Body
Democratic-led states are moving to protect polling places from federal immigration enforcement efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, with New Mexico becoming the first to enact a specific restriction on armed federal personnel at vote sites. The steps are driven by distrust of the Trump administration among officials in states that have faced immigration actions while warning that federal agents could intervene at polling locations.
New Mexico’s law bars orders that place any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, beginning with early voting. The measure takes effect in May and will apply to the state’s June 2 primary, and it also sets a legal pathway for challenges, including civil lawsuits in state court if people experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel.
New Mexico also framed the policy as a defense of state election authority. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her distrust of the Trump administration’s approach to election oversight stems from Justice Department efforts to obtain detailed state voter data without explaining why and from Trump’s continued claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Lujan Grisham said during a news conference, “Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” and she added, “We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility.” She also said the Constitution makes clear that states run elections, calling a separate push for new voting proof-of-citizenship requirements “painfully” re-confirming that point.
Officials in other Democratic-led states have proposed similar limits while weighing how to handle federal power claims. In Virginia, lawmakers were considering legislation that would prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of a polling place or courthouse, though the polling-place provision remained under negotiation. Connecticut lawmakers were also considering a bill, with Matt Blumenthal saying state action is intended to prevent interference and intimidation at vote sites.
Blumenthal, the co-author of a Connecticut state bill that would establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention, said in comments supporting the bill: “The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” adding, “And we’re not going to let that happen.”
The federal administration has rejected the premise that immigration agents would show up at polling locations. The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations, and DHS’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, told secretaries of state the claim is “simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year. In Congress, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol previously told a committee “No, sir” when asked whether they had plans to guard polling places.
Despite those denials, a group of eight secretaries of state said they want written assurances from Markwayne Mullin, Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, pressing for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.” The push comes as some Democratic officials argue that federal law already allows armed federal forces to election locations only in limited circumstances, while they remain concerned that a broader deployment could still be used to disrupt voting.
Legal limits are also a central part of the debate inside New Mexico’s legislature and in other states considering similar changes. The AP reported that any state measures meant to counter federal election law face hurdles under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which provides that federal law supersedes state law. Richard Hasen of the UCLA School of Law said the situation could produce “a direct clash between state governments and the federal government,” and he cautioned that “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”
New Mexico’s bill passed with opposition from Republicans in the minority legislature. During floor debate, state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer said he would question why such a measure was needed “other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” while Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Katy Duhigg said it was “better safe than sorry with democracy” and that the bill could provide local law enforcement a “tool” if the federal government tries to interfere.
Blumenthal also said some actions, such as seizures of ballots or other election materials, might not be preventable through the proposed state limits on federal presence. He pointed to an example reported to have included an FBI search of an election center in Fulton County, Georgia, while saying there could still be an opportunity for state legal challenges through the attorney general’s office or the secretary of state’s office.