Can the FBI Seize State Election Records? What Federalism Law Says.

Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On January 28, 2026, federal agents wearing tactical vests walked into the Fulton County Elections Hub and Operations Center in Georgia and started loading boxes. Approximately 700 boxes—the original 2020 ballots, tabulator tapes, voter rolls. Materials that had been audited, recounted, and certified multiple times over six years. The agents packed them into trucks and drove them to FBI facilities in Virginia.

What made this extraordinary was the presence of Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, overseeing the search. She arranged a phone call between President Trump and the FBI agents on the ground. Trump told them they were doing “great work.”

The question is whether this was legal and what stops it from happening again in November 2026.

The Constitutional Framework for Election Authority

The Constitution gives states the job of running federal elections. Article I, Section 4 says state legislatures get to prescribe “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” Congress can alter those regulations, but the default authority sits with the states.

The Framers deliberately dispersed election authority rather than concentrating it in federal hands. The Tenth Amendment—which says powers not given to the federal government belong to the states—reinforces this.

But state sovereignty isn’t absolute. Congress can pass laws regulating federal elections. Federal courts can settle disputes. And federal law enforcement can investigate federal crimes related to elections.

The 2020 election in Georgia underwent extensive scrutiny. Election experts have characterized it as “the most scrutinized, most litigated, most reviewed, most recounted election in American history and perhaps in world history.” The ballots were hand-counted, multiple audits were conducted, and state and federal courts examined it. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, certified the results after overseeing the recount and audit process.

When federal agents show up in 2026—more than five years later—to seize those same materials based on a sealed warrant, the legal basis becomes unclear. What federal crime justifies taking certified state property this long after the fact? Nobody knows. The warrant remains sealed.

Federal Authority Over Election Materials

Federal law gives the Attorney General the power to demand election records from state officials. The Department of Justice can conduct investigations into possible federal election crimes. When states refuse, the federal government has sued, seeking to compel production of sensitive voter data.

But the existence of federal investigative authority doesn’t automatically justify seizing certified election materials held by state custodians. The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. State governments, like private citizens, retain constitutional protections.

The question becomes whether a sealed warrant, approved by a federal magistrate judge, can legitimate the seizure of state-held materials based on probable cause for a federal crime. More fundamentally, whether federal investigative interest in a long-closed election overrides the state’s sovereignty interest in custody and security of its own certified records.

No Supreme Court ruling has directly addressed this situation before.

The Intelligence Official Problem

Tulsi Gabbard’s presence at the raid raises separate questions. The Director of National Intelligence isn’t supposed to be involved in domestic law enforcement operations. The DNI’s job is to coordinate federal intelligence agencies focused on foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and national security threats from foreign powers.

When foreign intelligence officials participate in domestic law enforcement operations targeting political outcomes—or materials related to elections that a political leader claims to have lost—it mixes intelligence work with domestic law enforcement in ways that have traditionally been kept separate. Intelligence agencies operate with less public transparency and oversight. Domestic law enforcement faces strict constitutional constraints and judicial supervision. Mixing them creates opportunities for abuse.

Gabbard arranged for Trump to speak directly with the FBI agents executing the search. Trump told them they were doing “great work.” Former federal prosecutors have raised concerns that this could make any evidence obtained unusable in court. The president appears to be directing the investigation instead of neutral law enforcement officers following the evidence.

The “Practice Run” Theory

Civil rights organizations aren’t treating this as a one-off legal dispute about warrant authority. The Brennan Center for Justice called the raid “an extraordinary escalation in the administration’s campaign to discredit the 2020 election results and set up the ability to interfere in future elections.” They argue this is unprecedented—they’re aware of no other instance of the federal government directly interfering in state election administration and confiscating original election records.

The seizure establishes a legal precedent that the federal government can take physical possession of state election materials under the guise of criminal investigation. It demonstrates the practical ease of executing such seizures. Federal agents showed up with trucks, loaded 700 boxes, and transported them to FBI facilities in Virginia with minimal advance notice to state officials.

The seizure sends a signal. To Republican election officials: federal intervention might help those who challenge election results. To Democratic election officials: federal investigations may target you regardless of whether your conduct was lawful.

Political scientist Andra Gillespie said: “President Trump is arguing that the federal government should take control of elections. The Constitution doesn’t allow that. But if people believe fraud claims, this could be part of a larger effort to exert greater control over future elections.”

