If you're worried about the November election, there's something important you can do to help: sign up to work at a voting location near you. You don't need experience; you'll get trained. Elections happen because thousands of ordinary people step up and help: www.eac.gov/help-america...
Become a Poll Worker | U.S. Election Assistance Commission
The EAC encourages those interested in becoming poll workers at the polls on Election Day to learn more about what is required and how to sign up to work with your local election office.
eac.gov
![Screenshot from Supreme Court opinion, reading: "CHATRIE v. UNITED STATES
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
Ann. §18.2–152.2 (2021). Altering or making an unauthorized copy of computer data can constitute the crime of “computer trespass” (another property law concept). §§18.2–
152.4(A)(3), (6). And the State provides a right to sue for
anyone “whose property or person is injured” by violations
of the Act (again suggesting a right to exclude). §18.2–
152.12(A).
Nor is Virginia some outlier. In Texas, “computer . . .
data” can constitute “[p]roperty.” Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§33.01(16) (West Cum. Supp. 2025). State law likewise
criminalizes “knowingly access[ing] . . . a computer, computer network, or computer system . . . with the intent to
obtain or use a file, data, or proprietary information” for a
prohibited purpose. §33.02(b–1)(2)(C) (West 2016). Once
more, as well, those whose “property has been injured” by
certain computer crimes may bring a “civil cause of action.”
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §143.001 (West 2019).
Georgia has a similar regime. See Ga. Code Ann. §§16–9–
93(b), (g) (2018) (criminalizing “[c]omputer [t]respass” and
providing a private right of action for such violations). And,
it appears, so do many other States. See Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 14–15, and n. 5 (“Today, more
than half of states . . . treat digital records and data as personal property,” and “[m]any” of them “make it illegal for
private actors to access or convert another person’s digital
data”); see also, e.g., People v. Seymour, 536 P. 3d 1260,
1273 (Colo. 2023) (finding that “law enforcement’s copying
of [the defendant’s] search history meaningfully interfered" Highlighting on sentence mentioning Cato Institute](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:efpytyxmwow5ffwi3dphhrlq/bafkreiatwq3jayhsur7dwjdgigibum3eu6kc5hzzbcdzw67kbj4tofbm4m)
