PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 17, 2008
Caging Prohibition Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit state or local election officials from preventing an individual from registering or voting in any election for federal office, or from permitting a formal challenge under state law to an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote, if the basis for such decision is evidence consisting of: (1) a voter caging document or voter caging list; (2) an unverified match list; (3) an error or omission on voter application or registration documents that is not material to an individual's eligibility to vote; or (4) any other evidence so designated by the Election Assistance Commission.
Defines "voter caging document" as: (1) a nonforwardable document that is returned to the sender or a third party as undelivered or undeliverable despite an attempt to deliver it to the address of a registered voter or applicant; or (2) any document with instructions to an addressee that the document be returned to a sender or third party but is not so returned, despite an attempt to deliver it to the address of a registered voter, unless at least two federal election cycles have passed since the date of the attempted delivery.
Defines "unverified match list" as a list produced by matching the information of registered voters or applicants to a list of individuals ineligible to vote in the registrar's jurisdiction due to death, conviction, change of address, or otherwise, unless one of the pieces of information matched includes a signature, photograph, or unique identifying number ensuring that the information from each source refers to the same individual.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires any private individual who challenges the right of another citizen to vote to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, personal, first-hand knowledge establishing the grounds for ineligibility.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E43)
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 14, 2025. 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.5038 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.5038 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.5038 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.5038 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.