April McClain Delaney (D-MD)
Democracy Without Intimidation Act
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Democracy Without Intimidation Act" aims to prohibit troops at the polls. It amends title 18 of the United States Code to remove the exception that allowed force unless necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States. The bill also updates laws regarding the prosecution of violators by United States attorneys, marshals, and other officers. Additionally, it directs district courts to increase the number of United States magistrate judges to facilitate speedy arrests and examinations. Finally, it establishes a private right of action for individuals aggrieved by violations of section 592.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to vote?
The bill protects voters from intimidation by prohibiting troops at the polls and removing the exception for using force against perceived enemies.
- Scored +6
Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice?
By establishing a private right of action and expedited judicial review, the bill provides more robust protections for those attempting to vote.
- Scored +5
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Protecting the integrity of polling places through the removal of military presence can disproportionately benefit minority communities targeted by intimidation.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Legal Recourse for Aggrieved Individuals: Any individual who suffers from a violation of section 592 of title 18, United States Code, can bring a civil action for injunctive relief against a covered person (Section 2(d)(1)).
-
Faster Judicial Process: The bill mandates that district courts and the Supreme Court must advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of actions brought under the private right of action provision (Section 2(d)(3)).
-
Increased Judicial Capacity: District and territorial courts are directed to increase the number of United States magistrate judges to provide a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and examination of persons charged with certain crimes (Section 2(c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Removal of Force Exception: The amendment to section 592 of title 18 removes the language that allowed for force when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States (Section 2(a)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Protecting the integrity of polling places through the removal of military presence can disproportionately benefit minority communities targeted by intimidation. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill enhances protections for all citizens attempting to exercise their voting rights without fear of military interference. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Securing voting rights against military presence provides additional protections for Hispanic voters. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill provides broader legal recourse to protect the voting rights of all citizens. Would men be better off under this? — The bill enhances the security of the democratic process for all voters regardless of gender. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Removing the exception for using force helps ensure more secure voting environments for Native American communities. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill secures the voting process for all citizens by limiting the potential for military intimidation. Would women be better off under this? — The bill enhances the security of the democratic process for all voters regardless of gender.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — The bill protects voters from intimidation by prohibiting troops at the polls and removing the exception for using force against perceived enemies. Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — By establishing a private right of action and expedited judicial review, the bill provides more robust protections for those attempting to vote.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill mandates that courts advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of actions brought under the new private right of action. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill creates new legal pathways to hold federal law enforcement officials accountable for intimidation at the polls.
- 10/19/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Brittany PettersenDemocrat · Colorado
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey