Skip to content

How to Talk to Your Neighbors About This

The most effective messengers are not websites or organizations — they are trusted community members. People listen to their neighbors, friends, coworkers, and family. This page helps you have those conversations.

Why Your Voice Matters

Research consistently shows that peer-to-peer communication is the most effective form of political persuasion. A conversation with someone you know and trust carries far more weight than a news article, a social media post, or an ad.

You do not need to be an expert. You need to be informed, honest, and willing to listen. This page gives you the facts and the framing to have productive conversations with different types of people.

Three Conversations, Three Audiences

Different people have different concerns. Here are conversation guides tailored to the three most common audiences you'll encounter.

Conversation 1: The Worried Voter

Who they are: Someone who has heard about this and is already concerned — maybe anxious, maybe angry, maybe feeling helpless.

What they need: Reassurance that protections exist, and clear action steps.

How to approach it:

"I know this is scary. Here's what I want you to know: federal law has prohibited armed agents at polling places since 1865. That law is still on the books, and there are people working right now to make sure it's enforced. Here's what we can actually do about it..."

Key points to hit:

  • You have the right to vote, and that right is protected by federal law
  • There are specific things you can do: know your rights, document any problems, report to the Election Protection Hotline (866-OUR-VOTE)
  • Cities can pass ordinances to formalize these protections — and you can help push for one
  • You are not alone — 64% of voters are concerned about this, including across party lines

What to share: Your Rights at the Polling Place and Election Day Action Plan

Conversation 2: The Skeptical Voter

Who they are: Someone who thinks this is overblown — "that'll never actually happen" or "you're being dramatic."

What they need: Facts, not emotion. Show them it is already happening.

How to approach it:

"I hear you — I wish it were just a hypothetical too. But let me tell you what's already happened..."

Key points to hit:

  • It already happened in Minnesota. In January 2026, 3,000+ federal agents deployed to Minneapolis-St. Paul. A state election was disrupted. Campaigns stopped canvassing because residents were too scared to open their doors.

  • It's in their own words. Steve Bannon said publicly: "You're damn right we're gonna have ICE surround the polls come November." The president said he wants to "nationalize the voting" and "take over" in specific cities. The White House press secretary was asked directly if she could guarantee agents wouldn't appear at polls. Her answer: "I can't guarantee an ICE agent won't be around a polling place."

  • The numbers don't lie. 64% of voters — including 45% of Republicans — believe this deployment will happen. An academic study found police at polls reduced Black voter turnout by 32%. This is not speculation; it is measurable.

  • Even if you think it won't happen, preparation costs nothing. Knowing your rights and having a reporting plan doesn't hurt anyone. It's like wearing a seatbelt — you hope you won't need it.

Conversation 3: The Conservative Voter

Who they are: Someone who supports law enforcement, may support the current administration, and is skeptical of anything that sounds anti-ICE or pro-immigration.

What they need: Constitutional framing, not partisan framing. This is about federalism and election integrity — values that cross party lines.

How to approach it:

"This isn't about being for or against ICE. This is about who gets to run our elections. Let me ask you a question: do you think the federal government should be able to force our city to use its police and resources for a federal operation — without our city having any say in it?"

Key points to hit:

  • This is about the Constitution, not immigration. The Constitution gives states and cities the power to run elections. The president has no constitutional authority over election administration. When the federal government tries to force local governments to do its bidding, that is a violation of the same anti-commandeering principle that conservatives have championed for decades.

  • Conservative Supreme Court justices wrote the key rulings. Printz v. United States (1997) — written by Justice Scalia — held that the federal government cannot force local officials to carry out federal programs. Murphy v. NCAA (2018) — written by Justice Alito — extended this principle. These are not liberal rulings. They are the foundation of conservative federalism.

  • This law was signed by a Republican president. 18 U.S.C. § 592 was signed by President Lincoln. The idea that armed federal agents should not be stationed at polling places is not a partisan position — it is an American one.

