This bill amends federal election law to make it unlawful to communicate materially false information about the time, place, manner of voting, or voter eligibility when done with knowledge of falsity and the intent to prevent or impede voting for federal offices. It adds a targeted prohibition on using artificial intelligence systems — including generative AI — to produce such false information when used with that intent.
Enforcement is both civil and criminal: the measure creates a private right of action for injunctive relief and discretionary attorney’s fees, adds a misdemeanor penalty (up to one year imprisonment) to federal criminal law, directs the Sentencing Commission to review guidelines, and gives the Attorney General authority to issue corrective communications and report deceptive-practice allegations to Congress.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 52 U.S.C. 10101(b) to prohibit knowingly false communications about voting logistics or eligibility within 60 days of federal elections and bars using AI to produce such falsehoods when intended to suppress votes. It also amends 18 U.S.C. 594 to criminalize those deceptive acts and expands civil remedies.
Who It Affects
Targeted actors include individuals and groups that create or distribute election-related misinformation (including operators of generative-AI tools), social-media users and organizers who disseminate false voting information, and state and local election officials who must respond. Platforms and civic tech vendors will face new compliance and legal risk exposure.
Why It Matters
The measure establishes a federal backstop against narrowly targeted voter suppression through deception, creates DOJ authorities to correct public misperceptions, and fills a statutory gap left after appellate rulings that narrowed conspiracy-based prosecutions for election disinformation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a two-part statutory prohibition in the federal election code. First, it bars anyone from communicating (or producing for communication) materially false information about the time, place, manner of an election or about voter qualifications — including false statements about criminal penalties or registration status — within 60 days before a federal election, when the speaker knows the statement is materially false and intends to impede or prevent someone from voting.
Second, it separately prohibits the use of an artificial intelligence system, including generative AI, to produce that same class of false information within the same 60-day window if the actor intends both to produce false information and to use it to block voting.
To enforce these rules the bill layers remedies: it creates a private right of action allowing an aggrieved person to seek injunctive or other preventive relief in federal court and authorizes the court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff. At the same time it amends the criminal code to make materially false, vote-suppressing communications a crime punishable by fines and up to one year in prison, and it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review applicable guidelines within 180 days of enactment.The Department of Justice receives an affirmative role.
If DOJ gets a credible report of materially false information and determines state or local officials have not adequately corrected it, the Attorney General may communicate accurate corrective information to the public by any means reasonably likely to reach the affected audience; DOJ must publish internal procedures and deadlines for taking such corrective action within 180 days and is authorized to receive appropriations for this work. After each general federal election the Attorney General must report allegations received, investigative status, corrective actions taken, referrals, and information about civil and criminal cases, subject to exclusions for privileged or investigative materials.The bill also makes narrow but consequential changes elsewhere: it amends the Voting Rights Act to add ‘‘payments for not voting’’ to the list of prohibited payments, and it expands the National Voter Registration Act’s prohibition on intimidation to explicitly cover threats to those processing, scanning, tabulating, canvassing, or certifying votes.
Finally, the text clarifies that an ‘‘election described’’ covers general, primary, runoff, or special elections for President, Vice President, electors, Senators, Representatives, and territorial Delegates or Resident Commissioners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The core prohibition applies only within 60 days before a federal election and targets materially false information about the time/place/manner of voting or voter qualifications (including registration status and penalties).
The statute requires dual mens rea for civil and criminal liability: the speaker must know the information is materially false and intend to impede or prevent someone from voting.
The bill adds a distinct ban on using artificial intelligence — including generative AI models as defined by the National AI Initiative Act — to produce election-related falsehoods when the actor intends both to create false information and to use it to suppress votes.
Violations become a federal misdemeanor under amended 18 U.S.C. 594: a conviction can carry up to one year in prison and/or fines, and the Sentencing Commission must review and, if appropriate, adjust sentencing guidelines within 180 days.
The Attorney General can step in when states or localities don’t correct materially false information: DOJ must adopt written procedures within 180 days, may publish corrective communications aimed at the affected audience, and must file post-election public reports compiling allegations and actions taken.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional findings and constitutional basis
This section collects historical examples and legal rationales that frame congressional authority to act, citing targeted misinformation campaigns, foreign influence operations, and prior court decisions. Practically, these findings serve to justify the bill under Article I and the 14th/15th Amendments and to signal that the statute targets intentional deception rather than broad categories of political speech.
Prohibition on deceptive communications and AI-specific clause
This is the bill’s substantive core: it inserts a multi-paragraph prohibition into the federal voting statute. It forbids materially false communications about election mechanics or voter eligibility when sent within 60 days of a covered federal election and when the sender both knows the falsity and intends to impede voting. It creates an AI-specific prohibition that bars the use of AI systems (including generative models) to produce such information when the actor intends both to use AI to create falsehoods and to use those falsehoods to prevent voting. The section also defines the covered elections and imports the statutory definition of 'artificial intelligence' from the National AI Initiative Act.
