California Supreme Court Watch

#26-77 Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. This case presents the following issue: Are petitioners entitled to writ relief directing that cast ballots be returned to the county registrar of voters, on the ground that their seizure by law enforcement pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code?

Order to show cause issued: 5/13/2026

Cause argued and submitted: 8/24/2026

Opinion filed: Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue: 9/24/2026

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Cervantes v. Bianco (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1093.)

“We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful. California law long has recognized that voted ballots require special care and handling to safeguard them from alteration or tampering. Consistent with this principle, the Elections Code narrowly limits the circumstances in which a court may order the production of ballots for inspection, and even in those narrow circumstances, requires that ballots remain in the physical custody of the responsible elections official. Bianco’s seizure of the ballots violated the plain language of section 15551, subdivision (d), commanding that “[i]n no event” shall voted ballots “be taken from the custody of the elections official.”[fn. omitted] This provision manifests a legislative intent that ballots remain in the elections official’s custody even in the event of a criminal investigation. As we explain below, this clear custodial command safeguards the integrity of our elections by protecting ballots from alteration, tampering, or other improper interference.

To remedy this violation, we issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing Bianco to return the seized ballots to the registrar’s custody and to refrain from further handling of the ballots except as necessary to comply with our order.

While allegations of election improprieties are a very serious matter, our Elections Code contains numerous established mechanisms for investigating and proving misconduct that do not compromise the integrity of voted ballots — contrary to the means employed here.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Burns* concurred.

Justice Liu filed a concurring opinion.