People administering federal elections would be protected against intimidation, and visible guns could shift who must provide evidence in election intimidation lawsuits.
People would be barred from intimidating, threatening, or forcing someone to act because they run federal elections or previously did that work. Attempts would also be covered.
In intimidation lawsuits, visible guns would trigger a presumption of intimidation when carriers watch or interact with covered voters or election workers, unless disproved. State and local police performing official duties would be exempt.
Courts handling voter or election-worker intimidation lawsuits could place reasonable temporary limits on defendants carrying guns. Judges would decide whether those limits fit the case.
People would be barred from intimidating, threatening, or coercing people over their work running federal elections. Protection would cover federal election duties, including counting votes and certifying results, and people targeted because they currently or previously helped administer federal elections. Attempts would also be covered, whether or not the person acts with government authority.
Courts would presume an intimidation violation when someone displays or carries a visible gun while watching or interacting with covered people. Covered lawsuits would involve voters, people helping voters, and protected election work or current or past election-worker status. Antique guns and realistic imitation guns would count. The person could defeat the presumption with evidence showing that a violation more likely than not did not occur. The police exception would cover official duties; National Guard members would not be exempt, regardless of duty status.
Courts could temporarily limit defendants’ carrying of guns in election intimidation lawsuits. This authority would apply to lawsuits enforcing the voter intimidation rule or the proposed protection for people administering federal elections. Any temporary limits would have to be reasonable. Courts could still consider an on-duty state or local police officer’s gun when deciding whether intimidation occurred.
No hearings or votes scheduled.