California Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Riverside County Election Investigation

The California Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in two cases stemming from Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s investigation into the county’s 2025 special election, including a dispute over the seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

The seven justices heard arguments in Cervantes v. Bianco and Bonta v. Bianco, cases that challenge different aspects of the sheriff’s election investigation. In Cervantes v. Bianco, Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes and Indio City Councilmember Oscar Ortiz are challenging Bianco’s seizure of the ballots.

Attorneys for Cervantes argued that California Elections Code Section 15551 limits the circumstances under which ballots can be seized. They also argued that Bianco had other options for investigating an alleged discrepancy in the vote count and did not need to take possession of the ballots.

During the hearing, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu questioned the arguments surrounding the sheriff’s seizure of the ballots.

Bianco’s attorneys also faced questions about two warrants presented to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters earlier this year. The warrants did not include an explanation the registrar had provided in February regarding the discrepancy in the ballot count.

Bianco’s legal team argued that the warrants were lawfully obtained and that the ballots were evidence in a legitimate investigation. Ortiz attended Monday’s hearing and watched the arguments inside the courtroom.

The second case, Bonta v. Bianco, focuses on whether the sheriff exceeded his authority by continuing the investigation after California Attorney General Rob Bonta ordered him to stop.

Bonta’s office argued that Bianco went beyond his legal authority and refused to comply with the attorney general’s order. The justices repeatedly questioned Bianco’s legal team about the dispute over the attorney general’s authority to intervene.

Outside the courthouse, Bonta defended his decision to intervene in the investigation, while Bianco continued to defend the probe.

The Supreme Court did not issue an immediate decision Monday.

Under court procedures, the justices have up to 90 days to issue their opinions following oral arguments, meaning decisions could come as early as November. The parties may petition for rehearing within 15 days after an opinion is filed.

The cases remain pending before the California Supreme Court.