Tag Archive for: California

,

Federal Court Sets October 30 Hearing in CHIRLA and Trujillo v. DHS, a Challenge to Federal Actions Targeting California Voters

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

Federal Court Sets October 30 Hearing in CHIRLA and Trujillo v. DHS, a Challenge to Federal Actions Targeting California Voters

WASHINGTON (October 21, 2026) — A federal judge today scheduled an October 30 hearing on a request for emergency relief in a lawsuit brought by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and California voter Pedro Trujillo, represented by the CHIRLA, UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP), and VRP’s Senior Advisor Xaiver Becerra, challenging federal actions targeting California voters identified as alleged noncitizens.

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the plaintiffs to file a superseding motion for a temporary restraining order by October 22. The government’s opposition is due October 26, followed by the plaintiffs’ reply on October 28.

The hearing is scheduled for Friday, October 30, at 10:30 a.m. ET / 7:30 a.m. PT and the counsels will be appearing in person.

The UCLA VRP plaintiffs have sought to stop federal demands and threats aimed at requiring California election officials to remove registered voters, withhold ballots, or segregate and ultimately not count ballots based on federal lists of alleged noncitizens. The superseding motion will set out the request the court will consider under the new schedule.

In a supplemental brief filed today, the plaintiffs described recent federal actions, including the DOJ’s separate lawsuit against California, threats of criminal prosecution against election officials, and Monday’s announcement of criminal charges against 28 lawful permanent residents.

The brief also raises concerns about the accuracy of the federal voter list, citing a senior DOJ official’s acknowledgment that some people listed may ultimately be citizens and reporting that some appear to have been born in the United States.

“Individual allegations must be evaluated on their evidence and through due process,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “They do not justify treating thousands of registered voters as ineligible. We are asking the court to protect eligible voters from being wrongly targeted while voting is already underway.”

The lawsuit, filed September 2, challenges federal database-matching efforts and demands that state election officials act on the resulting lists. The plaintiffs argue that these actions exceed federal authority and violate constitutional protections and federal law.

Today’s order sets a briefing schedule and hearing. The court has not granted or denied the requested temporary restraining order.

“The events of the last few days, from threats to state and local officials, increased general immigration operations, the random knocking on doors by federal agents and the recent arrests are causing a chill in the community. People, including naturalized citizens, are making their plans to vote and the Federal Government is doing its utmost to quash their attempts to exercise this fundamental right that they have lawfully acquired. We look forward to bringing all this to the court’s attention next week,” stated Carl Bergquist, General Counsel, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).

Background

The lawsuit, filed September 2 by CHIRLA and California voter Pedro Trujillo, represented by the CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project attorney, challenges federal database-matching efforts that plaintiffs argue risk wrongly identifying naturalized citizens as noncitizens and interfering with California’s elections. 

The dispute escalated last week after the DOJ gave California officials 48 hours to review a list of more than 20,000 alleged noncitizen registrants and demanded that officials withhold or segregate ballots from people whose citizenship they could not independently confirm. 

On October 15, the plaintiffs filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. That same day, DOJ filed a separate lawsuit against California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and Los Angeles County elections chief Dean Logan seeking to prevent ballots from listed voters from being counted until their citizenship was verified. Federal officials subsequently warned of potential criminal consequences for election officials who knowingly processed ballots from noncitizens. The plaintiffs argue that these demands threaten eligible voters and violate federal authority limits and restrictions on systematic voter removals within 90 days of an election.

###

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
,

CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project Ask Court to Stop Justice Department from Targeting California Voters

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

CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project Ask Court to Stop Justice Department from Targeting California Voters

With voting already underway, the emergency motion challenges a federal demand targeting voters identified as alleged noncitizens less than three weeks before Election Day

LOS ANGELES (October 15, 2026) — Attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP), including Senior Advisor Xavier Becerra, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), representing CHIRLA and California voter Pedro Trujillo, today filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction asking a federal court to stop the Department of Justice from using a list of alleged noncitizens to withhold or segregate California voters’ ballots.

Immediately following the filing this morning, the court directed the parties to confer and submit a joint status report by October 16 proposing a briefing schedule and addressing whether a hearing is necessary. The emergency motion remains pending.

