Court denies AG’s petition to block Republican sheriff’s investigation of 650,000 ballots 39%

By Hailey Branson-Potts0%

3/24/2026, 10:16:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 741 faulty-reasoning hits from 881 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.4% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,454 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

The feud between California Atty. 
Gen. 
Rob Bonta and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has escalated after Bonta asked a court to stop Bianco’s investigation into alleged election fraud. 
In a 70-page petition filed with California’s 4th District Court of Appeal on Monday, Bonta wrote that “the Sheriff’s misguided investigation threatens to sow distrust and jeopardize public confidence” in upcoming elections. 
The investigation, which he also called “sweeping and unprecedented,” is an abuse of the criminal process, he wrote. 
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel denied the petition, stating in a brief ruling that Bonta should apply with a lower court. 
Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, last month seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in Riverside County in the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats. 
The sheriff has said that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes  a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected. 
Bianco has described his inquiry as a “fact-finding mission” to determine whether votes were fraudulently counted. 
He has accused the attorney general, a Democrat, of improperly interfering with what he says is a lawful criminal investigation. 
In Riverside County, the proposition passed by more than 82,000 votes. 
Statewide, it passed with about 64% of the vote and a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots. 
“Well, well, well, the political corruption in California just gets bigger and bigger,” Bianco said in a social media video Monday night in response to Bonta’s petition. 
“Why in the world would Rob Bonta want that count stopped unless he was afraid of what that count would uncover?” 
he added. 
“We have an extremely politically biased appeals court, so this is going to be interesting.” 
In a statement, Bonta’s office said the court’s ruling “was based solely on where we filed the case and is not a ruling on the underlying merits of the petition.” 
“The facts have not changed. 
The Riverside County Sheriff continues to directly defy the Attorney General’s instructions, in violation of the California Constitution and state law,” the statement said, adding that the office was “evaluating next steps.” 
Political observers have said that Bianco, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, appears to be vying for attention from Trump, who has called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections, remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud. 
Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said Bianco’s investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.” 
“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. 
“People who don’t know his background will know now. 
This is clear signaling.” 
The sheriff has denied the investigation has anything to do with his campaign. 
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state. 
Bonta’s petition revealed that  in addition to warrants issued on Feb. 9 and 23  the sheriff obtained a third warrant from the Riverside County Superior Court on March 19 to restart a paused recount of the ballots. 
The warrants now are under seal. 
Bonta’s office called the warrants and the affidavits supporting them legally deficient because “the Sheriff has not identified any particular crime that may have been committed by anyone  a necessary predicate to obtain a criminal search warrant.” 
Bonta had earlier questioned whether Bianco had concealed important information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants. 
In his petition, Bonta wrote that the Sheriff’s Department had planned to assign “12 employees working four days a week, five to seven hours each day” to count the votes. 
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the U.S. 
Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed with Bonta’s assessment that the sheriff’s investigation is a legally deficient “fishing expedition.” 
He questioned how Bianco got a judge to sign off on three warrants. 
“You can’t use a warrant as a PR tool, as something to help your political campaign,” Becker said. 
“You have to meet certain standards in order to obtain a warrant, because a warrant is extraordinary. 
A warrant is saying we believe there is probable cause to seize evidence, and we need it now.” 
Bianco said in a news conference Friday that a Riverside County Superior Court judge had ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the count. 
His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said. 
“This isn’t about counting yes and no votes,” Bianco said in his social media video Monday. 
“This is simply counting the total ballots and comparing that total with the number of votes. ... 
Plain and simple. 
Common sense.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.7%Hailey Branson-Potts: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Hailey Branson-Potts: 8.3%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect17.7%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Hailey Branson-Potts: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem1.7%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Hailey Branson-Potts: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 2.4%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma2.4%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 2.4%Hailey Branson-Potts: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 2.3%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.3%This article: 2.4%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Hailey Branson-Potts: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.3%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.3%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy5.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice14.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 5.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hailey Branson-Potts: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

881 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers56%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageChad Bianco • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBonta’s office • 30 words • 0.0% coverageBonta’s office • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBonta’s office • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageKim Nalder • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKim Nalder • 24 words • 0.0% coverageKim Nalder • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKim Nalder • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBonta’s office • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Becker • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Becker • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Becker • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Becker • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 26 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 18 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChad Bianco • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rob Bonta

63%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words16% of attributed speech45% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.9 ptsWriter: 31.9%Rob Bonta: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Rob Bonta: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.