Federal and County Law Enforcement Seize Election Records Across Multiple States

Federal agents and county sheriffs have executed search warrants and subpoenas targeting election records across at least four states since January, seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots and related materials from both the 2020 and 2024 election cycles.

The most extensive seizure occurred in Fulton County, Georgia, where FBI agents took 600 boxes of ballots from the 2020 election during a January raid on the county's elections operations hub in Union City. A federal judge has since ruled that the Department of Justice can retain these materials, despite a lawsuit filed by Fulton County seeking their return.

Georgia Operations Expand Beyond Physical Ballots

The federal investigation in Georgia extends beyond the January seizure. The Justice Department obtained a grand jury subpoena in April for the names and personal contact information of Fulton County employees and volunteers who participated in the 2020 election. FBI agents were authorized to seize all physical ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, along with ballot images and the county's complete 2020 voter rolls.

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to make public by Tuesday the affidavit explaining their legal justification for seeking the criminal warrant that authorized the Fulton County raid. An NPR review of the available documentation found that the FBI affidavit used to justify seizing the 2020 election ballots omitted key findings.

Multi-State Pattern Emerges

The Georgia action represents one element of a broader pattern of ballot seizures across multiple jurisdictions. In March, the Department of Justice obtained ballot images from 2020 in Maricopa County, Arizona, using a subpoena to secure records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election. The FBI also subpoenaed records related to the Maricopa County audit in March.

More recently, the Justice Department demanded that Wayne County, Michigan turn over an array of 2024 election records on April 14. Michigan state officials have declined to comply with the federal demand and indicated they will file a court challenge to the request.

Federal activity has extended beyond the Justice Department's purview. Franklin County election officials in Ohio received a request from a Homeland Security agent seeking access to voter records in mid-January.

California Sheriff Conducts Independent Seizure

Operating independently from federal agencies, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco executed a search warrant on February 26 and seized more than 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election in California. The seizure encompassed nearly 1,000 boxes of ballots and elections materials from the county's elections office.

Bianco launched the investigation after receiving a complaint from a local citizens group about the ballot count from the November 2025 special election on redistricting. Riverside County, which has a population of 2.5 million people, represents one of California's largest counties by population.

A group of Riverside County voters filed a petition with the California Supreme Court on March 25, asking the court to order Sheriff Bianco to return the seized ballots to the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. The Campaign Legal Center has filed an amicus brief on behalf of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California supporting the lawsuit challenging the ballot seizure.

Jurisdictional Tensions Surface

The seizures have generated legal pushback from affected jurisdictions. Fulton County's lawsuit represents the most direct challenge to federal authority, with county officials arguing for the return of materials taken during the FBI search. Michigan's decision to resist federal demands and pursue court action indicates similar jurisdictional tensions.

The litigation environment reflects broader questions about the scope of federal versus local authority over election administration. Traditional election administration in the United States operates under a federated model where counties and states maintain primary responsibility for conducting elections, while federal agencies typically intervene only in cases involving specific violations of federal law.

Looking at this sequence of events through the lens of three decades covering technology and governance, the pattern recalls the early 2000s tension between federal homeland security mandates and local infrastructure control. Then, as now, the friction centered on who maintains custody and oversight of critical civic infrastructure — though the stakes and mechanisms have evolved considerably.

Political Context Shapes Enforcement Actions

The timing and targets of these seizures occur within a specific political context. Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff who seized California ballots, is a Republican running for governor in California's June primary election. His independent action targeting a redistricting election reflects the intersection of law enforcement authority and electoral politics at the county level.

The federal actions span both completed elections from 2020 and more recent 2024 contests, suggesting investigations that bridge multiple election cycles. The geographic distribution — Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, and California — encompasses jurisdictions that featured prominently in disputes over 2020 election results.

Previous challenges to election certification have emerged in some of the same jurisdictions now seeing ballot seizures. Three out of five Washoe County board members initially refused to certify the results of a recount in two June primary elections in 2024, though the Nevada Secretary of State successfully petitioned a court to compel certification. Two of the three board members who initially refused certification later voted to certify the recounts.

The seizures represent a significant expansion of direct federal involvement in post-election processes. While federal agencies routinely investigate election-related crimes, the wholesale seizure of ballot materials from multiple jurisdictions represents an escalation in scope and geographic reach that extends well beyond typical enforcement patterns in American election administration.