Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Protects election workers and polling places from harassment, threats, and violence.
The problem
Election workers face increased harassment, threats, and violence while doing their jobs. Polling places need protection to ensure safe voting for all Americans.
The proposal
The bill creates legal protections and penalties for threatening or intimidating election workers and polling places. It likely increases security measures and law enforcement resources.
The impact
Election workers gain legal protection from threats. Voters get safer polling places. Communities see stronger law enforcement responses to election-related violence.
Election workers can do their jobs without fear of threats or violence. This helps ensure elections run smoothly and fairly. It attracts more people to become poll workers.
Voters feel safer going to polling places. Better security at voting locations helps protect all citizens' ability to vote. This strengthens democratic participation.
The bill creates strong penalties for threatening election workers. This deters violence and intimidation through the justice system. Clear laws help law enforcement respond quickly.
Protecting election workers is important regardless of political party. This bill helps all Americans trust that elections are run fairly and safely. Both parties want secure, peaceful elections.
Without seeing the full bill text, it's unclear what counts as harassment or intimidation. Vague laws can lead to unfair prosecution or dismissal of cases. Courts may interpret the rules differently.
Protecting polling places and workers requires more police, security, and resources. States and local governments may face expensive bills. Taxpayers bear the financial burden.
Some worry that strong penalties might limit people's right to protest or criticize election officials. The line between free speech and illegal threats can be blurry. Courts may need to settle disputes.
Laws can be applied differently in different communities. Some areas might enforce these rules harshly while others do not. This could create unfair treatment of citizens.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
No lobbying disclosures matched this bill.