Tag Archive for: Sonni Waknin

,

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
,

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

Understanding the Intersection Between Voter Access and Disability in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 Primary and General Elections

In this report, the UCLA Voting Rights Project (UCLA VRP) was tasked with providing an analysis of how voters with disabilities engage in the voting process in Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) counties. As of the writing of this report, no state collects data on voters with disabilities, and there is no way to quantitatively evaluate disability access and turnout through the voting data maintained by the California Secretary of State’s Office. Given these conditions, it is vital to hear feedback from voters with disabilities on the voting process and receive guidance on how the electoral process can be more equitable in California.

This report draws on focus group and interview data from a sample of voters in VCA counties who identify as having a disability or impairment. While the focus group sample is very limited for this first report, it does set a baseline for future studies. The report is divided into two sections 1) information on voters with disabilities, which includes an academic literature review of the existing research on this subsect of voters, and 2) response information from focus groups that were commissioned by the California Secretary of State and conducted by the UCLA Voting Rights Project. As further explained in the sections below, these focus groups were comprised of voters who self-identified as having mobility limitations, sight limitations, and hearing limitations.

Read more below…

Contributors: Matthew Barreto, Lorrie Frasure, Sonni Waknin, Michael Rios, Vivian Alejandre, Michael Herndon, Jennifer Uribe, Diego Casillas, Ananya Hariharan & Jessica Cobian

Understanding the Intersection Between Voter Access and Disability in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 Primary and General ElectionsDownload
/by

Voter’s Choice Act: Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 General Election

The California Secretary of State’s Office commissioned these research reports from the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) to assess the effectiveness of the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA). These reports include data analysis on how voters that speak a primary language other than English cast their ballots during the 2022 General Election utilizing VoteCal data and a survey of county accessibility in elections (e.g. translation materials on websites). This follows previous reports on language access for voters in VCA counties during the 2020 and 2022 Primary Elections and 2020 General Election. This analysis includes an aggregated total for all VCA counties combined, as well as an aggregate of combined VCA counties that excludes Los Angeles County. We present an aggregated total that excludes Los Angeles County to prevent the skewing of the findings due to the size of the County.

Included below is the Voter’s Choice Act: Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 General Election and Voter’s Choice Act: 2022 General Election Report on Race and Ethnicity.

Contributors: Matthew Barreto, Lorrie Frasure, Sonni Waknin, Michael Rios, Vivian Alejandre, Michael Herndon, Ananya Hariharan, Diego Casillas & Sebastian Cazares

Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 General ElectionDownload
Utilizing Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) on the 2022 General Election Voter FileDownload
/by

Voter’s Choice Act: Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 Primary Election 

The California Secretary of State’s Office commissioned this research report from the UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) to assess the effectiveness of the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA). These reports include data analysis on how voters that speak a primary language other than English cast their ballots during the 2022 Primary Election utilizing VoteCal data and a survey of county accessibility in elections (e.g. translation materials on websites). This analysis includes an aggregated total for all VCA counties combined, as well as an aggregate of combined VCA counties that excludes Los Angeles County. We present an aggregated total that excludes Los Angeles County to prevent the skewing of the findings due to the size of the County.

Included below is the Voter’s Choice Act: Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 Primary Election and UCLA Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) Report on Race and Ethnicity in the 2022 Primary Election.

Contributors: Matthew Barreto, Lorrie Frasure, Sonni Waknin, Michael Rios, Vivian Alejandre, Michael Herndon, Ananya Hariharan & Diego Casillas

Understanding Language Access in Voter’s Choice Act Counties for the 2022 Primary ElectionDownload
Utilizing Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) on the 2022 Primary Election Voter FileDownload
/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