California Supreme Court rulings in two closely watched election cases argued in San Francisco have clarified the authority of the state attorney general over county sheriffs and reinforced protections governing the custody of voted ballots.
The state’s highest court issued its decisions Sept. 24 in Bonta v. Bianco and Cervantes v. Bianco, cases stemming from Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots during an investigation into the November 2025 special election. The court heard oral arguments in both cases Aug. 24 at the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the rulings, which affirmed his authority to supervise county sheriffs and required Bianco to comply with directives from the Attorney General’s Office. The decisions carry statewide implications for how law enforcement agencies interact with election officials and handle election materials during criminal investigations.
In Cervantes v. Bianco, the court addressed the custody of voted ballots, concluding that law enforcement’s seizure of the ballots conflicted with California election law. The dispute began after Bianco obtained search warrants and seized roughly 650,000 voted ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters as part of an election investigation.
The decisions are relevant to election officials throughout California, including San Francisco, by clarifying the legal protections surrounding voted ballots after an election. They also establish boundaries between criminal investigations and the responsibilities of local election administrators charged with maintaining custody of ballots and other election materials.
“Election fraud can and should be investigated,” Bonta said. “But misuse of criminal investigative tools — without any evidence that a crime was committed — needlessly undermines trust in our elections system and in law enforcement.”
The rulings come as California prepares for the Nov. 3 midterm election. Bonta has encouraged Californians to vote early, while the court’s decisions provide new statewide precedent governing the custody of ballots and the supervisory authority of the attorney general over county sheriffs.
