U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and state officials gathered Friday in Hartford to discuss the introduction of legislation at the state and federal levels meant to prevent “ICE intimidation” at polling places.
“No voter should ever feel threatened or intimidated while they're exercising their very most precious constitutional right, which is the right to vote for our leaders,” said Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz, who previously served as Connecticut’s secretary of the state, the state’s highest ranking elections official.
The elected leaders seized on comments made by Steve Bannon, an ally of President Donald Trump, that “we’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November.”
“It's an abomination to think that the president and his minions, including Mr. Bannon, would go around and try to intimidate voters all across this country,” Larson said.
Larson said he was introducing a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives meant to prevent the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the military to polling locations.
“Since when do we need the military at our town halls, at our libraries, and at our elementary schools? People have the right to vote,” Larson said. “What they're trying to do is intimidate people from coming to vote by having armed personnel at our polling places.”
Larson’s proposed legislation would criminalize the authorization of such a use of federal law enforcement or the military.
State Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D-Stamford), House chair of the General Assembly’s Government Administration and Elections Committee, said his colleagues in the state legislature were also introducing similar legislation.
“Federal officials are not immunized from general criminal laws,” Blumenthal said. “States can prosecute federal officials for violating state law.”
Blumenthal said the bill would criminalize federal immigration officials from conducting law enforcement or “other activities” within 250 feet of polling places without a court order and the permission of the secretary of the state and Connecticut attorney general.
“If they violate that provision, they would be subject to criminal prosecution,” Blumenthal said. “I don't see any legitimate reason why they should be [making arrests] near an election site or a polling location, when they can very easily figure out a better place to take that person into custody.”
