering whether a Southern California sheriff had the legal authority to seize hundreds of thousands of election ballots, in a case that has raised wider questions about who can investigate and handle voting materials.

The California Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of about 650,000 ballots and other election records from Riverside County’s November 2025 special election on redistricting. The measure passed by roughly 80,000 votes.

Bianco ordered the materials taken in March after a local citizens group raised concerns about the accuracy of the count. County election officials had already rejected those concerns, and the alleged discrepancy would not have been large enough to change the result.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta subsequently went to court, arguing that the sheriff does not have authority to take control of election materials. A voting rights group has also challenged the seizure on behalf of Riverside County voters.

Bianco's lawyers maintain that he was required to investigate the complaint and that the ballots are being retained as evidence while the legal dispute continues.

The sheriff briefly began a recount under court supervision but halted the process after further legal challenges were brought. The ballots have not been returned to county election officials.

The case has attracted particular attention because Bianco was campaigning for governor when the ballots were seized. He failed to advance from the state's June primary and has since said he plans to seek another term as sheriff.

The dispute comes amid continuing political arguments in the United States over election security and the handling of mail-in ballots. It also follows broader efforts by some Republican officials to investigate claims of irregularities in elections, despite officials in Riverside County previously finding no evidence that the alleged counting problem affected the result.

The California Supreme Court's eventual ruling is expected to clarify the limits of a sheriff's powers when election materials are involved — and whether law enforcement can independently take possession of ballots during an investigation.

For observers in Britain, the case highlights a distinctly American feature of election administration: the extent to which elected law-enforcement officials can become directly involved in disputes over voting procedures and election records.