Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco

In March 2026, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 650,000 ballots after a group of citizens said they found irregularities in last year’s special election results. The California attorney general asked the court to stop the investigation and review whether the sheriff violated the California Constitution and other regulations in conducting his criminal probe. 

Public Rights Project filed an amicus letter on behalf of two California local election officials, urging the court to grant the attorney general’s petition for review. An amicus letter is a shorter, less formal version of an amicus brief, allowing individuals to weigh in on a case.

Our amicus letter supported that request, making three arguments:

• The evidence doesn’t support a criminal investigation: No crime has been alleged. The investigation was launched based on a tip about ballot count irregularities that the county registrar has refuted.

• California law provides a process for challenging election results that the sheriff’s investigation circumvents: A clear civil pathway exists for challenging ballot counts, with built-in safeguards for accuracy and transparency — including the option to request a recount.

• Any sort of ballot recount requires specialized expertise: Local election officials have established systems for storing, handling, and reviewing ballots. Without that knowledge, the sheriff’s department may draw inaccurate conclusions about the ballot counts and ultimately sow distrust in election administration.

Update:
On April 8, 2026, the California Supreme Court granted the attorney general’s request, blocking the investigation from moving forward pending a final ruling on the facts of the case.

Update:
On May 22, 2026, Public Rights Project and California election officials and local governments filed an amicus brief explaining the negative consequences the sheriff’s investigation would pose to election administration if the court allows it to continue. The coalition represents over 8 million registered California voters combined.

The amicus brief supports the relief requested by the California attorney general, who is asking the court to pause the sheriff’s investigation. 

The brief makes two key arguments:

• Recounts must be conducted by people trained in election administration who understand how to keep ballots secure. With little knowledge about ballot storage practices or training on the proper procedures for counting ballots, the sheriff’s deputies are likely to reach the wrong conclusions about the ballot counts. 
• California law provides a clear civil process for challenging election results that the sheriff’s investigation circumvents. The group of concerned citizens could have requested a recount, which includes built-in safeguards for accuracy and transparency. The use of a criminal process is unnecessary and undermines the process administered by election officials.

This case will not just affect California; it has implications for election administration across the country.

Read the amicus brief.