A new report from the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law offers judges guidance on potential law enforcement efforts to seize election materials.

The report comes in anticipation of highly contested midterm elections nationwide. It offers recommendations for when judges are confronted with unprecedented search warrants for ballots, voting machines, or other election materials while an election is still underway. It was released on Sept. 9 and is being distributed to state and federal judges across the country.

UCLA Law professor Rick Hasen wrote the report with Shelby Wayment. Hasen directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project and is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law. Wayment recently joined UCLA Law as the project’s staff attorney.

In preparing the report, which is titled “A Judicial Guide to Search Warrants Seeking Election Materials: How Alternatives to Election Material and Ballot Seizures Can Avoid Irreparable Harm, Promote Election Integrity, and Further the Public Interest,” Hasen and Wayment note that “election litigation is hitting record levels in the United States” and judges should prepare for a law enforcement request for a search warrant during the period from the opening day of voting through certification and the expiration of any appeal or recount window.

“A court order allowing law enforcement to seize ballots or voting machines in an ongoing election would be unprecedented in modern times, and such seizures could cause irreparable harm,” Hasen says. “Our guide helps courts balance legitimate law enforcement needs against the irreparable harm that could come to voters, candidates, and public confidence in election integrity and the judiciary if seized election materials upend officials’ ability to declare a winner and certify an election.”

Wayment says, “Judges are legal experts but not experts in election administration. We provide practical tips for judges to make fair decisions under the high stress of an election dispute. It underlines the importance of relying on local election officials in that decision making.”

The guide recommends six steps for judges considering a warrant application:

1. Examine a warrant’s legal basis and probable cause. Federal and state law may bar some seizures outright. Courts should look for specific, credible evidence of willful violations rather than ratifying law enforcement's conclusions.
2. Consider the timing of a warrant. A warrant sought during an active election, before officials finalize results and resolve disputes, causes the most disruption and potential harm. Delaying execution until after certification protects a jurisdiction’s ability to name a winner.
3. Give election administrators notice and a chance to be heard. Local officials are experts in administering elections and may have already investigated the conduct alleged in the affidavit or can offer alternatives to a seizure that would still satisfy legitimate law enforcement needs.
4. Modify the warrant to protect the chain of custody. Courts should consider whether copies or reproductions satisfy the government's purpose while originals stay with election officials. A Georgia court took that approach in a subpoena case, requiring the agency seeking the ballots to pay reproduction costs.
5. Consider other warrant modifications. Courts can narrow the geographic scope, limit the categories of items, stage the search, or permit law enforcement to observe tabulation or a recount instead.
6. Examine post-warrant procedures. If a warrant is issued, judges should expedite hearings on officials' requests for the return of materials and consider releasing the warrant and supporting evidence publicly.

The greatest concern listed in the guide is a potential break in the chain of custody for election materials and equipment. “When chain of custody procedures are not followed, there is no guarantee that the materials have not been tampered with — by adding, deleting, or altering ballots,” Hasen and Wayment explain in the report.

They also acknowledge that “law enforcement may have legitimate reasons for seeking a search warrant over election materials and equipment. But there are ways to assure the preservation of election-related materials without breaking the chain of custody.”

The paper cites the example of an election in 2025 in Hamtramck, Michigan, where “37 absentee ballots were unaccounted for on election night, but later discovered in a clerk’s office, where the ballots had been opened but not yet counted. Citing chain of custody concerns, the County Board of Canvassers did not count those 37 ballots. The mayoral election was decided by only 11 votes. Litigation remains ongoing and in June 2026, officials discovered an additional uncounted ballot in a storage area. The unintentional breaks in the chain of custody led to at least the temporary disenfranchisement of these 38 voters, uncertainty in the election results, and further potential complications in certifying the election results once those ballots are reviewed under court order.”

The nonpartisan Safeguarding Democracy Project promotes research, collaboration, and advocacy to ensure continued free and fair elections in the United States. The project aims to protect the cornerstone of American democracy: that all eligible voters, and only eligible voters, will be able to freely cast a vote that will be fairly and accurately counted, with the winner of the election peacefully taking office and accepted as legitimate. It also focuses on bolstering the rule of law, the right to vote, and democratic institutions and norms.