,

U.S. Supreme Court Sends Washington State Legislative Map Case Back to Court of Appeals

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers, alberto@uclavrp.org

U.S. Supreme Court Sends Washington State Legislative Map Case Back to Court of Appeals

WASHINGTON (October 5, 2026) — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a procedural move, sent Trevino v. Hobbs back to the lower court for further review based on the April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais. On behalf of Latino voters in Washington state’s Yakima Valley, Campaign Legal Center, the UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and Morfin Law Firm, PLLC will continue to defend the rights of all Washingtonians to have an equal say in electing state legislators who best serve their community.

Following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that affirmed the legality of a new Washington state legislative map put in place by a district court to remedy a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), two voters who had intervened in the litigation brought this case to the Supreme Court, continuing an effort to resist a fair map for Washington’s voters. On October 5, 2026, after considering the intervenors’ petition to review the case, the Supreme Court granted intervenors’ petition, vacated the previous decision and sent the case back for further review in the Ninth Circuit in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais earlier this year.

“We won this case twice already, and we intend to win again. As a result of our previous litigation, Latino voters in Yakima Valley had an equal voice in state legislative elections for the first time in decades,” said Annabelle Harless, director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “Despite recent Supreme Court actions weakening the Voting Rights Act, we will continue to fight for fair maps to ensure that Latino voters in Washington State’s Yakima Valley have a fair chance to elect state legislators who best serve their community.”

“The 2021 Washington state Legislative redistricting denied Yakima and Tri-Cities Latinos the chance at equal representation, but our lawsuit remedied that in 2023,” said Ernest Herrera, MALDEF Western Regional Counsel. “Today’s Supreme Court’s orders do not change the fact that the Voting Rights Act guarantees Latinos equal opportunity to elect candidates who represent them in Washington’s state Legislature, and we will fight to keep a fair map in the Ninth Circuit.”

“Today’s order does not decide the merits of this case,” said Sonni Waknin, senior voting rights counsel at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “We will continue to move forward and ensure that a fair map exists in Washington state.”

“I think that the lower courts got it right on the law. I sometimes dream of a perfect world, where we have fair and equal representation, and ethical governance, where elected representatives care about the needs of the entire population,” said Edwardo Morfin of Morfin Law Firm, PLLC. “But, since we do not live in a perfect world, we need to wake up and keep fighting to get closer to that dream.”

Background:

In January 2022, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside co-counsel MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the UCLA Voting Rights Project, and attorney Edwardo Morfin of the Morfin Law Firm in Washington, sued on behalf of individual Latino voters in the Yakima Valley region, arguing that Washington’s state Legislative District 15 violated Section 2 of the VRA.

A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that the map violated Section 2 because the challenged district diluted the voting strength of Latino voters. Following this violation, a remedial map, which was drawn without any consideration of race, was implemented to allow voters in the Yakima Valley region an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Following the lower court’s decisions, intervenors appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an attempt to get the fair map overturned.

The Ninth Circuit found that the intervenors lacked standing to challenge the district court’s liability ruling and affirmed that the new remedial district put in place to address the Section 2 VRA violation complies with federal law.

Following plaintiffs’ win at the Ninth Circuit, intervenors filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

More information about our case is available here.

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

/by
,

California Supreme Court Orders Return of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots Seized by Sheriff Chad Bianco

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers, alberto@uclavrp.org

California Supreme Court Orders Return of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots Seized by Sheriff Chad Bianco

The decision in Cervantes v. Bianco addresses the custody and handling of voted ballots under California law.

LOS ANGELES (September 24, 2026) – Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of four Riverside County voters represented by the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) and Senior Voting Rights Advisor Xavier Becerra, finding that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco unlawfully seized more than 650,000 voted ballots and ordering him to return them to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

In Cervantes et al. v. Bianco, VRP challenged Bianco’s seizure and handling of ballots cast in the November 2025 special election. The petitioners argued that California election law establishes specific requirements governing the custody, inspection, and handling of voted ballots and that a criminal search warrant does not allow law enforcement to bypass those safeguards and count cast ballots outside of public scrutiny.

In its decision, the Court held that the seizure was unlawful because California law requires voted ballots to remain in custody of election officials, even during a criminal investigation. The Court found that a search warrant does not override those protections and ordered Bianco to return the ballots to the Registrar and stop handling them except as necessary to comply with the order.

