18 U.S.C. § 593

Interference by armed forces

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, being an officer or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, prescribes or fixes or attempts to prescribe or fix, whether by proclamation, order or otherwise, the qualifications of voters at any election in any State; or

Whoever, being such officer or member, prevents or attempts to prevent by force, threat, intimidation, advice or otherwise any qualified voter of any State from fully exercising the right of suffrage at any general or special election; or

Whoever, being such officer or member, orders or compels or attempts to compel any election officer in any State to receive a vote from a person not legally qualified to vote; or

Whoever, being such officer or member, imposes or attempts to impose any regulations for conducting any general or special election in a State, different from those prescribed by law; or

Whoever, being such officer or member, interferes in any manner with an election officer’s discharge of his duties—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit or trust under the United States.

This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the Armed Forces from exercising the right of suffrage in any district to which he may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State of such district.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1943–2001 · leading case: Laird v. Tatum

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Laird v. Tatum (1972) scotus · cites it 2× “" 18 U. S. C. § 593 : "Whoever, being an officer or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, prescribes or fixes or attempts to prescribe or fix, whether by proclamation, order or otherwise, the qualifications of voters at any election in any State; or "Whoever, being…”

McNabb v. United States (1943) scotus “327 , 341, 18 U. S. C. § 593 , which provides that when arrests are made of persons in the act of operating an illicit distillery, the arrested persons shall be taken forthwith before some judicial officer residing in the county where the arrests were made, or if none, in the…”

United States v. Bowens (2000) ca4 “, 18 U.S.C. § 593 (officer or member of the armed forces who “prevents or attempts to prevent .”

Bey v. State (2001) mdctspecapp “The Court stated that requiring the police to “immediately” bring an arrested person before a judicial officer constitutes an important safeguard — not only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in securing conviction of the guilty by methods that commend themselves…”

United States v. Donald A. Broadhead (1969) ca7 “327 , 341, 18 U.S.C. § 593 , which provides that when arrests are made of persons in the act of operating an illicit distillery, the arrested persons shall be taken forthwith before some judicial officer residing in the county where the arrests were made, or if none, in the…”

United States v. Frederick G. Norton (1987) ca1 “§ 372 (conspiracy to impede or injure officer) 18 U.S.C. § 593 (armed forces interference with rights of suffrage) 18 U.”

Outten v. State (1967) fladistctapp “§ 595 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 593 , 5 U.S.C.A. § 300a, any confession obtained or derived from the defendant was inadmissible in evidence.”

Miller v. Hiatt (1944) ca3 “§ 595 , and 18 U.S.C.A. § 593 . In the Mc-Nabb case, however, certiorari was granted to review the affirmance of conviction of second degree murder had in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and sustained by the United States Circuit Court of…”

United States v. Klee (1943) waed “18 U.S.C.A. § 593 . At this point I wish to detour for a moment to discuss the word, “immediately.”

United States v. Ruhl (1944) wyd “§ 300a, *643 which requires that “the person arrested shall be immediately taken before a committing officer,” and also makes reference to the Act of Congress of March 1, 1879, 18 U.S.C.A. § 593 , which provides that when arrests are made of persons in the act of operating an…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.