A California sheriff seized ballots. The court ruling shutting the probe will resonate nationwide

Mike Stewart/AP/File

The California Supreme Court shut down a right-wing sheriff’s efforts to seize and investigate ballots over debunked allegations of vote “discrepancies,” in a legal fight that has helped election officials prepare for any similar attempts during November election.

Sheriff Chad Bianco’s March seizure of 650,000 ballots from Riverside County’s 2025 election for a high-profile state redistricting referendum came on the heels of a search warrant that the FBI executed to obtain 2020 ballots from Fulton County, Georgia — a chief target of President Donald Trump’s election subversion claims.

While both investigations concern elections that had already occurred, they raised fears that federal and local agents would try to seize live ballots while the 2026 vote was still being counted and certified, particularly as Trump and his allies have repeatedly raised baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Bianco, for instance, was running in California in a GOP primary where Trump’s endorsement was still up for grabs.

“Election officials are planners. And so, they have to consider possibilities even if they’re not going to happen — to be ready in case they do,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department voting section attorney who now advises election administrators of both parties. “They’re considering wild possibilities that they wouldn’t have had to before.”

Chief among the concerns is how handing over those materials to investigators would break the chain of custody, as state and local regulations impose strict procedures for handling ballots to maintain public confidence in election results.

The state Supreme Court wrote that “allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity.”

Thomas Werner/Bloomberg/Getty Images/File

Inside Trump’s plan for the ‘biggest DOJ election observer effort in history’

In the months since those two episodes, state officials have instructed local election administrators to alert them if law enforcement demands voting materials. Some states have even passed laws requiring that notification and imposing stiff penalties for anyone involved in an unlawful seizure of ballots. Election law scholars have attempted to educate judges about the unique concerns around ballots for when they’re considering warrants and subpoenas for voting materials.

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.

In a video responding to the state Supreme Court’s ruling that he return the ballots, Bianco argued that the court had “ruled against lawful investigations” and said that he was exploring options to appeal to federal courts.

Bianco argued that his investigation of the ballots was justified because he was presented with evidence of a possible crime and he claimed that the court’s decision had undermined public confidence in elections.

“When reasonable evidence is brought to law enforcement and lawful investigations are shut down by the courts, how do you expect people to have faith in our systems,” Bianco asked.

Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

The FBI’s Fulton County seizure in January had already put election officials on notice that federal government — which has been instructed by Trump, after his false 2020 election-rigging claims, to make voter probes a priority — was willing to take unprecedented steps to investigate elections.

But the Riverside County warrant highlighted a new risk: that local law enforcement would seek to seize ballots for their own politically tinged investigations into elections.

The sheriff’s office prepared a plan for the ballots to be counted by investigators; Bianco’s lawyer told CNN in March his office had consulted with “experts” and looked at “protocols” when designing the procedures but declined to go into more detail.

Once California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, caught wind of warrant, he ordered that Bianco hold off while the state office took a closer look at the issue. When the sheriff seized the ballots anyway, Bonta took him to court. The opinions issued by the California Supreme Court (in addition to Bonta’s case, voters in the county filed their own challenge to the seizure) said Bianco broke the law by ignoring the attorney general’s directives, while concluding that the seizure was unlawful.

The opinion creates a clear precedent for how lower courts in California should act if similar issues arise in the future. However, it will not bind courts in other states, and the laws those courts would be considering when reviewing seizures of ballots will be different than the California laws that led to Thursday’s ruling.

Still, officials in other states and the legal experts that advise them told CNN that a silver lining of the episode was that the tactic was tested in California — a state that was poised to act aggressively in court to shut it down. Bonta’s office has also taken a lead role in the litigation over Trump’s efforts to meddle in election administration and said he’s in conversation with other states ahead of the midterms.

“This is a time for sharing best practices to flagging threats and risks to our shared democratic election system, and to be prepared across state boundaries for what might come next,” Bonta said in a news conference this week.

