PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2009
Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 - Prohibits state or local election officials from preventing an individual from registering or voting (including by provisional ballot) in any election for federal office, or permitting a formal challenge under state law to an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote in a federal election, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of: (1) a voter caging document or voter caging list; (2) an unverified match list; (3) the foreclosure status of the individual's residence; or (4) certain information indicating a change of residence.
Defines "voter caging document" as: (1) any nonforwardable document that is sent to an individual at the address at which such individual is registered (or seeking to become registered) as a voter in a federal election, and that is returned to the sender or to a third party as undelivered or undeliverable; and (2) any document (other than a notice warning of possible removal from the voting rolls) sent to an individual at the address at which such individual is registered containing instructions to return the document to the sender or a third party, but is not so returned.
Defines "unverified match list" as one produced by: (1) matching the identity of registered voters or voter registration applicants with the identity of individuals who are ineligible to vote in the registrar's jurisdiction, by virtue of death, conviction, change of address, mental impairment, or otherwise, unless the process for matching the identities establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the identities belong to the same individual; or (2) failing to match the identity of registered voters or voter registration applicants with the identity of individuals listed in the database of the state motor vehicle authority or in information provided by the Commissioner of Social Security under a verification agreement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Outlines requirements for challenges to an individual's registration or voting eligibility by persons other than election officials.
People & committees
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.528 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.528 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.528 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.528 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.