The real questions facing the courts after Riverside County sheriff seized those ballots
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Are California sheriffs answerable to anyone, or are they a law unto themselves?
- Bianco claims he has the right to seize ballots and investigate as he sees fit.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he’d like to be our governor, but more and more, it’s looking to me like the real goal for the far-right provocateur is just to be MAGA-famous.
That’s cool. That’s fine. Honestly, who in Southern California hasn’t dreamed of their 15 minutes? And he certainly has the cop-stache to play the role of rogue Wild West lawman.
But Bianco’s bid for celebrity may help extremists take down American elections, and that is a problem — one California needs to deal with quickly, before the midterms suffer from his antics. There are two separate issues at play here, both of which state courts will be asked to weigh in on in coming days — Bianco apparently is putting his so-called investigation on hold until those cases bring some measure of clarity, and hopefully sanity.
First, are California sheriffs answerable to anyone, or are they a law unto themselves? Second, who in California can legally handle and count ballots according to law, if state law does in fact matter?
The fact that these two issues are coming up now — together— is no accident. President Trump’s election fraud claims have been moving toward this moment for years, largely out of the consciousness of mainstream voters, but very much intentionally pushed by those who would like to see MAGA officials remain in power, even at the cost of democracy.
The real question being answered right now in Riverside — the one we should all be clear on — is, if Republicans want to invalidate election results that don’t go their way this November, what’s the nitty-gritty of actually doing that?
Bianco is attempting an answer.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican running for governor, recently seized ballots from last year’s Proposition 50 election, citing vote fraud claims.
“This is about more than just what Sheriff Bianco is doing,” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “... It shouldn’t happen. And again, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are winning or Republicans are winning, no sheriff should come in and take over possession or counting of ballots.”
By now, you’ve probably heard that Bianco has obtained multiple secret, sealed search warrants from a buddy judge that allowed him to spirit away hundreds of thousands of ballots in his county from November’s Proposition 50 election.
Bianco claims he has the right to seize these ballots and investigate as he sees fit — and it’s not our business or anyone else’s, not even state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to stop what he was doing until Bonta could review it.
Bianco has largely ignored that order, instead scooping up even more ballots late last week — all but giving Bonta a certain finger reserved for simple communication. Fox News loved it. Bianco’s admission Monday that he is pausing his effort is the first hint that even he may see he’s gone too far.
But Bianco’s hubris is in line with the attitude of many so-called constitutional sheriffs, a national movement by some far-right elected lawmen that Bianco has been associated with, though he’s never claimed outright affinity.
These extremist sheriffs misguidedly believe that they are above both state and federal law, and get to decide for themselves what’s constitutional or not in their jurisdictions — and therefore what’s law and what’s not.
Since about 2020, empowered by successes in ignoring pandemic restrictions, these sheriffs have dived deeper and deeper into the election fraud movement that Trump loves so much, claiming increasing rights to investigate alleged fraud. Though their national organization doesn’t publish its membership list, media and other tracking show there are at minimum dozens of these like-minded lawmen across the country, likely closely watching Riverside County.
Some election experts now worry that if Bianco is successful in the courts in retaining the right to take ballots, it will give a dangerous legal precedent that empowers other constitutional sheriffs to do the same at the midterms. Only then it would be fresh, uncounted ballots — leaving these far-right sheriffs in charge of providing results instead of trained, trusted elections officials.
“What happens if the ballots have not been properly counted by the right people yet and a sheriff decides they want to go confiscate them?” said Chad Dunn, co-founder of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and the trial lawyer who successfully halted Texas’ gerrymandering effort, for now anyway.
“Once the chain of custody ... is broken, as they have been with these, you’ll never count them in a way that you’ll be able to get reasonable confidence from the public,” Dunn said. “It puts the entire election process in jeopardy.”
The constitutional sheriffs would become the boots on the ground for Trump’s election deniers to implement their will, seizing ballots as they see fit and creating such a crisis of confidence that it’s likely we the voters would never accept the results, Republican or Democrat.
It could even give Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson a plausible reason — an ongoing fraud investigation — not to seat elected Democrats, stalling as he did with Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva last year after she won a special election.
The Voting Rights Project, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit last week asking the state Supreme Court to uphold the laws that govern how ballots are handled in California — basically protecting that chain of custody and making it clear sheriffs can’t ignore it and are not part of it.
“They do not, under California law, have the right to take ballots away from the Registrar of Voters, and they do not, under California law, have the right to count or handle ballots,” Barreto said. “There’s no question that it violates California election law.”
Separately, Bonta’s office filed its own action, with that issue of constitutional sheriffs front and center. Bonta is asking courts to tell Bianco that he’s not a law unto himself, and does in fact answer to the state attorney general.
