Mail Voting in the US: Who Uses It and Its Effects, 2016–2026

Mail Voting in the US: Who Uses It and Its Effects, 2016–2026

1. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “The majority of voters in the 2024 general election cast their ballots in person, with 35.2% voting in person before Election Day and 37.4% voting in person on Election Day. ... Mail voting comprised 30.3% of the turnout for the 2024 election, which is down from the high water mark for mail voting seen in 2020 (43%) but still larger than the percentage of the electorate that voted by mail in pre-pandemic elections. ... the level of mail voting in 2024 was still elevated compared to pre-pandemic elections; for both 2016 and 2018, mail voting comprised approximately one-quarter of voter turnout.”Hide quote

   The majority of voters in the 2024 general election cast their ballots in person, with 35.2% voting in person before Election Day and 37.4% voting in person on Election Day. ... Mail voting comprised 30.3% of the turnout for the 2024 election, which is down from the high water mark for mail voting seen in 2020 (43%) but still larger than the percentage of the electorate that voted by mail in pre-pandemic elections. ... the level of mail voting in 2024 was still elevated compared to pre-pandemic elections; for both 2016 and 2018, mail voting comprised approximately one-quarter of voter turnout.

2. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “In the 2016 EAVS, 54.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day, and in the 2018 EAVS, 58.2% of voters did so. In 2020, only 30.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day. ... The percentage of voters who used a mailed ballot to vote surged, from 24.5% in 2016 and 25.6% in 2018 to 43.1% in 2020. ... In 2016, 25.3% of voters cast their ballots early in person, and 22% did so in 2018, compared to 30.6% for the 2020 general election. ... Jurisdiction-level analysis shows that the largest increases in mail voting rates occurred in jurisdictions in states that newly instituted all-mail elections in 2020 and in jurisdictions in states that removed requirements to provide an excuse to request a mailed ballot.”Hide quote

   In the 2016 EAVS, 54.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day, and in the 2018 EAVS, 58.2% of voters did so. In 2020, only 30.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day. ... The percentage of voters who used a mailed ballot to vote surged, from 24.5% in 2016 and 25.6% in 2018 to 43.1% in 2020. ... In 2016, 25.3% of voters cast their ballots early in person, and 22% did so in 2018, compared to 30.6% for the 2020 general election. ... Jurisdiction-level analysis shows that the largest increases in mail voting rates occurred in jurisdictions in states that newly instituted all-mail elections in 2020 and in jurisdictions in states that removed requirements to provide an excuse to request a mailed ballot.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “The use of mail voting decreased for the 2022 general election, at 31.9% of voters, but remains higher than the 25.6% of voters who voted by mail in the 2018 general election. Although use of in-person early voting increased in the 2020 general election to 30.5%, it decreased to 22.2% in the 2022 general election”Hide quote

   The use of mail voting decreased for the 2022 general election, at 31.9% of voters, but remains higher than the 25.6% of voters who voted by mail in the 2018 general election. Although use of in-person early voting increased in the 2020 general election to 30.5%, it decreased to 22.2% in the 2022 general election

4. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06-29 · complicates

   “In 2016, 41.3 percent of all ballots were cast before Election Day. Of the total turnout, 17.2 percent of ballots were cast using in-person early voting and 23.7 percent were cast using by-mail absentee voting.”Hide quote

   In 2016, 41.3 percent of all ballots were cast before Election Day. Of the total turnout, 17.2 percent of ballots were cast using in-person early voting and 23.7 percent were cast using by-mail absentee voting.

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Overview Table 1

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Alabama 5.5% ... Alaska [1] 14.3% ... American Samoa [2] 1.9% ... Arizona [3] 74.7% ... Arkansas 2.1% ... California 80.8% ... Colorado [4] 91.3% ... Connecticut 6.5% ... Delaware 6.5% ... District of Columbia 51.1% ... Florida [5] 26.8% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% ... Guam [7] 0.3% ... Hawaii 92.5% ... Idaho [8] 19.6% ... Illinois [9] 17.8% ... Indiana [10] 53.7% ... Iowa -- ... Kansas 11.0% ... Kentucky 5.6% ... Louisiana [11] 5.9% ... Maine [12] 25.5% ... Maryland 24.6% ... Massachusetts [13] 33.4% ... Michigan 35.4% ... Minnesota 13.7% ... Mississippi [14] -- ... Missouri 5.7% ... Montana [15] -- ... Nebraska [16] 31.8% ... Nevada 44.1% ... New Hampshire 11.2% ... New Jersey [17] 19.2% ... New Mexico 12.0% ... New York 10.0% ... North Carolina [18] 5.2% ... North Dakota 24.0% ... Northern Mariana Islands 7.3% ... Ohio 18.1% ... Oklahoma 6.3% ... Oregon [19] 99.3% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% ... Puerto Rico [21] 10.3% ... Rhode Island 10.0% ... South Carolina 3.8% ... South Dakota 36.6% ... Tennessee 2.8% ... Texas 3.3% ... U.S. Virgin Islands 3.8% ... Utah 91.5% ... Vermont [22] 64.7% ... Virginia 10.5% ... Washington [23] 98.5% ... West Virginia 2.9% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% ... Wyoming 14.1% ... U.S. Total 30.3% ... % Turnout by Mail uses (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100.”Hide quote

   Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Alabama 5.5% ... Alaska [1] 14.3% ... American Samoa [2] 1.9% ... Arizona [3] 74.7% ... Arkansas 2.1% ... California 80.8% ... Colorado [4] 91.3% ... Connecticut 6.5% ... Delaware 6.5% ... District of Columbia 51.1% ... Florida [5] 26.8% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% ... Guam [7] 0.3% ... Hawaii 92.5% ... Idaho [8] 19.6% ... Illinois [9] 17.8% ... Indiana [10] 53.7% ... Iowa -- ... Kansas 11.0% ... Kentucky 5.6% ... Louisiana [11] 5.9% ... Maine [12] 25.5% ... Maryland 24.6% ... Massachusetts [13] 33.4% ... Michigan 35.4% ... Minnesota 13.7% ... Mississippi [14] -- ... Missouri 5.7% ... Montana [15] -- ... Nebraska [16] 31.8% ... Nevada 44.1% ... New Hampshire 11.2% ... New Jersey [17] 19.2% ... New Mexico 12.0% ... New York 10.0% ... North Carolina [18] 5.2% ... North Dakota 24.0% ... Northern Mariana Islands 7.3% ... Ohio 18.1% ... Oklahoma 6.3% ... Oregon [19] 99.3% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% ... Puerto Rico [21] 10.3% ... Rhode Island 10.0% ... South Carolina 3.8% ... South Dakota 36.6% ... Tennessee 2.8% ... Texas 3.3% ... U.S. Virgin Islands 3.8% ... Utah 91.5% ... Vermont [22] 64.7% ... Virginia 10.5% ... Washington [23] 98.5% ... West Virginia 2.9% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% ... Wyoming 14.1% ... U.S. Total 30.3% ... % Turnout by Mail uses (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100.

6. 2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available (CB25-TPS.29)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2025-04-30 · supports

   “Voting methods also varied, with 39.6% of people voting in person on Election Day, 30.7% voting in person before Election Day, and 29.0% voting by mail. ... The Census Bureau has collected voting and registration data since 1964 and has fielded the Voting and Registration Supplement to the CPS every two years.”Hide quote

   Voting methods also varied, with 39.6% of people voting in person on Election Day, 30.7% voting in person before Election Day, and 29.0% voting by mail. ... The Census Bureau has collected voting and registration data since 1964 and has fielded the Voting and Registration Supplement to the CPS every two years.

7. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2023-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (Numbers in thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 121916 49.5 18 31.8 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 7372 54.7 14.6 29.1 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 33798 53.6 15.3 30.3 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 43661 52.7 18.8 27.8 0.8 ... 65 years and over 37086 41 20.3 38.3 0.4 ... Region Northeast 21812 72.1 7.2 20 0.7 ... Midwest 27183 66.1 12.9 20.6 0.4 ... South 43538 50.7 34.9 13.5 0.9 ... West 29383 15.7 5.8 77.9 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (Numbers in thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 121916 49.5 18 31.8 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 7372 54.7 14.6 29.1 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 33798 53.6 15.3 30.3 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 43661 52.7 18.8 27.8 0.8 ... 65 years and over 37086 41 20.3 38.3 0.4 ... Region Northeast 21812 72.1 7.2 20 0.7 ... Midwest 27183 66.1 12.9 20.6 0.4 ... South 43538 50.7 34.9 13.5 0.9 ... West 29383 15.7 5.8 77.9 0.7

8. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2021-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 154628 30.4 26 43 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13752 35.1 24.1 39.9 0.9 ... 25 to 44 years 47512 34.2 25.7 39.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 53646 31.8 28.6 38.9 0.6 ... 65 years and over 39718 22.2 23.6 53.6 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27353 45 12 42.6 0.5 ... Midwest 34210 42 19.9 37.6 0.6 ... South 57064 29.2 46.4 23.6 0.8 ... West 36001 10.1 10.2 79.1 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 154628 30.4 26 43 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13752 35.1 24.1 39.9 0.9 ... 25 to 44 years 47512 34.2 25.7 39.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 53646 31.8 28.6 38.9 0.6 ... 65 years and over 39718 22.2 23.6 53.6 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27353 45 12 42.6 0.5 ... Midwest 34210 42 19.9 37.6 0.6 ... South 57064 29.2 46.4 23.6 0.8 ... West 36001 10.1 10.2 79.1 0.7

9. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 122281 59.6 16.6 23.1 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 8726 60.9 15.1 22.5 1.4 ... 25 to 44 years 34587 64.5 14.2 20.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 45829 61.7 17.6 20.2 0.5 ... 65 years and over 33139 51.2 18.2 30 0.6 ... Region Northeast 21378 90.3 3.1 6.2 0.4 ... Midwest 27696 73.5 11.4 14.6 0.4 ... South 44723 56 33.3 9.7 0.9 ... West 28483 28.5 5.6 65.2 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 122281 59.6 16.6 23.1 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 8726 60.9 15.1 22.5 1.4 ... 25 to 44 years 34587 64.5 14.2 20.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 45829 61.7 17.6 20.2 0.5 ... 65 years and over 33139 51.2 18.2 30 0.6 ... Region Northeast 21378 90.3 3.1 6.2 0.4 ... Midwest 27696 73.5 11.4 14.6 0.4 ... South 44723 56 33.3 9.7 0.9 ... West 28483 28.5 5.6 65.2 0.7

10. Early Voting and Mail Voting: Overview and Issues for Congress (IF11477)

    Congressional Research Service, 2026-07-10 · supports

    “According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of June 2026, all states and the District of Columbia (DC) allowed at least some voters to receive their ballots by mail and 37 states and DC offered some form of no-excuse mail voting. ... Federal law requires all states to allow certain military and overseas voters to use mail voting in federal elections. ... Figure 1. Reported Methods of Voting, 2004-2024 ... Source: CRS, using data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Notes: Respondents were asked whether they voted in person or by mail and, if the former, whether on or before Election Day. Some respondents who received their ballots by mail and returned them in person may have reported voting in person. ... State laws authorizing some soldiers to vote away from home were enacted in the early 1800s, for example, but no-excuse mail voting was not introduced until the late 1970s. ... For example, Oregon began using all-mail elections for all races in 2000 but approved a test of the process for local elections in 1981 and used it for select elections through the 1990s.”Hide quote

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of June 2026, all states and the District of Columbia (DC) allowed at least some voters to receive their ballots by mail and 37 states and DC offered some form of no-excuse mail voting. ... Federal law requires all states to allow certain military and overseas voters to use mail voting in federal elections. ... Figure 1. Reported Methods of Voting, 2004-2024 ... Source: CRS, using data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Notes: Respondents were asked whether they voted in person or by mail and, if the former, whether on or before Election Day. Some respondents who received their ballots by mail and returned them in person may have reported voting in person. ... State laws authorizing some soldiers to vote away from home were enacted in the early 1800s, for example, but no-excuse mail voting was not introduced until the late 1970s. ... For example, Oregon began using all-mail elections for all races in 2000 but approved a test of the process for local elections in 1981 and used it for select elections through the 1990s.

