The Vote Without Fear Act adds a new §935 to chapter 44 of title 18, creating a federal crime for knowingly possessing or causing a firearm to be present in, or within a short perimeter of, a building used for administering polling places or for processing or counting ballots in federal elections. The offense is subject to enumerated exemptions and an enhanced penalty where the firearm is possessed with intent that it be used in a crime.
This bill federalizes a layer of protection around places where election administration and ballot counting occur, giving prosecutors a specific tool aimed at deterring intimidation and violence at polling locations and ballot-processing facilities. The statute’s exemptions and drafting choices (measurement from an entrance, a vehicle-storage carve-out, and a definition tied to employees engaged in election work) will drive how enforcement, signage, and election administration practices change on the ground.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends federal firearms law to create a new offense targeting unauthorized firearm possession at locations where federal elections are administered or ballots are processed and counted. It establishes two penalty tiers: a baseline offense and an elevated offense when the firearm is intended for use in a crime, and it lists several exemptions.
Who It Affects
Election officials and ballot-processing facilities, local election administrators who operate polling places in buildings, voters and poll workers, federal/state/local law enforcement, and private security contractors retained by building owners.
Why It Matters
The statute gives federal authorities a clear, venue-specific criminal charge to address armed presence near election administration activities — a change that may alter how jurisdictions manage polling-place security, signage, and interactions with armed individuals near election sites.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new section into federal firearms law that makes it a crime to knowingly have a firearm in, or within a specified perimeter of, a place where federal election work occurs — specifically where a government employee is administering a polling place or processing or counting ballots. The core elements the prosecution must prove are knowledge of the firearm’s presence and that the defendant knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, the location was a federal election site.
The statute creates a baseline criminal penalty for the offense and a higher penalty tier if the firearm is possessed with the intent that it be used in the commission of another crime. It also lists clear exceptions: on-duty law enforcement and private security hired by the building owner or manager are excluded; the bill provides a limited vehicle-storage exception that allows a firearm to remain in a vehicle near an entrance so long as it is not removed or brandished; and it permits otherwise lawful possession on private property, in residences, or in places of business even if those locations fall within the site perimeter.The bill defines “Federal election site” narrowly: a building or any part of a building where an employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision is engaged in running a polling place or in processing or counting ballots for a federal election.
The statute cross-references existing homicide statutes if a killing occurs in the course of an attack related to the new offense and includes a clerical table-of-sections update to place the new §935 in chapter 44.Practically, the text pushes election administrators and building owners to coordinate on who may be recognized as authorized security, how to mark or measure protected perimeters, and how to notify the public. Prosecutors will need to prove knowledge or reasonable cause regarding the site’s status and whether a defendant intended the firearm for criminal use to secure the enhanced penalty.
The vehicle and private-property carve-outs and the requirement that an employee be engaged in election work will be central to both prosecutions and defenses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new §935 to chapter 44 of title 18 making it a crime to knowingly possess or cause a firearm to be present in, or within 100 yards of, an entrance to a Federal election site.
The baseline offense is punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine under federal law.
The statute exempts on-duty federal/state/local law enforcement and private security hired or arranged for by the owner or manager of the building where the election site is located.
A vehicle exception allows a firearm to be present within 100 yards if it is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is within that zone.
The bill increases the penalty to up to 5 years imprisonment if the firearm is possessed with intent that it be used in the commission of a crime; killings in the course of such an attack are prosecuted under existing federal homicide statutes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the law as the “Vote Without Fear Act.” This is purely nominal but anchors references in reports and regulations. It signals the bill’s policy focus on protecting election-related sites from armed presence.
New baseline offense for unauthorized firearm possession at a Federal election site
Creates the primary criminal element: a person 'knowingly' possessing or causing a firearm to be present in, or within 100 yards of an entrance to, a place the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a Federal election site, or attempting to do so. Prosecutors must prove (1) possession or causation; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the firearm’s presence; and (3) the defendant’s knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the location was a covered election site. The 100-yard perimeter and knowledge/reasonable-cause standard are both fact-intensive elements that will shape charging decisions and evidentiary strategies.
