PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10545 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10545 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10545 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10545 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act would prohibit threats, intimidation, and coercion against people administering federal elections, including former participants. In lawsuits, visibly carrying or displaying real or imitation firearms during specified election-related interactions would create a presumption of intimidation that the person could rebut with evidence. State and local police acting within their official duties would be exempt from that presumption. Courts could impose reasonable temporary firearm-carrying limits on defendants.
This Act may be cited as the Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act.
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties to administer Federal elections
or because of the person’s status, or previous status, as a participant in the administration of Federal elections.
a person shall be presumed to have violated such section, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence, if such person displays or carries a visible firearm, imitation firearm, or antique firearm
Any State or local law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s official duties is not subject to the presumption in subsection (a)
a court may grant appropriate relief, including placing reasonable temporary limits on the carrying of firearms by defendants.
Section 2 would prohibit anyone, including someone acting with government authority, from intimidating, threatening, or coercing people for administering federal elections, or attempting to do so. Protection would also cover targeting someone because of their current or former role in federal election administration.
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties to administer Federal elections
or because of the person’s status, or previous status, as a participant in the administration of Federal elections.
Protected work would expressly include counting and totaling votes, reviewing election returns, certifying results, and carrying out the Election Assistance Commission’s duties under the cited provision of the Help America Vote Act.
including vote counting, tabulation, canvassing, and election certification, and any of the duties of the Election Assistance Commission as set out in section 202 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20922)
Section 2 would remove references to sections 6 and 9 from the existing voter-intimidation provision, insert the new election-administration protection as subsection (c), and renumber the following subsections. The supplied text does not explain the substantive effect of removing those references.
(1) in subsection (b), by striking section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e) and inserting section 3(a), 8, 10, or 12(e); (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: (c)
In lawsuits enforcing the voter-intimidation provision, displaying or visibly carrying a firearm, imitation firearm, or antique firearm while interacting with or observing specified people would create a presumption of a violation. Those people include voters, people attempting to vote, people urging or helping them, and people performing duties under the listed statutory sections. The person accused could overcome the presumption by showing that a violation more likely than not did not occur.
In any suit to enforce section 11(b), a person shall be presumed to have violated such section, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence, if such person displays or carries a visible firearm, imitation firearm, or antique firearm while interacting with or observing another person— (A) voting or attempting to vote; (B) urging or aiding a person voting or attempting to vote; or (C) exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 8, 10, or 12(e).
The same rebuttable presumption would apply in lawsuits enforcing the new election-administration protection. It would cover displaying or visibly carrying the specified weapons while interacting with or observing someone performing election-administration duties, or because of that person’s current or former participation in election administration.
In any suit to enforce section 11(c), a person shall be presumed to have violated such section, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence, if such person displays or carries a visible firearm, imitation firearm, or antique firearm while interacting with or observing another person— (A) exercising any powers or duties to administer elections; or (B) due to the person’s status, or previous status, as a participant in the administration of elections.
State and local law enforcement officers acting within their official duties would be exempt from the firearm presumption. This would not exempt them from the underlying intimidation provisions: courts could still consider their firearm possession when deciding whether they violated those provisions.
Any State or local law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s official duties is not subject to the presumption in subsection (a), but a court may nonetheless consider a law enforcement officer’s possession of a firearm in determining whether the officer violated subsection (b) or (c) of section 11.
The law enforcement exception would not exempt National Guard members from the presumption, regardless of their duty status, including when serving under a governor’s command.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as exempting a member of the National Guard from the presumption in subsection (a), regardless of such member’s duty status, including service while under the command and control of the governor of a State.
Courts hearing lawsuits under either intimidation provision could grant appropriate remedies, including reasonable temporary limits on defendants carrying firearms. The bill would permit, rather than require, these limits.
In a suit to enforce subsection (b) or (c) of section 11, a court may grant appropriate relief, including placing reasonable temporary limits on the carrying of firearms by defendants.
The bill would use existing federal definitions of firearms and antique firearms, which are not reproduced in the bundle. Its definition of an imitation firearm would cover objects or prop guns reasonably capable of being mistaken for firearms. It expressly includes certain realistic air- or spring-powered weapons that can injure people with projectiles smaller than three-eighths of an inch, and realistic weapons designed to fire blanks.
(1) The term antique firearm has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code. (2) The term firearm has the meaning given such term in section 921(a)(3)(A) of title 18, United States Code.
means an article, object or device, replica, reproduction, or prop gun made or remade to be reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm
any weapon, article, item, or device that is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol, or other weapon in which the propelling force is a spring, an elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, or air or compressed air, and that ejects a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter with sufficient force to injure a person that is so substantially similar in coloration, configuration, and overall appearance to an existing firearm or weapon as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm or weapon
any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to fire blank cartridges that is so substantially similar in coloration, configuration, and overall appearance to an existing firearm or weapon as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm or weapon.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 24, 2026. It does not establish any subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T18:54:18Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill’s election-intimidation subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains a narrow exception to the proposed evidentiary presumption. Classification identifies special treatment without judging its justification.
State and local law enforcement officers acting within their official duties would receive an exception from the firearm-based presumption of intimidation. Courts could still consider their firearm possession when deciding whether intimidation occurred, and the exception would not extend to National Guard members.
Any State or local law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s official duties is not subject to the presumption in subsection (a), but a court may nonetheless consider a law enforcement officer’s possession of a firearm in determining whether the officer violated subsection (b) or (c) of section 11.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as exempting a member of the National Guard from the presumption in subsection (a), regardless of such member’s duty status, including service while under the command and control of the governor of a State.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI