The Supreme Court this morning unanimously granted California Attorney General Bonta’s petition for review in a writ proceeding Bonta initiated to stop a sheriff’s investigation into votes cast in Riverside County at the November 2025 statewide election that approved new congressional district boundaries. (Attorney General v. Bianco.) In February, the sheriff seized over 600,000 ballots to, he said, determine whether they were fraudulently counted.
The court also ordered a “pause” of the sheriff’s investigation and requires him to “preserve all seized items.” It further directed the parties “to meet and confer regarding additional measures to protect the integrity of the seized items during the pendency of this matter, including but not limited to the appointment of a special master to take temporary possession of them.” Absent an agreement, the parties are to brief what interim steps should be taken.
Bonta sought review after the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal summary denied his writ petition, the appellate court saying he had “failed to demonstrate he lacks an adequate remedy in the superior court.” It’s unusual for the Supreme Court to straight grant in a case with no Court of Appeal opinion. And here there’s not even a superior court ruling, other than the search warrants that court issued to seize the ballots.
The search warrants are currently under seal, but a coalition of over a dozen media companies has moved to unseal the warrants and supporting documents. Today’s Supreme Court order gives the parties 48 hours to respond to the motion.
[Update: A superior court judge today ordered the warrants unsealed. Rick Hasen says on his Election Law Blog that the evidence supporting the warrants is “bogus.” He also provides links to the now public warrants.]
Although granting a petition for review, the court is apparently treating the matter as an original writ petition. Instead of an opening brief on the merits, which would normally follow the grant of review (rule 8.520(a)(1)), Bonta is to file with the court his Court of Appeal writ petition and the sheriff is to then file a return. That’s the procedure for writ petitions. (Rule 487(b)(1)&(2).)
There is no ruling yet on a related, original writ petition filed directly in the Supreme Court by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, seeking a return of the seized ballots. (Cervantes v. Bianco.) Preliminary briefing is complete, so the court might rule at next week’s conference. The writ proceeding might be made a grant-and-hold for the Attorney General v. Bianco case.
Related:
Supreme Court petitions seek end to sheriff ballot seizure
Supreme Court calls for answer in sheriff ballot seizure case
