Riverside Supervisors Face Pressure to Reject Sheriff Bianco’s Ballot Lawsuit Legal Costs

Critics of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco on Tuesday urged the County Board of Supervisors to reject any effort to make taxpayers cover legal costs tied to his ballot-seizure investigation, framing the closed-session discussion as a defining test of whether county leaders will shield the sheriff from the consequences of his own actions.

At a 9 a.m. press conference outside the county chambers ahead of the April 14 Board of Supervisors meeting, Riverside Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, Starting Over Strong Operations Director Nathan Kemp and other advocates warned that Bianco could use the closed session to pressure supervisors into paying outside attorney fees tied to multiple lawsuits challenging his handling of election materials. They argued the sheriff launched the investigation without proper authority, hired outside counsel without first securing county approval and should not now be allowed to shift those costs onto the public.

“The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has noticed discussion in closed session today related to the various Bianco lawsuits, which is concerning to me as a taxpayer, voter and elected official,” Cervantes said. “It is extremely concerning that Sheriff Bianco might try to go behind county supervisors in a secret meeting and ask taxpayers to pay for a private law firm to represent him.” She added that Bianco “initiated this sham investigation with virtually no probable cause” and has now “racked up millions in attorney’s fees.”

The showdown comes after Bianco’s office seized more than 650,000 ballots and election materials tied to the 2025 Proposition 50 election, an action that sparked legal challenges and drew statewide scrutiny. Bianco has defended the move as part of an election investigation, not a recount, while critics — including Cervantes and Supervisor Jose Medina — have argued the sheriff overstepped his authority and misused county resources in a way that appeared to align with his gubernatorial campaign.

Cervantes said she has asked her attorneys at the UCLA Voting Rights Project to prepare a brief for the Board of Supervisors arguing that any request to reimburse Bianco’s legal defense should be rejected. In a letter dated April 13, the UCLA Voting Rights Project told Riverside County Counsel that Bianco retained personal outside counsel for his election-related conduct without first requesting a county-provided defense. The letter argues that a county officer cannot bypass county counsel, hire a private attorney independently and then later seek reimbursement from taxpayers after the conduct is challenged in court.

The same letter further argues the county has no duty to pay those costs when an employee’s actions fall outside the scope of employment or involve alleged fraud, corruption or malice. It also states that even if Bianco had wanted separate counsel, California law required him to follow a formal process with the Board of Supervisors rather than act first and seek payment later.

Kemp, whose organization helped organize the press conference, cast the moment as a direct challenge to county leadership. “What’s happening today is, in a few hours, behind closed doors, the board will decide whether taxpayers pay Chad’s legal bills,” Kemp said. He accused Bianco of repeatedly violating election law and said the public should not be forced to underwrite that conduct. “This is not Bianco’s personal legal fund,” Kemp said. “Our money is not Bianco’s personal legal fund. Not now, not ever.”

Chani Beeman, a Riverside resident speaking on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff Accountability Coalition, said she believed the real purpose of the closed session was Bianco’s attempt to pressure supervisors into funding what she described as a political maneuver. In prepared remarks, Beeman said Bianco “chose to hire his friend and political ally for his attorney without Board of Supervisor permission,” acted “illegally and outside the scope of his duties,” and now expects county leaders “to come to his rescue using taxpayer money.” She added: “We say no.”

Bianco, however, publicly dismissed the criticism on April 13th in comments posted to an Instagram post that IECN was a part of regarding the controversy, directly responding to Cervantes. “Oh no, another one of your lawsuits? The same kind of lawsuit like you filed against me to get you in the media last time?” Bianco wrote. “Who is paying for this one? Just as planned, just as frivolous as these.” He went on to describe the litigation as “political lawfare from the progressive left” and added, “This one will end like your last one.”

Those comments added a new political flashpoint to an already volatile legal battle, one that now centers not only on whether Bianco’s ballot seizure was lawful, but whether Riverside County supervisors will allow taxpayers to absorb the financial fallout. By Tuesday morning, that had become the central demand from Cervantes and her allies: that the board reject any effort to treat Bianco’s private legal defense as legitimate county business.

UPDATE: In a 4-1 vote, Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted NOT to fund or take on Bianco’s lawsuits.