Tag Archive for: California

,

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

How Racial Biases Can Affect Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection

Author: Michael Herndon, Ph.D. | Senior Research Fellow, UCLA Voting Rights Project | September 2026

Evidence from California and Washington shows that non-White voters are disproportionately more likely to have their vote-by-mail ballots rejected – and that this problem may be rooted in the racial biases of election officials, rather than voter deficiencies.

THE BOTTOM LINE

580,000+

Rejected Ballots Annually

4x

Higher Rejection Rate for Non-White Voters

10x

Higher Rejection Rate for Young Voters
  • Vote-by-mail (VBM) now accounts for over a third of ballots cast nationally, and in California, 89 percent of voters cast their ballots this way.
  • Signature verification is the single largest source of ballot rejection. In California and Washington, non-matching signatures accounted for 59 and 64 percent of all rejected ballots in the 2024 general election respectively.
  • Non-White voters are disproportionately affected. Studies using real election data from California and Washington find that non-White voters and young voters are significantly more likely to have their ballots rejected for signature discrepancies, late arriving ballots, and undeliverable ballots.
  • Personal biases can affect signature adjudication. Controlled experiments suggest that the average person is more likely to be accepting of White appearing signatures than non-White appearing signatures, even when controlling for signature quality, complexity, etc. Participants in these experiments were also observed to be influenced by their personal racial beliefs.
  • Closing these demographic gaps in ballot rejection requires scientifically backed administrative reforms. To this end, more research is needed on the effectiveness of different technologies, training materials, workflows, etc. on making ballot rejection more precise and less biased.

THE PROBLEM

Vote-by-mail was designed to make voting easier, and for most voters it does. But every general election, more than 500,000 mail ballots are rejected nationwide — and research suggests that at minimum 80 percent of these ballots belong to eligible voters.This matters because in close elections, wrongly rejected ballots can make the difference between winning and losing. For example, in 2024, California’s 13th Congressional District was decided by just 187 votes, in a race where more than 6,000 ballots were flagged for missing or non-matching signatures.The 2004 Washington gubernatorial election was decided by just 129 votes while simultaneously rejecting thousands of VBM ballots. Hundreds of state and local elections are decided by similarly thin margins every cycle, reminding us of the power and impact that even a single wrongfully rejected ballot can have.

The most common reason ballots are rejected is a signature mismatch: an election worker’s judgment call that the signature on a ballot envelope doesn’t sufficiently resemble the signature on file. Unlike a missed deadline, signature verification is a subjective determination made in seconds, often with only minimal training compared to the 2 years required to be a certified forensic document examiner. Meanwhile, election skepticism is alarmingly high – especially among Republicans.

Continue reading How Racial Biases Can Affect Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection

/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
,

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
,

VRP Data Scientists Present Language Access Research in Sacramento

C&P New Press Release Below: 

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

Jessica Cobian and Diego Casillas, UCLA PhD students present important research on the efficacy of bilingual voting materials at Sacramento briefing.

SACRAMENTO (June 23, 2025) — This year marks the 50th anniversary of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark federal provision requiring jurisdictions to provide bilingual voting materials and assistance to voters with limited English proficiency. To commemorate this milestone, the UCLA Voting Rights Project presented new research at the California State Capitol examining whether California is adequately advancing equitable ballot access for limited English-speaking immigrant voters.

The event—“Does California Go Far Enough to Ensure Immigrant Inclusion in Our Democracy?”—was hosted by the USC Center for Inclusive Democracy, in partnership with the California Latino Legislative Caucus and the California Asian American and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus. The event was made possible through support from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and the Haas Jr. Fund.

Research Highlights from the UCLA Voting Rights Project

UCLA VRP Senior Fellow, Jessica Cobian presented findings from the report, The Efficacy of Translated Voting Materials. The analysis finds that translated materials play a critical role in enhancing voter confidence, minimizing confusion at polling sites, and improving administrative efficiency. The report further emphasizes the indispensable role of bilingual poll workers and the need for sustained collaboration with community-based organizations to advance linguistic inclusion and ensure equitable access to the ballot for limited English-speaking voters.

