CA Dems can shut down sheriff’s investigation of Riverside vote counting, CA Sup. Ct. says

SACRAMENTO — A California sheriff cannot investigate claims of illegal vote counting in his county, unless the state Attorney General gives him permission to do so, the state high court has ruled.

On Sept. 24, the California State Supreme Court both directed Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return ballots he had seized under court-issued criminal search warrants to the election officials whose vote counting he is attempting to investigate, and directed Bianco to cease the investigation into alleged election irregularities, until and unless California Attorney General Rob Bonta says he can continue.

The ruling comes as the latest step in Bianco's attempt to investigate alleged vote counting irregularities in Riverside County during the 2025 special election over the fate of the Democrat-drawn mid-decade California congressional district maps.

In 2025, Democrats in California redrew the state's congressional districts to increase the number of Democratic-majority U.S. House districts from the Golden State, ostensibly to help Democrats address projected losses Democrats may suffer nationally after Texas and other Republican-led states moved to redraw their state's congressional maps in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting.

In November, California voters then voted to approve the new maps under a referendum known as Proposition 50 during a special election. Lawmakers had advanced Prop 50 to sidestep California state constitution provisions that would normally leave the task of drawing the state's congressional maps to an independent redistricting commission.

However, during that special election, a community group calling themselves the Riverside Election Integrity Team claimed their review of election results revealed county election officials claimed to have counted nearly 45,896 more ballots than were recorded on official ballot receipts.

While acknowledging the alleged overcount would not have changed the outcome of the election, they reportedly brought their concerns and evidence to Sheriff Bianco.

The sheriff responded by launching a criminal investigation into last November's vote counting conducted by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. As part of that investigation, the sheriff obtained warrants and seized about 650,000 ballots, transporting them to a secured site.

The sheriff later seized other election-related materials and equipment from the registrar's office.

As part of that investigation, the sheriff said his office began counting the ballots, as well.

However, Bianco's move generated opposition from not only Riverside County's election officials, but from Democrats in Sacramento, as well.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, moved to shut down the investigation, asserting his authority as California's "chief law officer" to directly order Bianco to stand down until his office could complete a "review" of the sheriff's investigation and the evidence.

At the same time, county election officials sued, demanding Bianco return the ballots.

In court, Bianco argued he has the constitutional authority as sheriff to conduct an investigation and to seize and hold the ballots, just as any other evidence of potential criminal misconduct.

But at the California Supreme Court, justices unanimously said the law says otherwise.

The justices ruled ballots cannot be considered the same as other evidence, and must remain in the custody of election officials at all times to ensure they receive "special care and handling to safeguard them from alteration or tampering."

The law, they said, "manifests a legislative intent that ballots remain in the elections official’s custody even in the event of a criminal investigation."

So, they said, the sheriff's seizure of the ballots under a criminal investigation warrant was "unlawful."

And in a separate, but simultaneously released ruling, the justices unanimously further held that the attorney general holds the ultimate authority to order sheriffs to both begin or end any criminal investigations with no recourse available to the sheriff to refuse.

Bianco had argued California law, giving the attorney general authority to supervise all California county sheriffs and district attorneys and to direct them to ensure state laws are being enforced, should be read only to authorize such direction in the event the attorney general believes a sheriff is falling short of his duties to investigate particular crimes or misconduct.

But the state Supreme Court said that authority also extends to allowing the attorney general to override a sheriff and shut down active criminal investigations, as well.

The California state constitution, they said, gives the attorney general "the authority to exercise direct supervision over sheriffs, and (California state law) expressly recognizes that this power includes the authority to direct a sheriff's activities concerning the investigation or detection of crime.

"Once the Attorney General exercises this authority by issuing a clear and specific directive to a sheriff regarding a matter within the scope of the sheriff’s duties, the sheriff has no discretion to decide whether to comply," the justices said.

The court ordered the investigation to be paused until Bonta can complete his "review."

However, it appears unlikely any further "review" would allow Bianco to resume his investigation.

In statements posted to their website in April, the Riverside Election Integrity Team said the Attorney General had already all but dismissed the alleged irregularities.

They said Bonta's lawyers had communicated the Attorney General had "serious concerns as to whether ‘probable cause’ existed to support issue of the warrants” because “the sheriff’s misguided investigation is predicated on baseless claims of election irregularities….”

In a statement issued following the state Supreme Court's ruling, Bonta claimed he believes "election fraud can and should be investigated."

But he said Bianco's "extraordinary" actions amounted to "misuse of criminal investigative tools" and unconstitutional "defiance."

Bonta further asserted he believes Bianco's investigation was conducted "without any evidence that a crime was committed."

"After the Sheriff took the extraordinary step of obtaining warrants to seize control over voted ballots, I made a modest request to him: pause your investigation, preserve all evidence, and provide the information needed for my office to review the allegations," Bonta said. "Instead, Sheriff Bianco pressed forward with the seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots. The Court has now made clear that this kind of defiance cannot stand, that the Attorney General has the authority to intervene when sheriffs take improper action, and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom further praised the ruling, saying it shows "California ... will defend democracy."

"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," Newsom said in the statement.

All but one member of the California Supreme Court were appointed either by current Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom or former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

Bianco has not yet publicly responded to the rulings.

In statements posted to social media before the rulings, however, Bianco had warned such rulings would give "a corrupt attorney general" power "to prevent investigations he doesn't like or what would be uncovered."

"Californians deserve better," Bianco said in an Aug. 24 post, pledging to "always fight government corruption and serve Riverside County residents."