California appeals court rebuffs AG’s bid to stop Riverside sheriff’s ballot probe; denial based on venue, not merits
A California appellate court denied Attorney General Rob Bonta’s bid to halt Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco’s probe into alleged November 2025 Proposition 50 election irregularities, saying the petition was filed in the wrong venue rather than ruling on the merits.
- Appellate court denied the AG’s request because the petition was filed in the wrong court, not as a judgment on the substance of the ballot review.
- Sheriff Bianco has seized more than 650,000 ballots — first moving roughly 1,000 boxes and later returning for another 426 boxes from the county registrar.
- The probe grew from a complaint alleging about 45,800 more votes were reported than physical ballots; county officials say the discrepancy is about 100 votes.
- State officials and election experts say the sheriff lacks legal authority and technical expertise to conduct this sort of ballot review; Bianco calls it a legal fact-finding mission.
Background on the Riverside ballot investigation
Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican and gubernatorial candidate, opened an inquiry after a complaint from the local Riverside Election Integrity Team questioning whether the number of ballots on hand matched totals reported to the California Secretary of State. Bianco’s office says the operation is a hand count of ballots — not a recount of yes/no votes — intended to confirm that physical ballots match reported totals. The sheriff says warrants approved by a judge authorized deputies to secure boxes of ballots for review.
County election officials counter that the machine count and final certified results differed by roughly 100 votes, not the tens of thousands alleged by the complainant. County leaders have said they will comply with lawful court orders and protect election materials under state law. County officials have publicly pushed back on the scope and necessity of the sheriff’s actions.
How many ballots were taken
The sheriff’s office first moved about 1,000 boxes containing more than 650,000 ballots. This week deputies returned for an additional 426 boxes from the registrar’s storage, according to court filings and news reports. Those numbers have prompted questions about chain of custody, legal authority and the potential to sow public doubt about election integrity. Reporting details the scale of the removals.
Legal dispute: venue ruling, not a finding on facts
Attorney General Rob Bonta sought immediate court action to stop the sheriff’s review, arguing the county sheriff lacks authority to seize and examine ballots, that the warrants were deficient, and that the actions could erode public confidence in elections. Bonta filed for an expedited halt in Riverside Superior Court. On Tuesday, an appellate court denied that request — but the judges explicitly grounded the denial in improper venue, not a judgment on whether the sheriff had legal authority or probable cause. The court’s order left open other legal routes; Bonta’s office said it would evaluate next steps.
Bonta had previously sent a formal letter asking Bianco to pause and later sought emergency review from the California Supreme Court. Those filings frame the conflict as a dispute over who controls post-election ballot handling and investigations. CalMatters coverage summarizes the filings and the procedural posture.
State officials and election experts push back
Secretary of State Shirley Weber said the allegations of large discrepancies lack credible evidence and warned that law enforcement interventions by officials without election experience can undermine trust. “The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration,” Weber said. State statements and analysis emphasize the risks of nonstandard interventions.
Election law scholars and public interest groups have cautioned that the sheriff’s approach could set a troubling precedent, allowing local law enforcement without proper authority to disrupt certified election processes. Experts stress preserving a secure chain of custody and following established legal and technical procedures. CyberScoop and other outlets catalog expert concerns about procedure and precedent.
Bianco’s defense and political framing
Bianco has defended the operation as a straightforward check: “physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported,” he said at a press conference. He denies the work is tied to his gubernatorial campaign, asserting: “I have a duty to investigate alleged crime in Riverside County.” The Los Angeles Times and CalMatters report that his office strongly disputed the attorney general’s claims and accused state officials and some reporters of failing to attend its briefings.
Political context and polls
Proposition 50, the measure at issue, altered congressional maps and was approved in Riverside County with more than 56% support, a local margin of roughly 82,570 votes in favor, per Associated Press reporting cited in local outlets. The map changes affected several Republican-held U.S. House seats. Coverage places the dispute in the context of those outcomes.
Bianco is also a candidate for governor. A UC Berkeley–Politico poll showed him at about 11% support, tied with several others and trailing leading candidates. Critics say the sheriff’s actions mirror election-denial themes seen elsewhere and may appeal to voters concerned about fraud.
Chain of custody, warrants and court filings
Legal filings indicate some warrants used in the operation were sealed; the attorney general has said he reviewed them and found deficiencies. Civil rights groups and voting-rights lawyers — including the UCLA Voting Rights Project — have filed suits seeking to require return of ballots and to ensure county officials follow election law. Court filings and reporting document those actions.
Election experts warn any hand count must be performed under clear legal authority and strict procedures to avoid breaking chain of custody or contaminating evidence; counts done without those safeguards can create more confusion than clarity. Experts’ commentary highlights technical and legal risks.
Implications for Sonoma, California
Economic: Sonoma County election offices are not directly involved, but the case could increase pressure on county budgets statewide if officials pursue expanded security, storage or litigation defense. Vendors handling ballot storage or counting may see temporary demand increases. CalMatters outlines potential budgetary impacts.
Political: For moderate Sonoma voters, the dispute underscores a broader state fight over election oversight and may prompt demands for clearer boundaries on who may inspect ballots and under what rules.
Social and cultural: Public disputes can erode trust in election administration. Sonoma officials and civic groups may increase voter education to reassure residents about ballot security and certification processes. Observers note the potential for increased local forums and town halls.
Practical: Sonoma County election staff should review chain-of-custody plans, ensure documentation is complete, and prepare statements explaining procedures for ballot storage and recounts. Voters can expect communications from registrars addressing verification processes and how to report concerns. Local reporting suggests practical steps for counties and voters.
Reporting and sources
This article draws on reporting from the Los Angeles Times, CalMatters, Cyberscoop, LAist, Democracy Docket and local court filings. Key sources include:
Next steps: Legal challenges and further court action are expected as California officials consider where to refile emergency petitions and whether the attorney general will seek review by the state Supreme Court. The outcome will shape how election disputes are handled and how counties balance ballot security with public confidence.