In the wake of the Riverside seizures, the California legislature passed laws to explicitly narrow the circumstances when law enforcement can obtain ballots and to impose criminal penalties for anyone involved in an unlawful attempt to remove ballots from the custody of election officials.

New laws in California, as well as in Connecticut, also require local jurisdictions to quickly notify state officials if they learn of search warrants or other law enforcement actions targeting election materials. State officials have issued guidance about how to handle demands from investigators for ballots, and they engaged in conversations with law enforcement about the sensitives investigating the vote.

Election officials are “working with their state’s attorney general, with county attorneys, with city attorneys to make sure everyone understands who actually has authority and access to any part of the election procedures and processes,” said Tammy Patrick, a former Maricopa County, Arizona, election official who is now the chief programs officer for the National Association of Election Officials.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Supreme Court says states can use controversial citizenship data tool for voter audits in win for Trump

Making judges aware of the sensitivities has also been part of the effort. With the input of other election law scholars and former judges, Richard Hasen, an election law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, published a white paper seeking to guide judges on how they should assess applications from law enforcement to obtain ballots. Among its recommendations is that judges consider granting investigators access to copies of ballots, rather than the ballots themselves, to maintain chain of custody.

Becker said that the response to the Georgia and Riverside episodes may give pause to others who might want to replicate similar ballot seizures elsewhere.

“I think it’s nearly impossible we’re going to see another one of those, particularly in the post-election environment, even though election officials are making sure they’re prepared,” Becker said.

迈克·斯图尔特/美联社/档案照片

加州最高法院驳回了一名右翼警长扣押和调查选票的企图，该企图基于已被揭穿的选票“差异”指控。这场法律斗争帮助选举官员为 11 月大选期间任何类似的企图做好准备。

3 月，查德·比安科警长从河滨县查获了 65 万张 2025 年选举的选票，这些选票将用于备受瞩目的州选区重划公投。此前不久，联邦调查局执行了搜查令，从佐治亚州富尔顿县获取了 2020 年的选票——富尔顿县是唐纳德·特朗普总统指控的选举颠覆的主要目标。

虽然这两项调查都涉及已经发生的选举，但它们引发了人们的担忧，即联邦和地方特工可能会在 2026 年的投票仍在统计和认证期间试图扣押选票，尤其是在特朗普及其盟友一再提出毫无根据的选民欺诈广泛指控的情况下。

例如，比安科当时正在加利福尼亚州参加共和党初选，特朗普的背书尚未最终确定。

“选举官员都是规划者。因此，他们必须考虑各种可能性，即使这些可能性最终不会发生——以防万一，”曾任司法部投票事务律师、现为两党选举管理人员提供咨询的戴维·贝克尔说道。“他们正在考虑一些以前从未考虑过的各种可能性。”

其中最令人担忧的是，将这些材料移交给调查人员会如何破坏监管链，因为州和地方法规对处理选票制定了严格的程序，以维护公众对选举结果的信心。

州最高法院写道：“允许执法部门不受限制地接触选票，或允许其根据不受监管的程序秘密处理和清点选票，本身就对选举公正性构成了重大风险。”

Thomas Werner/Bloomberg/Getty Images/文件

揭秘特朗普“史上规模最大的司法部选举观察员行动”计划

自那两起事件发生后的几个月里，州政府官员已指示地方选举管理人员，如果执法部门要求提供投票材料，必须立即通知他们。一些州甚至通过了法律，要求必须进行此类通知，并对任何参与非法扣押选票的人处以严厉处罚。选举法学者也一直在努力向法官普及选票相关的特殊问题，以便他们在考虑签发搜查令或传票以获取投票材料时能够更好地应对这些问题。

曾为民主党政府处理投票问题的洛约拉大学法学教授贾斯汀·莱维特预测，河滨县的这场斗争——以及州法院新裁决的“明确性”——将产生全国性的影响。

莱维特说：“我不认为这个国家有任何一位地方法官会对与选举有关的搜查令不加考虑。”

