Potential Challenges to a President’s Attempt to Deploy
Law Enforcement to the Polls on or Around Election Day
August 2020
During an interview on Fox News on August 20, 2020, President Trump threatened to send law
enforcement to the polls on Election Day to prevent purported voter fraud, stating: “We’re
gonna have everything. We’re gonna have sheriffs and we’re gonna have law enforcement and
we’re going to have hopefully U.S. Attorneys . . . .”
If President Trump, his campaign, or other actors were actually to follow through on this threat,
they would violate federal law and threaten a free and fair election. As described below, several
legal authorities might be relevant to any attempt to deploy state, local, or federal law
enforcement to polling places.
The President Has No Authority Over State and Local Law Enforcement
As a preliminary matter, under the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism, the
president has no authority over state and local law enforcement, including sheriffs. He cannot
order them to the polls or anywhere else.
Moreover, federal law prohibits state and local employees operating “in connection with any
activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States” from
using their official authority for the purpose of “interfering with or affecting” a presidential or
congressional election. The punishment is a fine or up to a year in prison, or both. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 595.
Finally, a number of states have their own laws prohibiting law enforcement either from
entering a polling place unless called there by election officials, or from interfering with an
election. See, e.g., California Elec. Code § 18544; Georgia Code Ann. § 21-2-593; Minnesota Stat.
Ann. § 204C.06, Subd. 6; New Mexico Stat. Ann. § 1-12-5; South Carolina Code Ann. § 7-13-160;
Tennessee Code Ann. § 2-7-103.
Federal Laws Specifically Prohibit Election Interference by Federal Officials
Several provisions of federal law prohibit (and punish) election interference by federal
employees, federal law enforcement, and the military.
18 U.S.C. § 592—Prohibits both military and armed federal law enforcement from being
present at the polls. Specifically, the statute prohibits officers in the military “or other person in

 the civil, military, or naval service of the United States” from bringing or keeping “any troops or
armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be
necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” The punishment is a fine or up to five
years in prison, or both, as well as disqualification from holding federal office.
18 U.S.C. § 593—Prohibits members of the military from interfering in the election, including
by intimidating voters or interfering with election officials. Specifically, the statute prohibits “an
officer or member of the Armed Forces” from preventing or attempting to prevent “by force,
threat, intimidation, advice or otherwise” any qualified voter from fully exercising his or her
rights at any general or special election. It also prohibits members of the military from
attempting to “prescribe or fix” in any way the qualifications of voters at any election in any
state, or from interfering with “an election officer’s discharge of his duties.” The punishment is a
fine or up to five years in prison, or both, as well as disqualification from holding federal office.
18 U.S.C. § 595—Prohibits federal employees from using their official authority to interfere
with the election. Specifically, the statute prohibits any “person employed in any administrative
position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof” from using their official
authority for the purpose of “interfering with or affecting” a presidential or congressional
election. The punishment is a fine or up to a year in prison, or both.
Law Enforcement Activity at the Polls May Violate Voter Intimidation Laws
Sections 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and 131(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, codified at 52
U.S.C. § 10307(b) and § 10101(b), broadly prohibit all forms of voter intimidation by private
and government actors, including law enforcement. In fact, courts have long recognized that the
presence of law enforcement officials or poll watchers wearing official-seeming clothing in
polling places for ballot security operations can illegally intimidate voters. See, e.g., Democratic
Nat’l Committee v. Republican Nat’l Committee, 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 579-80, 610-613 (D.N.J.
2009).1
The Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (clause 3), also prohibits conspiracies to “prevent
by force, intimidation, or threat” any lawful voter from supporting or advocating for any
candidate in a presidential or congressional election. To the extent that the federal
government—or the Trump campaign—works in concert with state or local law enforcement to
intimidate voters, it likely would violate this statute and be subject to civil legal liability.
Finally, a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 594, also prohibits voter intimidation by any
person in connection with a presidential or congressional election. The punishment is a fine or
up to a year in prison, or both.

See also, e.g., United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967) (local sheriff’s department engaged
in a series of actions that, together, constituted a pattern of voter intimidation); United States v. Wood,
295 F.2d 772, 781-82 (5th Cir. 1961) (law enforcement activity against voting rights organizer violates §
131(b)); United States v. Clark, 249 F. Supp. 720, 728 (S.D. Ala. 1965) (law enforcement activity against
Black voters and voting rights organizers violates § 131(b)).
1

2

 Election Interference by Law Enforcement May Violate the Constitution
A decision by the president to order law enforcement to the polls may also violate the First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Fifth Amendment requires that elections be fundamentally fair and that government
officials not use their official powers over the electoral process to influence the outcome in a selfinterested fashion. As a result, any decision by President Trump to utilize his official powers to
enlist federal or state law enforcement to intimidate voters or otherwise manipulate the outcome
would violate eligible voters’ right to vote in a fundamentally fair election. See, e.g., League of
Women Voters of Florida v. Scott, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1311, 1317 (N.D. Fl. 2018) (observing that if
an executive “ordered [law enforcement] to investigate” alleged voter fraud, “then a . . . case
could be made for unconstitutional intimidation”); Joyner v. Browning, 30 F. Supp. 512, 514
(W.D. Tenn. 1939) (finding it unconstitutional for the governor to use “State troops to carry out
his boast of stopping the voting by local voters in Shelby County and to terrorize them”).
The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments also require federal and state officials to use their
law enforcement powers in a non-partisan, non-arbitrary fashion, and prohibit the vindictive
use of those powers against political opponents or in retaliation for constitutionally protected
activities such a political speech, association, and voting. “[T]he power of government” cannot
be “brought to bear . . . merely because a powerful . . . official harbors a malignant animosity.”
Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F.3d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1995). As a result, if President Trump’s
“motivation” for using law enforcement “was an unconstitutional one—e.g., if the reason for
[doing so] was to to chill the exercise of” constitutional rights, that too would violate the
Constitution. United States v. Vazquez, 145 F. 3d 74, 82 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (otherwise lawful acts done
for an unlawful motive are unconstitutional).

3