PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-893.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 14, 2011
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011 - Amends the Revised Statutes and federal criminal law to prohibit any person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, from knowingly misleading voters regarding: (1) the time or place of holding any federal election, (2) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election, or (3) an endorsement.
Prohibits hindering, interfering with, or preventing another person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another person to vote or register to vote in a federal election.
Creates a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of such prohibition.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the federal criminal code to prescribe criminal penalties for such deceptive acts.
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.
Authorizes any person to report to the Attorney General false election information.
Requires the Attorney General, if receiving a credible report that materially false information has been or is being communicated, to communicate to the public accurate information designed to correct the materially false information if the Attorney General determines that state and local election officials have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate accurate information to correct the materially false information.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-893.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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 S.1994 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 S.1994 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 S.1994 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 S.1994 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.