11. Table 18: States With Mostly Mail Elections (with Table 18a, year enacted and year implemented)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-07 · supports

    “Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... California ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 37 ... Colorado ... 2013 | 2014 | HB 1303 ... District of Columbia ... 2022 | 2023 ... Hawaii ... 2019 | 2020 | HB 1248 ... Nevada ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 321 ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative ... Utah ... 2012 (Counties permitted to choose) | 2019 (The first year all counties opted for mostly mail elections) | HB 172 ... Vermont ... (General elections only.) | 2021 | 2022 | SB 15 ... Washington ... 2011 | 2012 | HB 5124”Hide quote

    Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... California ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 37 ... Colorado ... 2013 | 2014 | HB 1303 ... District of Columbia ... 2022 | 2023 ... Hawaii ... 2019 | 2020 | HB 1248 ... Nevada ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 321 ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative ... Utah ... 2012 (Counties permitted to choose) | 2019 (The first year all counties opted for mostly mail elections) | HB 172 ... Vermont ... (General elections only.) | 2021 | 2022 | SB 15 ... Washington ... 2011 | 2012 | HB 5124

12. H.B. 300 Amendments to Election Law (Enrolled Copy), 2025 General Session

    Utah State Legislature, 2025 · complicates

    “for voting by mail: ... until 2029, permits a voter's identity to be verified using signature comparison, if the voter doesn't enter the digits described in the preceding paragraph; ... subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail; provides that a request to receive a ballot by mail remains in effect for eight years unless the voter takes certain action that results in termination of the request”Hide quote

    for voting by mail: ... until 2029, permits a voter's identity to be verified using signature comparison, if the voter doesn't enter the digits described in the preceding paragraph; ... subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail; provides that a request to receive a ballot by mail remains in effect for eight years unless the voter takes certain action that results in termination of the request

13. How We Voted in 2024 (Survey of the Performance of American Elections)

    MIT Election Data + Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

    “Thirty-seven percent of Democrats reported voting by mail, compared to 24% of Republicans. ... In 2022, and then again in 2024, the gap closed somewhat, although this was primarily due to Democrats pulling back in the use of voting by mail rather than Republicans increasing their usage.”Hide quote

    Thirty-seven percent of Democrats reported voting by mail, compared to 24% of Republicans. ... In 2022, and then again in 2024, the gap closed somewhat, although this was primarily due to Democrats pulling back in the use of voting by mail rather than Republicans increasing their usage.

14. New Data: 17.7 Million Americans With Disabilities Voted in 2020, a Significant Increase Over 2016

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-07-07 · supports

    “More than 53% of people with disabilities voted by mail, compared to 42% of people without disabilities. Just 26% of people with disabilities and 31% of people without disabilities voted at a polling place on Election Day. ... 5% of people with disabilities experienced difficulties voting by mail, compared to 18% of those who voted at a polling place.”Hide quote

    More than 53% of people with disabilities voted by mail, compared to 42% of people without disabilities. Just 26% of people with disabilities and 31% of people without disabilities voted at a polling place on Election Day. ... 5% of people with disabilities experienced difficulties voting by mail, compared to 18% of those who voted at a polling place.

15. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “Looking across the columns, we see a stable estimate showing that VBM causes around a 2% increase (estimates range from 2.1 to 2.2%) in the share of the citizen voting-age population that turns out to vote.”Hide quote

    Looking across the columns, we see a stable estimate showing that VBM causes around a 2% increase (estimates range from 2.1 to 2.2%) in the share of the citizen voting-age population that turns out to vote.

16. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “In this specification, we estimate that the Democratic turnout share increases by 0.7% as a result of VBM. ... The inclusion of these trends attenuates the estimates dramatically, to only 0.1%, while also shrinking the standard errors. In the latter two specifications, which are our most precise specifications, even the upper bound of the 95% CI is only about 0.3%, a very small effect.”Hide quote

    In this specification, we estimate that the Democratic turnout share increases by 0.7% as a result of VBM. ... The inclusion of these trends attenuates the estimates dramatically, to only 0.1%, while also shrinking the standard errors. In the latter two specifications, which are our most precise specifications, even the upper bound of the 95% CI is only about 0.3%, a very small effect.

17. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “While the standard errors on these estimates are larger than the standard errors on the turnout share estimates, they continue to suggest modest or null effects, and they are nowhere near the magnitude necessary to represent a major, permanent electoral shift toward the Democratic party.”Hide quote

    While the standard errors on these estimates are larger than the standard errors on the turnout share estimates, they continue to suggest modest or null effects, and they are nowhere near the magnitude necessary to represent a major, permanent electoral shift toward the Democratic party.

18. How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election? (Yoder, Handan-Nader, Myers, Nowacki, Thompson, Wu, Yorgason and Hall)

    Stanford Democracy and Polarization Lab (working paper), 2021-06-25 · supports

    “Focusing on natural experiments in Texas and Indiana, we find that 65-year-olds turned out at nearly the same rate as 64-year-olds, despite the fact that only 65-year-olds could vote absentee without an excuse. Being just old enough to vote no-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout. ... In the first column, we see that the estimated increase in turnout for 65-year-olds, who are eligible to vote absentee without an excuse in Texas, is 0.02 percentage points—i.e., 2 basis points. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (with robust standard errors) for this effect is 0.26 percentage points.”Hide quote

    Focusing on natural experiments in Texas and Indiana, we find that 65-year-olds turned out at nearly the same rate as 64-year-olds, despite the fact that only 65-year-olds could vote absentee without an excuse. Being just old enough to vote no-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout. ... In the first column, we see that the estimated increase in turnout for 65-year-olds, who are eligible to vote absentee without an excuse in Texas, is 0.02 percentage points—i.e., 2 basis points. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (with robust standard errors) for this effect is 0.26 percentage points.

19. How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election? (Yoder, Handan-Nader, Myers, Nowacki, Thompson, Wu, Yorgason and Hall)

    Stanford Democracy and Polarization Lab (working paper), 2021-06-25 · complicates

    “While rates of absentee voting increased by approximately 9.5 percentage points in Texas and 5.3 percentage points in Indiana, rates of early in person voting decreased by roughly 8.8 percentage points in Texas and 3.4 percentage points in Indiana”Hide quote

    While rates of absentee voting increased by approximately 9.5 percentage points in Texas and 5.3 percentage points in Indiana, rates of early in person voting decreased by roughly 8.8 percentage points in Texas and 3.4 percentage points in Indiana

20. Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “In April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 70% of Americans favored allowing any voter who wanted to cast a ballot via mail to do so. This included nearly half of Republicans (49%) and nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%). ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... According to Pew Research Center’s study of validated voters, voters in the 2024 presidential election were roughly equally likely to have voted in person on Election Day (34%), early in person (32%) or by mail (34%). ... In states with universal mail-in voting – like California, Colorado and Nevada, where ballots are mailed to all voters before the election – 73% favor allowing any voter to vote by mail, including 91% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. ... In states where voters can request an absentee ballot for any reason, but ballots aren’t automatically sent to them – like Florida, New York and Pennsylvania – 58% favor allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail. ... In these states, 45% favor allowing anyone to vote by mail, including 22% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.”Hide quote

    In April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 70% of Americans favored allowing any voter who wanted to cast a ballot via mail to do so. This included nearly half of Republicans (49%) and nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%). ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... According to Pew Research Center’s study of validated voters, voters in the 2024 presidential election were roughly equally likely to have voted in person on Election Day (34%), early in person (32%) or by mail (34%). ... In states with universal mail-in voting – like California, Colorado and Nevada, where ballots are mailed to all voters before the election – 73% favor allowing any voter to vote by mail, including 91% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. ... In states where voters can request an absentee ballot for any reason, but ballots aren’t automatically sent to them – like Florida, New York and Pennsylvania – 58% favor allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail. ... In these states, 45% favor allowing anyone to vote by mail, including 22% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.

21. Bipartisan Support for Early In-Person Voting, Voter ID, Election Day National Holiday

    Pew Research Center, 2024-02-07 · supports

    “The Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21 among 5,140 adults, also finds smaller majorities supporting allowing anyone to vote by mail if they want to (57%) ... Today, just 28% of Republicans say any voter should be allowed to vote by mail if they want to. Four years ago, 49% of Republicans said this. An overwhelming share of Democrats (84%) continue to say voting by mail should be available to all voters.”Hide quote

    The Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21 among 5,140 adults, also finds smaller majorities supporting allowing anyone to vote by mail if they want to (57%) ... Today, just 28% of Republicans say any voter should be allowed to vote by mail if they want to. Four years ago, 49% of Republicans said this. An overwhelming share of Democrats (84%) continue to say voting by mail should be available to all voters.

22. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

    Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

    “More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.”Hide quote

    More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.

23. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

    U.S. Census Bureau, 2025-04-30 · supports

    “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (Numbers in thousands, Population 18 and Over) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 154308 39.6 30.7 29 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13150 43.9 28.2 26.3 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 46488 45.2 27.6 26.4 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 51354 41.3 32.8 25.4 0.5 ... 65 years and over 43317 30.2 32.4 36.8 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27119 58.8 19.3 21.3 0.5 ... Midwest 34554 52.5 28.8 18 0.7 ... South 57059 37.3 50.5 11.4 0.8 ... West 35575 16.1 9.6 73.5 0.8”Hide quote

    Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (Numbers in thousands, Population 18 and Over) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 154308 39.6 30.7 29 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13150 43.9 28.2 26.3 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 46488 45.2 27.6 26.4 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 51354 41.3 32.8 25.4 0.5 ... 65 years and over 43317 30.2 32.4 36.8 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27119 58.8 19.3 21.3 0.5 ... Midwest 34554 52.5 28.8 18 0.7 ... South 57059 37.3 50.5 11.4 0.8 ... West 35575 16.1 9.6 73.5 0.8

24. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report, Figure 3

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

    “Source: Election Day turnout was calculated as F1b/F1a x 100 for all years. Mail turnout was calculated as (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100 for all years. In-person early turnout was calculated as F1f/F1a x 100 for all years. ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level (percentages for each mode of voting were calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode were included in the analysis), and because of this, percentages do not sum to 100%.”Hide quote

    Source: Election Day turnout was calculated as F1b/F1a x 100 for all years. Mail turnout was calculated as (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100 for all years. In-person early turnout was calculated as F1f/F1a x 100 for all years. ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level (percentages for each mode of voting were calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode were included in the analysis), and because of this, percentages do not sum to 100%.

25. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws 2016–2026, Table 1 (columns: no-excuse absentee or all-mail elections | excuse required | COVID-19 excuse added for 2020 election)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states”Hide quote

    November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states

26. American Trends Panel Wave 176, August 2025: Final Topline

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online ... ML Allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to Aug 4-10, 2025 34 24 18 24 1 Jan 16-21, 2024 35 23 15 26 1 Apr 7-12, 2020 44 26 13 16 1”Hide quote

    Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online ... ML Allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to Aug 4-10, 2025 34 24 18 24 1 Jan 16-21, 2024 35 23 15 26 1 Apr 7-12, 2020 44 26 13 16 1

Mail Ballot Rejection, Signature Checks and Curing, 2012–2026

1. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “States reported transmitting 66,867,671 mail ballots for the 2024 general election (a decrease of 26.3% over the 90,687,978 mail ballots transmitted for the 2020 general election), of which 47,957,093 were returned by voters, for a rate of 72% of transmitted mail ballots being returned by voters. Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. … The percentage of returned mail ballots that were counted and rejected was not significantly different across these three elections. For the 2024 general election, the percentage of counted and rejected mail ballots was not significantly different when comparing states that conducted an all-mail election at a state level to those that did not. … HAVA expanded and standardized the use of provisional voting as a way for a voter to cast a ballot when their registration status cannot be verified at the time of voting, when there is some indication that the voter may have already cast another ballot (e.g., by mail), or when the voter’s eligibility to vote in an election is challenged.”Hide quote

   States reported transmitting 66,867,671 mail ballots for the 2024 general election (a decrease of 26.3% over the 90,687,978 mail ballots transmitted for the 2020 general election), of which 47,957,093 were returned by voters, for a rate of 72% of transmitted mail ballots being returned by voters. Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. … The percentage of returned mail ballots that were counted and rejected was not significantly different across these three elections. For the 2024 general election, the percentage of counted and rejected mail ballots was not significantly different when comparing states that conducted an all-mail election at a state level to those that did not. … HAVA expanded and standardized the use of provisional voting as a way for a voter to cast a ballot when their registration status cannot be verified at the time of voting, when there is some indication that the voter may have already cast another ballot (e.g., by mail), or when the voter’s eligibility to vote in an election is challenged.

2. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Chapter 1, Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature … Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% Other reason not listed 18.1% Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% Ballot envelope did not have a witness signature 5.6% Voter did not provide the required documentation (e.g., identification, affidavit, statement) or documentation was incomplete 4.4% Ballot was not placed in a required secrecy envelope 3.7% Voter was not eligible to cast a ballot in the jurisdiction 3.4% Envelope was not sealed 2% Voter was deceased 1.5% Ballot was missing from the envelope 1.1% Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9% Ballot was returned in an unofficial envelope 0.4% No resident address was on the envelope 0.2% Multiple ballots were returned in one envelope 0.2% No ballot application on record 0% … Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%. … About two-fifths of the mail ballots that were rejected for this election were rejected for this reason. … The states with the highest percentage of mail ballots rejected for other reasons were Oregon (96.1%), Idaho (65.1%), Ohio (41.5%), Wisconsin (38.6%), Virginia (37.4%), and Arizona (37.1%). Other common reasons for rejection reported in the data descriptions included “All signature issues,” “Neither returned undeliverable nor returned by the voter,” multiple issues with a single mail ballot, and the rejection reason not being specified.”Hide quote

   Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature … Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% Other reason not listed 18.1% Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% Ballot envelope did not have a witness signature 5.6% Voter did not provide the required documentation (e.g., identification, affidavit, statement) or documentation was incomplete 4.4% Ballot was not placed in a required secrecy envelope 3.7% Voter was not eligible to cast a ballot in the jurisdiction 3.4% Envelope was not sealed 2% Voter was deceased 1.5% Ballot was missing from the envelope 1.1% Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9% Ballot was returned in an unofficial envelope 0.4% No resident address was on the envelope 0.2% Multiple ballots were returned in one envelope 0.2% No ballot application on record 0% … Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%. … About two-fifths of the mail ballots that were rejected for this election were rejected for this reason. … The states with the highest percentage of mail ballots rejected for other reasons were Oregon (96.1%), Idaho (65.1%), Ohio (41.5%), Wisconsin (38.6%), Virginia (37.4%), and Arizona (37.1%). Other common reasons for rejection reported in the data descriptions included “All signature issues,” “Neither returned undeliverable nor returned by the voter,” multiple issues with a single mail ballot, and the rejection reason not being specified.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Chapter 1, curing)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “According to the 2024 Policy Survey, 43 states allowed voters to cure their mail ballots for the 2024 general election — that is, making their ballot eligible to be counted for the election by correcting missing information or signature errors. … Among states that reported these data, 585,457 ballots were reported to have been set aside for curing, of which 317,191 were successfully cured by voters and 270,753 were ultimately rejected. … At the national level, 1.5% of returned mail ballots entered the curing process, with 54.3% of these ballots being successfully cured by voters. Maryland had the highest successful cure rate at 94.8% and the District of Columbia had the lowest rate at 21.4%. … Not all states that cure ballots were able to report data on the number of ballots that were cured. Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin were unable to report data on the total number of mail ballots that entered the cure process in C7a. New Jersey was able to report data on successfully cured mail ballots in C7b only. … The percentage of successfully cured mail ballots was calculated as C7b/C7a x 100. Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating the national percentages.”Hide quote

   According to the 2024 Policy Survey, 43 states allowed voters to cure their mail ballots for the 2024 general election — that is, making their ballot eligible to be counted for the election by correcting missing information or signature errors. … Among states that reported these data, 585,457 ballots were reported to have been set aside for curing, of which 317,191 were successfully cured by voters and 270,753 were ultimately rejected. … At the national level, 1.5% of returned mail ballots entered the curing process, with 54.3% of these ballots being successfully cured by voters. Maryland had the highest successful cure rate at 94.8% and the District of Columbia had the lowest rate at 21.4%. … Not all states that cure ballots were able to report data on the number of ballots that were cured. Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin were unable to report data on the total number of mail ballots that entered the cure process in C7a. New Jersey was able to report data on successfully cured mail ballots in C7b only. … The percentage of successfully cured mail ballots was calculated as C7b/C7a x 100. Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating the national percentages.

4. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Chapter 1, Appendix A, Overview Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election … Mail Ballots Not Counted Total % of Returned … Alabama 1,779 -- … Alaska [1] 872 1.8% … American Samoa [2] 1 0.5% … Arizona [3] 25,071 0.9% … Arkansas 2,274 8.8% … California 123,248 0.9% … Colorado [4] 42,751 1.4% … Connecticut 2,642 -- … Delaware 1,816 5.1% … District of Columbia 1,169 0.7% … Florida [5] 21,126 0.7% … Georgia [6] 4,761 1.7% … Guam [7] 9 16.7% … Hawaii 4,161 0.9% … Idaho [8] 2,657 1.5% … Illinois [9] 16,559 1.6% … Indiana [10] 3,432 0.2% … Iowa 1,169 0.5% … Kansas 561 0.4% … Kentucky 4,076 3.4% … Louisiana [11] 2,921 2.4% … Maine [12] 511 0.2% … Maryland 2,796 0.4% … Massachusetts [13] 13,198 1.1% … Michigan 63,561 3.1% … Minnesota 9,122 2.0% … Mississippi [14] -- -- … Missouri 5,238 2.9% … Montana [15] 2,235 0.5% … Nebraska [16] 1,466 0.5% … Nevada 13,305 2.0% … New Hampshire 1,552 1.6% … New Jersey [17] 11,191 1.3% … New Mexico 967 0.9% … New York 25,750 3.0% … North Carolina [18] 8,916 2.9% … North Dakota 501 0.6% … Northern Mariana Islands 13 -- … Ohio 8,335 0.8% … Oklahoma 4,477 4.3% … Oregon [19] 38,465 1.7% … Pennsylvania [20] 19,270 1.0% … Puerto Rico [21] 2,239 1.7% … Rhode Island 306 0.6% … South Carolina 2,803 2.8% … South Dakota 738 0.5% … Tennessee 1,844 2.1% … Texas 14,049 3.5% … U.S. Virgin Islands 6 1.0% … Utah 23,819 1.9% … Vermont [22] 467 0.2% … Virginia 4,807 1.0% … Washington [23] 36,187 0.9% … West Virginia 247 1.1% … Wisconsin [24] 2,823 0.5% … Wyoming 204 0.5% … U.S. Total 584,463 1.2% … Mail Ballots Not Counted, % of Returned uses C9a/C1b x 100.”Hide quote

   Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election … Mail Ballots Not Counted Total % of Returned … Alabama 1,779 -- … Alaska [1] 872 1.8% … American Samoa [2] 1 0.5% … Arizona [3] 25,071 0.9% … Arkansas 2,274 8.8% … California 123,248 0.9% … Colorado [4] 42,751 1.4% … Connecticut 2,642 -- … Delaware 1,816 5.1% … District of Columbia 1,169 0.7% … Florida [5] 21,126 0.7% … Georgia [6] 4,761 1.7% … Guam [7] 9 16.7% … Hawaii 4,161 0.9% … Idaho [8] 2,657 1.5% … Illinois [9] 16,559 1.6% … Indiana [10] 3,432 0.2% … Iowa 1,169 0.5% … Kansas 561 0.4% … Kentucky 4,076 3.4% … Louisiana [11] 2,921 2.4% … Maine [12] 511 0.2% … Maryland 2,796 0.4% … Massachusetts [13] 13,198 1.1% … Michigan 63,561 3.1% … Minnesota 9,122 2.0% … Mississippi [14] -- -- … Missouri 5,238 2.9% … Montana [15] 2,235 0.5% … Nebraska [16] 1,466 0.5% … Nevada 13,305 2.0% … New Hampshire 1,552 1.6% … New Jersey [17] 11,191 1.3% … New Mexico 967 0.9% … New York 25,750 3.0% … North Carolina [18] 8,916 2.9% … North Dakota 501 0.6% … Northern Mariana Islands 13 -- … Ohio 8,335 0.8% … Oklahoma 4,477 4.3% … Oregon [19] 38,465 1.7% … Pennsylvania [20] 19,270 1.0% … Puerto Rico [21] 2,239 1.7% … Rhode Island 306 0.6% … South Carolina 2,803 2.8% … South Dakota 738 0.5% … Tennessee 1,844 2.1% … Texas 14,049 3.5% … U.S. Virgin Islands 6 1.0% … Utah 23,819 1.9% … Vermont [22] 467 0.2% … Virginia 4,807 1.0% … Washington [23] 36,187 0.9% … West Virginia 247 1.1% … Wisconsin [24] 2,823 0.5% … Wyoming 204 0.5% … U.S. Total 584,463 1.2% … Mail Ballots Not Counted, % of Returned uses C9a/C1b x 100.

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. … Table 1. Most Common Reason for Mail Ballot Rejection was “Other” … Other reason not listed 32.7% Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1% Ballot did not have a voter signature 9.8% … The most common other reasons reported were ”Undeliverable/Void/Final Not Counted“ (comprising approximately half of mail ballots rejected for other reasons) and “All Signature Issues” (comprising approximately one-quarter of mail ballots rejected for other reasons).”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. … Table 1. Most Common Reason for Mail Ballot Rejection was “Other” … Other reason not listed 32.7% Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1% Ballot did not have a voter signature 9.8% … The most common other reasons reported were ”Undeliverable/Void/Final Not Counted“ (comprising approximately half of mail ballots rejected for other reasons) and “All Signature Issues” (comprising approximately one-quarter of mail ballots rejected for other reasons).

6. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “This means that 77.8% of the transmitted mailed ballots were returned by voters, and of the returned ballots, 98.8% were counted and 0.8% were rejected. Although the number of mailed ballots that were transmitted more than doubled since 2016—when 41,651,526 transmitted mailed ballots were reported—the mailed ballot return, count, and rejection rates were not significantly different between the 2016 and 2020 general elections at the national level. … Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature … Non-matching signature 32.8% Other reason given 22.5% Voter already voted in person 13.5% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1% No voter signature 12.1% … Overview Table 2: Voter Turnout by Mail … Mailed Ballots Rejected, Total, % of Returned … Georgia [2] 1,311,361 99.6 4,804 0.4 … Texas 982,362 99.4 8,304 0.8 … [2] Data on rejected mailed ballots for Georgia include rejected ballots entered by counties into the state voter registration system as of February 2021, which does not necessarily include all ballots rejected by counties.”Hide quote

   This means that 77.8% of the transmitted mailed ballots were returned by voters, and of the returned ballots, 98.8% were counted and 0.8% were rejected. Although the number of mailed ballots that were transmitted more than doubled since 2016—when 41,651,526 transmitted mailed ballots were reported—the mailed ballot return, count, and rejection rates were not significantly different between the 2016 and 2020 general elections at the national level. … Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature … Non-matching signature 32.8% Other reason given 22.5% Voter already voted in person 13.5% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1% No voter signature 12.1% … Overview Table 2: Voter Turnout by Mail … Mailed Ballots Rejected, Total, % of Returned … Georgia [2] 1,311,361 99.6 4,804 0.4 … Texas 982,362 99.4 8,304 0.8 … [2] Data on rejected mailed ballots for Georgia include rejected ballots entered by counties into the state voter registration system as of February 2021, which does not necessarily include all ballots rejected by counties.

7. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2019-06 · supports

   “Of these returned ballots, 91.8 percent were counted in the 2018 general elections and 1.4 percent were rejected. … Table 1. Most Common Reason for By-Mail Ballot Rejection is “Other” … “Other” reason given 34.9% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% Non-matching signature 15.8% No voter signature 13.0% … Overview Table 2: By-Mail and In-Person Early Voting … Georgia 3,951,876 281,490 242,661 86.21 218,858 90.19 7,512 3.10 16,291 6.71 … Texas 7,976,548 621,386 533,566 85.87 527,787 98.92 9,377 1.76 -3,598 -0.67”Hide quote

   Of these returned ballots, 91.8 percent were counted in the 2018 general elections and 1.4 percent were rejected. … Table 1. Most Common Reason for By-Mail Ballot Rejection is “Other” … “Other” reason given 34.9% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% Non-matching signature 15.8% No voter signature 13.0% … Overview Table 2: By-Mail and In-Person Early Voting … Georgia 3,951,876 281,490 242,661 86.21 218,858 90.19 7,512 3.10 16,291 6.71 … Texas 7,976,548 621,386 533,566 85.87 527,787 98.92 9,377 1.76 -3,598 -0.67

8. The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06 · supports

   “Table 1. Top Reasons for Rejecting Absentee Ballots Percentage of ballots returned and submitted for counting Rejected (total) 1.0% Non-matching signature 27.5% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% No voter signature 20.0% “Other” reason given 14.8% Uncategorized 5.7% … In 2016, there were seven states that did not report the reasons why absentee ballots are rejected, which leaves an incomplete picture of why those ballots were not counted.”Hide quote

   Table 1. Top Reasons for Rejecting Absentee Ballots Percentage of ballots returned and submitted for counting Rejected (total) 1.0% Non-matching signature 27.5% Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% No voter signature 20.0% “Other” reason given 14.8% Uncategorized 5.7% … In 2016, there were seven states that did not report the reasons why absentee ballots are rejected, which leaves an incomplete picture of why those ballots were not counted.

9. The EAC 2014 Election Administration and Voting Survey Comprehensive Report: A Summary of Key Findings

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2015-06-30 · supports

   “States reported counting 18,968,173 absentee ballots (98.2%) and rejecting 268,720 (1.4%) (see Tables 32, 33a, 33b, and 33c). Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New York reported rejecting over 5% of their absentee ballots, and Illinois and American Samoa rejected over 15% of their absentee ballots. … Exhibit 5. Top Reasons for Rejecting Domestic Absentee Ballots Reason Number Percent Missed deadline 78,833 29.3% Lack of valid signature 43,644 16.2% Nonmatching signature 42,266 15.7% … 14 States vary in whether they consider vote-by-mail ballots to be absentee ballots; some States with vote by mail reserve the term “absentee” for specific circumstances.”Hide quote

   States reported counting 18,968,173 absentee ballots (98.2%) and rejecting 268,720 (1.4%) (see Tables 32, 33a, 33b, and 33c). Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New York reported rejecting over 5% of their absentee ballots, and Illinois and American Samoa rejected over 15% of their absentee ballots. … Exhibit 5. Top Reasons for Rejecting Domestic Absentee Ballots Reason Number Percent Missed deadline 78,833 29.3% Lack of valid signature 43,644 16.2% Nonmatching signature 42,266 15.7% … 14 States vary in whether they consider vote-by-mail ballots to be absentee ballots; some States with vote by mail reserve the term “absentee” for specific circumstances.

10. The 2012 Election Administration and Voting Survey: A Summary of Key Findings

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2013-09 · supports

    “States reported counting 26,834,076 absentee ballots (97.1%), and rejecting 258,380 (0.9%) (see Tables 32, 33a, 33b, and 33c). … Readers should note that the “Reasons for Rejected Absentee Ballots” listed below are for ballots submitted for counting … TOP REASONS FOR REJECTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS Number Percent Missed deadline 82,922 32.1% Non-matching signature 45,392 17.6% Lack of valid signature 44,748 17.3% … HIGHEST ABSENTEE VOTING RATES Colorado 71.4% Arizona 65.9% Montana 57.5% Georgia 48.8%”Hide quote

    States reported counting 26,834,076 absentee ballots (97.1%), and rejecting 258,380 (0.9%) (see Tables 32, 33a, 33b, and 33c). … Readers should note that the “Reasons for Rejected Absentee Ballots” listed below are for ballots submitted for counting … TOP REASONS FOR REJECTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS Number Percent Missed deadline 82,922 32.1% Non-matching signature 45,392 17.6% Lack of valid signature 44,748 17.3% … HIGHEST ABSENTEE VOTING RATES Colorado 71.4% Arizona 65.9% Montana 57.5% Georgia 48.8%

11. Administration of Mail-In Voting (Elections Performance Index), by Arianna Conte

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2026-06-25 · supports

    “The EPI’s “ mail ballots rejected ” indicator measures the degree to which mail and absentee ballots are rejected as a percentage of all votes cast. The nationwide average in 2024 was 0.34%, the same as 2020 and slightly above the mail ballot rejection rate of the 2016, 2012, and 2008 elections.”Hide quote

    The EPI’s “ mail ballots rejected ” indicator measures the degree to which mail and absentee ballots are rejected as a percentage of all votes cast. The nationwide average in 2024 was 0.34%, the same as 2020 and slightly above the mail ballot rejection rate of the 2016, 2012, and 2008 elections.

12. Texas officials say they're rejecting fewer mail ballots than the primary's big spike

    NPR (via Texas Public Radio), 2022-11-06 · complicates

    “During the state's primary in March, state officials said 24,636 mail-in ballots were rejected in that election. That's a 12.38% rejection rate — far higher than in previous contests. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Texas' mail ballot rejection rate during the 2020 general election was 0.8% and it was 1.5% in 2018. The surge in the rejection rate in March followed a voting law passed by Republicans in the state legislature in 2021 that created new ID requirements for mail ballots. Local officials said confusion created by the law, known as Senate Bill 1, tripped up many voters. In many cases, voters completely missed the field on the ballot return envelope that requires either a partial Social Security number or driver's license number. … Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, attributes the decrease in the mail ballot rejection rate to updates to the return ballot in some Texas counties, as well as additional voter information included in mail ballots by local officials. He says various voter education campaigns following the March primary have also helped. … Taylor also said rejection rates were always likely to improve as "voters got used to" the new mail ballot process.”Hide quote

    During the state's primary in March, state officials said 24,636 mail-in ballots were rejected in that election. That's a 12.38% rejection rate — far higher than in previous contests. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Texas' mail ballot rejection rate during the 2020 general election was 0.8% and it was 1.5% in 2018. The surge in the rejection rate in March followed a voting law passed by Republicans in the state legislature in 2021 that created new ID requirements for mail ballots. Local officials said confusion created by the law, known as Senate Bill 1, tripped up many voters. In many cases, voters completely missed the field on the ballot return envelope that requires either a partial Social Security number or driver's license number. … Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, attributes the decrease in the mail ballot rejection rate to updates to the return ballot in some Texas counties, as well as additional voter information included in mail ballots by local officials. He says various voter education campaigns following the March primary have also helped. … Taylor also said rejection rates were always likely to improve as "voters got used to" the new mail ballot process.

13. 2022 EAVS Data Brief: Texas

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-08 · complicates

    “444,150 mail ballots transmitted • 83.2% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters • 96.6% of returned mail ballots counted • 3.4% of returned mail ballots rejected”Hide quote

    444,150 mail ballots transmitted • 83.2% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters • 96.6% of returned mail ballots counted • 3.4% of returned mail ballots rejected

14. 2024 EAVS Data Brief: Texas

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025 · complicates

    “463,200 mail ballots transmitted 86.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters 96.5% of returned mail ballots counted … 5.8% of mail ballots entered ballot curing process”Hide quote

    463,200 mail ballots transmitted 86.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters 96.5% of returned mail ballots counted … 5.8% of mail ballots entered ballot curing process

15. 2022 EAVS Data Brief: Georgia

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-08 · supports

    “280,897 mail ballots transmitted • 89.8% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters • 98.5% of returned mail ballots counted • 1.5% of returned mail ballots rejected”Hide quote

    280,897 mail ballots transmitted • 89.8% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters • 98.5% of returned mail ballots counted • 1.5% of returned mail ballots rejected

16. 2024 EAVS Data Brief: Georgia

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025 · supports

    “327,241 mail ballots transmitted 83.6% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters 98.3% of returned mail ballots counted”Hide quote

    327,241 mail ballots transmitted 83.6% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters 98.3% of returned mail ballots counted

17. Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab (report by M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee), 2024-05 · complicates

    “Within this context the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed an omnibus reform bill known as the Election Integrity Act of 2021 (hereafter referred to as SB 202). … A plurality of LEOs indicated that the absentee ballot/application verification process did not result in fewer rejections … SB 202 altered verification for absentee applications and ballots from signature verification to use of a driver’s license or state ID number. Almost half of the counties responding indicated that processing of absentee applications (49%) and ballots (46%) was faster in 2022. In addition, 34% of counties reported fewer ABM applications rejected and 32% reported fewer ABM ballots rejected as compared to 2022.”Hide quote

    Within this context the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed an omnibus reform bill known as the Election Integrity Act of 2021 (hereafter referred to as SB 202). … A plurality of LEOs indicated that the absentee ballot/application verification process did not result in fewer rejections … SB 202 altered verification for absentee applications and ballots from signature verification to use of a driver’s license or state ID number. Almost half of the counties responding indicated that processing of absentee applications (49%) and ballots (46%) was faster in 2022. In addition, 34% of counties reported fewer ABM applications rejected and 32% reported fewer ABM ballots rejected as compared to 2022.

18. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · supports

    “Although county election officials can reject ballots for several reasons, 97 percent are rejected because they are late (postmarked after Election Day), unsigned, or the ballot signature does not match the voter signature on file. … For the 2020 general election, the overall ballot rejection rate in Washington was 0.72 percent, or fewer than 30,000 ballots out of about 4.2 million cast, excluding late ballots. County ballot rejection rates ranged from less than one-tenth of a percent to about 1.5 percent of ballots cast, listed in Exhibit 3. … Exhibit 3 – Rejection rates by county from highest to lowest in the 2020 general election County Rate County Rate County Rate County Rate Franklin 1.50% Benton 0.72% Grant 0.50% Jefferson 0.29% Okanogan 1.28% Whitman 0.70% Klickitat 0.49% Chelan 0.28% Adams 1.15% Lincoln 0.65% Cowlitz 0.48% Garfield 0.27% Kittitas 1.14% Clallam 0.64% Whatcom 0.47% Stevens 0.26% Snohomish 0.99% Skagit 0.63% Spokane 0.46% Ferry 0.25% Wahkiakum 0.98% Pierce 0.63% Grays Harbor 0.46% San Juan 0.25% King 0.86% Pacific 0.59% Mason 0.44% Douglas 0.25% Kitsap 0.85% Lewis 0.57% Skamania 0.38% Pend Oreille 0.20% Clark 0.76% Island 0.56% Walla Walla 0.36% Columbia 0.04% Asotin 0.72% Thurston 0.51% Yakima 0.29% Note: Data excludes late ballots.”Hide quote

    Although county election officials can reject ballots for several reasons, 97 percent are rejected because they are late (postmarked after Election Day), unsigned, or the ballot signature does not match the voter signature on file. … For the 2020 general election, the overall ballot rejection rate in Washington was 0.72 percent, or fewer than 30,000 ballots out of about 4.2 million cast, excluding late ballots. County ballot rejection rates ranged from less than one-tenth of a percent to about 1.5 percent of ballots cast, listed in Exhibit 3. … Exhibit 3 – Rejection rates by county from highest to lowest in the 2020 general election County Rate County Rate County Rate County Rate Franklin 1.50% Benton 0.72% Grant 0.50% Jefferson 0.29% Okanogan 1.28% Whitman 0.70% Klickitat 0.49% Chelan 0.28% Adams 1.15% Lincoln 0.65% Cowlitz 0.48% Garfield 0.27% Kittitas 1.14% Clallam 0.64% Whatcom 0.47% Stevens 0.26% Snohomish 0.99% Skagit 0.63% Spokane 0.46% Ferry 0.25% Wahkiakum 0.98% Pierce 0.63% Grays Harbor 0.46% San Juan 0.25% King 0.86% Pacific 0.59% Mason 0.44% Douglas 0.25% Kitsap 0.85% Lewis 0.57% Skamania 0.38% Pend Oreille 0.20% Clark 0.76% Island 0.56% Walla Walla 0.36% Columbia 0.04% Asotin 0.72% Thurston 0.51% Yakima 0.29% Note: Data excludes late ballots.

19. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · supports

    “Exhibit 5 – Ballots of younger voters were rejected at a higher rate than those of older voters 2020 general election; Rate of rejection by age group 2.68% 2.04% 1.56% 0.88% 0.38% 0.17% 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-44 45-64 65+ … voters had a rejection rate of 2.68 percent, while the oldest voters had a rejection rate of just 0.17 percent. After accounting for other variables with our regression analysis, we estimated that Washington's youngest voters were almost three times more likely to have their ballots rejected than Washington's oldest voters. This was consistent when we considered only ballots rejected for mismatched signatures. … We found a statistically significant difference in ballot rejection rates between white voters and voters from all other racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans and multiracial voters. … We also found the greatest disparity was between white and Black voters, with rejection rates at 0.63 percent and 2.49 percent, respectively (shown in Exhibit 6). Even when controlling for other variables, we estimated Black voters were twice as likely to have ballots rejected than white voters. Exhibit 6 – Ballots of white voters were rejected at a lower rate than those of all other racial and ethnic groups 2020 general election; Rate of rejection by race/ethnic group 2.49% 1.59% 1.57% 1.24% 0.63% Black Native American Hispanic Asian/ Pacific Islander White”Hide quote

    Exhibit 5 – Ballots of younger voters were rejected at a higher rate than those of older voters 2020 general election; Rate of rejection by age group 2.68% 2.04% 1.56% 0.88% 0.38% 0.17% 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-44 45-64 65+ … voters had a rejection rate of 2.68 percent, while the oldest voters had a rejection rate of just 0.17 percent. After accounting for other variables with our regression analysis, we estimated that Washington's youngest voters were almost three times more likely to have their ballots rejected than Washington's oldest voters. This was consistent when we considered only ballots rejected for mismatched signatures. … We found a statistically significant difference in ballot rejection rates between white voters and voters from all other racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans and multiracial voters. … We also found the greatest disparity was between white and Black voters, with rejection rates at 0.63 percent and 2.49 percent, respectively (shown in Exhibit 6). Even when controlling for other variables, we estimated Black voters were twice as likely to have ballots rejected than white voters. Exhibit 6 – Ballots of white voters were rejected at a lower rate than those of all other racial and ethnic groups 2020 general election; Rate of rejection by race/ethnic group 2.49% 1.59% 1.57% 1.24% 0.63% Black Native American Hispanic Asian/ Pacific Islander White

20. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · supports

    “The rejection rate of ballots cast by first-time voters was more than five times greater than for voters with previous voting experience. … We estimated that male voters were 42 percent more likely than female voters to have ballots rejected. … We estimated that voters in the county casting non-English ballots had a 47 percent greater likelihood of ballot rejection than voters who cast English-language ballots.”Hide quote

    The rejection rate of ballots cast by first-time voters was more than five times greater than for voters with previous voting experience. … We estimated that male voters were 42 percent more likely than female voters to have ballots rejected. … We estimated that voters in the county casting non-English ballots had a 47 percent greater likelihood of ballot rejection than voters who cast English-language ballots.

21. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · supports

    “For the 2020 general election, the county where a ballot was cast was the most significant variable related to rejection. … After accounting for demographic variables like age, race, education levels and income in our regression analysis, we estimated that ballots submitted to some counties were four to seven times more likely to be rejected for signature mismatches or being unsigned than ballots submitted to other counties. The disparity was even greater when analyzing the likelihood a ballot would be rejected for just signature mismatches, with ballots from two counties having 18 times the likelihood of rejection as another county.”Hide quote

    For the 2020 general election, the county where a ballot was cast was the most significant variable related to rejection. … After accounting for demographic variables like age, race, education levels and income in our regression analysis, we estimated that ballots submitted to some counties were four to seven times more likely to be rejected for signature mismatches or being unsigned than ballots submitted to other counties. The disparity was even greater when analyzing the likelihood a ballot would be rejected for just signature mismatches, with ballots from two counties having 18 times the likelihood of rejection as another county.

22. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · complicates

    “we used automatic signature verification software that compared a statistically significant random sample of more than 7,200 voter ballot signatures to those on file from the 2020 general election. … Auditors trained by the State Patrol in signature review then reviewed all cases where the software disagreed with the county's decision or where it deemed the signature as a possible forgery. … We agreed with county determinations for more than 98 percent of the signatures reviewed, but found counties with lower rejection rates were more likely to accept less conclusive signatures. When applying results from our sample to the entire population of signatures, we estimated that 98.7 percent of county decisions were appropriate.”Hide quote

    we used automatic signature verification software that compared a statistically significant random sample of more than 7,200 voter ballot signatures to those on file from the 2020 general election. … Auditors trained by the State Patrol in signature review then reviewed all cases where the software disagreed with the county's decision or where it deemed the signature as a possible forgery. … We agreed with county determinations for more than 98 percent of the signatures reviewed, but found counties with lower rejection rates were more likely to accept less conclusive signatures. When applying results from our sample to the entire population of signatures, we estimated that 98.7 percent of county decisions were appropriate.

23. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · supports

    “Unlike the other main reasons ballots are rejected – late postmarks and missing signatures – deciding whether a signature matches is inherently subjective and requires some level of human judgment … Although trainings and statewide criteria may help standardize processes, we found that even experienced reviewers can come to different conclusions. … Members of our own team participating in the review also disagreed on whether many of the signatures matched. We also found that county officials interpreted statewide criteria for signature verification differently.”Hide quote

    Unlike the other main reasons ballots are rejected – late postmarks and missing signatures – deciding whether a signature matches is inherently subjective and requires some level of human judgment … Although trainings and statewide criteria may help standardize processes, we found that even experienced reviewers can come to different conclusions. … Members of our own team participating in the review also disagreed on whether many of the signatures matched. We also found that county officials interpreted statewide criteria for signature verification differently.

24. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · complicates

    “We found no evidence of bias when counties accepted or rejected ballots … We specifically looked for evidence of this by reviewing a random sample of accepted ballots and those rejected for mismatched signatures. … Disparities in rejection rates for different racial and ethnic groups are unacceptable, and we explicitly looked for bias in the decisions to accept or reject individual ballots, to see if that could help explain the differences. We found no evidence of bias in those decisions. While that is good news, it also means we are not able to explain what causes rejection rates to vary for these groups of voters.”Hide quote

    We found no evidence of bias when counties accepted or rejected ballots … We specifically looked for evidence of this by reviewing a random sample of accepted ballots and those rejected for mismatched signatures. … Disparities in rejection rates for different racial and ethnic groups are unacceptable, and we explicitly looked for bias in the decisions to accept or reject individual ballots, to see if that could help explain the differences. We found no evidence of bias in those decisions. While that is good news, it also means we are not able to explain what causes rejection rates to vary for these groups of voters.

25. Evaluating Washington's Ballot Rejection Rates (Performance Audit Report No. 1029711)

    Office of the Washington State Auditor, 2022-02-01 · complicates

    “Counties with lower rejection rates had higher cure rates (65 percent cured) than the other counties (50 percent cured). … All 10 counties reported training employees before reviewing any signatures, and sometimes also taking subsequent trainings to increase their expertise.”Hide quote

    Counties with lower rejection rates had higher cure rates (65 percent cured) than the other counties (50 percent cured). … All 10 counties reported training employees before reviewing any signatures, and sometimes also taking subsequent trainings to increase their expertise.

26. Voting by Mail and Ballot Rejection: Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus (draft abstract by Baringer, Herron and Smith; published in Election Law Journal 19(3))

    Election Law Blog, 2020-04-18 · supports

    “This motivates our examination of over 8.2 million ballots cast in the 2018 General Election in Florida, including 2.6 million VBM ballots, of which approximately 1.2 percent were rejected by local election officials. ... We find that younger voters and voters needing assistance are disproportionately likely to have their VBM ballots rejected. ... Lastly, we find significant variation in the rejection rates of VBM ballots cast across Florida's 67 counties, suggesting a non-uniformity in the way local election officials verify these ballots.”Hide quote

    This motivates our examination of over 8.2 million ballots cast in the 2018 General Election in Florida, including 2.6 million VBM ballots, of which approximately 1.2 percent were rejected by local election officials. ... We find that younger voters and voters needing assistance are disproportionately likely to have their VBM ballots rejected. ... Lastly, we find significant variation in the rejection rates of VBM ballots cast across Florida's 67 counties, suggesting a non-uniformity in the way local election officials verify these ballots.

27. QSS Faculty Publish Paper on Voting By Mail (abstract of Cottrell, Herron and Smith, "Vote-by-mail ballot rejection and experience with mail-in voting")

    Dartmouth Program in Quantitative Social Science, 2020-10-12 · supports

    “Our analysis of ballot rejections in the political battleground state of Florida shows that inexperienced mail voters were three and 2.75 times more likely, respectively, in the 2016 and 2018 General Elections to have their ballots rejected than experienced mail voters. ... Moreover, the effect of inexperience on vote-by-mail ballot rejection rates varies by party affiliation, race/ethnicity, age, and gender.”Hide quote

    Our analysis of ballot rejections in the political battleground state of Florida shows that inexperienced mail voters were three and 2.75 times more likely, respectively, in the 2016 and 2018 General Elections to have their ballots rejected than experienced mail voters. ... Moreover, the effect of inexperience on vote-by-mail ballot rejection rates varies by party affiliation, race/ethnicity, age, and gender.

28. Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee/Mail Ballots

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-10-26 · supports

    “Thirty-two states and Puerto Rico conduct signature verification on returned absentee/mail ballots: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. Nine states, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., verify that an absentee/mail ballot envelope has been signed but do not conduct signature verification: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. Eight states require the signature of a witness in addition to the voter’s signature: Alabama (two witnesses or a notary), Alaska (witness or notary), Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota (witness or notary), North Carolina (two witnesses or a notary), South Carolina and Wisconsin. Six states require voters to provide information such as a state ID, driver’s license, or Social Security number on their ballot envelope. This information is verified with the voter’s registration and/or absentee ballot application. Georgia (state ID/driver’s license number) Minnesota (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security number and a witness signature or notary) New Mexico (last four digits of Social Security number) Ohio (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security number) Texas (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of SSN) Virginia (last four digits of Social Security number) Note: Starting in 2029, Utah will verify mail ballots with the last four digits of a voter’s state ID/driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, rather than completing signature verification. Three states require the absentee/mail ballot envelope to be notarized: Mississippi, Missouri, and Oklahoma.”Hide quote

    Thirty-two states and Puerto Rico conduct signature verification on returned absentee/mail ballots: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. Nine states, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., verify that an absentee/mail ballot envelope has been signed but do not conduct signature verification: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. Eight states require the signature of a witness in addition to the voter’s signature: Alabama (two witnesses or a notary), Alaska (witness or notary), Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota (witness or notary), North Carolina (two witnesses or a notary), South Carolina and Wisconsin. Six states require voters to provide information such as a state ID, driver’s license, or Social Security number on their ballot envelope. This information is verified with the voter’s registration and/or absentee ballot application. Georgia (state ID/driver’s license number) Minnesota (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security number and a witness signature or notary) New Mexico (last four digits of Social Security number) Ohio (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of Social Security number) Texas (state ID/driver’s license number or last four digits of SSN) Virginia (last four digits of Social Security number) Note: Starting in 2029, Utah will verify mail ballots with the last four digits of a voter’s state ID/driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, rather than completing signature verification. Three states require the absentee/mail ballot envelope to be notarized: Mississippi, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

29. Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee/Mail Ballots (Washington and Colorado rows)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-10-26 · complicates

    “Election officials compare the signature on the declaration with the signature in the voter's registration file. All personnel assigned to verify signatures must receive training on statewide standards for signature verification. … If the election judge determines the signatures do not match, two other election judges of different political party affiliations shall simultaneously compare the signatures.”Hide quote

    Election officials compare the signature on the declaration with the signature in the voter's registration file. All personnel assigned to verify signatures must receive training on statewide standards for signature verification. … If the election judge determines the signatures do not match, two other election judges of different political party affiliations shall simultaneously compare the signatures.

30. Table 15: States With Absentee/Mail Ballot Cure Processes

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-31 · complicates

    “Thirty-five states and Washington, D.C., have ballot curing processes statewide requiring election officials to notify voters when there is a missing signature or a signature discrepancy—and requiring that voters must be given an opportunity to correct it.”Hide quote

    Thirty-five states and Washington, D.C., have ballot curing processes statewide requiring election officials to notify voters when there is a missing signature or a signature discrepancy—and requiring that voters must be given an opportunity to correct it.

31. Table 18: States With Mostly Mail Elections

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-07 · supports

    “Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state.”Hide quote

    Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state.

