Appellate Court Denies Bonta’s Bid to Halt Riverside Sheriff’s Ballot Count, Deepening Standoff Over Prop 50 Seizure
An appellate court on Tuesday declined Attorney General Rob Bonta’s request to stop Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s investigation into alleged ballot discrepancies from the November 2025 Prop 50 vote, intensifying a dispute over seized ballots and legal authority.
- Procedural denial: The appellate court refused Bonta’s request on procedural grounds related to venue, not on the merits of the state’s arguments (Los Angeles Times; CalMatters).
- Large-scale seizures: Sheriff Bianco seized hundreds of thousands of ballots — reports cite figures including more than 611,000 and earlier accounts of >650,000 — after a local group alleged roughly a 45,800-vote discrepancy (Los Angeles Times; CalMatters).
- Broader stakes: The clash raises questions about who may handle ballots, voter privacy, and potential precedents affecting other counties and statewide trust (reporting and expert commentary noted below).
Background: what led to the seizure
Proposition 50 was a redistricting measure on the November 2025 ballot that temporarily redrew congressional lines and passed statewide and in Riverside County. After the election a local citizens’ group told authorities they believed the number of physical ballots did not match totals reported to the Secretary of State, alleging a gap of roughly 45,800 votes.
Sheriff Chad Bianco’s office obtained judge-approved warrants and began seizing boxes of ballots. Early reports indicated more than 650,000 ballots were taken from about 1,000 boxes; subsequent reporting referenced seizures of more than 611,000 ballots and later additions of roughly 426 boxes, pushing totals described in various reports to different six‑figure levels. Bianco has called the operation a “fact-finding mission” to physically count ballots and confirm totals, saying it is not a one-by-one recount of yes and no votes (Los Angeles Times; CalMatters).
Legal disputes and state response
Attorney General Rob Bonta sought an appellate order to block the sheriff from continuing counts of the seized ballots, arguing the sheriff lacks authority to act as an elections investigator and that the state has not shown probable cause of a crime. Bonta’s office described the sheriff’s action as a potential “fishing expedition” that could undermine public confidence in elections (CalMatters).
On Tuesday the appellate court denied Bonta’s request, but the office emphasized the denial was based on filing venue and did not resolve whether the sheriff’s actions are lawful. Bonta’s statement said, “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.” His office said it is evaluating next steps to secure a swift and appropriate resolution (CalMatters; Los Angeles Times).
County response and election officials’ concerns
Riverside Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco and county elections officials pushed back, saying the county will comply with lawful court orders and established rules about election materials. They noted official machine-to-final counts showed about a 100‑vote difference and said the citizen group’s analysis may have excluded provisional ballots and other categories. County filings called the sheriff’s actions “brazen violations” and warned of risks to voter privacy when law enforcement handles vote-by-mail ballots, which may expose signatures and protected information (CalMatters; Los Angeles Times).
Bianco’s defense and political context
Sheriff Bianco rejected criticisms and accused some media and political figures of repeating inaccuracies. His office said, “This is simple, we are counting ballots, not yes and no votes. This is not a recount, it is a count of ballots plain and simple.” In the statement they also attacked Bonta as “an attorney general with a history of lying” and said reporters missed the point of his press briefing (Los Angeles Times).
Bianco is a Republican candidate for governor; polls have shown him near roughly 11% support in some surveys, tied with other GOP figures. He has maintained the investigation is unrelated to his campaign and framed the action as fulfilling duties to investigate alleged crimes in Riverside County. Bianco has said he found no evidence of widespread fraud, only isolated problems (CalMatters; Democracy Docket).
Broader concerns from experts and advocates
Election experts and civil-rights groups warned that law enforcement handling ballots outside standard election channels risks tampering, chain-of-custody problems, and privacy violations because ballots include voter signatures and other protected data. Critics cautioned the large-scale seizure could set a precedent for politically motivated interventions in other counties, while election officials explained some discrepancies can stem from differing treatment of provisional and other special ballots (Los Angeles Times; Democracy Docket).
Court filings, media coverage and next steps
Future court filings and hearings will be decisive in determining how the seized ballots are handled. Local broadcast video captured sheriff deputies continuing to remove boxes while state officials objected and sought legal restraint; those clips have circulated on local feeds and online (NBC4 video; KTLA video).
Implications for Los Angeles and statewide operations
Public trust and turnout
Los Angeles County operates one of the largest election systems nationally; officials fear the Riverside episode could spread doubt about ballot safety across California. If voters in L.A. believe ballots could be mishandled or politicized, that may reduce confidence and depress turnout. Local authorities should emphasize that L.A. processes remain secure and explain safeguards for mail ballots (Los Angeles Times; CalMatters).
Legal and administrative ripple effects
A protracted legal battle could clarify — or complicate — who may handle ballots and under what authority. That uncertainty matters for Los Angeles election administrators who require consistent rules for planning and protecting ballots; courts or new state guidance could change procedures for access, chain-of-custody, and audits (CalMatters).
Political signaling ahead of statewide races
Bianco’s gubernatorial campaign and the high-profile nature of the seizures may sharpen debates in Los Angeles about election integrity, law enforcement limits, and oversight. Candidates and parties could cite the episode when arguing for new election rules or emphasizing law-and-order credentials (Democracy Docket; Los Angeles Times).
Practical effects on voters and county operations
If courts order ballots returned, sealed, or subject to further oversight, Los Angeles County officials will need clear instructions and timelines to avoid disruptions. New requirements on access, chain-of-custody, or audit procedures could increase administrative costs and staffing demands; transparent communications will be essential to reassure voters that their ballots are secure and counted correctly (CalMatters).
Sources and reporting
This article draws on reporting and statements from multiple outlets and officials, preserving original reporting links:
Reporting from Times Media Service; Los Angeles–area reporting incorporated from the sources above. Associated Press reporting noted for final vote margins and tally details where referenced.
