Skip to content

How to Use This Guide

This resource is written for several distinct audiences. The recommended reading paths below identify the pages most relevant to each.

New to this topic?

Readers who are new to the subject may begin with the Polling Place Law — Overview section, which provides a summary of the federal and state law analyzed elsewhere on the site.

Municipal Officials

Objective: Determine the scope of municipal authority under the state's home rule framework, identify relevant state preemption statutes, and locate model ordinance language.

Recommended reading:

  1. The relevant state profile — Section 1 (legal framework) sets out whether the municipality operates under home rule or Dillon's Rule and identifies any state preemption statutes.
  2. Section 3 of the state profile — Cities with Home Rule Authority.
  3. The Federal Governance Framework, Part V ("Implications for a Municipal Ordinance").
  4. Section 2 of the state profile — statute-localization kit — when drafting ordinance language with municipal counsel.

Tier 3 states

Tier 3 states — including Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Iowa — have enacted anti-sanctuary statutes with penalties for local officials. Tennessee SB 6002 (2025) imposes criminal penalties. The 50-State Home Rule and Preemption Analysis contains the applicable analysis; independent state-law counsel is appropriate in each of these jurisdictions.

Wisconsin and Connecticut (Tier 2)

Wisconsin's 2017 anti-sanctuary statute and comprehensive firearms preemption (Wis. Stat. § 66.0409) impose material constraints. The Wisconsin profile analyzes a "police operational directives" framing. Connecticut is subject to explicit election preemption under CGS § 7-192a; the Connecticut profile analyzes a federal-law compliance framing.

Objective: Statutory authority, preemption analysis, and pre-election injunctive relief.

Recommended reading:

  1. ICE at Polling Places — Federal Law — statutory text and analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 592 and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), including application to ICE agents, Department of Justice manual guidance, and limitations of the statutes.
  2. The Supremacy Clause — anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, Murphy v. NCAA) and preemption taxonomy.
  3. Insurrection Act Analysis — analysis of the interaction between the Insurrection Act and 18 U.S.C. § 592, as informed by Trump v. Illinois (December 23, 2025).
  4. Ballot Security Injunction History — DNC v. RNC consent decree (1982–2017), the absence of reported modern prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 592, and subsequent injunction cases including CAIR v. Atlas Aegis (2020) and NCBCP v. Wohl (2020).

Preemption framing

The principal preemption defense analyzed on this site is that a municipal ordinance of this type implements 18 U.S.C. § 592 rather than conflicting with it. An ordinance withholding local resources from armed federal personnel at polling places reinforces a federal criminal prohibition; this framing is relevant to both express and obstacle-conflict preemption analyses.

Civic Organizations

Objective: Identify the jurisdictions in which municipal authority is available, and the state-level organizations active in each state.

Recommended reading:

  1. 50-State Home Rule and Preemption Analysis — state-by-state classification of home rule authority and preemption statutes, with a directory of relevant organizations.
  2. Section 4 of each state profile — Relevant Legal and Civic Organizations, with contact information and organizational descriptions.
  3. The Minnesota and Wisconsin profiles, which include state-specific municipal-authority analyses.
  4. The "Key Contacts" sections of each state profile, which identify contacts for state election-administration offices.

Terminology

In states with anti-sanctuary statutes, including Tier 3 states and certain Tier 1 states, the terminology "election integrity," "voter protection," and "polling place security" is more precise than the terminology "sanctuary." The substantive legal content is unaffected; the choice of terminology is relevant to preemption analyses that turn on statutory scope.

Residents

Objective: Understand the federal and state law applicable to polling places, voter rights, and the procedures available on election day.

Recommended reading:

  1. Factual Record: Federal Statements and Deployments — factual summary of federal statements and the January 2026 Minnesota deployment.
  2. Voter Rights Under Federal and State Law — federal and state statutory protections, with contact information for reporting procedures.
  3. 18 U.S.C. § 592 and Related Statutes — Plain Language Summary — summary of the applicable federal statutes in non-technical language.
  4. Municipal Authority and Ordinance Frameworks — overview of municipal legal authority under state home rule frameworks.
  5. Election Day: Legal Rights and Reporting Procedures — voter rights and reporting procedures on election day.

Accessibility

The pages in the Polling Place Law — Overview section present the same legal analysis set out in the Legal Framework and State Legal Profiles sections, in summary form and without extensive footnoting.

Tier Classification

Tier Label Definition Approximate Count
Tier 1 Strong Home Rule Authority Constitutional or charter home rule; no state statute preempting local regulation of law-enforcement presence at polling places 16–18 states
Tier 2 Limited or Conditional Home Rule Home rule authority is statutory, conditional, or subject to specific procedural requirements ~10 states
Tier 3 Dillon's Rule or Preemption Constraints Dillon's Rule jurisdictions, or states with anti-sanctuary or related preemption statutes ~23 states

The tier classification is a starting point. Several Tier 3 states — Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (Tier 2) — are the subject of state-specific legal analysis in the 50-State Home Rule and Preemption Analysis.