“Language access is a vital mechanism for civic inclusion. When jurisdictions fail to address language barriers, entire communities are excluded from shaping the policies that govern their lives and electing the representatives who speak on their behalf. Advancing language access requires sustained investment, collaborative outreach, and long-term institutional commitment.” — Jessica Cobian, Senior Fellow, UCLA Voting Rights Project

UCLA VRP Senior Fellow, Diego Casillas shared findings from the report, The Impact of Federal Section 203 Language Voting Mandates on the 2016 Census Determinations and 2020 Election Turnout. This analysis demonstrates that jurisdictions required to comply with Section 203 experienced significantly higher turnout among limited-English proficient voters in the 2020 election.

Jessica Cobian, UCLA Voting Rights Project Senior Fellow, presenting in Sacramento

ABOUT THE  VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT

The UCLA Voting Rights Project is a project of the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, in collaboration with the UCLA School of Law aimed at creating an accessible and equitable system of voting for all Americans through impact litigation, research, and clinical education to expand access to the ballot box.

Founded in 2018 by civil rights attorney Chad W. Dunn, J.D. and voting rights political science expert Matt Barreto, Ph.D. the VRP seeks to address three gaps in the voting rights field: training newly graduated, young lawyers and expert witnesses; developing new legal and social science theories for voting rights cases; and advancing voting rights through national and local public policy and litigation.

The  VRP seeks to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race, partisanship, gender or class are afforded equal access to the electoral process and representation in governance. For more information about the  Voting Rights Project, please visit vrp.ucla.edu

/by

Voter’s Choice Act Report for the 2020 Primary and General Elections

This report, commissioned by the California Secretary of State’s office and conducted by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, provides a comprehensive overview of language access and voter participation for language minorities in the fifteen counties that implemented the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) during the 2020 Primary and General Elections. Appendix B1 focuses on the 2020 Primary Election, while Appendix B2 focuses on the 2020 General Election. Appendix C describes the usage of the methodology, Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG), in conducting its research. Major findings of this report are that turnout rates significantly increased across California counties as a result of more accessible voting by mail and that both non-VCA and VCA counties (excluding Los Angeles) had comparable vote-by-mail usage rates.

Contributors: Matthew Barreto, Michael Rios, Vivian Alejandre & Sonni Waknin

Language Access During the March 2020 Primary Election and General ElectionDownload
Language Access During the November 2020 General ElectionDownload
Utilizing Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) to Improve Our Understanding of California Voter Demographics in Voter’s Choice Act CountiesDownload
/by
,

CA Supreme Court Advances UCLA Voting Rights Project Case Over Riverside Election Materials Seizure

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

California Supreme Court Advances UCLA Voting Rights Project Case Over Riverside Election Materials Seizure

In a case brought by four Riverside County voters represented by UCLA VRP, the justices directed respondents to explain why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted, moved the matter forward on an expedited basis, and left in place the April 8 stay issued in the Attorney General’s related case.

LOS ANGELES (May 14, 2026) — The California Supreme Court has ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco to show cause why the relief sought by petitioners in Cervantes v. Bianco should not be granted. The Court has directed respondents to file returns within 30 days, said the matter will proceed on an expedited basis, and indicated it does not anticipate granting extensions absent specific and compelling good cause. The Court also denied petitioners’ separate application for a stay in light of its April 8 stay order in Attorney General v. Bianco, which remains in effect. 

In its petition, the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) challenged Sheriff Bianco’s seizure of ballots and election materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and asked the Court to halt any further seizure or handling of those materials, restore lawful custody, and require that any further review proceed only under California election law and through authorized election officials. In recent weeks, VRP’s clients also notified the Court of additional developments, including the seizure of 426 additional boxes of election materials and new concerns involving the handling and security of materials while the case has been pending. 

“The Court order makes clear that our client’s case is moving forward and will receive full consideration on an expedited basis,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Counsel at VRP. “The issues raised in the petition are of serious concern and warrant full consideration by the Court.”

The order moves the petition into a fuller merits phase and maintains the protections already imposed by the Court in the related Attorney General matter.

Read the order 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 Filing Alerts CA Supreme Court to Alleged Security Breach in Riverside Ballot Seizure Case

Letter also urges Court to decide on whether a sheriff may lawfully take possession of ballots outside official election process.

LOS ANGELES (April 28, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) today filed a letter alerting the California Supreme Court to developments that came to light after briefing closed on March 30, 2026. According to the filing, Sheriff Bianco’s counsel allegedly created a public link that allowed access to at least some of the seized election materials, raising new election security concerns while the case remains pending. The letter also argues that, even after the Court’s interim action in the Attorney General’s matter, the Justices should still resolve the election-law questions presented in this case before the 2026 primary election moves forward. 

