The California Supreme Court has rejected Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to seize and examine hundreds of thousands of ballots as part of an investigation into alleged voting discrepancies.
The court’s decision has also prompted election officials and legal experts across the United States to prepare for possible attempts by law enforcement agencies to obtain ballots during or after the November 2026 elections.
Bianco seized about 650,000 ballots from Riverside County’s 2025 election, which involved a major state redistricting referendum. His action came months after the FBI obtained 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, following a search warrant linked to investigations surrounding Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 presidential election.
Although both incidents involved elections that had already taken place, election officials became concerned that similar actions could be attempted while votes were still being counted or certified in future elections.
“Election officials are planners. And so, they have to consider possibilities even if they’re not going to happen — to be ready in case they do,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department voting section attorney who now advises election administrators of both parties.
“They’re considering wild possibilities that they wouldn’t have had to before.”
A major concern raised by election officials is the chain of custody surrounding ballots. Strict rules govern how voting materials are handled to protect the integrity of elections and maintain public confidence in the results.
The California Supreme Court warned that “allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity.”
Following the Riverside County incident and the Georgia ballot seizure, officials in several states began taking steps to prepare for potential demands from law enforcement.
Some states have introduced laws requiring election officials to be notified when investigators seek voting materials, while others have established penalties for unlawful attempts to remove ballots from election officials’ custody.
Election law experts have also been working to educate judges about the special legal and security considerations involved when authorities seek warrants or subpoenas for election materials.
Justin Levitt, a Loyola University law professor who has worked on voting issues for Democratic administrations, said the Riverside case could influence how courts across the country approach similar requests.
“I don’t think there’s a magistrate (judge) in the country who’s going to not think twice about a search warrant” related to elections, Levitt said.
Bianco criticised the California Supreme Court’s ruling and maintained that his investigation was lawful.
In a video responding to the judgment ordering him to return the ballots, the sheriff said the court had “ruled against lawful investigations” and disclosed that he was considering an appeal to the federal courts.
He also defended the investigation, saying his office had received information suggesting that a crime may have occurred.
“When reasonable evidence is brought to law enforcement and lawful investigations are shut down by the courts, how do you expect people to have faith in our systems,” Bianco asked.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta intervened after learning about the warrant and instructed Bianco to pause the seizure while his office examined the matter.
Bianco proceeded with the seizure, prompting Bonta to take legal action.
In separate opinions stemming from Bonta’s lawsuit and a challenge filed by Riverside County voters, the California Supreme Court concluded that the sheriff’s seizure was unlawful and that he had violated the attorney general’s directives.
The ruling establishes a precedent for lower courts in California when dealing with similar requests. However, it does not automatically apply to courts in other states, where different election laws and procedures govern access to ballots.
Election officials and legal experts nevertheless said the California case provided an opportunity to identify potential weaknesses before the 2026 midterm elections.
“This is a time for sharing best practices to flagging threats and risks to our shared democratic election system, and to be prepared across state boundaries for what might come next,” Bonta said at a news conference this week.
California lawmakers have since approved legislation restricting the circumstances under which law enforcement can obtain ballots and establishing criminal penalties for unlawful attempts to remove election materials from officials’ custody.
California and Connecticut have also introduced notification requirements requiring local authorities to promptly alert state officials about search warrants or other law enforcement actions involving election materials.
Tammy Patrick, a former Maricopa County, Arizona, election official who now serves as chief programs officer for the National Association of Election Officials, said election administrators were working with legal authorities to clarify who has access to election materials.
Election officials are “working with their state’s attorney general, with county attorneys, with city attorneys to make sure everyone understands who actually has authority and access to any part of the election procedures and processes,” Patrick said.
Legal scholars have also sought to ensure judges understand the potential consequences of removing ballots from election officials’ custody.
Richard Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, published a white paper with other experts and former judges outlining considerations for judges reviewing law enforcement applications for election materials.
One recommendation was that investigators be given copies of ballots where possible rather than the original documents, helping preserve the chain of custody.
Becker said the legal and administrative response to the Georgia and Riverside County cases could discourage similar ballot seizures elsewhere.
“I think it’s nearly impossible we’re going to see another one of those, particularly in the post-election environment, even though election officials are making sure they’re prepared,” Becker said.
