Exclusive: California Sheriff Who Seized Ballots Advocates Restricting Voting Rights

California Sheriff Seizing 650,000 Ballots Has History of Election Denial Claims

The recent seizure of more than 650,000 ballots from California’s 2025 redistricting referendum by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has sparked controversy, raising questions about the motivations behind his unprecedented action.

An examination of social media activity linked to Bianco reveals a pattern of statements that align with election denial narratives popularized by former President Donald Trump and his supporters, despite such claims being consistently rejected by courts, election officials, and independent audits nationwide.

“That’s why some people should never be allowed to vote,” Bianco wrote Wednesday on LinkedIn in response to a video commentary about Iran. This comment appears to be part of a broader pattern of controversial statements about voting and elections.

In numerous posts across social media platforms, Bianco has promoted unfounded claims that elections are systematically manipulated and that Democrats maintain power through illegal voters. “Democrats have created an environment where cheating and illegal voting is keeping them in office,” he wrote in one comment.

On the topic of immigration enforcement near polling stations, Bianco questioned, “Why would they be scared if they aren’t illegal? Illegals shouldn’t be voting!” This came in response to concerns from voting rights advocates that placing immigration agents near polls could intimidate eligible voters from participating in elections.

Similar sentiments appear on his X (formerly Twitter) account, where he advocated for “In-person voting with ID” claiming that this approach only “suppresses” what he called “dead voters, the fake voters, and the illegal voters.” In another post, he asserted without evidence that “Non citizens can vote, you can vote for someone else even if they are dead, people can vote multiple times with different names.”

Election security experts and officials have consistently found no credible evidence supporting claims of widespread voting by non-citizens, deceased individuals, or coordinated schemes involving multiple votes by single individuals.

The social media statements take on particular significance as California officials battle in court to halt Bianco’s seizure and hand recount of approximately 650,000 ballots from the November Proposition 50 special election. That election saw voters strongly support a Democratic-leaning redistricting map designed to counter Republican gerrymanders in other states.

Bianco, who has announced his candidacy for governor, has characterized his investigation as a straightforward verification of election results. However, Riverside County’s top election official disputes this characterization.

Art Tinoco, the county’s registrar of voters, told the local board of supervisors that the actual discrepancy between ballots cast and ballots counted amounted to just 103 votes—approximately 0.016% of all ballots. Tinoco explained that claims of larger discrepancies stemmed from activists misinterpreting raw, unprocessed election data.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has taken legal action to challenge the sheriff’s authority in this matter. “The Sheriff’s actions—launching an unprecedented criminal investigation into the special election without identifying any particular crime that may have been committed by anyone, and openly defying the Attorney General’s lawful directives—demand immediate judicial intervention,” Bonta wrote in a court filing.

Despite these concerns, a state appeals court recently denied Bonta’s petition to stop what he described as Bianco’s “amateur” recount of the seized ballots. The court determined the petition should have been filed with a lower court first.

The conflict highlights growing tensions around election administration and oversight in California and reflects broader national debates about election integrity, the role of law enforcement in election matters, and the impact of election denial rhetoric on public institutions.

As the legal battle continues, questions remain about the precedent this case might set for future elections and the boundaries of local law enforcement authority in election matters.