California Supreme Court Fast-Tracks Riverside Ballot Dispute

The California Supreme Court this week agreed to review a petition filed on behalf of four Riverside County voters seeking the return of ballots seized by Sheriff Chad Bianco from the county registrar after the November 2025 special election. The case, styled against Bianco and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco, asks the justices to decide whether California election law allows law enforcement to take custody of voted ballots and other election materials in the way Bianco’s office did. (riversiderecord.org) The court’s move opens a second front at the state’s highest court in the broader fight over Bianco’s election-fraud investigation, which the justices separately paused on April 8. (campaignlegal.org) Riverside County’s dispute has also drawn scrutiny because of a document release tied to the sheriff’s outside counsel and because multiple legal challenges are now moving at once. ### Which case did the justices agree to hear? The May 13 action concerns a petition filed March 25 by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of four Riverside County voters. The petition names Bianco, in his official capacity as sheriff, and Tinoco, in his official capacity as registrar of voters, and seeks a writ ordering that the ballots be returned to election officials. The Riverside Record reported on May 15 that the California Supreme Court had agreed to review that voter-filed case and directed the respondents to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. Sonni Waknin, a senior voting rights attorney with the UCLA Voting Rights Project, told the outlet the group was seeking the return of ballots and a ruling that ballots must remain with county election officials even if a criminal case is underway. (riversiderecord.org) ### How did the ballots end up with the sheriff? Feb. 26 is the key date in the underlying dispute. Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief supporting the voters, said Bianco executed a search warrant on the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and seized more than 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 special election on a redistricting ballot initiative. (riversiderecord.org) The sheriff said the seizure was part of an investigation into alleged discrepancies flagged by a private group that claimed Riverside County’s tally was off by more than 45,000 votes. Campaign Legal Center said the registrar publicly disputed those claims, describing the private group’s analysis as flawed and based on incomplete public data. (riversiderecord.org) ### What is the legal argument over custody? The March 25 petition argues that California election law assigns custody of cast ballots to election officials and does not authorize a sheriff to create a separate chain of custody or conduct a recount outside public election procedures. The filing also argues that Tinoco had a duty to keep cast ballots within the registrar’s control. (campaignlegal.org) Attorney General Rob Bonta made a related argument in his separate case against Bianco. In that proceeding, Bonta asked the court to decide whether Bianco was violating the constitution and government code by refusing supervisory directives from the attorney general and sought an order requiring the return of ballots to the registrar. (campaignlegal.org) The California Supreme Court granted review in that case on April 8 and stayed the sheriff’s investigation while it proceeds. ### Why is Art Tinoco named alongside Chad Bianco? Art Tinoco appears in the voter case because the petition challenges both the sheriff’s seizure and the registrar’s role in the transfer of ballots. (vrp.ucla.edu) The UCLA filing says Tinoco had statutory duties over ballot custody, while the requested relief seeks the ballots’ return to his office. The case therefore is not only about whether Bianco could seize the ballots. It also asks whether the registrar could lawfully allow voted ballots and election materials to leave election custody under the warrants used in the investigation. That question is embedded in the petition’s claims about chain of custody and election-code compliance. (riversiderecord.org) ### What does the reported document release add to the dispute? April 2 brought a separate complication. Inland Empire Law Weekly reported that Robert Tyler, then counsel tied to the sheriff’s side of the case, filed a court document containing a working link to a public OneDrive folder with investigation materials. (vrp.ucla.edu) The publication said the folder included reports and spreadsheets tied to the election investigation and that the link was later removed after the outlet contacted Tyler. The Riverside Record said the UCLA Voting Rights Project later told the California Supreme Court that the release amounted to a breach in election security and possible additional election-code violations. (vrp.ucla.edu) Bradley Hertz, identified by the outlet as new lead counsel for Bianco, responded in a court letter that describing the link as a “public link” was misleading because it was intended to be private and was made public by mistake. ### What happens next, and when? June 12 is the next date identified in the voter case. The Riverside Record reported that the justices ordered Bianco and Tinoco to explain by then why the ballots and election materials should not be returned. (ielaw.news) April 8 remains the operative date in the attorney general’s separate case pausing the sheriff’s investigation. In that matter, the California Supreme Court ordered Bianco and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to show cause and granted a stay while the court considers the merits. (riversiderecord.org) (riversiderecord.org)