Schumer, Jeffries and party groups say "Federal law explicitly forbids voter intimidation and stationing armed federal agents at polling places"
Senate Democratic Leader, in a joint statement with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the DSCC, DCCC and Democratic Governors Association chairs
“We are taking strong, joint legal action to block Donald Trump’s threats to deploy federal agents, including ICE and FBI agents, to polling places this November. … Federal law explicitly forbids voter intimidation and stationing armed federal agents at polling places.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
DSCC's posting of a joint statement from Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene and Democratic Governors Association Chair Andy Beshear after the suit was filed.
Original text
About this source
The plaintiffs' complaint. It names ICE, acting ICE director David Venturella, DHS, Secretary Mullin, the FBI and FBI Director Patel, and asserts claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Voting Rights Act. The complaint states the plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.
Before the quotation
Schumer, Jeffries, the DSCC, the DCCC and the Democratic Governors Association filed suit in federal court in Washington on September 23.
After the quotation
The complaint names ICE, DHS, Secretary Mullin, acting ICE director David Venturella, the FBI and FBI Director Kash Patel.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The fixed reference point is the administration's stated or threatened use of ICE at or near polling places. The statement announced legal action to block threatened deployments and said federal law forbids stationing armed federal agents at polling places, which expressly rejects the practice. It set no condition, so mixed or conditional does not fit.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Donald Trump
Should ICE and other armed federal agents be allowed at or near polling places in the 2026 election?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseNAACP
“We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent … The Voting Rights Act prohibits intimidation tactics that stand to deny and deter voters from exercising their voice and their rights.”Read statement
“I have not seen any operational plans or any discussions on any immigration enforcement operation at polling places. This is another fear tactic. This is another attack on ICE and this administration. … I want to put that to bed. There is no plan to sweep polling places looking for illegal aliens.”Read statement
League of United Latin American Citizens
“The question before the court is not about immigration. It is whether the federal government may post armed officers between a citizen and the voting booth. Congress answered that question in 1865, and the answer was no. Our vote is our voice, and LULAC will not stand by while any administration, of any party, tests whether that voice can be quieted.”Read statement