A California Court of Appeal has denied an emergency effort by Attorney General Rob Bonta to halt an ongoing ballot review in Riverside County, allowing Sheriff Chad Bianco’s court-approved investigation to proceed—for now. The decision marks a procedural setback for the state’s top law enforcement official, though it stops short of addressing the underlying legal dispute.
Bonta had petitioned the 4th District Court of Appeal in an attempt to immediately block the review of approximately 650,000 ballots tied to the November 2025 special election concerning Proposition 50. That measure, which deals with redistricting authority, has already drawn significant political attention due to its long-term implications for congressional map design in California.
At the center of the controversy is a reported discrepancy in Riverside County’s vote totals. According to records cited during the sheriff’s investigation, 611,428 ballots were cast, while 657,322 votes were certified—creating an apparent gap that prompted further scrutiny. Sheriff Bianco has framed the inquiry as a fact-finding mission focused solely on reconciling those numbers, not on altering or contesting the outcome of the ballot measure itself.
BREAKING: Attorney General Rob Bonta just filed an emergency writ with the court of appeals to stop ballots from being counted.
For those not aware, we are investigating a reported discrepancy of 45,000 votes. pic.twitter.com/V882Ks8ZEt
— Sheriff Chad Bianco (@ChadBianco) March 24, 2026
State and county election officials have pushed back strongly against those claims. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco and other authorities argue that the larger discrepancy stems from a misunderstanding of how ballot data is processed and reported.
They maintain that the actual difference is closer to approximately 100 votes, not tens of thousands, and characterize the broader claims as a misinterpretation of incomplete or preliminary data.
The appellate court’s ruling did not validate either side’s position on the facts. Instead, a three-judge panel determined that Bonta’s emergency filing was procedurally improper, directing that the matter be pursued in the appropriate lower court. As a result, the investigation continues under the supervision of a court-appointed special master, a measure intended to ensure independence and transparency.
Bonta has criticized the probe as an unnecessary and potentially harmful exercise, warning that it could erode public trust in California’s election systems. His office has indicated it is reviewing next steps, signaling that further legal action remains possible.
Bianco, meanwhile, has defended the investigation as a legitimate effort to resolve unanswered questions surrounding the reported vote totals. He has argued that a transparent review process would either confirm the integrity of the შედეგs or identify issues requiring correction.