California Supreme Court Tells Sheriff Bianco To Give The Ballots Back

American Thinker ^ | 29 Sep. 2026 | Ron Wright

[MtnClimber]

The California Supreme Court did not try the Riverside count. On September 24, it decided who holds the paper.

In Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866, Chief Justice Guerrero, for a unanimous court, held that Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of the voted ballots from the November 2025 special election was unlawful under Elections Code section 15551. The court applied the pre-amendment version of the statute, while noting that SB 1418, effective September 19, 2026, made the provision “at least as protective of ballots as preexisting law was” [emphasis added]. The packages go back to Registrar Art Tinoco “forthwith.”

The writ supersedes the search warrants to the extent they conflict. In Bonta v. Bianco, S295901, the same court held that the Attorney General may give a sheriff binding directions on a particular investigation. The look stops while Rob Bonta conducts his “review.”

That is a custody holding and a chain-of-command holding. It is not a verdict that the citizen audit was a fantasy, and it is not a finding that no crime occurred. The court said it was not resolving the 45,896-versus-103 fight.

Most of the press did not write that. Democracy Docket called it a shutdown of “rogue” law enforcement and a roadmap stopped before the midterms. AP, Politico, the Times, and the rest ran the same verbs. Just the News/Center Square was the rare shop that reported the practical rule: the sheriff cannot continue the investigation while the Attorney General’s directive remains in force.

Read the statute the way the court did. Section 15551(a) makes voted ballots subject to a court’s order in an election contest or a “criminal prosecution.” The justices said a search warrant is not a prosecution. Then 15551(d): “in no event” shall the packages be taken from the elections official.

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: elections

[MtnClimber]

From AI:

Sheriff Bianco's Perspective on the Riverside Election

Allegations of Voter Fraud

Sheriff Chad Bianco believes that there were allegations of voter fraud during the Riverside County election. He seized ballots to investigate these claims, which he felt warranted further scrutiny.

Basis for the Claims

Bianco's actions were prompted by concerns raised by local activists who suggested that the election results were inaccurate. However, local election officials have countered that these allegations stemmed from a misinterpretation of preliminary vote count data, indicating that the claims of fraud may not be substantiated.

The specific allegations of voter fraud in the Riverside election include claims that election workers inflated the vote count by over 45,000 votes during the November 2025 special election, which approved a redistricting proposal favoring Democrats. These claims were made by a local group, the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but were publicly refuted by the county's election officials, who explained the errors in the group's analysis.

Conclusion

While Sheriff Bianco maintains that there were legitimate concerns regarding the election's integrity, the official stance from local election authorities suggests that the basis for these concerns is flawed.

[allendale]

California is rotting from the head down.View the coming earthquakes, fires and floods as cleansing.

[JimRed]

...the official stance from local election authorities...

The same "authorities" who stuffed the ballot boxes.

[MCSETots]

“ indicating that the claims of fraud may not be substantiated”

Seems to me that all investigations begin with “claims” that need evidence to be substantiated. Can you imagine if criminal suspects (in this case, the California Board of Elections) were allowed to prevent access to the evidence in a criminal investigation.

No wonder claims of fraud “may not be substantiated” . . .

[FrankRizzo890]

Has he had them long enough to have imaged them, or performed ANY kind of investigation?

[MtnClimber]

It sounds like 45,000 ballots showed up after the polls closed.

[Bon of Babble]

The deep blue pols entrenched in Sacramento will do everything they can to protect vote fraud - and all other taxpayer fraud as well, including prosecuting those who uncover mass fraud:

“Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California’s controversial ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ into law which will suppress investigative journalism in the state.”

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article MtnClimber.

California Supreme Court Tells Sheriff Bianco To Give The Ballots Back

---

Bianco swore to protect and defend the Constitution which includes Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A), a penalty for states that rig the outcome of a vote, Section 2 trumping state law imo.

Excerpted from 14A:

Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]

So California is arguably obstructing due process of Section 2-based federal oversight of possible voting fraud imo.

Is the California Elections Code section 15551 possibly unconstitutional in the context of Section 2?

[bobbo666]

That sounds low for a CaCaLand election. We’ve issued mailin ballots to millions of illegals.

[MtnClimber]

I think this was a congressional district vote for a referendum to approve redistricting that would favor democRATs. With the extra votes, guess which side won.