“The Court’s decision reaffirms a basic principle that in California, the Election Code applies to everyone, including law enforcement,” said Chad Dunn, Legal Director of the VRP. “These are the voters’ ballots. They must be protected through the processes the Legislature has established. This ruling provides important clarity for election officials, law enforcement, and voters across California.”

“The High Court for the state of California has spoken,” said Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, who is a plaintiff in the case. “The rule of law has been upheld, and your sacred ballot and vote are constitutionally protected from any outside political interference. Thank you to our attorneys at UCLA Voting Rights Project, Xavier Becerra, and Attorney General Rob Bonta for their outstanding legal and distinguished representation.”

“Voters need to know their privacy is protected, their ballot is safe and secure, our elections are fair, and election laws must be followed by everyone,” said Becki Robinson, a plaintiff in the case.

“We thank the Court for affirming that the Sheriff has no role in the ballot chain of custody under the Elections Code. We call on California voters to reject similar attacks on voting rights this November,” said Nathan P. Kempe, a plaintiff and the operations director at Starting Over Strong,

Plaintiff and Indio City Councilmember Oscar Ortiz added, “My hope is that this ruling will protect not only the voting process of Riverside County, but also set the precedent for other counties and other states around the country. This ruling demonstrates to our American communities how we can use the legal tools provided by our federal and state constitutions to stop those who wish to manipulate our voting processes for their own political advantage.”

“Today the California Supreme Court handed voters a great victory when it rejected Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to use his badge to illegally seize thousands of cast ballots,” said Xavier Becerra, senior voting rights advisor to the VRP, former California Attorney General, and an attorney of record in the case. “The Court knocked election deniers off their feet and strengthened our hand in election protection just ahead of the November vote. We must use every lever at our disposal to beat back voter interference and intimidation. Californians’ faith and confidence in our elections depend on it.”

“Today’s ruling has made it clear that a criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election law,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Counsel at the VRP. “The Court has affirmed that when questions arise about an election, there are lawful and transparent procedures that must be followed. Those safeguards are essential to protecting voted ballots and maintaining public confidence in our elections.”

Read the opinion here.

Background

The UCLA Voting Rights Project filed an original petition with the California Supreme Court on March 25 on behalf of Riverside County voters Clarissa Cervantes, Oscar Ortiz, Rebecca Robinson, and Nathan Kempe after Bianco seized voted ballots and other election materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters as part of an investigation into alleged discrepancies in the November 2025 election.

The petitioners argued that California election law establishes specific safeguards governing the custody, inspection, counting, and preservation of voted ballots and that a criminal search warrant does not allow law enforcement to bypass those requirements.

As the case proceeded, VRP continued to raise concerns with the Court about the seizure and handling of the election materials. The California Supreme Court ultimately ordered the parties to address whether the voters are entitled to have the cast ballots returned to the Registrar on the grounds that their seizure pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code.

In their June 29 filing, the petitioners asked the Court to return the ballots and election materials to the Registrar, require an accounting of their handling while outside election officials’ custody, and disclose whether any ballot seals, tapes, ballots or records had been damaged, destroyed or altered.

On August 24, the Court also heard arguments in the related matter Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco, S295901. That case raises a separate question involving the Attorney General’s authority over local law enforcement. The two matters arise from the same Riverside County ballot seizure but present distinct legal issues.

###

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by
,

UCLA Study Finds Disparities in Mail Ballot Rejections and Evidence That Racial Cues May Influence Signature Reviews

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

UCLA Study Finds Disparities in Mail Ballot Rejections and Evidence That Racial Cues May Influence Signature Reviews

Analysis of California and Washington state election data underscores the need for further research and stronger safeguards for eligible voters.

LOS ANGELES (September 14, 2026) — Young and non-White voters are substantially more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected, while experimental evidence suggests racial cues may influence the subjective decisions involved in signature verification, according to a new research brief from the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP).

More than 580,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected nationwide during the 2024 general election. Signature discrepancies were the leading reason for rejection, accounting for 59% of rejected ballots in California and 64% in Washington state.

The brief authored by Michael Herndon, a senior research fellow at the VRP, finds that the subjective process of signature verification disproportionately penalizes non-White voters and young voters in both states. In an analysis of Washington state election data, Hispanic-surnamed voters were approximately twice as likely as White voters to have their ballots rejected because of a signature mismatch. In some counties this disparity was even larger. For example, in Adams County, Hispanic voters experienced a rejection rate more than four times that of White voters between 2019 and 2024.

