Elections: How Elections Work (ICE & Troops at Polling Places 2)

McClain Delaney, April, 'Democracy Without Intimidation Act: New Bill Would Strengthen Ban on Troops and Federal Law Enforcement Officers at Election Polling Places,' (May 14, 2026).[1] Today, Congresswoman April McClain Delaney (MD-06) introduced new legislation to safeguard our elections from security threats, even those from within the government including the President and federal law enforcement. TheDemocracy Without Intimidation Act(HR 8825) would strengthen and clarify existing law that bars military and senior government leaders from dispatching troops or federal law enforcement agents to the polls, and mechanisms to hold Administration officials accountable for violations. …. Current law, which dates back to the Civil War, includes a narrow exception that allows deployments 'to repel armed enemies of the United States,' which the Administration may attempt to illegally exploit under the guise of 'invasion' by undocumented immigrants. Standing law also includes a mechanism for independent, apolitical judicial enforcement of the ban on troops and federal law enforcement at polls, which this bill would enhance. This legislation would: Remove the 'armed enemies exception' from existing statute; Strengthen the ban on federal law enforcement and troops at polling places during federal elections; Reinforce the civil rights enforcement authority Congress gave magistrate judges after the Civil War; and Create a private right of action so voters can file a lawsuit against senior leadership and political appointees to stop any unlawful deployment — with expedited review and direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Padilla, Alex, 'Padilla, Slotkin Lead Bill to Block Trump from Deploying Federal Law Enforcement at Polling Places,' (June 18, 2026).[2] …. The Protect Our Polls Act (S. 4845) defends free and fair elections, preserves the apolitical nature of our military, and protects servicemembers from illegal orders.[3]The legislation strengthens existing federal law that restricts the deployment of military forces and armed federal agents to polling places. It closes any potential loophole the Trump Administration might try to create by requiring Congress to pass a Joint Resolution of Approval before the president can send troops or federal law enforcement to election sites purporting to use any exception to the blanket ban. The President must also provide Congress with intelligence, legal justification, and evidence that a state or local government cannot handle a threat on their own at least 48 hours before deploying forces. Bahl, Andrew, 'New Mexico Enacts Law Prohibiting the Deployment of Troops to Polling Places,'Ballotpedia(March 13, 2026).[4] On March 9, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed legislation prohibiting a person from bringing or ordering military troops or armed federal agents to a polling place or ballot drop box location. Federal law prohibits the deployment of troops or United States servicemembers to a polling place 'unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.' New Mexico SB 264 creates state-level penalties for those who deploy troops or armed federal agents to a polling place or drop box site. It also prohibits a person from interfering with the conduct of an election or from interfering with an election official, voter, challenger, or watcher while they are discharging their duties. In addition, the bill prohibits a person from attempting to impose a law, rule, or change to voter qualifications that goes against New Mexico law. And it allows the attorney general, secretary of state, a county clerk, or a voter who experienced intimidation or was not able to vote due to a disruption at a polling place to bring a civil action to enforce the law's provisions. Brennan Center, 'Model Bill: State Accountability for Federal Interference at Polling Places,' (May 12, 2026).[5] Overview Federal law explicitly bans the deployment of federal troops or other armed federal agents to polling places. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 592 makes it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to deploy federal 'troops or armed men' to any location where voting is taking place or elections are being held, unless 'such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.' Further, 18 U.S.C. § 593 makes it a crime for a member of the armed forces to prevent someone from voting 'by force, threat, intimidation, advice, or otherwise,' or to interfere 'in any manner with an election officer's discharge of his duties.' Federal law also bans other federal agents or employees from interfering in elections. 18 U.S.C. § 595 makes it a crime for 'a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof,' to use their 'official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting' a federal election. State legislators can reinforce these existing protections by creating state crimes that cover the same illegal activity, ensuring that multiple means of accountability exist if federal forces interfere in elections or intimidate voters and the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute. Federal officials are immune from state criminal prosecution only if they are engaged in conduct that is authorized by federal law and the official's actions were 'necessary and proper' in fulfilling their federal duties. Because 18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, and 595 make it a federal crime for troops and other federal officials to intimidate voters or interfere with elections, a member of the military or federal official engaging in this conduct could not do so under the authority of federal law, and their actions would not be 'necessary and proper' in fulfilling their duties. They would therefore be subject to prosecution for violating similar state criminal laws. To avoid potential Supremacy Clause issues, state duplicates of 18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, and 595 should mirror the language of those federal prohibitions as closely as possible, so that the only conduct that is prohibited is conduct that is already prohibited by federal law. State duplicates should also apply equally to both state and federal officials to avoid arguments that a state is targeting the federal government for unfavored treatment. Below is model language for a bill enacting state duplicates of the federal criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, and 595. States can strengthen these prohibitions further by including a civil enforcement provision that would allow any person aggrieved by prohibited conduct, election officials, or the state attorney general to sue for injunctive relief. Model Bill Language Section 1. Troops or armed government presence at polls.Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the State of [insert state name] or the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his or her authority or control any troops or armed persons at any place where an election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, and thereby acts in violation of federal law, shall be fined under this chapter or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces of the State of [insert state name] or United States from exercising the right of suffrage. This section shall not apply to law enforcement whose presence has been requested or authorized by the presiding election officer to respond to a specific emergency or disturbance that poses an imminent threat to the life, physical safety, or right to vote of an individual in the election officer's jurisdiction. This section also shall not apply to law enforcement whose presence is otherwise required by law. This section shall not apply to an officer or member of the state or national guard of the State of [insert state name] who has been activated by the governor of the State of [insert state name] to perform election-related duties under the supervision of an election officer. