A BILL to amend and reenact § 24.2-1000 of the Code of Virginia, relating to elections; election offenses; intimidation and threats toward election officials; penalty.
HB212 would amend Virginia’s election-offense statute to make it a Class 5 felony for any person who, by bribery, intimidation, threats, coercion, or other unlawful means, willfully and intentionally hinders or attempts to hinder an election official or an employee of an election official from administering elections. The bill keeps the core prohibition in existing law but clarifies and restates the conduct covered, focusing on interference with the administration of elections.
The bill also defines “election official” to include members of the State Board of Elections, the Commissioner of Elections, local electoral board members, general registrars, deputy registrars, and officers of election. It defines “employee of an election official” to include people employed by the Department of Elections or in a general registrar’s office. The fiscal note indicates the measure could increase incarceration or commitment costs, though the exact amount cannot be determined.
HB212 would amend § 24.2-1000 of the Code of Virginia, strengthening and clarifying the criminal penalty framework for interference with election administration. It would affect individuals who threaten, intimidate, bribe, or coerce election officials or their employees, and it would expand statutory clarity around who is protected under the law. Because the bill could increase felony prosecutions and incarceration, it carries potential fiscal impacts for the state correctional system and juvenile justice system.
The available legislative history suggests limited support in committee, but not enough to advance the bill. HB212 failed to report from the House Privileges and Elections Committee by a 5-10 vote, indicating that a majority of committee members opposed moving it forward. No committee transcript or floor debate is provided, so the record shows the outcome more clearly than the underlying arguments.
The main point of contention appears to have been whether the bill was necessary or appropriate as a criminal-law response to election-related interference. Supporters likely viewed it as a safeguard for election workers and election integrity, while opponents likely questioned the need for additional felony penalties or the scope of the conduct covered. The committee vote suggests disagreement over the balance between protecting election officials and avoiding overcriminalization or duplicative penalties.