2026-08

Emergency Resolution:

Safeguarding Polling Sites from Intimidation and Armed Suppression

Sponsored by

Sen. Flavio Bravo (AZ), Rep. Patricia Contreras (AZ), Rep. Josey García (TX),
Sen. Nilsa Cruz Pérez (NJ), Rep. Mary Ann Santos (GA),
Sen. Adam Gómez (MA), Del. Elizabeth Guzmán (VA), Rep. Elizabeth Velasco (CO), 
Rep. Danilo Burgos (PA) and Rep. Tara Luján (NM)

Reported to the Caucus by the
NHCSL Latino Voting and Elections Task Force

Del. Elizabeth Guzmán (VA), Chair

Unanimously approved by the NHCSL Executive Committee
on behalf of the entire Caucus on July 27, 2026

WHEREAS, voting is a cornerstone of representative democracy and a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution, including the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, and further safeguarded by the Voting Rights Act of 1965;[1] and,

WHEREAS, states bear the primary responsibility for administering free, fair and accessible elections and ensuring that polling places remain free from circumstances that could intimidate eligible voters from exercising their constitutional right; and,

WHEREAS, in fact, the explicit right to vote free from armed federal intimidation is much older than the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A century earlier, in 1865, near the end of the Civil War, in arguably the first attempt at a post-Reconstruction framework for rights, Congress first enacted a criminal prohibition restricting the use of the military in elections, as part of a compromise with slave-holding states which had fought for the Union. It forbade the presence of troops or armed persons in the civilian service at the polls unless “necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls;” it prohibited any officer of the armed forces from regulating or interfering in elections; and it penalized any person in the military who prevented or attempted to prevent, “by force, threat, menace, intimidation, or otherwise,… any qualified voter of any state of the United States of America from freely exercising the right of suffrage;”[2] and,

WHEREAS, the peacekeeping exception was used during Reconstruction[3] but was removed more than 100 years ago,[4] and the broader prohibition stands to this day;[5] and,

WHEREAS, this includes the presence of federal law enforcement officers whose presence at polling places may discourage eligible voters from participating in elections,[6] particularly in communities where immigration enforcement activities are well-known to have detained, injured or even killed citizens, and may heighten fears of interaction with federal authorities;[7] and,

WHEREAS, some states have codified related prohibitions. For example, it is a crime in Pennsylvania for law enforcement officers to show up to the polls without being called by election officials.[8] California[9] and Colorado[10] laws create a presumption, applicable to federal but not state law enforcement, that someone carrying a weapon near protected election activity is intimidating voters. This year, Connecticut enacted HB 5001 which, among other things, prohibits federal law enforcement from operating within 250 feet of a polling place or other sensitive election sites without permission from state election officials or a court order. The legislation also requires coordination with the Connecticut Secretary of the State and the Attorney General before federal agents conduct operations near polling locations, empowers the Attorney General to prevent interference with elections, and establishes state penalties to ensure these protections are enforced; [11] and,

WHEREAS, the current federal administration is explicitly attempting to use cherrypicked and immaterial election integrity claims as a fig leaf for its armed intervention into voting. This agenda is rooted in claims of voter fraud that, according to available research, are misleading and incorrectly frame non-citizen voting as a primary driver of widespread electoral malpractice. As of July 17, 2026, during the President's most recent address, the administration continued to raise concerns about the vulnerability of the election system, while newly declassified documents did not fully corroborate those claims. The Department of Homeland Security did not provide sufficient detail regarding the methodology used to produce its election-related figures, including how the data was collected, analyzed, or verified. The absence of transparent methodology makes it difficult to independently assess the accuracy or reliability of those claims;[12] and,

WHEREAS, statements by administration officials regarding the potential deployment of federal law enforcement officers at polling places have raised concerns among lawmakers, election officials, and voting rights organizations regarding voter intimidation and the integrity of the electoral process; and,

WHEREAS, during his confirmation hearing, the now Secretary of Homeland Security declined to rule out the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at polling places, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt similarly stated that she “couldn't guarantee” ICE would not be present at polling locations, a direct violation of federal and state law barring federal enforcement from polling sites to avoid threat of intimidation;[13] and,

