California Sheriff's Ballot Seizure Investigation Halted by State Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court stepped in Wednesday to stop Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco from continuing an investigation that Attorney General Rob Bonta says amounts to a constitutional crisis masquerading as law enforcement.

Bianco, who is running for governor, seized 650,000 ballots from last November's special statewide election and began conducting his own recount based on information provided by a group calling itself the Riverside Election Integrity Team. The Supreme Court ordered him to pause the investigation while it reviews Bonta's petition challenging the sheriff's authority to conduct the probe.

"Today's decision by the California Supreme Court reins in the destabilizing actions of a rogue sheriff," Bonta said in a statement. The attorney general accused Bianco of willfully defying direct orders, misusing criminal investigatory tools, and creating a constitutional emergency.

Bianco has claimed the investigation was already paused pending legal challenges, but Bonta was blunt in his response: "What the sheriff says and what he does are often two different things."

Search Warrants Reveal Scope of Investigation

The same day the Supreme Court intervened, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gail O'Rane ordered the search warrants unsealed in response to a motion filed by a coalition of media outlets including The Riverside Record, which first reported on the investigation.

The warrants show that Bianco's department obtained three separate authorizations between February 9 and March 19 to seize and examine election materials. All three cite information provided by Greg Langworthy, a member of the Riverside Election Integrity Team who presented claims to the county Board of Supervisors in February.

In each warrant, Sheriff's Office Investigator Robert Castellanos stated the seizure and review was being conducted to "prove or disprove any criminal conduct." The second warrant expanded the scope to all material related to the election, calling it "of extreme evidentiary importance to either prove or disprove fraudulent conduct."

The third warrant requested court approval for a special master to oversee the recount to "avoid any potential appearance of impropriety" after Bonta's office ordered the investigation paused. That warrant also revealed that sheriff's personnel had already started counting ballots on March 5, making it through 22 boxes before stopping for the day.

Registrar Says Sheriff's Office Started Counting Without Notification

Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco said in a court filing that a sheriff's investigator came to his office with a laptop showing a live video feed of where the ballots were being stored. Tinoco's staff watched as sheriff's personnel unsealed one pallet and began counting ballots.

"At the end of the day the Riverside County Sheriff's Office opened and counted 22 boxes from the pallet," Tinoco said. When the counting ended, the investigator with the laptop left.

The warrants also disclosed two prior election-related search warrants obtained by the sheriff's office in 2023 and 2024. One sought information about alleged double voting, while another related to "possible mail-in ballot fraud."

Bianco Calls for Transparency, Faces Disqualification Motion

In a letter to the court, Bianco supported unsealing the warrants, writing that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." He said his office had developed written procedures to guide the counting process and planned to conduct it transparently, inviting the Registrar of Voters, the Attorney General's Office, election observers, and the public to watch.

But Bianco also filed a peremptory challenge to disqualify Judge Dorothy McLaughlin from hearing the case, claiming she was prejudiced against him. The case has been reassigned to Judge O.G. Magno, with a hearing scheduled for April 13.

Bonta's petition asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Bianco is violating the constitution and government code by refusing to follow supervisory directives from the attorney general, and whether the appellate court should order the sheriff to comply.

The case represents an extraordinary clash between a county sheriff and the state's top law enforcement officer over who has authority to investigate elections and whether a sheriff can unilaterally seize hundreds of thousands of ballots based on claims from self-appointed election integrity activists.

Bianco, who has aligned himself with election fraud conspiracy theories while campaigning for governor, did not respond to requests for comment about the Supreme Court's order.

The court's decision to review the case "on the merits" signals that it views the dispute as raising significant constitutional questions about the limits of sheriff authority and the protection of election integrity in California.