Riverside County supervisors previously refused to fund the sheriff’s defense. A new reimbursement claim could reopen the dispute over who should pay for the legal consequences of his election investigation.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is seeking reimbursement from the county for legal expenses associated with his controversial investigation into alleged election irregularities, reopening a dispute over whether taxpayers should finance his defense after the California Supreme Court ruled that his seizure of approximately 650,000 ballots was unlawful.
According to reporting published October 23 by The Riverside Record, Bianco filed an administrative claim on October 16 seeking payment of attorney fees, costs and other expenses connected to four lawsuits arising from his investigation of California’s November 2025 special election.
The claim follows an earlier decision by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to reject his request for publicly funded outside legal representation.
The latest development raises a potentially significant financial question for Riverside County residents: Should the county be responsible for legal expenses incurred by an elected sheriff whose investigative actions were subsequently rejected by the state’s highest court?
County Previously Refused to Pay
In April, Riverside County supervisors voted 4-1 against paying for outside attorneys to represent Bianco in litigation connected to the ballot investigation. Supervisor Karen Spiegel was the lone dissenting vote.
The county counsel’s office could not represent Bianco because it was already representing the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, whose election materials had been seized during the investigation. Bianco subsequently obtained outside legal representation.
His attorney, Bradley Hertz, told The Riverside Record that the new claim is a procedural step intended to give the county an opportunity to resolve the reimbursement dispute before litigation. Hertz said the county has 45 days to respond.
If the county rejects the claim, Bianco could pursue a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement.
The precise amount requested has not been publicly disclosed. Hertz indicated that the potential litigation would involve more than $35,000, the threshold for an unlimited civil case in California.
County Public Information Officer Brooke Federico told The Riverside Record that officials would review the claim and determine their next steps.
The Investigation That Sparked the Dispute
The legal controversy began after the Riverside Election Integrity Team, a citizens organization, questioned ballot totals from the November 2025 special election involving Proposition 50.
The group alleged a discrepancy of approximately 45,000 ballots.
Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that interpretation, explaining that the group’s calculations relied on preliminary records that did not account for all ballots. The registrar’s review identified a difference of 103 ballots between two accounting measures, substantially smaller than the discrepancy alleged by the group.
Bianco nevertheless initiated a criminal investigation. His department obtained search warrants and seized approximately 650,000 ballots and related election materials from the registrar’s office.
The investigation quickly became a legal confrontation involving the sheriff, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, election officials and voters represented by the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
Bianco maintained that he was carrying out a legitimate investigation into potential election misconduct. State officials argued that the sheriff had exceeded his authority and violated laws governing the custody and handling of voted ballots.
Supreme Court Rejects Sheriff’s Actions
On September 24, the California Supreme Court issued unanimous decisions resolving two central legal questions.
In Cervantes v. Bianco, the court ruled that the sheriff’s seizure of ballots violated California election law. The justices ordered the ballots returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and prohibited further handling except as necessary to comply with the order.
In the related Bonta v. Bianco decision, the court affirmed the California attorney general’s constitutional authority to supervise county sheriffs in matters involving their official duties.
The ruling rejected Bianco’s position that the attorney general could not issue binding directives concerning the investigation.
The seized election materials were returned to the registrar by September 29, according to the California Courts Newsroom.
Although the Supreme Court resolved the legality of the seizure, its decisions did not determine whether Riverside County must reimburse Bianco’s legal expenses. That separate question is now at the center of the latest claim.
A New Legal and Financial Fight
The reimbursement request presents competing interpretations of the county’s responsibilities.
Bianco’s position is that he was acting within the scope of his duties as an elected sheriff when he investigated allegations of election misconduct. His claim argues that disagreement over the legality of specific investigative actions does not automatically eliminate the county’s obligation to provide a defense.
Supervisor Jose Medina has taken a different position. Medina previously argued that Bianco’s conduct fell outside the scope of his official responsibilities for purposes of publicly funded legal representation.
Speaking to The Riverside Record on Friday, Medina indicated that he expected the county to reject the reimbursement request.
The dispute could ultimately require a court to determine whether the county has an obligation to pay for the sheriff’s defense, despite the earlier Supreme Court decisions.
For taxpayers, the outcome could determine whether the costs remain Bianco’s responsibility or become an additional county expense.
The amount at stake remains unknown, and no final county decision on the October 16 claim has been announced.