Sheriff Chad Bianco, a leading GOP candidate for California governor, said Monday that his controversial investigation into unsubstantiated claims of election fraud had been put ‘on hold.’
This issue of whether sheriffs have any legal duty to listen to the state’s top law enforcement officer has long been one of Bonta’s fights — he argued about it with then-L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva in another public corruption fiasco over then-L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.
I’m guessing Bianco will refer Bonta back to that simple communication of a single finger, much the same as Villanueva did.
But it’s long past time that the state decide just how powerful sheriffs are, for the good of the country this time. The state Legislature has repeatedly kicked the can on clarifying the issue, a failure on their part.
Legislators could amend the state Constitution to make sheriffs appointed instead of elected — the same as police chiefs. Then boards of supervisors could hire and fire them just like other law enforcement leaders.
With the Legislature’s resounding absence on the issue, we have to rely on courts. That’s likely to be a long battle.
In the meantime, Bianco is up to his mustache in attention. This has become a national story, boosting his profile throughout the MAGA-verse as a champion of election deniers everywhere.
Whether Bianco wins or loses these legal battles, resumes his investigation or not, he’s won the attention battle — he’s even polling at the top in the gubernatorial race, thanks to the 8 million Democrats who refuse to drop out.
Riverside County, once as red as it comes, is increasingly purple, Barreto points out. Bianco’s tenure as elected sheriff may not last forever. His shot at governor, despite the polls, is unlikely.
But maybe Fox News will be so impressed with his aggressive rants that he’ll get an offer. Maybe Trump, known for watching it, will like what he sees. So many possibilities from the publicity.
And so much real damage to democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
Bianco’s ballot seizure and investigation represent a threat to democratic elections, as the sheriff is operating outside legal boundaries established to protect election integrity and chain of custody over ballots[1][4][5]. The author contends that Bianco obtained warrants from a judge the author characterizes as a “buddy judge” whom he endorsed, raising concerns about favoritism in the legal process[1].
The author argues that Bianco’s actions are part of a broader national movement of “constitutional sheriffs” who believe they are above both state and federal law and can decide what is constitutional in their jurisdictions[1]. This movement, according to the article, has increasingly aligned with Trump’s election denial claims since 2020[1].
The investigation is based on debunked fraud claims, as local election officials have already refuted the allegations of discrepancies by explaining that the citizens group’s analysis relied on incomplete data[5]. Despite this, Bianco has continued to seize additional ballots even after the state attorney general ordered him to stop[1][2].
If Bianco succeeds in retaining the right to seize and recount ballots, it would set a dangerous legal precedent that could empower other far-right sheriffs to do the same during future elections, potentially leaving uncounted ballots in the hands of non-election professionals rather than trained officials[1]. This could undermine public confidence in election results regardless of which party wins[1].
The author argues that sheriffs should not have independent authority over ballots and election procedures, and calls for the state legislature to clarify sheriff powers by amending the constitution to make sheriffs appointed rather than elected, similar to police chiefs[1].
Different views on the topic
Bianco has characterized his ballot seizure as a routine criminal investigation and defended obtaining the warrant from Judge Jay Kiel as coincidental, stating that “it’s impossible to know who the duty judge is on that day”[1]. The sheriff maintains that his investigation into alleged “irregularities” in the 2025 Proposition 50 election is comparable to any other criminal probe and that he expects a special monitor to oversee the count process[1].
According to Bianco’s statements, his investigation is straightforward: citizens raised concerns about a significant discrepancy between ballots cast and ballots counted, and the appropriate response is to physically count the ballots and compare the results with reported totals[5]. Bianco has characterized the Registrar of Voters’ explanation for the discrepancy as “some excuse,” suggesting the official explanation is inadequate[1].
Bianco has insisted that his investigation efforts are unrelated to his gubernatorial campaign and are not meant to re-litigate the outcome of the special election[1]. The sheriff paused his investigation citing “politically motivated lawsuits and court filings,” framing the legal challenges against him as partisan attacks rather than legitimate concerns about his authority[2].
Despite the legal challenges and criticism from state officials, Bianco has maintained support among some voters and conservative media outlets, with polling showing the sheriff among top contenders in the gubernatorial race[6]. Some supporters, such as ex-UFC fighter Dan Henderson, have endorsed Bianco, citing his 2020 refusal to enforce state COVID-19 restrictions as evidence of his commitment to constitutional principles[3].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Hosts Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito sit down with Dr. Vanessa J. Díaz, professor of Chicano and Latino Studies at Loyola Marymount University and co-author of P FKN R: How Bad Bunny Became the Global Voice of Puerto Rican Resistance.
