INVESTIGATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN ELECTION FRAUD CASES When investigating election fraud, three considerations that are absent from most criminal investigations must be kept in mind: (1) respect for the primary role of the states in administering the voting process, (2) an awareness of the role of the election in the governmental process, and (3) sensitivity to the exercise of First Amendment rights in the election context. As a result, there are limitations on various investigative steps in an election fraud case. In most cases, election-related documents should not be taken from the custody of local election administrators until the election to which they pertain has been certified and the time for contesting the election results has expired. 3 This avoids interfering with the governmental processes affected by the election.4 Another limitation affects voter interviews. Election fraud cases often depend on the testimony of individual voters whose votes were co-opted in one way or another. But in most cases voters should not be interviewed, or other voter-related investigation done, until after the election is over. Such overt investigative steps may chill legitimate voting activities. They This non-interference policy assumes there is no evidence that local election administrators seek to retain or destroy the election records for a corrupt purpose or to further an ongoing election fraud scheme. 3 In cases in which physical custody may interfere unnecessarily with local election procedures, law enforcement may still take reasonable steps to ensure that such records retain their integrity and are effectively made available to federal law enforcement. Such steps may include the issuance of a grand jury subpoena, and formal and informal agreements concerning the custody, control, and integrity of such records. 4 11