Trump has been explicit about his intentions. In early February 2026, he told business leaders that he wanted Republicans to “nationalize” elections and “take over the voting” in “at least 15 places”—primarily Democratic-controlled counties and cities—claiming they suffer from “horrible corruption on elections.”

Courts have said that the Constitution’s election rules give states primary responsibility for administering elections. A federal takeover of state election systems would create fundamental constitutional problems. But the seizure provides a potential vehicle. If the federal government seizes election materials, it can control how they’re handled. If federal officials control the materials, they effectively control the process, even if state officials technically still have the legal right.

The Chilling Effect on Election Officials

The seizure happens at a terrible time for election administration. About half of the chief election officials in 11 Western states have quit since the 2020 election. They didn’t leave because of term limits or losing elections. They voluntarily resigned because of stress, threats, and burnout.

In 2025 alone, 53 chief local election officials in Western states left their jobs, approaching the 55 who departed in the year after the 2020 election. In counties where the election was decided by five points or less, 80 percent had turnover, compared to 40 percent of counties where the election wasn’t close.

In California’s Shasta County, Clerk and Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen retired in 2024 after nearly two decades, saying she had heart failure and needed to reduce stress. In Nevada, longtime Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria reported that threats against him escalated to the point that local police were checking on his home hourly. In Colorado, former county clerk Josh Daniels resigned, saying it was mainly because of politics and noting that local elected officials “were promoting false election conspiracy theories and making elections a political issue.”

Federal seizures add another pressure to this list. The seizure sends multiple messages to election officials: federal law enforcement may show up at election offices and seize materials based on fraud claims with no evidence, even if they’ve been certified and audited. The government can seize materials with little transparency—the warrant stays sealed and the justification is hidden. Federal officials, including the president personally, may become involved in investigations targeting election officials or their jurisdiction.

This creates a harmful cycle: threats and pressure cause experienced officials to leave. New officials don’t have the experience of the old ones. Inexperienced administrators are more likely to make procedural errors. Procedural errors fuel conspiracy theories and federal investigations. Federal investigations cause more experienced officials to leave.

The Brennan Center warns that “the raid signals a sharp escalation of efforts to intimidate election officials. These officials already face many threats and harassment for doing their jobs.”

How This Differs From Past Federal Involvement

The federal government has occasionally intervened in state elections before. In 2000, federal officials considered intervening in Florida’s recount but decided against it. In 2004, the Department of Justice conducted investigations related to voter registration practices in Philadelphia, though without seizing original election materials. The federal government has investigated state election officials for corruption or civil rights violations.

But those investigations focused on individual officials, not on seizing all certified election materials years after the election concluded. The seizure is different because there’s no evidence of fraud and it happened so long after the election. The 2020 election was completely hand-recounted, audited multiple times, and examined by state and federal courts that rejected challenges to its legitimacy. Officials, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, certified the results and confirmed they were accurate.

The administration’s explicit motives make the comparison starker. Trump called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in December 2020 and asked him to find 11,780 votes—the number needed for Trump to win the state. Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that the 2020 election was fraudulent and called for investigations into officials.

The seizure seems designed not to find fraud—since none has been found despite thorough investigation—but to use federal power to get what politics has rejected. Either changing the 2020 outcome or making the public doubt the results. Here, federal authorities are pursuing a political agenda based on false fraud claims, unlike past cases where they investigated actual crimes.

The Legal Battle for Return of Materials

The county filed an emergency motion in federal court asking for the materials back, requesting immediate return of all materials and for the court to unseal the warrant justification.

County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts said: “This is a serious case. This case is about whether the Constitution will be followed. The Constitution is the highest law. It must be followed.”

The federal court will have to answer several complex questions: Can a sealed warrant justify seizing state property when no charges have been filed? Do states have different constitutional protections than private citizens when the government seizes their property? Did the judge have the authority to approve seizing election materials that states need and have certified? Where’s the line between federal investigation and state control of elections?

The Department of Justice asked the court to pause the county’s lawsuit, saying the civil case overlaps with a criminal investigation and should wait until the criminal case is resolved.

