Connecticut Democrats are advancing legislation that would bar ICE agents from operating within 250 feet of polling places, ballot counting sites, and other sensitive election locations. Online, reaction to the concept has been divided.
The proposal, introduced through the legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee, would make it a state crime for federal agents to conduct enforcement activity within that perimeter without judicial authorization or coordination with state officials. Supporters say the measure is aimed at preventing voter intimidation ahead of the 2026 midterms.
On Reddit’s r/Connecticut, where a CT Post story about the bill drew hundreds of comments and more than 900 upvotes, many users argued the buffer zone doesn’t go far enough.
“They shouldn’t be within a mile of polling places,” wrote one Hcommenter. Another added, “250 ft is not enough. Should be at least a quarter mile to prevent them from harassing people in line.”
Some took it further. “Should be the whole state,” one user wrote, while another quipped, “250 miles? because that would be great!”
Others questioned ICE’s broader role, with several commenters criticizing the Department of Homeland Security, which was created in 2003. “It’s ridiculous that DHS which was created to deal with terrorism is now a catch-all unaccountable federal police force,” one user argued. Another added bluntly, “They shouldn’t exist at all.”
Concerns about intimidation were a recurring theme. One commenter speculated about potential photo collection at polling places, claiming rumors suggested voters’ images could be taken and stored in federal databases. But that claim quickly drew pushback from other users.
“Literally who said that?” one respondent asked, dismissing the speculation as unfounded. Another wrote, “Rumors! If you use social media or video chat, your face is already in their systems.”
Not everyone saw the need for the legislation in the first place.
“Why the concern? We’re told that illegals can’t and don’t vote,” one commenter wrote. “There shouldn’t be any reason for ICE to want to go there if that were true.”
Another echoed that sentiment more directly: “If you’re going to a voting place, I’d like to assume you’re a legal citizen.”
Supporters of the bill counter that the issue isn’t illegal voting, but the chilling effect federal enforcement presence could have on eligible voters, particularly in immigrant communities. As one Reddit user put it: “Local town police are more than sufficient to protect the safety of voters.”
Whether the 250-foot restriction survives Connecticut’s short legislative session remains uncertain. But if online reaction is any indication, the proposal has already become a talking point in a wider debate over immigration enforcement, election integrity, and the balance between perception and proof.
