I 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4894 
To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
AUGUST 5, 2025 
Ms. MCCLELLAN (for herself, Ms. SEWELL, Mr. AMO, Ms. BROWN, Mr. CAR-
TER of Louisiana, Mrs. FOUSHEE, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. 
FIELDS, Mr. FIGURES, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. 
KAMLAGER-DOVE, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mrs. MCBATH, Mrs. MCIVER, 
Mr. MEEKS, Mr. MFUME, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mrs. WATSON 
COLEMAN, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. 
MOULTON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. SIMON, Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, 
Mrs. RAMIREZ, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. PETTERSEN, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. CAR-
SON, Mr. EVANS of Pennsylvania, Ms. NORTON, Mr. THANEDAR, and Mr. 
LYNCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deceptive Practices 
and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2025’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress makes the following findings: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(1) The right to vote by casting a ballot for 
one’s preferred candidate is a fundamental right ac-
corded to United States citizens by the Constitution, 
and the unimpeded exercise of this right is essential 
to the functioning of our democracy. 
(2) Historically, certain citizens, especially ra-
cial, ethnic, and language minorities, were prevented 
from voting because of significant barriers such as 
literacy tests, poll taxes, and property ownership re-
quirements. 
(3) Some of these barriers were removed by the 
15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments to the Constitu-
tion. 
(4) Despite the elimination of some of these 
barriers to the polls, the integrity of today’s elec-
tions is threatened by newer tactics aimed at sup-
pressing voter turnout. These tactics include ‘‘decep-
tive practices’’, which involve the dissemination of 
false or misleading information intended to prevent 
voters from casting their ballots, prevent voters from 
voting for the candidate of their choice, intimidate 
the electorate, and undermine the integrity of the 
electoral process. 
(5) Furthermore, since the decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder in which the Supreme Court 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
struck down the coverage formula used by the Vot-
ing Rights Act of 1965 to determine which States 
with a history of racial discrimination must affirma-
tively receive government permission before changing 
local voting laws, there have been Federal court de-
cisions finding or affirming that States or localities 
intentionally discriminated against African Ameri-
cans and other voters of color. 
(6) Denials of the right to vote, and deceptive 
practices designed to prevent members of racial, eth-
nic, and language minorities from exercising that 
right, are an outgrowth of discriminatory history, in-
cluding slavery. Measures to combat denials of that 
right are a legitimate exercise of congressional power 
under article I, section 4 and article II, section 1 of, 
and the 14th and 15th Amendments to, the United 
States Constitution. 
(7) For the last few decades, there have been 
a number of instances of deceptive or intimidating 
practices aimed towards suppressing minority access 
to the voting booth that demonstrates the need for 
strengthened protections. 
(8) In addition, in at least one instance in 
1990, thousands of voters reportedly received post-
cards providing false information about voter eligi-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
bility and warnings about criminal penalties for 
voter fraud. Most of the voters who received the 
postcards were African American. 
(9) During the 2004 elections, Native American 
voters in South Dakota reported being required to 
provide photographic identification in order to vote, 
despite the fact that neither State nor Federal law 
required such identification. 
(10) In the 2006 midterm elections, thousands 
of Latino voters received mailings warning them in 
Spanish that voting in a Federal election as an im-
migrant could result in incarceration—despite the 
fact that any immigrant who is a naturalized citizen 
of the United States has the same right to vote as 
any other citizen. 
(11) In 2008, fliers were distributed in pre-
dominantly African American neighborhoods falsely 
warning that people with outstanding warrants or 
unpaid parking tickets could be arrested if they 
showed up at the polls on election day. In the same 
year, there were reports of people receiving text mes-
sages on election day asking them to wait until the 
following day to vote. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(12) In 2012, there were reports of voters re-
ceiving calls falsely informing them that they could 
vote via telephone. 
(13) On January 6, 2017, the Office of the Di-
rector of National Intelligence published a report ti-
tled ‘‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in 
Recent U.S. Elections’’, noting that ‘‘Russian Presi-
dent Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign 
in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.’’. 
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian 
messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence 
operation—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts 
by Russian Government agencies, State-funded 
media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social 
media users or ‘‘trolls’’. These influence operations 
included messaging that targeted African American 
voters with misinformation. 
(14) On April 18, 2019, Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller released a report titled ‘‘Report on the In-
vestigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 
Presidential Election’’, which concluded that ‘‘the 
Russian government interfered in the 2016 presi-
dential election in sweeping and systematic fash-
ion.’’. The report details that Russia interfered in 
the 2016 Presidential election principally through 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
two operations: first, through a Russian government 
sponsored social media influence campaign, and sec-
ond, by Russian intelligence ‘‘computer-intrusion’’ 
operations against those associated with both Presi-
dential campaigns. The Mueller Report details how 
Russian agents intentionally targeted Black social 
justice groups and created fake accounts purporting 
to represent Black social justice groups in order to 
spread disinformation and sow division. 
(15) Social media makes the mass dissemina-
tion of misleading information easy and allows per-
petrators to target particular audiences with preci-
sion. One analysis documented hundreds of messages 
on Facebook and Twitter designed to discourage or 
prevent people from voting in the 2018 election. In 
2016, these false statements were extremely preva-
lent with both domestic and foreign actors. Russian 
operatives engaged in a concerted disinformation 
and propaganda campaign over the internet that 
aimed, in part, to suppress voter turnout, especially 
among Black voters. These efforts by the Russian 
Government continued and became more aggressive 
in the 2020 election cycle. 