Private lawsuits for preventive relief
The bill expands the private cause of action in 52 U.S.C. 10101 to allow any person aggrieved by a violation to seek injunctive or other preventive relief in federal court; courts may, in their discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs. The broadened text is designed to let private litigants obtain rapid court intervention to block ongoing misinformation campaigns and to shift litigation costs toward successful challengers.
Adds misdemeanor penalties and sentencing review
Amendments to 18 U.S.C. 594 create a criminal offense for deceptive acts that suppress voting, carrying up to one year imprisonment and fines. The bill instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend federal guidelines for these offenses within 180 days, and explicitly authorizes the Commission to use emergency amendment procedures, signaling Congressional intent for rapid calibration of sentencing.
Adds 'payments for not voting' to VRA prohibitions
The bill amends section 11(c) of the Voting Rights Act to add payments for not voting to the list of prohibited inducements. This is a narrow, targeted change that brings certain vote-suppression inducements squarely within the VRA’s existing civil-enforcement structure.
DOJ authority to correct materially false public statements
If DOJ receives a credible report of materially false information and determines that state/local officials have not adequately corrected it, the Attorney General must — under written procedures to be published within 180 days — communicate accurate, narrowly tailored corrective information to the public by means reasonably calculated to reach the affected audience. The provision requires DOJ to limit corrective communications to the facts necessary to rebut the falsehood and forbids messaging designed to favor or disfavor any candidate or party.
Post-election reporting, expanded plaintiffs, and protection for tabulation processes
DOJ must compile and publicly release post-general-election reports summarizing allegations of deceptive practices, investigative status, corrective actions, referrals, and related civil/criminal actions, subject to exclusions for privileged or investigative material. The bill clarifies that 'any person aggrieved' includes election officers responsible for preventing intimidation and gives DOJ express authority to publicize the unlawfulness of proscribed conduct if state/local officials fail to act. It also amends the NVRA to criminalize intimidation aimed at ballot processing, tabulation, canvass, or certification activities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters in targeted communities — particularly racial, ethnic, and language minorities — who face narrowly targeted misinformation campaigns; the law provides federal remedies and corrective communications aimed at restoring accurate voting information.
- State and local election officials who receive additional federal support and a statutory backstop (DOJ corrective authority and post-election reporting) to counter misinformation they cannot or do not correct quickly.
- Voting-rights and voter-protection organizations who gain an expanded statutory basis for injunctive suits and a federal reporting record that can document patterns of targeted deception.
- Election workers and canvassers, who receive explicit statutory protection from intimidation during ballot processing, tabulation, canvass, and certification activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals and groups that produce or disseminate targeted election disinformation — they face civil injunctions, discretionary fee exposure, and possible criminal charges up to one year in jail.
- Technology providers and AI vendors whose tools are used to generate targeted false election content — they may face legal risk, increased compliance demands, and pressure from civil plaintiffs and enforcement authorities.
- State and local election offices, which must act promptly to correct materially false information (or risk DOJ intervention) and may incur extra operational and communications costs to rebut targeted disinformation.
- Judicial and DOJ resources — broader private enforcement and the requirement for DOJ to investigate reports and publish corrective communications and reports will increase caseloads and administrative burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute balances two legitimate aims—protecting the franchise against targeted deception and preserving robust political speech—but achieving both is difficult: aggressively policing false statements narrows space for public discourse and risks federal overreach or partisan perception, while a deliberately narrow criminal and civil standard can leave some harmful, disruptive misinformation legally actionable only with great difficulty.
The bill aims at intentionally deceptive and vote-suppressing speech, but several practical and legal implementation questions remain. Proving the required mens rea—both knowledge of material falsity and intent to impede voting—will often be fact-intensive and may be difficult in fast-moving online environments where messages amplify rapidly.
The AI clause compounds that challenge: prosecutors and civil plaintiffs must show not only that an AI system produced false content but that the defendant both intended the system to create false information and intended to use it to obstruct voting. That dual-intent test narrows some overbroad application but raises evidentiary hurdles.
The Attorney General’s corrective-authority provision places DOJ in the role of public corrector of misinformation. That function helps voters but risks perceived politicization when federal corrective messaging overlaps with election-specific controversies; the bill attempts to constrain this by requiring accuracy, narrow tailoring, and a ban on partisan design, but operationalizing those limits will be sensitive.
Also unresolved are standards for what counts as a 'credible report' and how DOJ determines that state or local officials have 'not taken adequate steps.' Finally, the private-right-of-action expansion could produce a surge of litigation seeking quick injunctions during election windows, with courts balancing urgent remedial needs against First Amendment protections for some false political speech.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.