WHEREAS, in February 2026, the consequences of this rhetoric became evident in Arizona with SB 1570, which, through a strike-everything amendment, attempted to require county recorders and county boards of supervisors to enter into written agreements with federal immigration law enforcement personnel to provide for their presence at polling places and ballot drop box locations during the 2026 general election;[14] and,

WHEREAS, the administration's unsupported claims that large numbers of noncitizens are casting ballots have contributed to proposals to deploy federal law enforcement personnel at polling places and have the potential to hinder civic engagement and political participation among citizens who may be confused for immigrants, including Hispanic and Latino citizens. States have several safeguards in place to ensure that only citizens of the United States cast ballots; noncitizen voting is strictly prohibited and extremely uncommon. The Center for Election Innovation & Research states that it “continues to find that sweeping allegations about noncitizen registrations or voting appear to arise from misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, or outright fabrications about complex voter data;”[15] and,

WHEREAS, nevertheless, Hispanic and Latino communities continue to bear the consequences of misleading statements and actions advanced in the name of election security. In fact, NHCSL members and its Executive Director warned of and received first-hand community feedback about such fears of election interference in a community visit to Minneapolis following the murders of US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by immigration agents earlier this year; and,

WHEREAS, increased federal immigration enforcement has contributed to greater fear among Hispanic and Latino communities and created a climate of uncertainty in public settings. Survey data indicates that 52% of Latinos worry that they, a family member, or close friend could be deported, 47% report feeling less safe in their local communities due to deportation actions, and 59% report seeing or hearing about immigration arrests or raids in their communities.[16] These fears have also contributed to avoidance behaviors, including reluctance to report crimes to law enforcement and participation in public spaces;[17] and,

WHEREAS, a recent Supreme Court decision[18] concerning immigration enforcement have heightened concerns that citizens who speak English with certain accents or who are speaking in a language other than English may face increased scrutiny during immigration enforcement encounters. Court discussions allowed immigration enforcement officials to consider factors such as occupation, location, language, or apparent ethnicity in certain contexts alongside other factors, raising concerns among civil rights advocates about the potential for racial profiling. Extending similar enforcement practices to polling places could discourage eligible Hispanic and Latino voters from participating in elections, regardless of immigration status, by creating a chilling effect on voter participation;[19] and,

WHEREAS, similarly, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined other U.S. Senators in introducing the Protect Our Polls Act to protect the integrity of American elections from federal interference by armed military or federal law enforcement. Senator Padilla stated, “No American should have to pass a line of federal troops, ICE agents, or armed officers to exercise that right. The Protect Our Polls Act will make sure they never have to.”[20]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators:

1. Recognizes the significance of fair, free, and accessible elections as a fundamental constitutional right and acknowledges the responsibility of state governments to uphold this democratic principle by protecting voter rights in accordance with constitutional precedent.
2. Declares that state and federal governments should comply with laws prohibiting armed federal personnel from being present at polling places and refrain from any action that interferes with an individual's ability to vote freely and without intimidation, coercion, or undue influence.
3. Condemns any statement or action that seeks to discourage or prevent eligible voters from participating in elections through the presence of unwanted armed agents at polling places or through activities that disproportionately heighten fear among voters in communities that that have been targeted by federal dragnets under the guise of immigration enforcement and other eligible voters, all of whom may be deterred from exercising their right to vote.
4. Urges state governments to:
   • Establish clear legal protections that prevent any armed persons, except state or local law enforcement[21] when requested by and following the legal orders of election officials, from appearing at polling places or other sensitive election locations in a manner that may intimidate or discourage eligible voters from participating in elections;
   • Require coordination between state election officials, attorneys general, and relevant authorities before any law enforcement activity occurs near polling locations;
   • Create enforcement mechanisms and penalties to ensure that protections against voter intimidation and interference are taken seriously and effectively implemented;
   • Protect voters from actions that create fear, confusion, or uncertainty regarding their eligibility to vote, particularly among communities that may be disproportionately affected by immigration enforcement concerns; and
   • Support federal legislation, including the Protect Our Polls Act, that safeguards polling locations from federal interference and ensures that every eligible voter can exercise their constitutional right to vote without intimidation or coercion.

