Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco Demands Taxpayers Cover Legal Fees for Unlawful Ballot Seizure

The ongoing dispute between Riverside County and Sheriff Chad Bianco has escalated into a legal battle over who will pay for the sheriff’s private defense team. Last week, a representative for Bianco filed a formal claim for damages exceeding $10,000, arguing that the county is legally obligated to cover costs incurred during four civil proceedings related to his seizure of hundreds of thousands of special election ballots.

The claim, filed on Oct. 16, asserts that the legal expenses arose from Bianco’s official actions as sheriff. Bradley Hertz, Bianco’s attorney, stated that if the county rejects the demand, the sheriff intends to sue the local government for damages. The county has until Dec. 2 to provide a formal response to the claim.

The friction dates back to February, when Bianco sought and obtained warrants to seize approximately 650,000 ballots from the Riverside County registrar. The ballots were cast in the previous November’s Proposition 50 special election. At the time of the seizure, Bianco was a Republican candidate for governor and claimed his deputies needed to review the ballots to investigate potential election fraud.

The move was immediately controversial, as the warrants were signed by a local judge whom Bianco had personally endorsed and campaigned for during the judge’s own election. The seizure drew a swift and sharp rebuke from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and sparked a series of legal challenges. Last month, the California Supreme Court officially ruled that the seizure was unlawful, dealing a final blow to the sheriff’s justification for the maneuver.

Central to the current financial dispute is whether Bianco was acting within the scope of his duties when he ordered the ballot seizure. Hertz argued that California law mandates public entities provide a defense for employees when civil actions arise from acts within the scope of their employment. He maintains that Bianco meets all statutory criteria for reimbursement because the county initially refused to provide him with legal representation.

However, Riverside County leadership has already signaled strong opposition to using taxpayer funds for Bianco’s private attorneys. In April, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 against funding the sheriff’s defense. Supervisor Jose Medina clarified the board’s position at the time, noting that the criteria for such payments depend entirely on whether an official is acting within or outside the scope of their position. Medina indicated that the majority of the board concluded the ballot seizure fell outside those professional boundaries.

While the exact total of the legal fees remains under determination, the claim serves as a precursor to a potential lawsuit against the county. Brooke Federico, a spokesperson for Riverside County, confirmed that officials are currently reviewing the claim to determine the next procedural steps. The outcome will likely hinge on a judicial determination of whether a sheriff’s investigation into election results, conducted against the backdrop of a political campaign, constitutes an official duty or a personal undertaking.