Reported / Citable
Background
Riverside County’s sheriff seized roughly 650,000 ballots and other election materials after a community group questioned the count from the November 2025 special election. The group compared preliminary handwritten intake estimates with the certified tally, although the registrar disputed the size and significance of any discrepancy and no one claimed it could have changed the result.
Four voters sought an original writ of mandate from the California Supreme Court. Sheriff Chad Bianco argued that search warrants and his authority to investigate possible crimes allowed the seizure. The voters and registrar responded that the Elections Code gives voted ballots unusually strict custody protections.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously held the seizure unlawful. Elections Code section 15551 says that voted ballots may in no event be taken from the custody of the responsible elections official. That command applies even during a criminal investigation and was not displaced by an ordinary search warrant.
The court emphasized that California provides lawful ways to investigate election misconduct without transferring physical custody of ballots. It issued a peremptory writ directing the sheriff to return the ballots and refrain from further handling except as necessary to comply with the order.
Key Takeaways
- Voted ballots must remain in the physical custody of election officials, including during criminal investigations.
- A search warrant does not override the Elections Code’s specific ballot-custody rule.
- Investigators may use established inspection and evidence-preservation procedures without removing ballots.
- Mandamus can provide rapid relief when official handling threatens statutory election safeguards.
Why It Matters
The ruling draws a bright line for California election officials, sheriffs, and counsel advising public agencies. Allegations of irregularity may warrant investigation, but they do not permit law enforcement to improvise around statutes designed to preserve the chain of custody and public confidence.
Practitioners should identify election-specific procedures before seeking or executing warrants involving ballots. A facially valid warrant will not protect conduct that a more specific statute categorically forbids.