“He willfully defied my direct orders, misused criminal investigative tools and created a constitutional emergency in the process. … Going forward, there will also be criminal consequences to conduct such as this exhibited by Sheriff Bianco. … Whether it's a sheriff in Riverside or the President of the United States, we won't let anyone take away Californians' voice in our democracy. Come November, we're ready for whatever comes our way.
Back to stories
The California Supreme Court Rules Unanimously That Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco Broke the Law When He Seized 650,000 Ballots From the Redistricting Election — Rob Bonta Says He "Willfully Defied My Direct Orders," Gavin Newsom Says "in California We Will Defend Democracy — Using Every Branch of Government," and Bianco Says "Sacramento Shut It Down"
September 25, 2026
On Sept. 24, 2026, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in two cases, that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco acted unlawfully. In February he seized about 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 Prop 50 redistricting special election for an investigation into unsubstantiated fraud claims. The court ordered the ballots returned to county election officials and told him to stop the investigation. Attorney General Rob Bonta said Bianco "willfully defied my direct orders" and promised "criminal consequences" for such conduct in the future. Gov. Gavin Newsom tied the ruling to the election-protection laws he signed a week earlier, which make ballot seizure a felony. Bianco, a Republican who ran for governor earlier this year, said "Sacramento shut it down" and suggested he might go to federal court. The ruling came six weeks before the midterms.
3
Statements Recorded
See what your representatives said?
3 Statements
“Today's ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government. And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again.
“In this case we were provided evidence of a possible crime that obviously warranted investigation — the court agreed and issued warrants. Sacramento shut it down. … This ruling will have wide-reaching consequences for the future of public safety in California. … We are very disappointed and wholeheartedly disagree with the court's ruling. The investigation was a lawful and legal investigation into potential election fraud.