PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 18, 2007
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to make it unlawful for anyone before a federal election to knowingly communicate, or attempt to communicate, false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote.
Increases from one year to five year's imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend the federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any offense under this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes any person to report to the Attorney General false election information or intimidation of voters.
Requires the Attorney General, immediately after receiving such a report, to consider and review it and, if there is a reasonable basis to find that a violation has occurred, to: (1) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the false information; (2) refer any pertinent matter to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for prosecution; and (3) refer the matter to the appropriate federal and state authorities for criminal prosecution or civil action after the election.
Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the feasibility of providing such corrective information through public service announcements, the emergency alert system, or other forms of public broadcast.
Requires the Attorney General to establish a Voting Integrity Task Force to carry out the requirements of this Act with respect to any general, primary, run-off, or special election for federal office.
People & committees
Rep. Emanuel, Rahm [D-IL-5] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7043-7044)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7043-7044)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1281.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7043-7048)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 61.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-101.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-101.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.1281 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.1281 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.1281 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.1281 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.