Newly released court documents have revealed that the FBI’s unprecedented seizure of 2020 election ballots in Fulton County, Georgia was based on little more than recycled election-denial claims that have already been repeatedly debunked in court.
The release of the affidavit supporting the search warrant was highly anticipated, as it was expected to finally explain what evidence justified a federal raid on a local election office. Instead, the document shows a striking lack of credible new information.
According to election law expert Mark Elias, the affidavit reads less like a serious legal filing and more like a repackaged version of Donald Trump’s rally grievances from the past several years. Rather than presenting fresh facts or verifiable evidence, the document relies on the same conspiracy theories that circulated widely after the 2020 election—and were rejected by courts throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022.
A Thin Affidavit With Major Consequences
While search warrants require only a probable cause standard, Elias argues that even this relatively low threshold should still demand skepticism and basic scrutiny from judges. In this case, however, a federal magistrate judge signed off on what Elias describes as an “exceptionally thin” affidavit, allowing federal agents to conduct a raid on an election office—an action with serious implications for democratic norms.
The affidavit was reportedly driven by Kurt Olsen, a lawyer well known for his role in multiple failed efforts to overturn election results. Olsen previously attempted to persuade the Trump-era Justice Department to invalidate the 2020 election at the Supreme Court, later pushed Texas’s widely rejected lawsuit challenging results in four states, and represented Kari Lake in her unsuccessful Arizona election challenge, where his claims were similarly dismissed.
Despite this history, Olsen now appears to have played a central role in advancing the arguments used to justify the Fulton County search.
A Dangerous Template for Future Elections
The larger concern, Elias warns, is not limited to Georgia or the 2020 election. The real danger lies in the precedent—or more accurately, the template—that this case creates.
If federal authorities can secure search warrants for election offices using recycled and discredited claims, the same approach could be replicated elsewhere. Elias warns that jurisdictions such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Maricopa County, and others could face similar raids, not only to relitigate 2020 but potentially to interfere with future elections, including the 2026 cycle.
Even more troubling, this framework could be used to justify the seizure of ballots or voter data either before or after upcoming elections, raising the specter of federal overreach into state-run election systems.
Judicial Deference and Its Limits
Part of the problem, Elias explains, is the informal deference judges often give to law enforcement. Magistrate judges routinely rely on the assumption that federal agents are acting in good faith and presenting credible expertise—an assumption that works in ordinary criminal cases but breaks down when applied to politically motivated election claims.
In this instance, Elias argues, even minimal due diligence—such as reviewing the track record of the individuals promoting these theories—should have raised red flags. Many of the same claims cited in the affidavit have already resulted in sanctions against lawyers who advanced them in past election cases.
What Can Be Done to Stop This?
In response, Elias has outlined a set of urgent reforms that states and Congress should pursue. These include limiting the Justice Department’s ability to conduct criminal investigations or raids targeting election administration, banning abusive third-party voter challenges, and imposing real penalties on those who bring bad-faith election claims.
At the federal level, Elias argues that Congress must eliminate immunity protections for officials who interfere with voting rights. State and federal officials who engage in voter suppression or attempt to undermine ballot counting, he says, should be personally liable and subject to meaningful legal consequences.
A Critical Moment for Election Integrity
While the Georgia search warrant does not create binding legal precedent, its implications are serious. It signals how easily discredited election-denial narratives can be repackaged into legal filings and used to justify extraordinary government action.
Whether future judges will recognize this pattern and refuse to participate remains an open question. What is clear, however, is that the fight over election integrity is no longer confined to lawsuits—it is now reaching into the administration of elections themselves.