(16) In 2023, Douglass Mackey was convicted 
for his role in the conspiracy to interfere with poten-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
tial voters’ right to vote in the 2016 Presidential 
election, in violation of section 241 of title 18, 
United States Code. The Department of Justice al-
leged that Mackey conspired with other influential 
Twitter users and with members of private online 
groups to use social media platforms, including 
Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages that en-
couraged supporters of Presidential candidate Hil-
lary Clinton to ‘‘vote’’ via text message or social 
media. However, in 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit reversed Mackey’s conviction 
on the ground that prosecutors had not proven that 
his deceptive conduct was part of a conspiracy. This 
ruling underscores the need for Congress to update 
the law to more effectively protect against voter sup-
pression through deceptive practices, regardless of 
whether it is accomplished through a conspiracy or 
by one bad actor alone. 
(17) During the 2020 Presidential election, 
Texas voters received robocalls stating that the 
Democratic primary would be taking place after its 
actual date. In the same year, communities of color 
in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and New 
York were targeted by robocalls sharing false infor-
mation about how their data would be shared if they 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
voted by mail. Widespread disinformation was tar-
geted at Latino communities in Florida and other 
States, particularly through social media. 
(18) During the 2020 Presidential election, vot-
ers in some precincts faced voter intimidation during 
early voting and on election day. The Election Pro-
tection hotline received nearly 32,000 calls on elec-
tion day. Reports from the Voting Rights Defender 
and Prepared to Vote project teams and the NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., showed 
that minority voters were disproportionately im-
pacted by voter intimidation. Incidents included 
3,000,000 robocalls telling people to stay home on 
election day and armed people at polling sites on 
election day in Florida, North Carolina, and Lou-
isiana. Additionally, election officials, volunteers, and 
electors faced unprecedented intimidation including 
doxxing, death threats, and other intimidating com-
munication. 
(19) Those responsible for these and similar ef-
forts should be held accountable, and civil and crimi-
nal penalties should be available to punish anyone 
who seeks to keep voters away from the polls by pro-
viding false information. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(20) Moreover, the Federal Government should 
help correct such false information in order to assist 
voters in exercising their right to vote without confu-
sion and to preserve the integrity of the electoral 
process. 
(21) The Federal Government has a compelling 
interest in ‘‘protecting voters from confusion and 
undue influence’’ and in ‘‘preserving the integrity of 
its election process’’. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 
191, 199 (1992). 
(22) The First Amendment does not preclude 
the regulation of some intentionally false speech, 
even if it is political in nature. As the Supreme 
Court of the United States has recognized, ‘‘[t]hat 
speech is used as a tool for political ends does not 
automatically bring it under the protective mantle of 
the Constitution. For the use of the known lie as a 
tool is at once at odds with the premises of demo-
cratic government and with the orderly manner in 
which economic, social, or political change is to be 
effected. . . . Hence the knowingly false statement 
and the false statement made with reckless disregard 
of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.’’. 
Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATIONS 
REGARDING FEDERAL ELECTIONS. 
(a) PROHIBITION.—Subsection (b) of section 2004 of 
the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(b)) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘No person’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No person’’; and 
(2) by inserting at the end the following new 
paragraphs: 
‘‘(2) PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE COMMUNICA-
TIONS REGARDING FEDERAL ELECTIONS.— 
‘‘(A) FALSE
STATEMENTS.—No person, 
whether acting under color of law or otherwise, 
shall, within 60 days before an election de-
scribed in paragraph (4), by any means, includ-
ing by means of written, electronic, or tele-
phonic communications, communicate or cause 
to be communicated information described in 
subparagraph (C), or produce information de-
scribed in subparagraph (C) with the intent 
that such information be communicated, if such 
person— 
‘‘(i) knows such information to be ma-
terially false; and 
‘‘(ii) has the intent to impede or pre-
vent another person from exercising the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
right to vote in an election described in 
paragraph (4). 
‘‘(B) USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL IN-
TELLIGENCE.—No 
person, 
whether 
acting 
under color of law or otherwise, shall use an ar-
tificial intelligence system, including a genera-
tive artificial intelligence system, to produce in-
formation described in subparagraph (C) within 
60 days before an election described in para-
graph (4) if such person— 
‘‘(i) has the intent to use the system 
to produce false information; and 
‘‘(ii) has the intent to use the system 
to impede or prevent another person from 
exercising the right to vote in an election 
described in paragraph (4). 
‘‘(C) INFORMATION DESCRIBED.—Informa-
tion is described in this subparagraph if such 
information is regarding— 
‘‘(i) the time, place, or manner of 
holding any election described in para-
graph (4); or 
‘‘(ii) the qualifications for or restric-
tions on voter eligibility for any such elec-
tion, including— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—A person ag-
grieved by a violation of subsection (b)(1) 
shall include, without limitation, an officer 
responsible for maintaining order and pre-
venting intimidation, threats, or coercion 
in or around a location at which voters 
may cast their votes. 
‘‘(ii) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—If the At-
torney General receives a credible report 
that conduct that violates or would be rea-
sonably likely to violate subsection (b)(1) 
has occurred or is likely to occur, and if 
the Attorney General determines that 
State and local officials have not taken 
adequate steps to promptly communicate 
that such conduct would violate subsection 
(b)(1) or applicable State or local laws, the 
Attorney General shall communicate to the 
public, by any means, including by means 
of written, electronic, or telephonic commu-
nications, accurate information designed to 
convey the unlawfulness of proscribed con-
duct under subsection (b)(1) and the re-
sponsibilities of and resources available to 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:25 Oct 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4894.IH
H4894
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS