California Supreme Court Weighs Whether Sheriff Must Return Seized Election Ballots The California Supreme Court is considering a case in which Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized over 650,000 election ballots from a 2025 special election. The court is weighing whether Bianco must return the ballots to county election officials. The California Supreme Court is weighing whether a Southern California sheriff who seized election ballots must return them to county election officials. The high court heard oral arguments Monday regarding Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election. Local election officials had previously said the complaint was unfounded. Bianco was ordered by Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta to return the ballots, but he did not. The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project also sued the sheriff on behalf of several Riverside County voters. The state Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases.Chad Dunn, legal director and co-founder of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, told the court there are mechanisms to contest election results, and Bianco failed to follow them. Bianco began recounting the vote using sheriff's officials under the supervision of a special master appointed by a court but suspended it days later, citing mounting issues.Bradley Hertz, who represented Bianco, argued the sheriff had a legal duty to open an investigation after receiving a complaint and he followed the penal code to carry out that investigation, first issuing search warrants in February. The ballot investigation came as President Donald Trump has repeatedly disputed the results of the 2020 election, citing unsubstantiated instances of fraud.His administration recently faced criticism for its handling of the 2020 election, and the dispute over the 2025 election ballots has raised concerns about the potential for voter disenfranchisement. The court's decision is expected to have significant implications for the handling of election materials in California and could set a precedent for other states.The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project and the Democratic Attorney General's office are seeking a court order to compel Bianco to return the ballots and to prevent him from continuing his investigation. The case has also drawn attention from national election integrity advocates, who are monitoring the situation closely.The court's decision is expected to be made in the coming weeks, and it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the handling of election materials in California and beyond. The dispute over the 2025 election ballots has raised concerns about the potential for voter disenfranchisement and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials.The court's decision is expected to provide clarity on the role of law enforcement in election administration and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials. The case has also highlighted the importance of election integrity and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials. The court's decision is expected to have significant implications for the handling of election materials in California and could set a precedent for other states.The University of California, Los Angeles Voting Rights Project and the Democratic Attorney General's office are seeking a court order to compel Bianco to return the ballots and to prevent him from continuing his investigation. The case has also drawn attention from national election integrity advocates, who are monitoring the situation closely.The court's decision is expected to be made in the coming weeks, and it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the handling of election materials in California and beyond. The dispute over the 2025 election ballots has raised concerns about the potential for voter disenfranchisement and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials.The court's decision is expected to provide clarity on the role of law enforcement in election administration and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials. The case has also highlighted the importance of election integrity and the need for election officials to follow established procedures for handling election materials. The court's decision is expected to have significant implications for the handling of election materials in California and could set a precedent for other states