Appellate court denies AG’s bid to stop Riverside sheriff’s ballot probe; fight shifts to venue, not merits
On March 27, 2026, a California appellate court denied Attorney General Rob Bonta’s bid to halt Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s investigation into alleged November 2025 Proposition 50 election irregularities, ruling on venue rather than the underlying merits.
Key takeaways
- Venue ruling: The appellate court’s denial turned on where the case was filed, not a decision about the substance of alleged irregularities (Los Angeles Times, CalMatters).
- Ballots seized: Sheriff Chad Bianco removed more than 611,000 ballots tied to the Prop 50 special election and later additional boxes, saying he will conduct a physical count (Los Angeles Times, Democracy Docket).
- State response: Officials including Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber say the claims lack credible evidence; county counts differ by about 100 votes, not the ~45,800 alleged (CalMatters, LAist).
- Next steps: Bonta’s office says it is evaluating further legal action; a judge appointed a special master to oversee any court-ordered counting (Los Angeles Times, Riverside Record).
Background: Prop 50, ballots and warrants
Proposition 50, a special-election measure that temporarily redrew California’s congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, passed in Riverside County with more than 56% of the vote and an overall margin of roughly 82,570 votes in favor, according to reporting and statewide tallies cited by news outlets (Los Angeles Times).
In late February and again in March, Sheriff Chad Bianco obtained court-approved warrants — issued under seal after a complaint by the Riverside Election Integrity Team — and removed hundreds of thousands of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. Officials say Bianco seized roughly 650,000 ballots from about 1,000 boxes, then collected another 426 boxes on March 24, 2026, alleging a discrepancy between ballots and reported vote totals (Democracy Docket).
Bianco’s account and actions
Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican running for governor, describes the effort as an apolitical, fact-finding mission: “This investigation is simple: physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported,” he said at a press conference. He has repeatedly denied any link between the probe and his campaign, stating, “It had absolutely nothing to do” with his run for governor and framing the seizure as a duty to investigate alleged crimes in Riverside County (CalMatters, Los Angeles Times).
After ballots were seized, a judge appointed a special master to oversee counting and the secure handling of materials. Bianco emphasizes the process is a physical ballot count — not a yes-or-no recount — intended to compare physical ballots to official totals.
State officials and county elections response
Attorney General Rob Bonta sought court orders to return the ballots and stop the sheriff’s actions, arguing the warrants were constitutionally deficient and lacked probable cause. After the appellate court’s venue-based denial, Bonta’s office issued a statement saying the ruling “denied our request based solely on where we filed the case and is not a ruling on the underlying petition,” and that the facts remain unchanged. The office said it is “evaluating next steps to ensure a swift and appropriate resolution” and accused the sheriff of defying state law (CalMatters, Los Angeles Times).
Secretary of State Shirley Weber criticized the probe as lacking credible evidence and warned it risks undermining public confidence in elections, noting that sheriffs are not elections administrators and urging that election inquiries be handled by legally-authorized, subject-matter experts (CalMatters).
Riverside County elections officials say the county’s machine count and the final count submitted to the state differed by about 100 votes — far below the roughly 45,800 discrepancy alleged by the complaining group. The Registrar of Voters has pledged to comply with lawful court orders and preserve legal protections and chain of custody for election materials (LAist, Los Angeles Times).
Legal flashpoints and public scrutiny
Bonta’s filings argued the warrants were constitutionally deficient and that the sheriff lacked probable cause to seize ballots, describing the situation as an “unprecedented constitutional emergency” when asking the state’s highest court to intervene. Civil and voting-rights groups filed suits seeking immediate return of ballots and asserting the registrar should have resisted seizures.
Critics — including election experts and watchdog groups — warn the sheriff’s actions could fuel election distrust and set a dangerous precedent if local law enforcement can seize ballots without clear, credible evidence. Some reporting traces lead complaints to citizen audits and unverified claims; similar claims elsewhere have been reviewed and debunked by experts (Democracy Docket, Cyberscoop).
Bianco’s office has publicly criticized media coverage and the attorney general, accusing outlets of repeating “lies” from the AG and creating a “media circus with clickbait headlines and misleading twisted sensationalism.” The sheriff’s office framed the inquiry as a ballot count and accused “Democrat politicians” of resisting transparency (Los Angeles Times).
Political backdrop and polling
The dispute unfolds as Bianco campaigns for governor. Polling cited in reporting shows him trailing the front-runners but holding double-digit support in some surveys; one UC Berkeley–Politico poll showed him tied with several others at about 11% in the primary field. Bianco maintains the investigation is unrelated to his campaign and frames it as a lawful duty (CalMatters).
Implications for the Inland Empire
Economic impact: Legal fees, court proceedings and prolonged storage of seized ballots could add costs for county taxpayers and divert Registrar of Voters staff time.
Political consequences: The controversy puts the Inland Empire at the center of a statewide fight over election authority and may mobilize voters ahead of the primary.
Social effects: Claims of large, unproven discrepancies risk confusing voters and eroding trust; local media and community groups may play a critical role in explaining the legal steps underway to protect ballot integrity.
Cultural relevance: The high-profile seizure underscores tensions between calls for transparency and concerns about election denialism across diverse Inland Empire communities.
Practical guidance: Residents should rely on official sources — the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and the California Secretary of State — for authoritative updates, and follow court filings and public notices about when ballots will be handled under court supervision.
Reporting and next steps
Because the appellate court’s decision addressed venue and not the merits, the legal fight is expected to move to other courts and procedural avenues. Bonta’s office has signaled it will pursue additional action to stop the investigation and seek the return of ballots. The special master’s role and judicial oversight will determine whether and when the count resumes and how ballots are protected during the process.
“The facts have not changed. The Riverside County Sheriff continues to directly defy the Attorney General’s instructions, in violation of the California Constitution and state law,” Bonta’s office said after the appellate ruling.