在一段回应州最高法院要求他退回选票的裁决的视频中，比安科辩称，法院“反对合法调查”，并表示他正在考虑向联邦法院上诉。

比安科辩称，他对选票的调查是合理的，因为他掌握了可能存在犯罪的证据，他还声称法院的裁决破坏了公众对选举的信心。

“当合理的证据提交给执法部门，而合法的调查却被法院叫停时，你如何指望人们对我们的制度有信心？”比安科问道。

Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

1 月份 FBI 在富尔顿县的查封行动已经让选举官员们意识到，联邦政府——在特朗普发表了关于 2020 年选举舞弊的虚假言论后，特朗普指示联邦政府将选民调查作为优先事项——愿意采取前所未有的措施来调查选举。

但河滨县的搜查令凸显了一种新的风险：当地执法部门可能会出于自身带有政治色彩的选举调查目的，试图没收选票。

警长办公室制定了由调查人员清点选票的计划；比安科的律师在 3 月份告诉 CNN，他的办公室在设计程序时咨询了“专家”并研究了“规程”，但拒绝透露更多细节。

加州民主党籍总检察长罗伯·邦塔得知搜查令后，立即下令比安科暂停行动，以便州检察长办公室对此事进行更深入的调查。然而，比安科最终还是扣押了选票，邦塔遂将其告上法庭。加州最高法院的判决（除了邦塔的诉讼外，该县的选民也对扣押选票的行为提出了质疑）指出，比安科无视总检察长的指示，违反了法律，并认定扣押行为本身就是非法的。

该意见为加州下级法院未来在类似案件中应如何行事树立了明确的先例。然而，它对其他州的法院不具有约束力，而且这些州的法院在审查扣押选票案件时所依据的法律，将与导致周四裁决的加州法律有所不同。

不过，其他州的官员和为他们提供法律咨询的专家告诉CNN，此次事件的积极意义在于，这种策略在加利福尼亚州得到了检验——加州原本准备在法庭上采取强硬措施来阻止这种做法。邦塔的办公室也在针对特朗普干预选举的诉讼中发挥了主导作用，并表示他正在与中期选举前的其他州进行磋商。

邦塔本周在新闻发布会上表示：“现在是分享最佳实践，指出我们共同的民主选举制度面临的威胁和风险，并跨越州界为接下来可能发生的事情做好准备的时候了。”

在里弗赛德选票扣押事件发生后，加州立法机构通过了法律，明确缩小了执法部门可以获取选票的情况，并对任何参与非法试图从选举官员保管中移除选票的人处以刑事处罚。

加利福尼亚州和康涅狄格州的新法律也要求地方政府一旦获悉针对选举材料的搜查令或其他执法行动，必须立即通知州政府官员。州政府官员已发布指导意见，说明如何应对调查人员索要选票的要求，并与执法部门就调查选举的敏感问题进行了沟通。

前亚利桑那州马里科帕县选举官员、现任全国选举官员协会首席项目官塔米·帕特里克表示，选举官员们“正在与州检察长、县检察官、市检察官合作，以确保每个人都了解谁真正有权参与选举程序和流程的任何部分”。

J. Scott Applewhite/美联社

最高法院裁定各州可以使用备受争议的公民身份数据工具进行选民审计，此举对特朗普有利。

让法官意识到其中的敏感性也是这项工作的一部分。在其他选举法学者和前法官的协助下，加州大学洛杉矶分校的选举法教授理查德·哈森发表了一份白皮书，旨在指导法官如何评估执法部门获取选票的申请。其中一项建议是，法官应考虑允许调查人员获取选票副本，而不是选票本身，以确保证据链的完整性。

贝克尔表示，佐治亚州和里弗赛德州的事件可能会让其他想要在其他地方效仿类似选票扣押行为的人有所顾虑。

“我认为几乎不可能再发生类似的事情了，尤其是在选举后的环境下，尽管选举官员正在确保做好准备，”贝克尔说。