What has the Justice Department alleged in its lawsuit seeking Fulton County’s 2020 ballots and what records remain under seal?

1. What the DOJ has alleged in the lawsuit

The complaint accuses Fulton County — and specifically names Clerk of Superior Court Che Alexander in some filings — of refusing to comply with a subpoena issued Oct. 6 by the Georgia State Election Board and with a subsequent demand from the Attorney General for the same materials, and asks a federal court to declare that refusal a violation of federal law ^{[7] [8] [4]}. The DOJ frames its request as an inquiry into whether Georgia complied with NVRA and HAVA obligations and says the records are needed to “ascertain compliance” and to protect the integrity of the ballot against what the department describes as vote-dilution risks; Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has been quoted defending the department’s authority to press for those materials ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The civil complaint seeks an order compelling production — in some accounts asking for production within five days of a court order — and characterizes the county’s nonproduction as actionable under Title III of the Civil Rights Act as implemented in federal election statutes ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Precisely which records DOJ is seeking

Reporting and the DOJ’s complaint consistently list the same categories: “all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County” — language repeated across DOJ statements and mainstream local and national outlets ^{[4] [3] [9]}. Variants of that list also appear in state subpoena language cited by the DOJ and in local coverage that describes boxes of election material stored in Fulton County warehouses ^{[7] [3]}. The department has paired this demand with broader litigation elsewhere seeking voter-roll data from multiple states, situating the Fulton suit as part of a larger federal push to obtain election-related records ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What remains under seal, and who says so

Fulton County officials and the county clerk have told the DOJ and multiple news outlets that the 2020 ballots, ballot stubs, absentee ballot signature envelopes and the associated digital files are in the clerk’s custody and are subject to a court seal that prevents their release absent a new court order ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Local correspondence cited in the complaint — including a Nov. 14 response to the State Election Board — explicitly states the records “are under seal and may not be produced absent a Court Order,” and county spokespeople have said they have turned over what they were legally required to while preserving sealed material ^{[7] [10]}. None of the articles in the provided reporting reproduces or details the underlying sealing order itself, so the public record in these sources does not disclose the seal’s scope, the judge or case that imposed it, or the precise legal grounds for the sealing ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Legal and political context, and competing interpretations

Supporters of the DOJ action argue the department is exercising statutory authority to enforce federal election laws and to ensure transparency about whether procedures complied with NVRA/HAVA ^{[1] [3]}. Critics and some legal observers counter that the records are private and protected by an existing court seal — meaning the DOJ must clear additional judicial hurdles before they can be disclosed — and warn about privacy implications for absentee voters and the potential for politically motivated fishing expeditions given the suit’s overlap with national efforts tied to the 2020 contest ^{[5] [8] [11]}. The filings and coverage also appear against a backdrop in which Fulton County has been the focal point of both criminal charges tied to efforts to overturn 2020 results and subsequent developments in those cases, which critics say gives the dispute a highly politicized overlay ^{[12] [11]}.

5. What the current reporting does not establish

The publicly available reports assembled here do not include the actual sealing order or a court docket entry that defines the legal basis, duration, or exceptions for the seal, nor do they provide the DOJ’s underlying evidence that would link the sealed records to any statutory violation; accordingly, the record in these sources cannot confirm whether the court that imposed the seal will permit release, or what protective measures — such as a limited inspection or protective order — a judge might order if compelled to produce materials ^{[5] [7]}. Statements about what the records “would prove” or about definitive wrongdoing are outside what these sources substantiate.