Exemptions: law enforcement, private security, vehicle, and private-property carve-outs
Lists four categories of exemption: on-duty law enforcement (federal, state, local); private security guards hired or arranged by the building owner/manager, provided they are authorized to carry; firearms kept in a vehicle within the perimeter so long as not removed or brandished; and otherwise lawful possession in residences, places of business, or on private property even if they lie within the perimeter. Each carve-out narrows the statute’s reach but raises enforcement questions: how to verify a security guard’s authority in the field, how to treat mixed-use properties where private businesses and election administration co-exist, and how to enforce the 'not removed or brandished' requirement for vehicles.
Enhanced penalty for intent and homicide cross-reference
Subsection (b) imposes a higher penalty — up to 5 years — when the firearm is possessed with intent that it be used to commit a crime, creating an intent-based mental-state enhancement. Subsection (c) ensures that killings that occur in the course of a violation or attack are handled under existing federal homicide provisions (sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117), signaling that ordinary murder and manslaughter law applies and that the offense can be an aggravating context for federal homicide prosecutions.
Definition of 'Federal election site' and placement in U.S. Code
Defines the covered location as a building or part of a building where a government employee is engaged in administering a polling place or processing/counting ballots for federal elections — the definition ties liability to the presence of government employees performing election duties rather than to any manner of event labeled 'election-related.' The bill also amends chapter 44’s table of sections to add §935, clarifying the statute’s location in federal firearms law for future reference and enforcement.
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
- Election workers and poll workers — The law provides a federal offense specifically tied to places where they perform duties, creating a prosecutable avenue aimed at deterring armed intimidation in buildings where they administer or process ballots.
- Voters who cast ballots at staffed polling places — The statute is designed to reduce the likelihood of armed presence inside and immediately adjacent to buildings used for polling and ballot processing, increasing perceived and actual safety.
- Federal and state prosecutors seeking a precise charge — The new section gives prosecutors a venue-specific statute to bring charges that directly reference election-site protection, simplifying framing of cases involving armed presence near election operations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private gun owners who lawfully carry to or near polling-site buildings — They must navigate the vehicle exception and private-property carve-outs or risk federal prosecution; the rule will likely require behavioral changes (e.g., leaving firearms at home or in locked vehicles) and could produce inadvertent violations.
- Local election administrators and building owners — They may face new responsibilities to identify authorized security, coordinate with law enforcement, post notices, and manage access to spaces where employees perform election work; these operational burdens can require staff time and potential legal consultation.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors — The statute will increase the investigatory and prosecutorial workload for incidents near election sites, including proving knowledge and reasonable-cause elements, and will require training on the rule’s perimeter, exemptions, and interaction with state firearms laws.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the law seeks to protect election administration and those who carry out or use it from armed intimidation, but doing so through a federal firearms prohibition risks collateral restriction of lawful gun possession, complex enforcement queries (measurement, knowledge, exemptions), and friction with state firearms regimes — a trade-off between immediate public-safety aims and the legal/operational costs of imposing a new federal perimeter-based offense.
The statute packs several implementation and doctrinal knots. First, the 100-yard measurement from an 'entrance' is a bright-line distance on paper but messy in practice: who measures, from which entrance on multi-entrance facilities, and how to handle adjoining sidewalks, private parking lots, or mixed-use buildings?
Second, the mens rea formulations — 'knows' and 'reasonable cause to believe' — create a hybrid proof regime that will produce disputes over what the defendant actually knew versus what a reasonable person should have known about a site's status. Third, the vehicle and private-property exceptions are practical accommodations but risk hollowing out the rule in settings where people can lawfully keep firearms inside nearby residences or businesses, or in vehicles parked just outside the protected perimeter.
The bill’s focus on buildings where an 'employee' is engaged in election tasks narrows coverage relative to statutes that protect polling places more broadly, but it also raises questions about volunteer-run polling locations, private contractors performing ballot processing, and temporary facilities. Finally, the statute overlays state concealed-carry regimes and local election regulations; that interplay creates the potential for preemption disputes and messy on-the-ground enforcement choices for officers who must balance conflicting legal authorities while managing voters and public safety.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.