But the DOJ has been unclear about what criminal investigation exists. The warrant is still sealed. No one has been charged. No one has been indicted. The administration has only said the seizure was justified and that agents followed the warrant. Courts, state officials, and the public can’t evaluate whether the seizure was justified or whether it’s using federal power for politics.

This case will likely go to appeals courts and possibly the Supreme Court because it raises fundamental questions about federal vs. state power. A court will have to decide what federal authority exists to seize certified state election materials, what limits the Constitution places on such seizures, and whether intelligence officials should be involved in domestic law enforcement. The answer will determine whether the county gets its materials back and shape the rules for federal-state power over elections before the 2026 midterm elections.

Implications for the 2026 Midterms

Since taking office in January 2025, the administration has taken multiple steps: demanding voter rolls and threatening to sue states that refuse, with more than 20 states refusing. It’s proposing executive orders to eliminate mail voting. It’s calling for federal control of elections in Democratic-controlled areas. It’s using federal law enforcement to intimidate and investigate election officials from the 2020 election.

Each initiative alone raises questions about federal vs. state power. Together, the Brennan Center says they’re part of a coordinated effort to weaken American elections using federal power in unprecedented ways. The seizure shows the federal government is willing to use force and law enforcement—not lawsuits or threats—to control elections.

If the courts allow the seizure, it sets a rule that federal officials can seize state election materials based on suspicions of fraud, can keep those materials and investigate elections from years ago that have been certified multiple times. Civil rights lawyers warn this could justify federal seizure of materials during future elections. Federal agents could seize ballots or voting machines while votes are being counted in 2026 based on unfounded claims of irregularities.

State election officials are warning about this. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows stated that “the concern that I have is that the Trump administration is looking for any excuse to take control.” Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, a Republican and her state’s chief election official, pressed a senior White House aide about the administration’s harsh public criticism of states for not providing voter rolls, saying that “what’s been said publicly is appalling” and that “the DOJ publicly claimed that secretaries of state aren’t doing their jobs.”

But some Republican officials have been more compliant. Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray stated that he appreciates the Trump administration’s oversight to make sure the law is followed. State election officials are sharply divided along party lines on federal intervention.

The implications for 2026 are concrete. If experienced election officials keep leaving, states will enter the midterms with inexperienced replacements and less expertise. If federal seizure becomes normal, states will lose control of their materials and won’t be able to protect their ballots and records. If federal investigations become partisan tools, people will stop trusting federal involvement in elections, even when it’s legitimate. If the federal government can seize certified materials years later based on vague claims, election integrity becomes a political tool instead of being protected by neutral law enforcement.

The Brennan Center warned that “even if courts shut down the investigation, it’s still dangerous. Even if it’s baseless, it will fuel election conspiracy theories.” Just the fact that the federal government seized materials and investigated—regardless of what it finds—makes people doubt elections. Election officials and voting rights advocates worry that baseless investigations will make people doubt certified elections and create the political conditions for a federal takeover.

Federalism and Election Control

The constitutional rules about federal vs. state power determine whether the seizure is legal. The Tenth Amendment says that powers not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people. From roughly 1985 to 2020, the federal government expanded its power into areas states traditionally controlled. Recently, the Supreme Court has said the federal government has limits on how much it can control state governments.

The federal government can regulate private conduct. But federal rules that force states to do things or seize state property face stricter review. The Constitution says states control when, where, and how elections happen. Congress can change that. Courts have said states are mainly responsible for elections. But that doesn’t prevent all federal involvement.

Federal courts have said states have broad control over their election systems, including how materials are handled and protected. When a federal court seizes state property—even with a warrant—it raises questions about whether states can control their own institutions. The Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches. But courts haven’t said whether states get the same protection or whether federal investigations override state property rights.

If a court allows the seizure, it’s saying federal investigations can override state control of certified materials, even years later. If a court orders the materials returned, it’s saying states have the right to control their own certified records. This ruling will determine what’s possible in 2026 and beyond—whether federal officials can use law enforcement to control elections, or whether states can protect their own election systems.

The seizure raises fundamental questions about whether the Constitution can survive a president who thinks he lost due to fraud and controls federal law enforcement. The seizure was done in secret. The justification is hidden. Courts, states, and Congress will decide whether the Constitution can limit federal power over elections when that power is used for partisan purposes without normal oversight. The answer will come before November 2026.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.