Law Enforcement Seizing Election Records Across Multiple U.S. States

Federal agents and local sheriffs have taken election records and ballots from at least four states since January, using search warrants and subpoenas to access materials from the 2020 and 2024 elections.

The largest seizure happened in Fulton County, Georgia, where FBI agents took 600 boxes of 2020 ballots in a January raid on the county's election operations center in Union City. A federal judge later ruled that the Department of Justice can keep these materials, even though Fulton County is suing to get them back.

Georgia: Expanding Beyond Just Ballots

The federal investigation in Georgia has grown beyond that initial seizure. In April, the Justice Department obtained a subpoena — a court order to produce records — asking for the names and personal contact information of Fulton County election workers from 2020. FBI agents also got authority to seize digital images of ballots and the county's complete 2020 voter rolls.

A federal judge ordered the Justice Department to publicly release the affidavit — the legal justification document — for the Fulton County raid by a specific date. When NPR reviewed the available documents, they found that the FBI's affidavit left out some important information.

The Same Pattern in Multiple States

Georgia's seizures are part of a wider pattern across the country. In March, the Justice Department got digital ballot images from Maricopa County, Arizona, through a subpoena tied to an audit of the 2020 election. That same month, the FBI also subpoenaed records about that audit.

More recently, on April 14, the Justice Department demanded that Wayne County, Michigan hand over various 2024 election records. Michigan state officials refused and said they would challenge the demand in court.

Federal activity has also reached beyond the Justice Department. In mid-January, a Homeland Security agent asked Franklin County election officials in Ohio for access to voter records.

A County Sheriff Acts Independently

Operating on his own, not with federal agencies, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco executed a search warrant on February 26 and took more than 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election in California. The seizure included nearly 1,000 boxes of ballots and election materials from the county's elections office.

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

On March 25, a group of Riverside County voters asked the California Supreme Court to order Sheriff Bianco to return the ballots to the county's elections office. The Campaign Legal Center filed a supporting legal brief on behalf of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California.

Legal Battles Over Jurisdiction

The seizures have prompted legal challenges from the affected counties. Fulton County is suing to get its materials back from the federal government. Michigan is resisting federal demands and preparing to fight it in court.

These lawsuits raise a fundamental question: how much authority do federal agencies have over elections, which have historically been run by counties and states? In the U.S. election system, counties and states have been responsible for actually running elections, and federal agencies typically only get involved when there is a specific federal law violation.

The broader context here touches on an old tension in American governance — one I've watched play out repeatedly in thirty years of covering technology and policy. In the early 2000s, homeland security mandates clashed with local control over critical infrastructure. Then as now, the conflict centers on who controls and oversees essential civic systems, though the specific details have shifted over time.

Elections and Politics Intersect

The timing and targets of these seizures take place within a political context. Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, is a Republican running for California governor in the June primary election. His decision to seize the ballots from a redistricting election shows how law enforcement authority can intersect with electoral politics at the county level.

The federal actions span both the 2020 election and the recent 2024 election cycle, suggesting investigations across multiple years. The states involved — Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, and California — all played significant roles in disputes over the 2020 election results.

Some of these same jurisdictions have already seen challenges to election results. In Nevada, two of three Washoe County board members initially refused to certify a recount from two June primary elections in 2024, but the Nevada Secretary of State got a court to force them to certify. Both board members eventually voted to certify the recounts.

In my view, these seizures mark a significant shift in how federal agencies are getting involved in elections after votes are cast. While federal investigators do routinely look into election crimes, the seizure of ballots and election materials from multiple counties and states is a larger step than we typically see in how the federal government handles election enforcement. The scale and geographic scope are worth paying attention to.