DA Anderson: AG asks too much on Riv. ballot issue

Three briefs have been filed in the past week regarding Attorney General Rob Bonta's case before the Supreme Court to halt Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco's investigation of the 2025 election.

The Riverside Sheriff's Office still has possession of the ballots, which Bianco has wanted to manually recount to determine the number of ballots cast. His investigation was started at the request of a group of Riverside citizens. Riverside Superior Judge Jay Kiel, who issued the warrants to seize the ballots and start a count of the ballots under the authority of a special master, has paused the recount until the Supreme Court makes their decision.

The briefs are brought by San Bernardino District Attorney Anderson, nine county registrars and the California State Sheriff's Association.

Question before the court

The Supreme Court will review the case to answer three questions:

( 1) What is the scope of the Attorney General's constitutional and statutory authority to supervise and direct the activities of a county sheriff?

(2) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the Riverside Sheriff to comply with the Attorney General's directives, including the Attorney General's directive to cease the Sheriff's investigation into the November 2025 special election?

(3) Is the Attorney General entitled to a writ of mandate directing the superior court to quash or stay execution of a search warrant if the warrant was issued in contravention of the Attorney General's directive or defective on its face?

Anderson's petition

San Bernardino District Attorney Anderson's petition does not take sides regarding the investigation. His petition argues that the California Attorney General's authority over sheriffs and districts attorneys does not equate to him having the power to stop investigations.

"As the parties recognize, supervision and control '[do] not contemplate absolute control and direction of such officials. Especially this is true as to sheriffs and district attorneys, as the provision plainly indicates. These officials are public officers, as distinguished from mere employees, with public duties delegated and entrusted to them,'" Anderson wrote, quoting the 1942 case People v. Brophy.

The authority the AG does have does not extend to search warrants, the brief continues.

"Statute speaks to the Attorney General directing a sheriff to 'serve subpoenas, warrants of arrest or other processes of court in connection therewith.' Presumably, the latter could contemplate search warrants, but authority on the issue appears to be scant," the petition reads.

The brief does not take sides regarding the investigation.

"SBCDA is sufficiently distanced from the underlying investigation in this case to not support either side in this writ litigation. However, the Attorney General's desire for extraordinary relief from this Court generates far more sweeping issues than a struggle for executive control over a county investigation merits," the petition reads.

Bianco SBCDA Application for Amicus & Amicus BriefBianco SBCDA Application for Amicus & Amicus Brief.pdf2 MBdownload-circle

County registrars' brief

The brief from nine county registrars asked the Supreme Court to ensure the ballot recount is done with experts rather than simply hand counting ballots, if the court were to allow the recount to continue. Bianco's described method of counting the 657,000 ballots would be by hand counting each ballot individually twice.

"Respondent Bianco and his deputies would be individually opening over 1,000 different containers of ballots and reviewing over 650,000 ballots inside those boxes with little knowledge about which kinds of ballots are stored in each container and why," their brief reads.

The brief also questions the existence of the investigation when there are multiple ways to review elections in the civil code.

"Given that there are other, more effective, more transparent means of challenging the reliability of ballot counts via California’s civil system, Respondent Bianco’s use of criminal tools, such as the search warrant and criminal investigation, to review alleged discrepancies in ballot counts from the 2025 Special Election in Riverside County is unnecessary and unwarranted," their brief says.

"Respondent Bianco’s use of criminal tools to conduct an election review only serves to undermine the robust civil system that serves as a bedrock of proper election administration under California law."

AG v Bianco Amicus FinalAG v Bianco Amicus Final.pdf401 KBdownload-circle

Sheriff's Association

The California State Sheriff's Association also joined in, arguing that the Attorney General's authority to supervise sheriffs does not extend to issuing directions, or to overruling judicial warrants.

"The Attorney General’s requested relief would effectively permit an executive official to override the practical effect of judicial warrants by ordering termination of the very investigation the warrants authorized. That result threatens separation of powers in two directions simultaneously. First, it improperly centralizes executive authority over independently elected county constitutional officers. Second, it dictates a legal result thereby derailing the judiciary’s independent constitutional role in authorizing and supervising criminal process," the brief says.

Still, the brief edged by not supporting the authority of the underlying investigation.

"Though Amicus supports Respondents, Sheriff Chad Bianco and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Amicus takes no position on whether the underlying investigation that formed the basis of this case was prudent, politically wise, or likely to uncover criminal wrongdoing. More specifically, Amicus does not express any view regarding any of the election integrity claims, nor does Amicus express any view on the wisdom, necessity, scope, or political implications of the underlying investigation."

AG v. Bianco -- Amicus Application and BriefAG v. Bianco -- Amicus Application and Brief.pdf335 KBdownload-circle