Election wars reach California's high court

On Nov. 8, 1988, Thomas J. Umberg was an assistant U.S. attorney on Election Day duty in Orange County when reports came in that uniformed officers were harassing Hispanics trying to vote in Santa Ana.

"I got over to the high school polling place and saw someone dressed as a policeman with a sign saying 'Non-Citizens Can't Vote,'" said Umberg, now a state senator who chairs the Judiciary Committee. "She was talking to a Latino couple, who walked away. I approached and she walked off. I was stunned and shocked."

The "policeman" was from a security company hired by the Orange County Republican Party. Several of their targets sued, alleging deprivation of voting rights, and eventually won a $480,000 settlement.

The incident led Umberg to quit his job and run for and win the 72nd Assembly District seat that had narrowly gone to the man who benefited from that voter intimidation ploy, still infamously known as the Santa Ana poll guard controversy.

Umberg is among a number of Democratic lawmakers and politicians whose concerns over voter rights are converging at the California Supreme Court.

The court itself appears sensitive and responsive to current controversies over election integrity and political conflict.

The justices are considering a pair of voting rights cases focused on the seizure of more than 600,000 ballots from the November 2025 election by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who asserted he was checking claims of rampant voter fraud by a citizens' election integrity team.

The cases are chiefly about limits on the powers of California sheriffs, but the court seems poised to broaden their scope to account for new election integrity legislation out of Sacramento.

On May 27, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law authored by Umberg and a colleague prohibiting peace officers from interfering with the administration of an election.

On June 1, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the effect of the new legislation, SB 73, on the ballot seizure cases.

The need for safe election sites is manifest. Echoing the long-ago poll guard controversy, there were reports from the June 2 primary of ICE agents in the parking lot of a Simi Valley polling location and an alert from the California Voter Foundation titled "Migra at the polls: what to do if ICE shows up at LA voting sites."

The alert quoted former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem declaring that the Department of Homeland Security would handle election security to ensure "the right people" vote for "the right leaders."

The slow counting of ballots from the primary led to evidence-free claims of fraud, both from the White House and from Bianco. Yet Republican candidate for governor Steve Hilton's second-place finish puts him in the race with Democrat Xavier Becerra in the November midterms.

Hilton has been critical of California's voting system and said he had a team of lawyers standing by to intervene if his campaign found election improprieties or fraud. But they found none.

"We have seen nothing that would warrant that kind of intervention," he said this week.

Umberg, D-Santa Ana, and state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, pushed back against threats of interference with a package of election integrity bills, SB 73 and SB 884, to promote voter access and defend state control of elections.

"Voter intimidation is not hypothetical to me," Umberg said, pointing out that the poll guard controversy got him into politics and stands behind his support for the new legislation.

Cervantes, a former voter registration activist who in 2025 chaired the state Senate's elections committee, said, "California is acting now to safeguard election integrity, defend the democratic process, and maintain public trust in our institutions. As elected legislators, it's our oath to defend democracy, and that is what Senate Bill 73 does."

The Supreme Court cases are Bonta v. Bianco, S295901, in which Attorney General Rob Bonta asserts his authority over county sheriffs; and Cervantes v. Bianco, S295866, in which the UCLA Voting Rights Project seeks return of the seized ballots.

The litigants and their lawyers represent an active political mix. Bianco came in fourth in the June 2 gubernatorial primary. Former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is acting as senior advisor and voting rights counsel in Cervantes v. Bianco, came in first in the race for governor. The lead plaintiff, Clarissa Cervantes, is a Riverside City Councilmember, the sister of Sen. Sabrina Cervantes and a candidate for state assembly. Bonta came in first and advanced to the general election for attorney general.

One of Bianco's lawyers, Bradley W. Hertz of Woodland Hills, pointed out that the parties have until June 11 to respond to the high court's request for briefing on SB 73 and until June 16 to respond to each other's briefs. "The significance of the Court's request will be determined by the Court when it considers the parties' discussions about SB 73 and thereafter issues its rulings in the two cases," he emailed this week.

Bianco's actions are "part of a troubling trend that began with the federal government's January 2026 seizure of ballots and election materials from the 2020 election in Fulton County [Ga.]," according to an amicus brief by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California in the Cervantes v. Bianco case.

The trend "threatens to catch fire in California and beyond" as "a dangerous signal is being sent across the country: law enforcement officials can abuse their broad investigative authorities to interfere with election administration and amplify harmful conspiracy theories, all in service of politically motivated objectives," asserts the brief, which was prepared by Bruce V. Spiva, the senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C.

California's rule that ballots are valid if postmarked by and received within seven days of Election Day could come under pressure depending on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case currently considering Mississippi's five-day grace period. SCOTUSblog reported that the justices appeared ready to overturn that law, but whether it will apply only to federal elections is unclear. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 24-1260 (S. Ct., argued Mar. 23, 2026).

In 2024, California's vote-by-mail system got the green light from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that rejected a challenge by critics who claimed that miscounts of mailed ballots diluted the voting power of in-person voters. Election Integrity Project California Inc. et al. v. Weber et al., 23-55726 (9th Cir., op. filed Aug. 15, 2024).

The California Supreme Court itself is officially nonpartisan, though five of its six current justices were appointed by Democrats. It has jurisdiction over many elements of election politics, including voting rights, the drawing of district maps and campaign finance laws.

Amid a contentious election season, the justices have been active. Last year they turned away Republican challenges and approved the "Election Rigging Response Act," a ballot measure designed to counter Texas' redistricting ploy. Strickland et al. v. Weber et al., S292490 (Ca. S. Ct., pet. denied Aug. 20, 2025).

This spring, the high court disbarred attorney John C. Eastman for his role in advising President Donald Trump on strategies to overturn the 2020 election, including baseless claims of voter fraud and a fringe theory that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to reject certified electoral votes. Eastman on Discipline, S292011 (Ca. S. Ct., pet. denied April 15, 2026).

Last week's Doghouse Report highlighted Tina Mehr's use of a section 170.6 challenge in her litigation with a former client. It omitted the names of the trial lawyers who represent her on remand, following her successful trip to the Court of Appeal. They are Barbara F. Cowan and Leonard H. Sansanowicz.