The California Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in two lawsuits over Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of 650,000 ballots as part of an investigation into alleged voter fraud.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Bianco after sheriff’s deputies seized the ballots from the county’s Registrar of Voters as part of an investigation prompted by a local self-described “election integrity” group with right-wing ties.
After Bonta filed the lawsuit in the state supreme court in March, it slowly made its way through the system until Friday, July 31, when the court ordered oral arguments begin at 10 a.m., Aug. 24, in San Francisco.
“We are looking forward to arguments. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that the attorney general can not stop a legal investigation into a potential crime. This is basic common sense,” Bianco told The Desert Sun in an email. “It will be very interesting to see if the highest court in the state is going to decide the case by facts or by politics.”
Separately, the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to order Bianco to return the ballots to the registrar, arguing that state law requires election materials to remain in official custody. That case will also be heard by the Supreme Court Aug. 24.
The court had ordered Bianco in April to halt the election probe until the matter could be reviewed. The sheriff’s department had been looking into allegations that a discrepancy of 45,869 votes existed between between the final vote count and handwritten records of hand-counted ballots of the November 2025 special election to redraw congressional districts.
The group, which calls itself the Riverside Election Integrity Team, has links to the United Sovereign Americans, a national nonprofit that has challenged the election process in several states. Local election officials have said the “irregularities” documented by the group are based on a misunderstanding of the vote-counting process.
Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco has told the Board of Supervisors the handwritten intake records are an estimate that aren’t intended to be the final tally of how many votes were cast.
The investigation began as Bianco was running for governor as a Republican. Bonta, who is a Democrat, has called the ballot seizures baseless and said the sheriff’s department had ignored prior orders to halt the investigation.
The Attorney General’s Office did not respond to requests for comments from The Desert Sun.
However, Bianco has said the AG’s lawsuit is politically motivated. He told The Desert Sun county residents should be concerned about having a “politically corrupt attorney general” who believes he can prevent investigations.
Bianco came in fourth in the June 2 gubernatorial primary election, failing to advance to the November general election.
In the lawsuit, Bonta argues Bianco’s actions violated the California Constitution because the investigation disregarded the Attorney General’s supervisory role over county sheriffs. The filing calls the investigation an “unprecedented constitutional emergency” that lacked a valid legal basis.
The lawsuit also said that by removing ballots from election officials, a state law may have been violated.
A decision by the state supreme court would set a precedent on future investigations and potentially on the attorney general’s authority to direct such matters.
Sam Morgen covers local government for The Desert Sun. Reach him at smorgen@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Bianco ballot seizure cases to be heard by California Supreme Court
Reporting by Sam Morgen, Palm Springs Desert Sun / Palm Springs Desert Sun
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Sam Morgen, Palm Springs Desert Sun | USA TODAY Network
