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.

Update:

On September 24, 2026, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must comply with the attorney general’s lawful directives concerning his investigation and issued a writ of mandate requiring him to do so. The court held that the California Constitution and Government Code give the attorney general authority to issue binding directions to a sheriff regarding a particular criminal investigation, consistent with the attorney general’s duty to “see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.” 

The court also said the attorney general can order a sheriff to temporarily pause an investigation while the attorney general reviews it. The court ordered Sheriff Bianco to follow those directions, preserve the records and materials that had been seized, and provide requested materials to the attorney general. 

The court sent a clear message that it will not undermine an election simply because some people don’t like the results.

In the companion case, Cervantes v. Bianco, the California Supreme Court similarly ruled that Sheriff Bianco’s seizure of about 650,000 ballots violated the Elections Code and ordered the ballots returned to the Registrar of Voters.

Read the decision.