Justice Department can keep 2020 election ballots seized from Georgia’s Fulton County, judge rules

ATLANTA (AP) — The federal government doesn’t have to return the 2020 election ballots from Georgia’s Fulton County that were seized by the FBI from a warehouse near Atlanta, a judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee’s decision came after lawyers for the county had argued that the ballots and other election materials, as well as any electronic copies the Justice Department has made, should be returned because the seizure was improper and unconstitutional.

The Jan. 28 seizure by the FBI targeted the elections hub in Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of the city of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by President Donald Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him the 2020 election.

The Justice Department has said it is investigating “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.

Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Democrat Joe Biden’s win.

Representatives for Fulton County and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the ruling Wednesday evening. The county could appeal the ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The seizure in this case was certainly not perfect,” Boulee wrote in his 68-page ruling. But he went on to say that Fulton County did not establish that its rights were callously disregarded “either through the lack of probable cause, omissions in the Affidavit or by the manner of the execution of the seizure.”

The county also failed to show that it needs the documents or will be irreparably harmed if they are not returned, he wrote, noting this is particularly true because the Justice Department has given the county copies of the documents.

Months after the January seizure of ballots and other election materials, the Justice Department in April obtained a grand jury subpoena for the names and personal contact information of Fulton County employees and volunteers involved in the 2020 election. Fulton County filed a motion Monday to quash that subpoena, arguing that it is overly broad and meant to harass the president’s political opponents.

The Trump administration has also taken moves to obtain past election records from other critical swing states. The FBI used a subpoena in March to get records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona. And in April, the Justice Department demanded that Michigan’s Wayne County turn over its 2024 election ballots.

The Justice Department is also fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

Democrats have raised concerns that the Trump administration is weaponizing federal law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year’s midterm elections. The administration has said it is looking into allegations of past problems and seeking to protect future elections.

During a March 27 hearing on Fulton County’s demand that the FBI return its ballots and other materials, lawyers for the county argued that the seizure was improper and unjustified and demonstrated “callous disregard” for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. They suggested that the Trump administration decided to use a criminal search warrant to obtain the materials because it had grown tired of waiting for the outcome of the civil litigation the Justice Department had filed last year to obtain them.

Justice Department attorneys argued that they took the appropriate steps to get a warrant and then take the documents. They said it is not uncommon for parallel civil and criminal investigations to be going on at the same time.

The judge agreed that the affidavit was “defective in some respects” and that some of the statements included in it were “troubling.” But he noted that the FBI agent who wrote it also included “facts that both hurt and helped him.” He concluded that the document’s shortcomings don’t amount to callous disregard.

He also agreed that the government can pursue civil and criminal proceedings on the same matter and said the timeline of the investigation weighs against the county’s theory that the Justice Department “created an ‘ongoing investigation’ to sidestep procedural hurdles” in civil cases.=