The research also found:

  • Young voters faced substantially higher rejection rates. Across every racial group examined in California’s 2022 general election, voters younger than 25 were considerably more likely to have their signatures rejected than voters older than 65. In Riverside County, Latino voters younger than 25 were 15 times more likely to experience a signature rejection.
  • Racial cues influenced signature-matching decisions in controlled experiments. In one experiment, participants accepted signatures assigned White-sounding names at a rate of 60.5%, compared with 55% for signatures assigned Hispanic-sounding names—even though the names were randomly assigned and the underlying signatures were comparable.

The experiments did not examine actual election workers, but the findings raise questions about whether personal biases can affect VBM ballot verification, especially considering that the process varies by county, is done under time constraints, and happens at a massive scale. 

“A signature isn’t just a mark on a page; it also carries with it a name, which can very easily signal a person’s gender, race, religion or other personal characteristics,” said Herndon. “Decades of research tell us that people respond to these name-based cues, and they do it most when a task is ambiguous and left to their own judgment—which is exactly the case for signature verification.”

Herndon argues that the growing use of vote-by-mail makes closer examination of signature verification increasingly important. Because voters are not physically present when their ballots are reviewed, local election officials typically verify their identity by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope with signatures in the voter’s registration record. Voters whose ballots are flagged for missing or mismatched signatures must complete a curing process before their ballots can be counted, though not all states offer this remedy

The brief recommends evaluating differences in signature-review procedures and rejection rates across counties, broadening recruitment for the elections workforce, expanding automatic ballot curing and reassessing whether signature matching should remain the default method for verifying mail ballots. It also calls for further research into which technologies, training practices and administrative workflows make ballot review more accurate and less susceptible to bias.

Read the full brief here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research, and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by
,

Victory for Galveston, TX Voters: Illegal Map Struck Down as Fight Still Continues for Fair Representation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

Victory for Galveston, TX Voters: Illegal Map Struck Down as Fight Still Continues for Fair Representation

AUSTIN, Texas (September 11, 2026) — Today, in an important step toward fair maps for Galveston voters, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that county commissioners in Galveston County, Texas, unlawfully disenfranchised Galveston’s voters through the 2026 map enacted between the primary and general elections.

Today’s ruling is the result of a petition filed by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) on behalf of Galveston County voters, which argued that the passage of this new map mid-election without any mechanism for voters and candidates to participate equally under the new map violated not only the Texas Constitution, but also the United States Constitution and Texas Election Code.

While this victory is important, the longer fight for fair maps continues in federal court. Galveston County has a long history of drawing maps in a way that discriminates against and diminishes the voting strength of Black and Latino voters, and the map that was in place for the 2026 primary is no exception. The 2021 maps are the subject of ongoing federal litigation in which CLC and VRP argue that they constitute unlawful and intentionally discriminatory racial gerrymandering.

“Although the fight for fair maps in Galveston County is far from over, today’s victory sends a clear sign that Galveston County cannot illegally disenfranchise its voters,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “Electoral systems that intentionally discriminate against voters in communities of color deprive voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. While we celebrate this victory at the Texas Supreme Court, we are still continuing our fight in Galveston to ensure that any discriminatory maps are struck down so all voters can make their voices heard.” 

“Today’s ruling protects the right of voters and candidates to participate equally in our elections,” said Bernadette Reyes, senior staff attorney at the VRP. “Galveston County cannot change district boundaries in the middle of an election and deny voters and candidates an equal opportunity to participate in a new map.” 

Background:

In October 2023, a federal judge ruled that Galveston County’s redistricting map, which denied Black and Latino voters an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the map had been struck down by the federal district court judge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered that the illegal map could remain in place for the 2024 election — the same map the federal judge had deemed “mean-spirited” and “egregious” in his October 2023 ruling. This order was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the ruling here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research, and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by
,

UCLA Voting Rights Project Asks for Removal of Shasta Co. Elections Chief Ahead of Midterms

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers, alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

UCLA Voting Rights Project Asks for Removal of Shasta Co. Elections Chief Ahead of Midterms

Letter to grand jury asks that proceedings be initiated against Registrar Clint Curtis following his handling of election materials while in office.

