State Supreme Court Reigns In Rogue Sheriff In Ballot Seizure Case

The California Supreme Court has unanimously rejected San Bernardino Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to seize ballots in violation of state election law, which he did in pursuit of non-existent voter fraud, a long-time rightwing obsession that Donald Trump has raised to a fever pitch.

His actions were seen as a playbook for interference in upcoming midterm elections, so the decision was seen as a victory for voting rights activists. “The court knocked election deniers off their feet and strengthened our hand in election protection just ahead of the November vote,” said Xavier Becerra, an attorney of record in the case, and Democratic nominee for governor.

In a companion case they also rejected his claim that Bianco could ignore Attorney General Rob Bonta’s direct instruction to cease his lawless behavior. This claim is similarly related to another rightwing myth, that of the so-called “constitutional sheriff,” who has the right (if not the duty) to determine what is constitutional, and thus legal, within the county lines.

In both cases, the court found that the plain language of state law was sufficient to settle the matter, but then went on to show that legislative history and court rulings further reinforced the constitutional text. In plain language, it was a slam dunk.

While Bianco didn’t claim the election outcome of the November 2025 election would have changed, nor did his legal team argue that he had sweeping powers to decide constitutional matters, those sorts of ideas, and supporters who believe them, appeared repeatedly in the background as driving forces that brought Bianco to seize hundreds of thousands of ballots in clear violation of the law.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association even submitted an amicus brief in support of Bianco’s groundless claim tthat he could ignore the attorney general’s direct supervision of his lawless conduct.

“The court’s decision reaffirms a basic principle that in California, the Election Code applies to everyone, including law enforcement,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, who argued the case before the court. “These are the voters’ ballots,” he said. “They must be protected through the processes the legislature has established.”

“We thank the court for affirming that the sheriff has no role in the ballot chain of custody under the Elections Code,” said Nathan P. Kempe, a plaintiff and the operations director at Starting Over Strong. “We call on California voters to reject similar attacks on voting rights this November,”

“Today’s rulings bring important clarity for our constitutional system in California,” Bonta said. “I’m grateful that our State Supreme Court reaffirmed my authority as attorney general to supervise county sheriffs.”

“Election fraud can and should be investigated,” he went on to say. “But misuse of criminal investigative tools — without any evidence that a crime was committed — needlessly undermines trust in our elections system and in law enforcement,” he warned.

And that’s exactly what happened in this case.

“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 explained. “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 heneral has the authority to intervene when sheriffs take improper action, and that voted ballots belong in the custody of elections officials.”

In the case brought by four county voters, the court rejected Bianco’s “strained alternative interpretation” of part of the election code, and concluded:

Thus, based on its plain text, we conclude that section 15551 [the election code] unambiguously prohibits the removal of ballots from an elections official’s custody, notwithstanding the existence of a search warrant authorizing their seizure.

And in the attorney general’s case, they concluded:

article V, section 13 [of the state constitution] unambiguously confers upon the Attorney General the authority to issue binding directions to sheriffs regarding a criminal investigation…

“I encourage Californians to make their voices heard and vote early in the fast-approaching Nov. 3 midterm elections, with the confidence of knowing that their voted ballots will never again be subject to physical seizure by rogue county sheriffs,” Bonta said.