32. Saucedo v. Gardner, No. 17-cv-183-LM, Opinion No. 2018 DNH 160

    U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 2018-08-14 · supports

    “As will become evident, this signature-matching process is fundamentally flawed. Not only is the disenfranchised voter given no right to participate in this process, but the voter is not even given notice that her ballot has been rejected due to a signature mismatch. Moreover, moderators receive no training in handwriting analysis or signature comparison; no statute, regulation, or guidance from the State provides functional standards to distinguish the natural variations of one writer from other variations that suggest two different writers; and the moderator's assessment is final, without any review or appeal. … In the 2016 General Election, .35% of all absentee ballots submitted were rejected due to a signature mismatch (275 rejections out of 78,430 absentee ballots). … plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their procedural due process claim. The court grants plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief insofar as RSA 659:50, III is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment”Hide quote

    As will become evident, this signature-matching process is fundamentally flawed. Not only is the disenfranchised voter given no right to participate in this process, but the voter is not even given notice that her ballot has been rejected due to a signature mismatch. Moreover, moderators receive no training in handwriting analysis or signature comparison; no statute, regulation, or guidance from the State provides functional standards to distinguish the natural variations of one writer from other variations that suggest two different writers; and the moderator's assessment is final, without any review or appeal. … In the 2016 General Election, .35% of all absentee ballots submitted were rejected due to a signature mismatch (275 rejections out of 78,430 absentee ballots). … plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their procedural due process claim. The court grants plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief insofar as RSA 659:50, III is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

33. Richardson v. Texas Secretary of State, No. 20-50774 (opinion of Smith, J.)

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2020-10-19 · complicates

    “Because Texas's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state's voting procedures place on the right to vote, we stay the injunction pending appeal. … It seeks to stop voter fraud where the problem is most acute—in the context of mail-in voting. "[T]he potential and reality of fraud is much greater in the mail-in ballot context than with in-person voting." … Thus, the Secretary is likely to show that voting does not implicate any state-created liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.”Hide quote

    Because Texas's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state's voting procedures place on the right to vote, we stay the injunction pending appeal. … It seeks to stop voter fraud where the problem is most acute—in the context of mail-in voting. "[T]he potential and reality of fraud is much greater in the mail-in ballot context than with in-person voting." … Thus, the Secretary is likely to show that voting does not implicate any state-created liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.

34. Richardson v. Texas Secretary of State, No. 20-50774 (Higginbotham, J., concurring)

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2020-10-19 · supports

    “I concur only in the decision to stay pending appeal of the district court’s injunction changing the election rules. … In 2016 and 2018, “approximately 5,000 [Texas] ballots were rejected on the basis of perceived signature mismatches.” Such "small" differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections. And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers.”Hide quote

    I concur only in the decision to stay pending appeal of the district court’s injunction changing the election rules. … In 2016 and 2018, “approximately 5,000 [Texas] ballots were rejected on the basis of perceived signature mismatches.” Such "small" differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections. And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers.

35. In re: November 3, 2020 General Election, Petition of Kathy Boockvar, No. 149 MM 2020 [J-113-2020]

    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2020-10-23 · supports

    “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter's signature on the "declaration" contained on the official ballot return envelope for the absentee or mail-in ballot. We, therefore, grant the Secretary's petition for declarative relief, and direct the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on such comparisons.”Hide quote

    For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter's signature on the "declaration" contained on the official ballot return envelope for the absentee or mail-in ballot. We, therefore, grant the Secretary's petition for declarative relief, and direct the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on such comparisons.

36. Judge dismisses Kari Lake's final claim in election loss for Arizona governor

    Associated Press (via KSAT), 2023-05-23 · complicates

    “Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election.”Hide quote

    Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election.

37. 3rd Strike Against Voter Fraud Claims Means They're Out After Signature Audit Finds No Fraud

    Georgia Secretary of State, 2020-12-29 · complicates

    “A signature match audit in Cobb County found “no fraudulent absentee ballots” and found that the Cobb County Elections Department had “a 99.99% accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures.” … Of the 150,431 absentee ballots received by Cobb County elections officials during the November elections, the audit “reviewed 15,118 ABM ballot oath envelopes from randomly selected boxes,” or around 10% of the total. The sample size was originally chosen to meet the 99% confidence threshold. … The Secretary of State’s Office partnered with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to conduct the audit. … The audit found that only two ballots should have been identified by Cobb County Elections Officials for cure notification that weren’t. In one case, the ballot was “mistakenly signed by the elector’s spouse,” and in the other, the voter “reported signing the front of the envelope only.” In both cases, the identified voters filled out the ballots themselves. The absentee ballot envelopes for the audit were “pulled from 30 randomly selected boxes of the accepted ABM ballots and one box identified as accepted Electronic Ballot Delivery ABM ballots.””Hide quote

    A signature match audit in Cobb County found “no fraudulent absentee ballots” and found that the Cobb County Elections Department had “a 99.99% accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures.” … Of the 150,431 absentee ballots received by Cobb County elections officials during the November elections, the audit “reviewed 15,118 ABM ballot oath envelopes from randomly selected boxes,” or around 10% of the total. The sample size was originally chosen to meet the 99% confidence threshold. … The Secretary of State’s Office partnered with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to conduct the audit. … The audit found that only two ballots should have been identified by Cobb County Elections Officials for cure notification that weren’t. In one case, the ballot was “mistakenly signed by the elector’s spouse,” and in the other, the voter “reported signing the front of the envelope only.” In both cases, the identified voters filled out the ballots themselves. The absentee ballot envelopes for the audit were “pulled from 30 randomly selected boxes of the accepted ABM ballots and one box identified as accepted Electronic Ballot Delivery ABM ballots.”

38. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report (rate definitions)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

    “Data on the number of mail ballots counted were collected in item C8a and data on mail ballots rejected were collected in item C9a of the 2022 EAVS. The count rate was calculated as C8a/C1b x 100 and the rejection rate was calculated as C9a/C1b x 100 for the 2022 EAVS. For the 2018 and 2020 EAVS, the count rate was calculated as C3a/C1b x 100, and the rejection rate was calculated as C4a/C1b x 100. Casewise deletion was used at the state level; the count and rejection rate may not sum to 100% because of the casewise deletion and due to rounding.”Hide quote

    Data on the number of mail ballots counted were collected in item C8a and data on mail ballots rejected were collected in item C9a of the 2022 EAVS. The count rate was calculated as C8a/C1b x 100 and the rejection rate was calculated as C9a/C1b x 100 for the 2022 EAVS. For the 2018 and 2020 EAVS, the count rate was calculated as C3a/C1b x 100, and the rejection rate was calculated as C4a/C1b x 100. Casewise deletion was used at the state level; the count and rejection rate may not sum to 100% because of the casewise deletion and due to rounding.

39. The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report (Overview Table 2)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06 · supports

    “Overview Table 2: Absentee Voting … Total Voter Turnout, Total Ballots Transmitted, Total Ballots Returned, Counted Total, Pct. Returned, Rejected Total, Pct. Transmitted … Georgia 4,147,161 236,925 213,033 199,356 93.58 13,677 5.77 0 0.00 … Texas 8,701,152 520,027 468,150 449,258 95.96 8,177 1.57 10,715 2.29 … U.S. TOTAL 140,114,502 41,651,526 33,378,450 32,982,211 98.81 318,728 0.77 77,511 0.23 … (7) Ballots Rejected, Pct uses question C4b divided by question C1a”Hide quote

    Overview Table 2: Absentee Voting … Total Voter Turnout, Total Ballots Transmitted, Total Ballots Returned, Counted Total, Pct. Returned, Rejected Total, Pct. Transmitted … Georgia 4,147,161 236,925 213,033 199,356 93.58 13,677 5.77 0 0.00 … Texas 8,701,152 520,027 468,150 449,258 95.96 8,177 1.57 10,715 2.29 … U.S. TOTAL 140,114,502 41,651,526 33,378,450 32,982,211 98.81 318,728 0.77 77,511 0.23 … (7) Ballots Rejected, Pct uses question C4b divided by question C1a

Ballot Receipt Deadlines, Late Ballots and Counting Speed

1. Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-25 · supports

   “Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.”Hide quote

   Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.

2. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), slip opinion

   Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

   “Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.”Hide quote

   Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (pp. 14–15 and Overview Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%

4. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report (p. 13 and Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report (Table 2)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%”Hide quote

   Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%

6. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2019-06 · supports

   “"Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%”Hide quote

   "Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%

7. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06 · supports

   “Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%”Hide quote

   Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%

8. More mail ballots are arriving late this cycle, and they’re getting tossed (New York Times, reprinted)

   The Philadelphia Inquirer (Adam Sella and Nick Corasaniti, New York Times), 2026-08-31 · complicates

   “The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.”Hide quote

   The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.

9. Was a large percentage of votes received after Election Day in Nevada in 2024?

   The Nevada Independent (Eric Neugeboren), 2025-01-31 · supports

   “Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.”Hide quote

   Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.

10. How long did it take to count the vote in 2024?

    MIT Election Data + Science Lab (Samuel Baltz), 2024-12-06 · supports

    “A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour”Hide quote

    A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour

11. Table 16: When Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing and Counting Can Begin

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-15 · supports

    “Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.”Hide quote

    Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.

12. Looking back to 2020 for a Guide to How Fast the Votes Will Be Reported in 2024

    Election Updates (Charles Stewart III, MIT), 2024-10-30 · complicates

    “In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.”Hide quote

    In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.

13. Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025 (PEI 11.0)

    Electoral Integrity Project, 2025-07 · supports

    “There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.”Hide quote

    There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.

14. Nevada prepares for Supreme Court ruling on mail ballots

    Pahrump Valley Times, 2026-04-22 · supports

    “Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.”Hide quote

    Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.

15. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws, 2016–2026 (Table 5)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.”Hide quote

    Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.

16. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

    “Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.”Hide quote

    Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.

Confidence in Mail Voting and Disputed Election Results

1. Broad Public Confidence in Elections in the U.S. – but Partisans Differ Over Concerns About Access, Security

   Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

   “We surveyed 5,062 U.S. adults, including 3,917 registered voters, from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, 2026. ... 90% of those who back Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in this year’s elections are confident that if noncitizens try to vote they will be stopped. A far smaller share of Republican candidate backers – 45% – are confident that noncitizens will be prevented from casting ballots. Still, Republican voters express a higher level of confidence that noncitizens will be stopped from voting than President Donald Trump’s voters did in 2024 (35% then). ... 90% of Republican voters are at least somewhat confident in this. A narrower majority of Democratic voters (72%) express confidence that all qualified voters will be able to vote if they want to. ... 64% of Democratic voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as voters intend – down from 88% in the 2022 midterm elections and 85% among Kamala Harris’ voters in the 2024 presidential election. 42% of GOP voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as intended – modestly higher than in past recent elections. ... 19% of Republican voters mention concerns about illegitimate voters casting ballots, or fraudulent votes. In contrast, Democratic voters are more likely to raise concerns about legitimate voters being denied access (10%) or interference with election administration by the Trump administration (11%). ... Roughly three-quarters of mail and absentee voters (76%) are confident votes cast this way will be counted as voters intend. By comparison, about half of in-person voters (47%) are confident this will happen.”Hide quote

   We surveyed 5,062 U.S. adults, including 3,917 registered voters, from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, 2026. ... 90% of those who back Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in this year’s elections are confident that if noncitizens try to vote they will be stopped. A far smaller share of Republican candidate backers – 45% – are confident that noncitizens will be prevented from casting ballots. Still, Republican voters express a higher level of confidence that noncitizens will be stopped from voting than President Donald Trump’s voters did in 2024 (35% then). ... 90% of Republican voters are at least somewhat confident in this. A narrower majority of Democratic voters (72%) express confidence that all qualified voters will be able to vote if they want to. ... 64% of Democratic voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as voters intend – down from 88% in the 2022 midterm elections and 85% among Kamala Harris’ voters in the 2024 presidential election. 42% of GOP voters say they are confident mail and absentee votes will be counted as intended – modestly higher than in past recent elections. ... 19% of Republican voters mention concerns about illegitimate voters casting ballots, or fraudulent votes. In contrast, Democratic voters are more likely to raise concerns about legitimate voters being denied access (10%) or interference with election administration by the Trump administration (11%). ... Roughly three-quarters of mail and absentee voters (76%) are confident votes cast this way will be counted as voters intend. By comparison, about half of in-person voters (47%) are confident this will happen.

2. Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider

   Gallup, 2024-09-25 · supports

   “Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively.”Hide quote

   Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively.

3. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

   Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

   “More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.”Hide quote

   More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.

4. U.S. Trust in Elections Diverges From Global Pattern

   Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

   “Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points.”Hide quote

   Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points.

5. How We Voted in 2024

   MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

   “During presidential election years, the nationwide confidence measure particularly reflects the well-known winner-loser effect, where supporters of the presidential winner experience a rise in confidence while supporters of the loser see a decline. In 2016, 80% of Republicans stated they were very or somewhat confident that votes across the country were counted as intended (nationwide confidence), compared to 69% of Democrats. ... In 2024, 88% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats expressed confidence in the nationwide vote count, compared to 22% and 93% in 2020, respectively. ... Since 2008, support among Republicans has steadily increased to the point where it is nearly unanimously favored by Republican respondents (92.4% support in 2024). Support among Democrats weakened in the early years covered by the data but has rebounded in recent years.”Hide quote

   During presidential election years, the nationwide confidence measure particularly reflects the well-known winner-loser effect, where supporters of the presidential winner experience a rise in confidence while supporters of the loser see a decline. In 2016, 80% of Republicans stated they were very or somewhat confident that votes across the country were counted as intended (nationwide confidence), compared to 69% of Democrats. ... In 2024, 88% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats expressed confidence in the nationwide vote count, compared to 22% and 93% in 2020, respectively. ... Since 2008, support among Republicans has steadily increased to the point where it is nearly unanimously favored by Republican respondents (92.4% support in 2024). Support among Democrats weakened in the early years covered by the data but has rebounded in recent years.

6. Partisanship and Voter Confidence, 2000–2012 (VTP Working Paper #125)

   Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, 2014-06-01 · supports

   “Using approximately 30 national surveys over the past decade, we find a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence in election administration. ... Across the decade, aggregate confidence in the country's vote declined about 30 percentage points. However, this overall decline is due almost entirely to a forty-point decline among Republicans during this period. ... among those who voted for the winning candidate, confidence in one's own vote increases by about 20 percentage points after an election. Among those who voted for the loser, confidence declines slightly, by about 2 percentage points.”Hide quote

   Using approximately 30 national surveys over the past decade, we find a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence in election administration. ... Across the decade, aggregate confidence in the country's vote declined about 30 percentage points. However, this overall decline is due almost entirely to a forty-point decline among Republicans during this period. ... among those who voted for the winning candidate, confidence in one's own vote increases by about 20 percentage points after an election. Among those who voted for the loser, confidence declines slightly, by about 2 percentage points.

7. Voter Confidence in the 2018 Election: So Long to the Winner’s Effect?

   Election Updates (Charles Stewart III, MIT), 2018-12-19 · complicates

   “For the past two decades, Americans have consistently exhibited a “winner’s effect” in judging whether votes were counted fairly in elections. The 2018 election broke that pattern. ... Good electoral news for Republicans was followed by a 14-point increase in Republican confidence and a slight decrease in confidence among Democrats. In 2016, the even-more-dramatic electoral results produced an even greater shift in partisan confidence. One month before the election, Democrats were more confident by a margin of 15 points. Right after the election, Democrats were less confident, by 13 points.”Hide quote

   For the past two decades, Americans have consistently exhibited a “winner’s effect” in judging whether votes were counted fairly in elections. The 2018 election broke that pattern. ... Good electoral news for Republicans was followed by a 14-point increase in Republican confidence and a slight decrease in confidence among Democrats. In 2016, the even-more-dramatic electoral results produced an even greater shift in partisan confidence. One month before the election, Democrats were more confident by a margin of 15 points. Right after the election, Democrats were less confident, by 13 points.

8. It’s Largely a Rigged System: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect in 2016 (Political Research Quarterly)

   Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies (Betsy Sinclair, Steven S. Smith and Patrick D. Tucker), 2018-04-21 · supports

   “Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. ... In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites.”Hide quote

   Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. ... In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites.

9. “Procedural Polarization: How Election Rules Shape Voters’ Confidence” (Joshua Clinton, American Political Science Review; abstract)

   Election Law Blog (Rick Hasen, reproducing the APSR abstract), 2026-05-11 · complicates

   “Prior research demonstrates voters’ confidence in elections depends on whether their preferred candidate wins, but does agreement with the electoral rules being used also matter? Leveraging growing procedural polarization in election laws, public opinion data from 2008 to 2024, and a large-scale survey experiment conducted before the 2024 election, I show that agreement with election procedures matters for voter confidence beyond well-established effects related to partisan control and electoral outcomes. Observational and experimental analyses consistently reveal that voters are less likely to express confidence in election results conducted using procedures they oppose. The effects are particularly large for voter identification laws and among Republicans and independents.”Hide quote

   Prior research demonstrates voters’ confidence in elections depends on whether their preferred candidate wins, but does agreement with the electoral rules being used also matter? Leveraging growing procedural polarization in election laws, public opinion data from 2008 to 2024, and a large-scale survey experiment conducted before the 2024 election, I show that agreement with election procedures matters for voter confidence beyond well-established effects related to partisan control and electoral outcomes. Observational and experimental analyses consistently reveal that voters are less likely to express confidence in election results conducted using procedures they oppose. The effects are particularly large for voter identification laws and among Republicans and independents.

10. Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab (M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee), 2024-05 · complicates

    “In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022. In contrast, Democratic voters’ confidence shows relatively little movement and is extremely high (94% in 2020 and 85% in 2022) ... Among Republicans, 59.1% indicated that SB 202 had increased (greatly or somewhat) their confidence in Georgia elections, as compared to 36.6% of Independents and a much lower 29.1% of Democrats holding this view. Conversely, a 46.8% plurality of Democrats expressed a decrease (greatly or somewhat) in confidence in Georgia elections because of SB 202 ... However, we cannot make any definitive statements from a causal standpoint as we are unable to completely rule out competing explanations. For example, it is possible that Republican confidence rebounded in 2022 because of the noted winner’s effect (the fact that the Georgia GOP won all statewide offices with the exception of a U.S. Senate seat). ... Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot.”Hide quote

    In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022. In contrast, Democratic voters’ confidence shows relatively little movement and is extremely high (94% in 2020 and 85% in 2022) ... Among Republicans, 59.1% indicated that SB 202 had increased (greatly or somewhat) their confidence in Georgia elections, as compared to 36.6% of Independents and a much lower 29.1% of Democrats holding this view. Conversely, a 46.8% plurality of Democrats expressed a decrease (greatly or somewhat) in confidence in Georgia elections because of SB 202 ... However, we cannot make any definitive statements from a causal standpoint as we are unable to completely rule out competing explanations. For example, it is possible that Republican confidence rebounded in 2022 because of the noted winner’s effect (the fact that the Georgia GOP won all statewide offices with the exception of a U.S. Senate seat). ... Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot.

11. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), per curiam

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell Legal Information Institute), 2000-12-12 · supports

    “The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ... This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. ... Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.”Hide quote

    The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ... This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. ... Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.

12. Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session (RL32717)

    Congressional Research Service (via EveryCRSReport), 2020 · supports

    “The second instance related to reported voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2005, a Representative (Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio) and a Senator (Barbara Boxer of California) objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes. The chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection, and the House and Senate each rejected the objection. When the House and Senate resumed the joint session, the electoral votes were counted as cast.”Hide quote

    The second instance related to reported voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2005, a Representative (Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio) and a Senator (Barbara Boxer of California) objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes. The chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection, and the House and Senate each rejected the objection. When the House and Senate resumed the joint session, the electoral votes were counted as cast.

13. Abrams Ends Gov Run, Vows To Continue Voting Rights Fight

    Georgia Public Broadcasting, 2018-11-16 · supports

    “Abrams said there was “no further viable remedy” to continue the fight for a runoff with Republican Brian Kemp. A glimpse at the teleprompter on the floor showed her speech was called “I Will Not Concede,” and Abrams, who would have been the country's first black female governor, said this was not meant to be a speech of concession. ... After recounting an assortment of problems voters faced in the election, from long lines at the polls to being issued provisional paper ballots to the hundreds of thousands of Georgians that have been removed from the voting rolls in recent years, Abrams said there were two things she would do next.”Hide quote

    Abrams said there was “no further viable remedy” to continue the fight for a runoff with Republican Brian Kemp. A glimpse at the teleprompter on the floor showed her speech was called “I Will Not Concede,” and Abrams, who would have been the country's first black female governor, said this was not meant to be a speech of concession. ... After recounting an assortment of problems voters faced in the election, from long lines at the polls to being issued provisional paper ballots to the hundreds of thousands of Georgians that have been removed from the voting rolls in recent years, Abrams said there were two things she would do next.

14. Texas v. Pennsylvania, No. 155, Orig. (order)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2020-12-11 · supports

    “The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”Hide quote

    The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

15. Roll Call 10, 117th Congress, 1st Session (vote record; fields are congress, session, chamber, roll call number, question, vote type, result, date, and totals of yeas, nays, present and not voting)

    Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 2021-01-06 · supports

    “117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 10 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 6-Jan-2021 ... Totals 121 303 0 7”Hide quote

    117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 10 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 6-Jan-2021 ... Totals 121 303 0 7

16. Roll Call 11, 117th Congress, 1st Session (vote record, same fields)

    Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 2021-01-07 · supports

    “117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 11 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 7-Jan-2021 ... Totals 138 282 0 11”Hide quote

    117 1st U.S. House of Representatives 11 MOTION On Agreeing to the Objection YEA-AND-NAY Failed 7-Jan-2021 ... Totals 138 282 0 11

17. Lake v. Hobbs, No. CV-23-0046-PR (order)

    Arizona Supreme Court (copy hosted by States United Democracy Center), 2023-03-22 · supports

    “Issue number six asks, "Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake's claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these”Hide quote

    Issue number six asks, "Did the panel err in dismissing the signature-verification claim on laches[,] mischaracterizing Lake's claim as a challenge to existing signature verification policies, when Lake in fact alleged that Maricopa failed to follow these

18. Judge dismisses Kari Lake’s final claim in election loss for Arizona governor

    Associated Press (via KSAT), 2023-05-23 · supports

    “Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election. ... She did not contest whether voters’ signatures on ballot envelopes matched those in their voting records.”Hide quote

    Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson said Lake failed to prove her claim that Maricopa County did not verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. ... She filed suit after losing to Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, asking the courts to install her as governor or order a new election. ... She did not contest whether voters’ signatures on ballot envelopes matched those in their voting records.