REDDING, Calif. (September 9, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP), joined by Sr. Advisor Xaiver Becerra, today called on the Shasta County grand jury to initiate proceedings to remove County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis from office, citing a pattern of conduct that has undermined the lawful and transparent administration of elections.

Curtis currently oversees elections in Shasta County and is expected to administer the November election. Although Registrar Curtis certified the results of the June 2026 Primary election, on July 2, he subsequently raised unsubstantiated concerns about the ballots from the contest he administered and lost.

According to public statements and media reports that were cited in the letter, Curtis sealed ballots from the June 2026 primary and November 2024 general election inside the county elections office. He later installed additional locks and had the lock keys destroyed. Registrar Curtis reportedly said the June ballots did not look, feel, or smell right and expressed hope that federal authorities would examine or seize election materials.

“It sets a dangerous precedent if Mr. Curtis was allowed to employ the authority of his office to cast suspicion on an election he administered, certified, but then lost,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Counsel at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “With another election approaching, Shasta County voters deserve an elections office that follows the law, protects the chain of custody, and administers every ballot with professionalism and transparency.”

The letter also cites two county investigations that substantiated allegations of misconduct involving Curtis’s treatment of election employees. Those findings included retaliation against staff, campaign-related activity during working hours, and threatening or intimidating language. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors formally censured Curtis in August.

California law allows a county grand jury to present a written accusation seeking the removal of a public officer for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. If the grand jury presents an accusation, the matter proceeds in Superior Court, where the official has an opportunity to respond, and the allegations may be tried before a jury.

The VRP sent its letter to the Shasta County grand jury and urged the Board of Supervisors to support removal proceedings. The letter was also provided to the Shasta County district attorney. The VRP hopes the letter will result in action from the grand jury to remove Registrar Curtis. 

“Curtis’s conduct has created serious questions about the security and administration of Shasta County’s elections at a moment when voters need confidence that their ballots will be handled according to law,” Waknin said. “State and local officials must act before those concerns carry into the November election.”

Curtis is scheduled to remain in office until Francescut begins her term in January 2027.

Read the letter to the Shasta Co. grand jury here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research, and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by
,

UCLA Voting Rights Project and CHIRLA Sue U.S. Department of Homeland Security Over Threat to Purge California Voters

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers, alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

UCLA Voting Rights Project and CHIRLA Sue U.S. Department of Homeland Security Over Threat to Purge California Voters

Lawsuit says administration is using unsupported noncitizen-voting claims and unreliable government records to target the state’s voter rolls.

WASHINGTON (September 2, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) joined by Sr. Advisor Xavier Becerra filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), and Pedro Trujillo, a naturalized U.S. citizen and registered California voter, challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s use of federal databases to erroneously target naturalized citizens who are eligible to register to vote.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs’ case argues that the DHS and the Department of Justice are interfering with free and fair elections by using unlawful and inaccurate federal databases to bolster accusations of voter fraud and overreach in election administration.

The complaint follows claims by the White House that more than 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote nationwide, including 190,832 in California. According to the lawsuit, federal officials have not disclosed the methodology or evidence supporting those figures. 

The lawsuit argues that DHS’s own communications have contradicted similar claims. After the agency alleged that nearly 16,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada, a department official reportedly acknowledged that the figure represented a “ceiling” and that each voter would need to be manually reviewed. DHS subsequently provided Nevada officials with 185 identification numbers associated with voters, the agency said it was confident were noncitizens.

“Naturalized citizens, like my mother, are not second class citizens. They have the right to exercise their vote, just like all citizens,” said Xavier Becerra, voting rights attorney and senior advisor for the VRP and co-counsel in the case. “The Trump Administration’s attacks on voting are premeditated, and their schemes to interfere in our November 3rd elections are predictable. Today, we file this action against Donald Trump to defend voters like my mom who believe in free and fair elections.”

The lawsuit alleges that the administration may be comparing voter rolls with undisclosed government databases. Because those systems may not reflect when a lawful permanent resident later becomes a U.S. citizen, the complaint argues that database matching could produce false results that disproportionately affect naturalized voters.

Several states are now poised to lose federal funding if they refuse to match their voter rolls against a system the complaint says is notorious for mislabeling valid voters as noncitizens. The federal officials have also threatened election officials with prosecution if they knowingly retain noncitizens on their voter rolls.

