FBI raid of election offices ignites debate over voting security and federal authority

Geoff Bennett:

The FBI's move this week to execute a warrant at voting offices in Fulton County, Georgia, to seize records from the 2020 election and the presence of National Security Director Tulsi Gabbard on the ground there has ignited a fierce debate over election security and federal authority.

Joining us to discuss some of these issues is Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at UCLA and author of "A Real Right to Vote."

Rick, thanks for being with us.

What legitimate legal purpose could this raid serve at this stage more than five years after the election?

Rick Hasen, UCLA School of Law: It's really hard to say.

We have seen the search warrant. It does suggest the potential for criminal charges, including for interfering with an election, as well as for destroying documents. It would appear that these claims would be beyond the statute of limitations. It's not clear who's being investigated.

This seems to be potentially -- and maybe this is the most optimistic reading -- just trying to indulge in the president's statements about him being concerned that the 2020 election was stolen and just perpetuating the look by the government and by others into what happened in the election, not even the last presidential election, but the one before this one.

Geoff Bennett:

And the president continues to suggest that prosecutions are coming stemming from what he says is fraud connected to the election.

Based on what we know, how plausible are federal charges?

Rick Hasen:

Well, with the statute of limitations likely having run, without knowing of any wrongdoing, there's been a lot of investigation not just of the 2020 election generally, but of Fulton County, Georgia, in particular.

They have been investigated by the secretary of state there, who's a Republican, even though Fulton County is a Democratic county. It's hard to know who might be implicated. I'm much more worried about the signal this sends to election administrators and others for 2026 looking forward than I am about what might happen to those looking backward.

Geoff Bennett:

Another flash point here is the presence of the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The deputy attorney general today defended her presence, defended her role in all this, saying that it was consistent with her job.

Todd Blanche, U.S. Deputy Attorney General:

I think her presence shouldn't be -- it shouldn't be questioned, of course, and that's a big part of her job. And so the fact that she was present in Atlanta that day is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.

Geoff Bennett:

So the fact that she was present in Atlanta that day, is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.

Why would the DNI be involved in a local election matter? Is there any reason for her to have been there?

Rick Hasen:

Well, the director of national intelligence should be looking at problems coming from outside the United States.

To the extent that they want to claim that there's something happening outside the United States, I suppose that's plausible. But there was reporting in The Wall Street Journal that Gabbard has been put in charge of the administration's look into voter fraud across the country.

And so it may be, regardless of what portfolio she has, that this is going to be something that she's going to be moving forward with in the future. She was supposed to appear before secretaries of state today and address a kind of skeptical crowd, from what I understand. And she was a no-show. At the last minute, she said she had a scheduling conflict.

Geoff Bennett:

Could all of this function as a precedent -- excuse me -- a precedent or even a rehearsal for what could come in the 2026 midterms, more aggressive federal involvement?

Rick Hasen:

Yes, I'm very concerned about the future, especially the idea of seizing ballot materials.

There are extensive chain of custody requirements to make sure that nobody tampers with ballots. And, look, what happens if the FBI tries to go in while they're still tabulating votes during the midterm elections? I think we're going to have to be very proactive in thinking about steps that states and localities might have to take to protect the integrity of their elections from the federal government.

And the idea that we have to do that just tells you how far things have deteriorated with democracy in the United States.

Geoff Bennett:

Are states prepared?

Rick Hasen:

Well, I think it varies based on the state. And I think some people don't realize how far things could go. I think right now it's not just the states and not just local election administrators. It's going to have to involve courts.

It's going to have to involve the people being prepared to stand up to make sure we can continue to have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028.

Geoff Bennett:

Rick Hasen, thanks, as always, for your insights.

Rick Hasen:

Thank you.