“We are asking the Court to do more than pause this particular investigation. We are asking it to make clear that ballots and election materials cannot be taken out of the hands of election officials and handled outside the safeguards established by California law,” said Sonni Waknin, senior voting rights counsel at VPR. “What has happened in Riverside shows why that question cannot be left unanswered. With primary voting beginning in a few days, the Court should act quickly to reaffirm that ballot custody, security, and review must remain under lawful election procedures and not be left to ad hoc actions by law enforcement.”

Read the filing 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 Issues Letter to Riverside County Regarding Concerns Over Sheriff Bianco’s Outside Legal Fees

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

UCLA Voting Rights Project Issues Letter to Riverside County Regarding Concerns Over Sheriff Bianco’s Outside Legal Fees

Letter outlines why Riverside Co. taxpayers should not be on the hook for Sheriff’s private attorney’s fees.

LOS ANGELES (April 13, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) today sent a letter to Riverside County supervisors outlining concerns over any possible effort by the County to pay outside legal fees incurred by Sheriff Chad Bianco after he hired a private law firm to defend himself in litigation arising from his seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots and election materials.

Riverside County has noticed a closed-session discussion for Tuesday, April 14, involving four lawsuits against Sheriff Bianco. One of those matters is the case brought by VRP clients, who challenged Bianco’s seizure of ballots and election materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. Today’s letter states that Bianco chose to defend himself through outside counsel rather than be defended by the Riverside County Counsel, and that he did so without first obtaining the approval required under California law.

Under Government Code section 995.1, a county employee seeking outside legal defense must request that defense from the County before those costs are incurred. According to VRP’s letter, Sheriff Bianco did not do that. Instead, retaining private counsel to defend him in the four separate lawsuits over his election-related conduct.

“Sheriff Bianco chose to hire his own private lawyers without any indication that he followed the process required by California Law.” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Counsel at the VRP. “It is concerning that Riverside County taxpayers may be asked to cover possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in legal fees resulting from that decision.”

The letter also points to a similar dispute in Los Angeles County, where then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva contracted with outside legal counsel without approval from the County Board. In that matter, a California appellate court found that the County had retained the power to contract for legal services, not then-Sheriff Villanueva. The letter argues that the same principle applies here: Sheriff Bianco cannot bypass County Counsel, hire his own private firm, and then require Riverside County to reimburse him after the fact.

In its letter, VRP asks the Board of Supervisors to reject any request to reimburse Bianco for private legal fees tied to the pending litigation over his seizure and handling of election materials.

Read the letter 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 Notifies California Supreme Court of New Developments in Riverside Election Materials Seizure

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

UCLA Voting Rights Project Notifies California Supreme Court of New Developments in Riverside Election Materials Seizure

Letter cites new reporting from The New York Times, indicating that no special master has been appointed and that Sheriff Chad Bianco seized 426 additional boxes of election materials from the Riverside County Registrar.

LOS ANGELES (March 27, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) today notified the California Supreme Court of new developments in its pending petition arising from Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of election materials.

In a letter filed with the Court, petitioners pointed to new reporting by The New York Times indicating that no special master has been appointed in connection with the sheriff’s actions, despite a video recording of Bianco where he claims to the contrary. The filing also cites the Times’ reporting that Bianco seized 426 boxes of new election materials from the Riverside County Registrar on Tuesday of this week.

The letter was filed as the California Supreme Court considers next steps in the case, which has been docketed as Case No. S295866.

“These new developments make an already serious situation even more alarming,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Attorney of the VRP. “California law is very clear. Election materials are to remain in the custody of election officials and be handled through established public processes. The reported seizure of additional boxes of election materials, without the appointment of a special master, only deepens the urgency of judicial intervention.”

VRP Senior Voting Rights Advisor and former California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, stated, “Today we filed an additional briefing with the Supreme Court documenting that Sheriff Bianco continues to violate the law by removing ballots and election materials from the Registrar of Voters Office. We are calling on the California Supreme Court to order Sheriff Bianco to immediately return all ballots and election material to the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.”

In the filing, petitioners argue that these developments are causing irreparable harm to the integrity of the electoral process and undermining public confidence in elections. The letter asks the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the matter, as the scope of the seizure continues to expand.

The VPR filed its original writ petition with the California Supreme Court on March 26, 2026, seeking immediate relief in response to the sheriff’s seizure of election materials from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

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