“The Constitution gives states responsibility for administering elections and permits Congress—not the White House or federal agencies—to alter the rules for federal elections,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the VRP. “The executive branch cannot take control of state voter rolls or create a national voter-screening system without authorization from Congress. Threatening states with prosecution or the loss of federal funding does not give them authority that the Constitution and federal law do not provide.”

The complaint cites previous voter-list reviews and research documenting the difficulty of accurately matching records in large government databases when they contain outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent information. The plaintiffs allege that DHS’s treatment of naturalized citizens, its use of government databases containing voters’ personal information, and its dissemination of unsupported claims violate the Constitution and federal privacy and administrative laws.

CHIRLA says the administration’s actions have created fear among naturalized citizens, reduced participation in some of its programs, and forced the organization to redirect resources toward voter protection and community education.

“Unsupported claims of noncitizen voting are creating fear and confusion in immigrant communities and among naturalized citizens who have every right to vote. These threats are designed to intimidate eligible voters and undermine the civic engagement work we do at CHIRLA to ensure immigrant communities can participate fully and confidently in our democracy. We will not stand by while baseless allegations are used to silence voters,” stated Angelica Salas, Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).

Trujillo was born outside the United States, became a naturalized citizen in 2021, and is registered to vote in California. He plans to vote in the November 2026 election.

“I was born outside the United States, but I earned my citizenship and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2021. I have the same right to vote as any citizen born here, and I plan to exercise that right in November. I should not have to fear being treated like a criminal simply because I am an immigrant and choose to vote. My citizenship is real, my voice matters, and my right to participate in our democracy should not be questioned,” Trujillo said.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to stop the administration from imposing the voter-list matching effort on California, require Markwayne Mullin, the Secretary of Homeland Security, to rescind his letter to the state, and prohibit future action that does not comply with federal law. They are also seeking a declaration that the administration’s actions are unlawful and unconstitutional.

Read the complaint here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research, and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

About the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

CHIRLA was founded in 1986 to advance the human and civil rights of immigrants and refugees. CHIRLA became a place for organizations and people who support human rights to work together for policies that advance justice and full inclusion for all immigrants.

/by
,

California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco’s Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers, alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Sheriff Chad Bianco’s Seizure of More Than 650,000 Riverside County Ballots

UCLA Voting Rights Project argues that criminal investigations cannot bypass California’s established procedures for the custody and handling of voted ballots

SAN FRANCISCO (August 24, 2026) – The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Cervantes et al. v. Bianco, a case brought by the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) on behalf of four Riverside County voters challenging Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure and handling of more than 650,000 ballots cast in the November 2025 special election.

The petitioners are asking the Court to order all seized ballots and election materials returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. They are also seeking a written accounting of how the materials were handled while outside the Registrar’s custody and disclosure of any destruction or alteration of seals, tapes, ballots or related election records.

VRP Legal Director Chad Dunn argued on behalf of the voters that California law already provides specific mechanisms for challenging election results and reviewing voted ballots, and that Sheriff Bianco did not follow those procedures before seizing the ballots and beginning to count them outside the custody of Riverside County election officials.

During the 95-minute oral argument, the Court heard from counsel representing the Riverside County voters, California Attorney General Rob Bonta as amicus curiae, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, Sheriff Bianco, and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco. Dunn opened for the petitioners and returned for rebuttal.

Dunn, attorneys, and petitioners told reporters during a press conference following the hearing that under those procedures, ballots can be inspected or recounted when necessary, but the Riverside County Registrar of Voters remains responsible for their custody and security.

“What we’ve asked the court today to do is make sure sheriffs and everybody else in this state understand the Elections Code applies to them as well,” Dunn said.

“A criminal investigation is not a blanket license to ignore California election laws,” said Sonni Waknin, senior staff attorney at VRP and counsel for the petitioners. “Public confidence in our elections depends on voters knowing that the rules that govern their ballots will be followed.”

Xavier Becerra, senior advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project, former California Attorney General, and an attorney of record in the case, joined the Riverside County voters and VRP attorneys outside the Court following oral argument.

“We hope that the Supreme Court of California will issue a swift decision protecting the right to vote, protecting the ballots that are cast by our voters, so we can once again give our voters the confidence to know that when they go out and do their democratic duty and cast their vote, it not only will be counted, it will be protected,” Becerra said.  

Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, one of the voters represented in the case, said the stakes extend beyond the immediate dispute over the seized ballots. “Protect the future of our elections, protect our ballots and our vote.”

Indio City Councilmember Oscar Ortiz, also a petitioner, called for the ballots to be returned to election officials. “Our residents deserve better from our state and county leadership, and they deserve immediate action from the California Supreme Court to return these ballots.”

Watch the August 24, 2026, press conference here. 

What happens next

The California Supreme Court did not issue a decision following oral argument. The Court will now deliberate and prepare a written opinion.

Under the Court’s procedures, its opinion must be filed within 90 days of oral argument, meaning a decision is expected by late November. The ruling could provide statewide guidance on how California election laws governing voted ballots apply when those materials become relevant to a criminal investigation.

Background

The UCLA Voting Rights Project filed an original petition with the California Supreme Court on March 25 on behalf of Riverside County voters Clarissa Cervantes, Oscar Ortiz, Rebecca Robinson, and Nathan Kempe after Bianco seized voted ballots and other election materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters as part of an investigation into alleged discrepancies in the November 2025 election.

The petitioners argue that California election law establishes specific safeguards governing the custody, inspection, counting, and preservation of voted ballots and that a criminal search warrant does not allow law enforcement to bypass those requirements.

As the case proceeded, VRP continued to raise concerns with the Court about the seizure and handling of the election materials. The California Supreme Court ultimately ordered the parties to address whether the voters are entitled to have the cast ballots returned to the Registrar on the grounds that their seizure pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code.

In their June 29 filing, the petitioners asked the Court to return the ballots and election materials to the Registrar, require an accounting of their handling while outside election officials’ custody, and disclose whether any ballot seals, tapes, ballots or records had been damaged, destroyed or altered.

The Court also heard arguments Monday in the related matter Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco, S295901. That case raises a separate question involving the Attorney General’s authority over local law enforcement. The two matters arise from the same Riverside County ballot seizure but present distinct legal issues.

###

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

 

/by
,

Campaign Legal Center, UCLA Voting Rights Project File Lawsuit in Texas Supreme Court Challenging Galveston’s New Unlawful County Government Maps

For Immediate Release
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu

Campaign Legal Center, UCLA Voting Rights Project File Lawsuit in Texas Supreme Court Challenging Galveston’s New Unlawful County Government Maps

AUSTIN, Texas (August 5, 2026) — On August 4, 2026, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) filed a lawsuit at the Texas Supreme Court, asking the court to strike down Galveston County’s newly adopted commissioner precinct map as unlawful.

Earlier this year, the Galveston County Commission passed the new map after voters had already cast ballots under a different map in the Texas primary election. This new map violates both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, as well as the Texas Election Code.

“Black and Latino voters in Galveston have been fighting for fair maps for almost two decades. They deserve to have their voices heard and their votes counted,” said Mark Gaber of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “The County Commission has once again passed an unlawful map — this time in the middle of an ongoing election season. We are continuing our work to fight tirelessly for fair maps to ensure voters can meaningfully elect their candidate of choice.”

“Election rules should not change after voters have already begun casting ballots,” said Bernadette Reyes, voting rights counsel at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “When officials redraw districts in the middle of an election, it threatens both equal representation and confidence in our democratic process. Our lawsuit asks the court to protect those fundamental rights and principles.”

Today’s lawsuit builds on years of litigation challenging discriminatory maps in Galveston County. CLC and VRP joined a federal case representing individual voters in Galveston in 2021 and have been advocating for fair representation since. Last week, both organizations argued in federal court that the Galveston County government map, passed in 2021 and which was very similar to this 2026 map, intentionally discriminated against Black and Latino voters.

Not only does this most recent map unfairly discriminate against Galveston’s Black and Latino voters, who comprise nearly half of the county’s population, the map was passed after voters had already voted under the original maps in primary elections earlier in the year. The lawsuit filed today asserts that the passage of these new maps in the middle of election season violates the Texas Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Election Code.

Additional Background:

In October 2023, a federal judge ruled that Galveston County’s redistricting map, which denied Black and Latino voters the equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).

While the map had been struck down by the federal district court judge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered that the illegal map could remain in place for the 2024 election — the same map that — the federal judge deemed “mean-spirited” and “egregious” in his October 2023 ruling. This order was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal litigation has continued, with arguments last week in this case before a federal judge.

