BANDERA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CLUB

Voting Rights Act, section 11, which prohibits intimidation or coercion of voters — and here, the law doesn’t even require proof of intent. If the effect of the conduct is to intimidate voters, that’s enough to violate the law. The ICE to polling Stations contains threats, by high level officials that have the power to effectuate ICE agents to poling places, threaten to have ICE agents at polling places. Is this enough of an intimidation to be considered illegal? This threat could keep legal voters away from the polls. Yes. Under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the kind of high‑profile threat you describe can itself qualify as unlawful intimidation, even before any ICE agent actually shows up at a polling place.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf Why threats alone can be enough - Section 11(b) prohibits anyone from intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or attempting to do so, any person for voting or attempting to vote, “whether acting under color of law or otherwise.” It does not require proof of intent to intimidate; it is enough that the effect of the conduct is reasonably intimidating to voters.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf - Courts and leading voting‑rights organizations interpret this to cover advance threats and public statements, not just conduct at the polls. If a reasonable voter would feel deterred from voting because a powerful actor promises to deploy armed immigration agents at polling sites, that is within the statute’s scope.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf How this applies to the ICE statements - In your memo, Bannon’s statements openly call for ICE to “surround the polls” and for military deployment at polling places, and White House and DHS officials pointedly refuse to rule out such deployment.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf - These are not idle comments by random individuals; they come from a former senior White House official and are echoed by current federal officials who have authority (or influence) over ICE operations, which makes the threat credible and therefore more intimidating to reasonable voters, especially in immigrant and mixed‑status communities.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf - Your attached memo correctly notes that under Section 11(b), the attempt to intimidate is independently unlawful and that the chilling effect created by these public threats and non‑denials can itself be actionable, even if no actual deployment occurs.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf Putting it together Taken together, (1) the effect‑based standard of Section 11(b), (2) the explicit calls to place ICE and even military units at polling places, and (3) the credible power of the speakers to influence federal enforcement are enough, as a matter of legal theory and in the view of groups like the Brennan Center, to argue that these threats constitute illegal voter intimidation or an unlawful attempt to intimidate voters.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf The key factual question in any specific case would be: can you show that a reasonable voter (especially in the targeted communities) would be deterred or chilled by these threats from exercising the right to vote? If so, Section 11(b) provides a strong basis to argue that the conduct is unlawful even before Election Day.ICE_Polling_Places_Legal_Memo-copy-2.pdf Would you like help drafting a short Section 11(b) argument paragraph you can drop directly into litigation or an administrative complaint?