  • Election integrity means free elections. If you believe in election integrity, you should believe that voters should be able to cast their ballots without being intimidated by armed agents — whether those agents are federal, state, or private.

  • 45% of Republicans agree this is a concern. Nearly half of Republican voters believe this deployment will happen. This is not a fringe issue.

Avoid these words

When talking with conservative-leaning neighbors, do not use the word "sanctuary" in connection with these ordinances. Instead, use "election integrity," "voter protection," or "polling place security." The substantive content is identical — the framing makes a significant difference in how the message is received. See the site's terminology strategy for more guidance.

Key Facts and Talking Points

Print this or save it to your phone. Every fact below is sourced from the site's legal documents.

The law:

  • Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 592) has prohibited armed federal agents at polling places since 1865 — signed by President Lincoln
  • Penalty: up to 5 years in prison and permanent disqualification from federal office
  • The DOJ's own manual confirms this law applies to armed federal agents at election sites
  • The Voting Rights Act prohibits voter intimidation based on effect alone — no proof of intent required

The threat:

  • President Trump stated he wants to "nationalize the voting" and "take over" in specific cities (February 2, 2026)
  • Steve Bannon stated: "You're damn right we're gonna have ICE surround the polls" (February 3, 2026)
  • White House Press Secretary Leavitt: "I can't guarantee an ICE agent won't be around a polling place" (February 6, 2026)
  • 3,000+ federal agents deployed to Minneapolis-St. Paul (January 2026), disrupting a state election

The numbers:

  • 64% of voters believe the administration will deploy ICE agents to polls — including 81% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, 45% of Republicans (Data for Progress, Feb 2026)
  • 56% of voters support blocking ICE enforcement at polling locations
  • Police presence at Alabama polls was associated with a 32% reduction in Black voter turnout (Niven study, University of Cincinnati)

The constitutional principle:

  • The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force cities to participate in federal programs (Printz v. United States, 1997; Murphy v. NCAA, 2018)
  • States and cities run elections — the president has no constitutional operational role
  • "Refusing to help is not the same as impeding" (U.S. v. California, 9th Circuit)

Shareable Resources

Here is what you can share with people after a conversation:

Terminology Dos and Don'ts

The way you frame this issue matters as much as the facts you share.

DO say DON'T say
"Election integrity" "Sanctuary" (in connection with these ordinances)
"Voter protection" "Anti-ICE"
"Polling place security" "Resistance"
"Constitutional rights" "Defund" or "abolish" anything
"Federal law enforcement" (specific and neutral) "Jackbooted thugs" or similar inflammatory language
"Anti-commandeering doctrine" (if your audience wants specifics) Any framing that sounds like general opposition to law enforcement

Why this matters: The goal is to protect polling places, not to win a culture war argument. Framing this as an election integrity issue — which it genuinely is — makes it accessible across political lines. Framing it as anti-law-enforcement alienates potential allies and plays into opponents' narratives.

Hosting a Community Event

If you want to go beyond one-on-one conversations, consider organizing an informational session in your community:

Format suggestions:

  • "Know Your Rights" workshop — Partner with a local attorney or ACLU affiliate to explain voters' rights at the polls
  • Community town hall — Invite a local election official, an attorney, and a community organizer for a panel discussion
  • Neighborhood coffee — A smaller, informal gathering where people can ask questions
  • Faith community briefing — Many churches, mosques, and synagogues have civic engagement programs

What to cover:

  1. The threat: what is happening and why it matters (15 minutes)
  2. The law: what protections exist (15 minutes)
  3. Action steps: what people can do right now (15 minutes)
  4. Q&A (as long as it takes)

Resources to provide:

  • Printed copies of the talking points above
  • The Election Protection Hotline number: 866-OUR-VOTE
  • Link to this guide for people who want to read more
  • Sign-up sheet for people who want to get involved with local advocacy

How to Push Your City Council to Act