For whatever reason (ie, "stop the illegals from voting!"), will ICE be deployed in a meaningful fashion to or around polling stations during the 2026 midterm elections?
Resolution criteria
The 2026 midterm elections are scheduled for November 3, 2026. This market resolves YES if ICE is deployed in a meaningful fashion to or around polling stations on or immediately before Election Day. "Meaningful" means visible, coordinated presence that could reasonably be characterized as enforcement operations targeting polling locations—not incidental encounters or routine operations unrelated to voting sites.
Resolution will be determined by credible reporting from major news outlets, election monitoring organizations, or official statements from election officials, DHS, or ICE confirming deployment. Isolated incidents or unverified social media claims do not constitute meaningful deployment. The market resolves NO if no such deployment occurs.
Update 2026-01-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that deployment must feel like a concerted effort to suppress polling stations, not just a single isolated incident. While no exact number of polling stations is specified, the deployment must be substantial enough to be characterized as such by news reports.
Update 2026-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): ICE is being used as shorthand for the current administration's immigration-related enforcement forces. The following agencies would also count toward resolution:
CBP (Customs and Border Protection)
Other DHS agencies
National Guard (when deployed for immigration enforcement purposes)
Update 2026-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided a detailed tier system for evaluating deployment:
Tier 0 - Noise (NO): Social media, anecdotal reports, rumors, unverified claims with nearly nonexistent media coverage
Tier 1 - Isolated Incidents (NO): A small handful of encounters near polling locations that could be plausibly explained as routine or coincidental. Media coverage frames them as isolated/unclear/unrelated
Tier 2 - Localized Patterns (NO): Multiple incidents within a single city or county with mixed reporting on intent ("officials deny")
Tier 3 - Multi-Location Presence (NO):* Multiple states or regions report activity near polling places. Officials deny targeting polls, but some journalists or NGOs raise concerns. Reports use cautious language ("critics say" "may have had a chilling effect"). *Resolves YES only if all parameters are met, which would constitute a greater sum than its individual parts
Tier 4 - Coordinated Deployment (YES): Any of the following triggers this tier:
Major outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, etc.) explicitly describe a coordinated deployment near polling locations
Election monitoring organizations characterize the activity as a concerted effort affecting polling access
State or local officials confirm coordinated enforcement tied to polling sites
Tier 5 - Official Acknowledgment (YES): White House, DHS, CBP, National Guard, or other relevant agencies openly acknowledge deployment. Internal memos or directives clearly indicate action. Court filings/official testimony confirm it.
1,000People are also trading
@EvanDaniel I've just been using ICE as a shorthand for the current administration's immigration-related paramilitary force - so, yes, they would count.
@digory I would argue it has to feel like a concerted effort to suppress polling stations. I don't have a way of giving you an exact number, but if news reports are strong enough, that should suffice.
@Vandell There's a good chance that this market will start swinging wildly back and forth anticipating how you personally will judge this after isolated news stories come out, if they do. Be careful when this happens -- this administration likes to play coy with resolution criteria like this. It may be very difficult to make a judgement call.
@Quroe Here is the scaling tiers for what I would/wouldn't accept:
• Tier 0 - Noise (NO)
Social media, anecdotal reports, rumours, unverified claims. Media coverage is nearly nonexistent about it.
• Tier 1 - Isolated Incidents (NO)
A small handful of encounters near polling locations. Could be plausibly explained as routine or coincidental. Media coverage might exist about it, but it clearly frames them as isolated/unclear/unrelated.
• Tier 2 - Localized Patterns (NO)
Multiple incidents within a single city or country with mixed reporting on intent ("officials deny").
• Tier 3 - Multi-Location Presence (NO*)
Multiple states or regions report activity near polling places. Officials deny targeting polls, but some journalists or NGOs raise concerns. Reports use cautious language ("critics say" "may have had a chilling effect").
• Tier 4 - Coordinated Deployment (YES)
Any of the following will trigger this tier: Major outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, etc.) explicitly describe a coordinated deployment near polling locations. Election monitoring organizations characterize the activity as a concerted effort affecting polling access. State or local officials confirm coordinated enforcement tied to polling sites.
• Tier 5 - Official Acknowledgment (YES)
White House, DHS, CBP, National Guard, et al, openly acknowledge deployment. Internal memos or directives clearly indicate action. Court filings/official testimony confirm it.
*Unless all parameters are met in this tier, which feels like a greater sum than its individual parts.