The emergency motion follows an October 13 letter in which the Justice Department gave California officials 48 hours to review the federal list or face legal action. According to the motion, federal officials provided the state officials with a thumb drive containing the names of people they believe are noncitizens who received mail ballots. DOJ directed election officials to withhold ballots from those on the list or segregate returned ballots and not count them.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the federal government from using the list while the lawsuit moves forward. If the court does not grant that request, they are asking for protections that would allow affected voters to learn whether they have been included and provide documentation confirming their citizenship before their ballots are excluded.

“The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to take control of California’s elections or dictate which ballots state and local officials should count,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the VRP. “With voting already underway, eligible citizens should not have their ballots withheld based on a federal list they have never seen and have had no opportunity to challenge. We are asking the court to intervene before voters suffer harm that cannot be corrected after Election Day.”

“As citizens, including many naturalized CHIRLA members, are preparing to solemnly exercise their constitutional right to cast a vote in the ongoing elections, the Federal Government is threatening at this late hour to extinguish their opportunity to do so,” said Carl Bergquist, CHIRLA General Counsel. ”The letter sent to California election officials necessitated our move to shield these rights, and to prevent the mass disenfranchisement of lawful citizens, some of whom are exercising this right for the very first time.”

The motion argues that the federal government’s demand exceeds the authority granted to the Executive Branch and would force California election officials to violate the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits systematic voter-removal programs during the 90 days before a federal election.

The plaintiffs have requested immediate relief because California officials were directed to respond to the Justice Department by noon Eastern on October 15. The court may rule on the written filings, request a response from the federal government or schedule a hearing.

Read the emergency motion here and the court order here.

###

Background

CHIRLA filed the lawsuit on September 2, 2026, challenging the federal government’s use of databases—including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system—to identify registered voters as alleged noncitizens and pressure states to alter their voter rolls. The lawsuit alleges that the process inaccurately targets naturalized citizens, infringes voters’ constitutional and privacy rights, and unlawfully interferes with state election administration.

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
,

CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project Notify Justice Department of Planned Emergency Motion to Protect California Voters

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

CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project Notify Justice Department of Planned Emergency Motion to Protect California Voters

LOS ANGELES (October 14, 2026) — Today, UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) attorneys, including Senior Advisor Xavier Becerra, representing the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and California voter Pedro Trujillo notified the U.S. Department of Justice that they will seek emergency court relief over the federal government’s use of federal databases to identify registered California voters as alleged noncitizens.

According to the letter, the Justice Department recently gave California officials, including officials in Los Angeles County, 48 hours to remove or segregate voters identified through the federal government’s review. The VRP plaintiffs contend that the government’s use of these lists is unlawful and could result in eligible citizens being wrongly targeted less than a month before the election. Furthermore, the Justice Department’s demands would force California election officials to violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which prevents the purging of voters from voter rolls 90-days prior to a federal election. 

“The federal government should not be pressuring California election officials to act on an unreliable list, at all. Regardless, voters should have a meaningful opportunity to learn whether they have been targeted by federal officials and an opportunity to correct inaccurate information before their Right to Vote is disturbed,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the VRP. “We are seeking immediate court ordered safeguards to prevent eligible citizens from being wrongly removed or segregated in the final weeks before the election.”

“The federal government’s attempt to pressure California election officials into acting on lists that may misidentify eligible voters is an alarming abuse of power as election season gets underway.  This puts our communities and our fundamental rights at risk. Citizenship is citizenship. Period. The federal government must stop undermining federal and state law, sowing fear, and attempting to silence voters. CHIRLA and UCLA Voting Rights Project will uplift every eligible Californian’s right to vote and ensure that our democracy remains a place where every voice counts,” said Carl Bergquist, CHIRLA General Counsel. 

The letter invites the Justice Department attorneys to meet and confer on the request before it is filed and expect a response by then. Plaintiffs will ask the Court to prevent the federal government from using the voter lists while the lawsuit moves forward. If that request is not granted, they will ask for protections allowing California voters to find out whether they are on a federal list and confirm their citizenship.

Read the letter here.

Background

CHIRLA and Trujillo filed the lawsuit on September 2, 2026, challenging the federal government’s use of databases—including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system—to identify registered voters as alleged noncitizens and pressure states to alter their voter rolls. The lawsuit alleges that the process inaccurately targets naturalized citizens, infringes voters’ constitutional and privacy rights, and unlawfully interferes with state election administration.

###

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

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