IN ITS MEETING OF JULY 23, 2026, THE NHCSL LATINO VOTING AND ELECTIONS TASK FORCE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED THIS RESOLUTION TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL AS AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION.

AT THE REQUEST OF THE NHCSL LATINO VOTING AND ELECTIONS TASK FORCE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS PROCEES OUTLINED IN THE BYLAWS, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION, ON BEHALF OF THE CAUCUS, ON JULY 27, 2026, AT ITS MEETING IN CHICAGO, IL.

[1] “Voting Rights Laws and Constitutional Amendments,” USA.gov, n.d., accessed July 22, 2026, https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights

[2] Natalie K. Orpett, Molly Roberts, Loren Voss, The Military and Elections, Part I: The Legal Wall (Lawfare, July 8, 2026).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Sean Morales-Doyle, Federal and State Election Laws Ban Federal Forces from Polling Places (Brennan Center for Justice, Oct. 22, 2025, updated Feb. 10, 2026).

[5] See, 18 U.S.C. §§ 592–593 and 52 U.S.C. § 10102. And see, “Federal Agents at the Polls,” American Civil Liberties Union, last modified June 16, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/federal-agents-at-the-polls

[6] Eliza Sweren-Becker and Jasleen Singh, “Guide to Laws Against Intimidation of Voters and Election Workers,” Brennan Center for Justice, June 18, 2024, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-laws-against-intimidation-voters-and-election-workers

[7] See broadly, NHCSL Resolution 2026-01, Ending the Abusive Lawlessness of ICE.

[8] 25 Pa. Stat. §§ 3047, 3520.

[9] California AB-2642 Elections: intimidation (2023-2024),

[10] Colorado HB25-1225, Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act

[11] Matt Blumenthal, “We Passed a Ban on ICE at Polls,” Connecticut House Democrats, April 28, 2026, https://www.housedems.ct.gov/blumenthal/we-passed-ban-ice-polls

[12] D’Angelo Gore, Robert Farley, Lori Robertson, Paul Cuno-Booth, and Jessica McDonald, “FactChecking Trump’s Election Security Speech,” FactCheck.org, July 17, 2026, https://www.factcheck.org/2026/07/factchecking-trumps-election-security-speech/

[13] Natalie Hausmann, “Trump’s Pick for DHS Chief Won’t Rule Out ICE at Polls,” Democracy Docket, March 18, 2026, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-dhs-pick-wont-rule-out-ice-at-polls

[14] Arizona, S.B. 1570, Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee Strike Everything Amendment, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (2026), https://legiscan.com/AZ/amendment/SB1570/id/276086

[15] “Update: Review of Claims of Noncitizen Registrants and Voters,” Center for Election Innovation & Research, February 2026, https://electioninnovation.org/research/noncitizen-analysis-update/

[16] Carolyne Im and Luis Noé-Bustamante, “Latinos’ Experiences with Immigration Enforcement in the Second Trump Administration,” Pew Research Center, November 24, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/11/24/latinos-experiences-with-immigration-enforcement-in-the-second-trump-administration/

[17] See, for example, NHCSL Resolution 2026-02, Reinforcing Plyler v. Doe and Safeguarding Equal Access to Public Education and Community Stability.

[18]Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)

[19] Gabriel R. Sanchez and Edward D. Vargas, “Racial Profiling by ICE Will Have a Marked Impact on Latino Communities,” Brookings Institution, October 16, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/racial-profiling-by-ice-will-have-a-marked-impact-on-latino-communities/.

[20] Alex Padilla, “Padilla, Slotkin Lead Bill to Block Trump from Deploying Federal Law Enforcement at Polling Places,” United States Senate, June 18, 2026, https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-slotkin-lead-bill-to-block-trump-from-deploying-federal-law-enforcement-at-polling-places/

[21] Taking into account this Caucus’s prior call, in Resolution 2026-01 to bar “police from assisting federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant, including prohibiting so-called 287(g) agreements.”