19. Judge orders new Bridgeport primary

    CT Mirror, 2023-11-01 · supports

    “"Given the volume of votes at issue, the miscounting of those statutorily invalid votes leaves this court unable to determine the result of the primary." ... Bloss based his argument that a new primary is needed on numbers — arguing that as many as 1,253 were submitted through drop boxes, while 2,100 hours of surveillance videos of the city's four drop boxes show only about 420 people placing ballots in them. ... Ganim defeated Gomes by 251 votes in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary”Hide quote

    "Given the volume of votes at issue, the miscounting of those statutorily invalid votes leaves this court unable to determine the result of the primary." ... Bloss based his argument that a new primary is needed on numbers — arguing that as many as 1,253 were submitted through drop boxes, while 2,100 hours of surveillance videos of the city's four drop boxes show only about 420 people placing ballots in them. ... Ganim defeated Gomes by 251 votes in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary

20. Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim wins do-over election, Associated Press projects

    CBS New York (Associated Press), 2024-02-27 · supports

    “Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim has won a do-over election in Connecticut's most populous city, months after a judge threw out the results of the first one because of allegations of absentee ballot box stuffing during a Democratic primary. ... A new Democratic primary was held on Jan. 23. Ganim won again, this time more comfortably”Hide quote

    Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim has won a do-over election in Connecticut's most populous city, months after a judge threw out the results of the first one because of allegations of absentee ballot box stuffing during a Democratic primary. ... A new Democratic primary was held on Jan. 23. Ganim won again, this time more comfortably

21. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide (chart tables, 2004–2022); Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider (2024)

    Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

    “Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections % Very/Somewhat confident Jan-04 72 Jan-06 75 Jan-08 59 Jan-16 66 Jan-18 70 Jan-20 59 Jan-22 63 ... Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats Jan-04 87 69 59 Jan-06 92 70 66 Jan-08 57 63 57 Jan-16 55 59 85 Jan-18 77 64 69 Jan-20 44 57 76 Jan-22 40 67 85 ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84”Hide quote

    Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections % Very/Somewhat confident Jan-04 72 Jan-06 75 Jan-08 59 Jan-16 66 Jan-18 70 Jan-20 59 Jan-22 63 ... Americans' Confidence in the Accuracy of U.S. Elections, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats Jan-04 87 69 59 Jan-06 92 70 66 Jan-08 57 63 57 Jan-16 55 59 85 Jan-18 77 64 69 Jan-20 44 57 76 Jan-22 40 67 85 ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84

22. Broad Public Confidence in Elections in the U.S. – but Partisans Differ Over Concerns About Access, Security (chart data)

    Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

    “Widespread confidence that in-person ballots will be counted accurately, but public confidence in count of mail ballots is lower, down among Democratic voters ... 2020-10 Oct ’20 In person 91 90 92 2022-10 Oct ’22 In person 84 95 79 2024-10 Oct ’24 In person 85 93 77 2026-10 Oct ’26 In person 79 81 84 2020-10 Oct ’20 By absentee or mail-in ballot 59 77 36 2022-10 Oct ’22 By absentee or mail-in ballot 62 88 37 2024-10 Oct ’24 By absentee or mail-in ballot 61 85 38 2026-10 Oct ’26 By absentee or mail-in ballot 53 64 42”Hide quote

    Widespread confidence that in-person ballots will be counted accurately, but public confidence in count of mail ballots is lower, down among Democratic voters ... 2020-10 Oct ’20 In person 91 90 92 2022-10 Oct ’22 In person 84 95 79 2024-10 Oct ’24 In person 85 93 77 2026-10 Oct ’26 In person 79 81 84 2020-10 Oct ’20 By absentee or mail-in ballot 59 77 36 2022-10 Oct ’22 By absentee or mail-in ballot 62 88 37 2024-10 Oct ’24 By absentee or mail-in ballot 61 85 38 2026-10 Oct ’26 By absentee or mail-in ballot 53 64 42

23. How We Voted in 2024, Figure 25: Confidence in Nationwide Vote Counting by Party, 2012–2024

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

    “In 2020, confidence among Democrats rose to 93%, while the percentage of Republicans who were either very or somewhat confident fell to 22%. Democratic confidence remained essentially unchanged in 2022, whereas Republican confidence increased by twenty points. By 2024, Democrats and Republicans became more aligned in the nationwide confidence measure, with Republican confidence rising to 88% and Democratic confidence decreasing to 79%.”Hide quote

    In 2020, confidence among Democrats rose to 93%, while the percentage of Republicans who were either very or somewhat confident fell to 22%. Democratic confidence remained essentially unchanged in 2022, whereas Republican confidence increased by twenty points. By 2024, Democrats and Republicans became more aligned in the nationwide confidence measure, with Republican confidence rising to 88% and Democratic confidence decreasing to 79%.

24. U.S. Trust in Elections Diverges From Global Pattern (trend table)

    Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

    “Americans Divided on Honesty of Elections ... Time Yes No 2026 49% 51% 2025 47% 53% 2024 51% 49% 2023 44% 55% 2022 49% 51% 2021 50% 50% 2020 45% 54% 2019 40% 59% 2018 37% 62% 2017 47% 52% 2016 30% 69% 2015 40% 59% 2014 40% 59% 2013 39% 60% 2012 42% 57% 2011 48% 49% 2010 44% 55% 2009 59% 40% 2008 47% 53% 2007 50% 49% 2006 52% 47% ”Hide quote

    Americans Divided on Honesty of Elections ... Time Yes No 2026 49% 51% 2025 47% 53% 2024 51% 49% 2023 44% 55% 2022 49% 51% 2021 50% 50% 2020 45% 54% 2019 40% 59% 2018 37% 62% 2017 47% 52% 2016 30% 69% 2015 40% 59% 2014 40% 59% 2013 39% 60% 2012 42% 57% 2011 48% 49% 2010 44% 55% 2009 59% 40% 2008 47% 53% 2007 50% 49% 2006 52% 47%

Federal and State Power Over Mail Voting Rules, 1986–2026

1. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (the Elections Clause)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports

   “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”Hide quote

   The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 (presentment)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports

   “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated”Hide quote

   Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated

3. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · contests

   “The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.””Hide quote

   The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.”

4. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports

   “Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.”Hide quote

   Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.

5. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2023-06-27 · complicates

   “We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”Hide quote

   We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

6. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · contests

   “The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, also known as UOCAVA, was enacted by Congress in 1986. UOCAVA requires that states and territories allow members of the uniformed services serving away from home, their family members, and U.S. citizens who are residing outside the country to register and vote absentee in federal elections. UOCAVA has been amended on several occasions, with the most recent major amendments in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.”Hide quote

   The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, also known as UOCAVA, was enacted by Congress in 1986. UOCAVA requires that states and territories allow members of the uniformed services serving away from home, their family members, and U.S. citizens who are residing outside the country to register and vote absentee in federal elections. UOCAVA has been amended on several occasions, with the most recent major amendments in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.

7. 52 U.S.C. §20302, State responsibilities (UOCAVA, as amended by the MOVE Act)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2009 · contests

   “Each State shall— (1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office; ... (8) transmit a validly requested absentee ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter— (A) except as provided in subsection (g), in the case in which the request is received at least 45 days before an election for Federal office, not later than 45 days before the election ... 2009—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 111–84, § 577(a)(1), added par. (6). ... Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 111–84, § 579(a)(1), added par. (8).”Hide quote

   Each State shall— (1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office; ... (8) transmit a validly requested absentee ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter— (A) except as provided in subsection (g), in the case in which the request is received at least 45 days before an election for Federal office, not later than 45 days before the election ... 2009—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 111–84, § 577(a)(1), added par. (6). ... Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 111–84, § 579(a)(1), added par. (8).

8. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports

   “The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.”Hide quote

   The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.

9. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports

   “The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.”Hide quote

   The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.

10. The Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747): Overview of Major Provisions (IN11781)

    Congressional Research Service, 2021-10-21 · supports

    “On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;”Hide quote

    On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;

11. Wednesday, January 19, 2022

    United States Senate Periodical Press Gallery, 2022-01-19 · supports

    “Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.”Hide quote

    Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.

12. House passes GOP's SAVE America Act

    Just The News, 2026-02-11 · supports

    “The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.”Hide quote

    The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.

13. U.S. House Passes the SAVE America Act and Will Combine It With a Defense Appropriations Bill to Make it Harder to Vote Down in the Senate

    American Democracy Minute, 2026-07-23 · supports

    “July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.”Hide quote

    July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.

14. Roll Call Vote 119th Congress - 2nd Session, Vote Number 231

    United States Senate, 2026-08-08 · supports

    “Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2”Hide quote

    Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2

15. Trump pumps brakes on Senate budget plan, delaying GOP SAVE America push

    Fox News, 2026-08-08 · supports

    “That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.”Hide quote

    That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.

16. Early Voting and Mail Voting: Overview and Issues for Congress (IF11477)

    Congressional Research Service, 2026-07-10 · supports

    “President Donald Trump issued executive orders on March 25, 2025, and March 31, 2026, that include provisions related to mail voting. Among other topics, E.O. 14248 addresses deadlines for returning mail ballots and E.O. 14399 addresses the design and transmission of mail balloting materials. ... Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119th Congress to codify or nullify the executive orders. Some have also offered proposals to require or prohibit use of alternatives to in-person voting on Election Day. For example, the Voter Empowerment Act, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, and the Vote at Home Act would require states to offer early and no-excuse mail voting, no-excuse mail voting, and all-mail elections, respectively, for federal races. The Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the Mail Ballot Integrity Act, a proposed amendment to the Secure America Act, and a proposed amendment to the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would prohibit states from sending voters ballots for federal elections except on request, and the latter three measures would limit mail voting in federal elections to voters in specified categories.”Hide quote

    President Donald Trump issued executive orders on March 25, 2025, and March 31, 2026, that include provisions related to mail voting. Among other topics, E.O. 14248 addresses deadlines for returning mail ballots and E.O. 14399 addresses the design and transmission of mail balloting materials. ... Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119th Congress to codify or nullify the executive orders. Some have also offered proposals to require or prohibit use of alternatives to in-person voting on Election Day. For example, the Voter Empowerment Act, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, and the Vote at Home Act would require states to offer early and no-excuse mail voting, no-excuse mail voting, and all-mail elections, respectively, for federal races. The Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the Mail Ballot Integrity Act, a proposed amendment to the Secure America Act, and a proposed amendment to the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would prohibit states from sending voters ballots for federal elections except on request, and the latter three measures would limit mail voting in federal elections to voters in specified categories.

17. Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, Sec. 3, 91 FR 17125

    Federal Register, 2026-04-03 · supports

    “United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots. ... the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order. The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following: (i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that: (A) is marked as Official Election Mail ... (B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode ... (iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.”Hide quote

    United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots. ... the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order. The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following: (i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that: (A) is marked as Official Election Mail ... (B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode ... (iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.

18. Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · contests

    “The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).”Hide quote

    The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).

19. Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports

    “The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”Hide quote

    The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.

20. Trump v. California, No. 26A124, Sotomayor, J., with whom Kagan, J., joins, dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports

    “Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”Hide quote

    Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.

21. United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305 (order on application for stay; Kavanaugh, J., concurring)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · supports

    “The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”Hide quote

    The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.

22. United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305, Alito, J., with whom Thomas, J., joins, dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · contests

    “JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay. ... The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three special features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. ... As for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to succeed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause. U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules.”Hide quote

    JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay. ... The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three special features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. ... As for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to succeed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause. U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules.

23. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (March 2026 mail voting executive order): case page

    Brennan Center for Justice (co-counsel for the plaintiffs), 2026-09-17 · supports

    “On August 11, the district court granted the League Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a nation-wide preliminary injunction, thereby halting the implementation of Section 3 in all fifty states. ... On August 21, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26 ... On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. ... On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay. On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means that the Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.”Hide quote

    On August 11, the district court granted the League Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a nation-wide preliminary injunction, thereby halting the implementation of Section 3 in all fifty states. ... On August 21, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26 ... On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. ... On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay. On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means that the Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.

24. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), syllabus

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... Held: The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. ... Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, and in which Kavanaugh, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III”Hide quote

    Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... Held: The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. ... Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, and in which Kavanaugh, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III

25. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), opinion of the Court

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. ... Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process. The election-day statutes are proof of concept: When voting on different days in different States sparked allegations of fraud, Congress set a nationally uniform deadline for voting. If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.”Hide quote

    Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. ... Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process. The election-day statutes are proof of concept: When voting on different days in different States sparked allegations of fraud, Congress set a nationally uniform deadline for voting. If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.

26. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), opinion of the Court

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “And UOCAVA confirms that while Congress has set the date by which absentee ballots must be cast, States have the power to set the date by which they must be received.”Hide quote

    And UOCAVA confirms that while Congress has set the date by which absentee ballots must be cast, States have the power to set the date by which they must be received.

27. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), syllabus

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs' policy arguments about election integrity and voter confidence are properly directed to legislatures, not courts”Hide quote

    State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs' policy arguments about election integrity and voter confidence are properly directed to legislatures, not courts

28. California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary

    Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports

    “However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.”Hide quote

    However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.

29. California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary

    Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports

    “On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).”Hide quote

    On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).

30. Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots (entries for North Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Kansas)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-25 · supports

    “Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. Previously, ballots could be received four days after the election as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. ... (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. … Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election.”Hide quote

    Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. Previously, ballots could be received four days after the election as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. ... (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. … Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election.

31. Table 18: States With Mostly Mail Elections

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-07 · supports

    “Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative”Hide quote

    Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative

32. H.B. 300 Amendments to Election Law (Enrolled Copy), 2025 General Session

    Utah State Legislature, 2025 · supports

    “subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail”Hide quote

    subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail

33. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws 2016–2026 (no-excuse table: no-excuse or all-mail | excuse required | COVID-19 excuse added; receipt-deadline table: Election Day receipt | post-Election Day receipt)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states ... November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states … January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. … November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. … November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. … November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. … November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C. ... As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic.”Hide quote

    November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states ... November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states … January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. … November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. … November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. … November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. … November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C. ... As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic.