Tag Archive for: Sonni Waknin

,

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
,

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 Asks California Supreme Court for Immediate Stay in Riverside Election Materials Case

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

UCLA Voting Rights Project Asks California Supreme Court for Immediate Stay in Riverside Election Materials Case

LOS ANGELES (March 30, 2026) — The UCLA Voting Rights Project (VRP) today filed a reply with the California Supreme Court asking the Court to immediately stay any further seizure and handling of ballots and election materials while this case proceeds. In the filing, VRP argues that this matter cannot wait because Riverside voters’ rights are being harmed now, the sheriff has continued removing election materials, and no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists to protect the integrity of the electoral process. 

“We are asking the Court to act immediately to stop any further seizure or handling of ballots and election materials while this case is considered,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Voting Rights Attorney at the VPR. “Contrary to Sheriff Bianco’s statement, Riverside voters absolutely have standing to bring this challenge. The harm is ongoing, and waiting for some other process to unfold would only deepen the damage to public confidence in the system.” 

“Our election law is clear that voted ballots are to remain in the custody of election officials, and nothing the sheriff has presented changes that basic rule,” Waknin added. “The Court should issue a stay now, return lawful custody where it belongs, and prevent any further interference with the handling of election materials.”

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