Tag Archive for: Voting Rights

,

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

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
,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

Read the ruling here.

About the UCLA Voting Rights Project

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

 

/by
,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Background:

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

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

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

###

ABOUT the UCLA Voting Rights Project

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

/by
,

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

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

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

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

Statement from the UCLA Voting Rights Project:

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

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

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

/by