18 U.S.C. § 594
Intimidation of voters
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1929–2025 · leading case: United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 241 ; interference with the right to vote, 18 U.S.C. § 594 ; attempts to intimidate or command any employee of the federal government to engage or not engage in political activity, 18 U.”
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952). “"; 18 U. S. C. § 594 , Intimidation of voters: ".”
Hall, Sheryl L. v. Clinton, Hillary R., 285 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Hall further alleges that she “expressed reservations about whether the project complied with the Hatch Act,” 18 U.S.C. §§ 594 et seq., and that she was thereafter “assigned only menial tasks and was excluded from projects in which she previously had been involved and for which…”
United States Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973). “During the 1967 hearings before the Commission on Political Activity the then Chairman of the Civil Service Commission noted that "one man's coercion is another man's persuasion," and that "in an employer/employee relationship, the extent of voluntaryism tends to be rather…”
Inland Steel Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949). “There, the favor bestowed by Congress was governmental employment, and an employee had the choice between accepting the favor and foregoing his right to engage in political activity, or in declining the governmental favor and exercising such right.”
Hall v. Clinton, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2001). “Hall alleges that after she complained that this practice violated the Hatch Political Activity Act, 18 U.S.C. § 594 et seq, defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and others conspired to force her out of her job.”
Koller v. Brown, 224 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “For his argument based on the federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 594 , he has not provided authority explaining why it applies to the votes of electors, and if it does, why it supersedes the plenary grant to the states in Article II, § 1.”
Pub. Interest Legal Found., Inc. v. Bellows, 92 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2024). “§ 20704 (prohibiting the Attorney General from disclosing - 37 - certain voter registration records); 18 U.S.C. § 594 (authorizing prosecution for intimidating, threatening, or coercing another person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote);…”
Holley v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1970). “It is perfectly clear that the United States Supreme Court found adequate justification for a requirement which would preclude participation in political campaigns in the interest of saving the employees against political retaliation and providing job security.”
James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967). “§ 1971 (b) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 594 . 7 . It is urged that the appellee Lee and his confederates were acting under color of custom or usage.”
Jones v. Bd. of Control, 131 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1961). “There, the highest Court sustained the constitutionality of the so-called Hatch Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 594 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A. § 118i et seq.”
United States v. Frederick G. Norton, 808 F.2d 908 (1st Cir. 1987). “§ 593 (armed forces interference with rights of suffrage) 18 U.S.C. § 594 (intimidation of voters) *912 18 U.”
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.