broke the law when he seized over 600,000 ballots that had been cast at the November 2025 election (see here).
Even though the decision was based on California statutes, the article quotes an election law expert predicting the opinion will have an impact beyond the state’s borders:
Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola University who has worked on voting issues for Democratic administrations, predicted that the Riverside County fight — and the “clarity” of the new state court ruling — will have national repercussions.
“I don’t think there’s a magistrate (judge) in the country who’s going to not think twice about a search warrant” related to elections, Levitt said.
Similarly, Richard Bernstein (former Justice Scalia clerk, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and a board member at Society for the Rule of Law) wrote on the Election Law Blog, “The logic of Cervantes v. Bianco . . . would also preclude [the federal Department of Justice] seizure of ballots.”
Related:
The California Supreme Court is followed more often than any other state high court
