A scenario once dismissed as unthinkable — federal agents showing up at a county election office with a warrant to seize ballots in the middle of an active election — is now something judges across the country are training for. UCLA Law’s Safeguarding Democracy Project released a detailed guide on September 9 instructing state and federal judges how to respond if law enforcement seeks to take possession of ballots, voting machines or other election materials while votes are still being counted, according to NPR. The release comes with the November 3 midterms eight weeks away and comes after what organizers describe as an unprecedented run of federal activity targeting state election operations.
Why Judges Are Preparing Now
Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project and the guide’s lead author, told NPR that “lots of things that were off the table are now on the table,” pointing to the Trump administration’s aggressive push to root out alleged noncitizen voting and its willingness to use federal law enforcement tools in election administration disputes. At least one state election official told NPR that their office has already run three separate statewide trainings this year specifically to prepare staff for the possibility that law enforcement could attempt to take custody of ballots or equipment mid-count.
What the Guide Recommends
The report lays out a menu of alternatives judges should weigh before authorizing a seizure of live election materials, including waiting until after certification to execute any search warrant, allowing investigators to review copies or reproductions rather than originals, and permitting law enforcement to observe tabulation or a recount rather than take physical custody of ballots. The guide draws on existing case law about chain-of-custody requirements and warns that removing ballots mid-count could itself trigger new litigation over whether an election’s results can be certified at all.
A Broader Pattern of Federal Pressure
The training effort does not exist in a vacuum. It follows months of Justice Department demands for state voter rolls, a Department of Homeland Security push to use its SAVE database to flag noncitizens on voter lists, and criminal charges brought against individuals accused of illegal voting in several states. Voting rights advocates argue that this pattern has normalized the idea of federal intervention in what has traditionally been state-run election administration, making scenarios like ballot seizure requests far more plausible than in past cycles. They also point to the September 4 preliminary injunction against a separate USPS mail-ballot rule, and the pending Supreme Court fight over the DHS SAVE database, as evidence that federal agencies are increasingly willing to test the limits of their authority over processes states have traditionally run independently.
Election Officials Caught in the Middle
State and local election administrators, who are often not lawyers themselves, say the ambiguity of the situation is its own danger. If a judge issuing an emergency order does not fully understand chain-of-custody procedures for ballots, an ill-considered ruling could disenfranchise voters whose ballots are seized before being counted or delay certification long past legal deadlines. That risk is precisely what prompted the Safeguarding Democracy Project to focus its guidance on the judiciary rather than on election officials themselves, since it is judges who would ultimately decide whether to grant or deny any law enforcement request for materials. Several county clerks who reviewed early drafts of the guide told the project it filled a genuine gap, since most local judges have never had to weigh search-warrant standards in the specific context of an ongoing vote count, where even a brief delay in tabulation can cascade into missed certification deadlines under state law.
Skepticism From Some Legal Scholars
Not everyone agrees the scenario is as urgent as the guide suggests. Some conservative legal commentators have argued that warnings about ballot seizures are overstated and designed to cast routine law enforcement investigations of voter fraud allegations in the worst possible light. They note that no seizure of live, uncounted ballots has yet occurred in the 2026 cycle, and argue that existing evidentiary standards for search warrants already provide sufficient protection against improper mid-election intrusions.
What’s Next
With early voting set to begin in several states within weeks, the Safeguarding Democracy Project says it plans to brief judicial conferences in multiple states before Election Day and is fielding requests from sitting judges for further guidance. Election officials, meanwhile, say they will continue tabletop exercises simulating seizure attempts, while civil rights groups are preparing emergency litigation templates they could file within hours if ballots or voting equipment are targeted once counting begins on November 3.