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the attorney general shall have concurrent jurisdiction with any district attorney in the prosecution of any offenses under this section. The terms in this section shall be construed consistently with the same or similar terms in 18 U.S.C. § 592. This section shall not be read to permit any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 592. Section 2. Interference by armed forces.Whoever, being an officer or member of the armed forces of the State of [insert state name] or United States, prescribes or fixes or attempts to prescribe or fix, whether by proclamation, order or otherwise, the qualifications of voters at any election in the state, and thereby acts in violation of federal law; or Whoever, being such officer or member, prevents or attempts to prevent by force, threat, intimidation, advice or otherwise any qualified voter of the state from fully exercising the right of suffrage at any election, and thereby acts in violation of federal law; or Whoever, being such officer or member, orders or compels or attempts to compel any election officer in the state to receive a vote from a person not legally qualified to vote, and thereby acts in violation of federal law; or Whoever, being such officer or member, imposes or attempts to impose any regulations for conducting any election in the state, different from those prescribed by law, and thereby acts in violation of federal law; or Whoever, being such officer or member, interferes in any manner with an election officer's discharge of his or her duties, and thereby acts in violation of federal law— Shall be fined under this chapter or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces from exercising the right of suffrage. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the attorney general shall have concurrent jurisdiction with any district attorney in the prosecution of any offenses under this section. The terms in this section shall be construed consistently with the same or similar terms in 18 U.S.C. § 593. This section shall not be read to permit any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 593. Section 3. Interference by administrative employees of federal, state, or local governments.Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the State of [insert state name], or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by the State of [insert state name] or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or the State of [insert state name], or any department or agency thereof, uses his or her official authority for the purpose of interfering with the nomination or the election of any candidate for federal, state, or local office, and thereby acts in violation of federal law, shall be fined under this chapter or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the attorney general shall have concurrent jurisdiction with any district attorney in the prosecution of any offenses under this section. The terms in this section shall be construed consistently with the same or similar terms in 18 U.S.C. § 595. This section shall not be read to permit any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 595. Section 4. Civil enforcement of prohibitions on troops or armed government presence at polls, interference by armed forces, and interference by administrative employees of federal, state, or local governments.A person aggrieved by a violation of this act may enforce the provisions of this act in a suit in equity. A prevailing plaintiff in such an action shall recover reasonable attorney's fees, reasonable expert fees, reasonable litigation expenses, and all such fees as are appropriate as part of the costs to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. An election officer holding an election or conducting a canvass may enforce the provisions of this act and may institute an action for equitable relief on behalf of an aggrieved person who is in the officer's jurisdiction or is eligible to vote in the officer's jurisdiction. The attorney general may enforce the provisions of this act and may institute for the state, or in the name of the state, an action for equitable relief, including an application for a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining order, or other order. A suit brought by an election officer holding an election or conducting a canvass or by the attorney general under this section does not preclude a contemporaneous private suit by an aggrieved person to enforce the provisions of this act. The provisions of this act are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law, including, but not limited to, the application of a criminal law to a person whose conduct violates this act. Actions brought pursuant to this act must be subject to expedited pretrial and trial proceedings and receive an automatic calendar preference. Section 5. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the legislature that this act would have been enacted even if such invalid provisions had not been included herein. CalMatters, 'Senate Bil 73'[6](Enacted 2026-05-27: Chapter 10, Statutes of 2026.) (1) Existing state and federal law provides for the enforcement of laws related to elections. This bill would prohibit a peace officer from interfering with the administration of an election, as specified. This bill would authorize certain persons to enforce those prohibitions by filing a civil action, as specified. This bill would also prohibit any individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as specified, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of rosters, combined rosters, or voter lists unless authorized by a court order or to investigate certain types of voting fraud. The bill would additionally require the Attorney General to provide guidance and information regarding how to respond to requests by law enforcement, as defined, to access areas where ballots are present. (2) Existing law requires an elections official, upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, to compare the signature on the identification envelope with the voters prior signatures, and it also provides a mechanism by which a voter can verify their signature and cure this defect. Existing law provides that the processing of vote by mail ballots is open to the public and permits specified persons and organizations to observe this processing. This bill would prohibit a vote by mail observer from challenging a signature on a vote by mail ballot that has been verified by the voter. (3) Under existing law, it is a crime for a person in possession of a firearm, a uniformed peace officer, private guard, or security personnel, or any person wearing the uniform of a peace officer, guard, or security personnel, to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the appropriate elections official. It is also a crime for a person to hire or arrange for such a person to be stationed in the immediate vicinity of, or posted at, a polling place without authorization from the elections official. This bill would authorize the Secretary of State or Attorney General to object to authorization provided by the appropriate elections official, in which case the person stationed or posted at the polling place, or the person who hired or arranged for such a person to be stationed or posted at the polling place, is guilty of a crime. By expanding the scope of these crimes, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and any local elections official in the county in which the act occurs, to bring a civil action against an individual, business, or other legal entity that commits any specified act of tampering with a voting system or voting equipment before, during, or after an election. This bill would additionally authorize the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the appropriate local elections official to bring a civil action against a person, business, or entity that takes a package containing ballots from the custody of an elections official. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for an individual to undertake a number of enumerated actions that would result in interference with an election, including displaying a container for the purpose of collecting ballots with the intent to deceive a voter into casting a ballot in an unofficial ballot box. This bill would also make it a crime to take a package containing voted ballots out of the custody of an elections official. By expanding the scope of this crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law requires the elections official of any county or city using a voting system to inspect the machines or devices at least once every 2 years. This bill would prohibit an individual from permitting an agent of a law enforcement agency, as defined, to access, disrupt, modify, or take possession of certified voting technology unless authorized by a court order. To the extent this bill would establish new procedures for the conduct of elections, it would create a state-mandated local program. (7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (8)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. [As usual, see the following PDF for the full updated text of this document.] Information Bank is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.