Follow the latest updates via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

###

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

/by
,

UCLA Voting Rights Project Urges California Supreme Court to Reaffirm That Criminal Investigations Do Not Override California Election Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu 

UCLA Voting Rights Project Urges California Supreme Court to Reaffirm That Criminal Investigations Do Not Override California Election Law

New merits brief argues that Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure and counting of ballots violated clear California law and asks the Court to order the return of all election materials to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

LOS ANGELES (June 30, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a new merits brief in Cervantes v. Bianco, urging the California Supreme Court to reaffirm that California law strictly governs who may take custody of, handle, count, and review ballots and election materials. The filing argues that Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure and counting of ballots in Riverside County violated the Elections Code and that a criminal investigation does not give law enforcement license to bypass the safeguards the Legislature established to protect ballot custody, transparency, and public confidence in election outcomes. 

The brief asks the Court to order the return of all ballots and election materials seized from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, require a detailed written account of how those materials were handled while outside the Registrar’s custody, and require disclosure of any spoliation, destruction of seals, tapes, ballots, or records. It also argues that Bianco’s actions amounted to an unauthorized recount or election contest conducted outside the public, transparent procedures required by California law. 

Xavier Becerra, Senior Advisor and Voting Rights Counsel at the VRP, noted: “Now more than ever, with bad actors employing every technique available to sour voters’ confidence in our elections, we must protect the integrity of the ballot and our vote. The California Supreme Court has an opportunity to affirm the vitality of California’s election laws that safeguard ballots from tampering, no matter who the bad actor may be — including a law enforcement official.”

“Riverside County voters are harmed each day these ballots remain outside the lawful jurisdiction of election officials,” added Sonni Waknin, senior voting rights counsel at the VRP. “The Court should act without delay to protect the integrity of our elections and make clear that ballots must be handled only through the processes established by California law.”

“This case asks the California Supreme Court to reaffirm the careful process by which ballots and election materials are handled,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the VRP. “This case is important nationally as more and more politicians, without evidence, call into question the veracity of reported election outcomes. Now is a critical time for the California high court to take decisive action protecting the integrity of election records by ensuring only trained election personnel, not politicians, ever touch ballots.”

Petitioners argue that California law is clear: ballots are supposed to stay with election officials, and any review must happen through the legal process created for elections. 

Read the brief here.

###

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

The UCLA Voting Rights Project was established to protect equal voting rights for all Americans through strategic litigation, social science research and policy advocacy. The VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the UCLA Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu.

/by
,

UCLA Voting Rights Project’s Statement on the SCOTUS Decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alberto Lammers; alammers@luskin.ucla.edu 

UCLA Voting Rights Project’s Statement on the SCOTUS Decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee

LOS ANGELES (June 29, 2026) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Watson v. RNC, holding that federal law does not require mail ballots to be received by Election Day. The decision allows states to continue counting ballots that are cast by Election Day and received after the polls close, in accordance with state law.

Statement from the UCLA Voting Rights Project:

“In a significant win for democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court has empowered states to control their election deadlines, allowing validly cast ballots postmarked by election day to be counted. This interpretation reinforces the rights of the states to control their election infrastructure and ensures that every legally cast ballot is counted.  Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett made clear, votes cast by Election Day are valid and states can determine when to count them.

“States all across the country have laws in place that permit voters to drop off or mail their ballots on election day and have those votes counted. For decades, this practice has been utilized with success in Republican and Democratic controlled states, and allowed wider voter access and participation, including for military and overseas American voters. Millions of people may not be able to physically vote in person on election day and use legal vote-by-mail ballots and trust the United States Postal Service to deliver their ballots. Today, the Supreme Court has ensured these equitable practices continue, allowing states to enforce laws making the franchise accessible for all.  The decision emphasizes the power of states over elections, highlighting their ability to enact and enforce their own election laws meant to make voting possible for all eligible voters. 

“California currently allows for timely post-marked ballots to be counted if received seven-days after election day, and can continue its policy, ensuring that voting remains open and accessible to all those eligible. In light of recent blows to democracy, this decision reinforces that the fight for equal voting for all can and must continue.  The UCLA Voting Rights Project will continue fighting for voters and the expanded franchise.”

/by