Federal and State Power Over Voter ID and Registration Rules

Federal and State Power Over Voter ID and Registration Rules

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 · supports

   “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. 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

   “We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.”Hide quote

   We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.

6. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), syllabus

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

   “That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. … Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined in part. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions.”Hide quote

   That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. … Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined in part. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions.

7. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), syllabus

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports

   “Stevens, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.”Hide quote

   Stevens, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

8. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates

   “The requirement does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail … the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. … The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists”Hide quote

   The requirement does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail … the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. … The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists

9. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports

   “While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”Hide quote

   While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

10. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports

    “In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters. … The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute.”Hide quote

    In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters. … The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute.

11. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates

    “She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.”Hide quote

    She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.

12. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), Souter, J., dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates

    “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, see ante, at 14–15 (lead opinion), and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting, see ante, at 15–16.”Hide quote

    threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, see ante, at 14–15 (lead opinion), and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting, see ante, at 15–16.

13. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports

    “The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.””Hide quote

    The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

14. 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.

15. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. 756 (2018), syllabus

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2018-06-11 · supports

    “Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA.”Hide quote

    Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA.

16. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

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

    “Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting practices and procedures (including redistricting plans and at-large election systems and voter registration procedures) that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. … On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA.”Hide quote

    Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting practices and procedures (including redistricting plans and at-large election systems and voter registration procedures) that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. … On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 52 U.S.C. §21083(b), Requirements for voters who register by mail (HAVA §303(b))

    Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2002 · supports

    “An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter … An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 21082(a) of this title.”Hide quote

    An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter … An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 21082(a) of this title.

20. 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5), Verification of voter registration information (HAVA §303(a))

    Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2002 · supports

    “an application for voter registration for an election for Federal office may not be accepted or processed by a State unless the application includes— (I) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a current and valid driver’s license, the applicant’s driver’s license number; or (II) in the case of any other applicant (other than an applicant to whom clause (ii) applies), the last 4 digits of the applicant’s social security number.”Hide quote

    an application for voter registration for an election for Federal office may not be accepted or processed by a State unless the application includes— (I) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a current and valid driver’s license, the applicant’s driver’s license number; or (II) in the case of any other applicant (other than an applicant to whom clause (ii) applies), the last 4 digits of the applicant’s social security number.

21. 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A) (NVRA §8)

    Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1993 · supports

    “A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”Hide quote

    A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.

22. 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;

23. 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.

24. House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections

    NBC News, 2025-04-10 · supports

    “Lawmakers approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats — Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joining every Republican present in support of the measure.”Hide quote

    Lawmakers approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats — Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joining every Republican present in support of the measure.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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.

29. Executive Order 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, 90 FR 14005

    Federal Register, 2025-03-28 · supports

    “(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508: (A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3)”Hide quote

    (a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508: (A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3)

30. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-0946 (CKK), Order (Doc. 217)

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2025-10-31 · supports

    “are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any action to implement or give effect to Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248, including taking any action based on the Executive Order to modify the content of the federal voter registration application form described in 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) to require documentary proof of United States citizenship.”Hide quote

    are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any action to implement or give effect to Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248, including taking any action based on the Executive Order to modify the content of the federal voter registration application form described in 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) to require documentary proof of United States citizenship.

31. 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.

32. 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).

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

    Federal Register, 2026-04-03 · supports

    “shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List). The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.”Hide quote

    shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List). The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.

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

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

    “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).

35. 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.

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

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

    “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.

37. The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks

    OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · supports

    “In siding with the Trump administration, the court’s majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government “from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.””Hide quote

    In siding with the Trump administration, the court’s majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government “from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.”

38. The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks

    OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · complicates

    “In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. … They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system’s error rate”Hide quote

    In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. … They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system’s error rate

39. The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks

    OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · complicates

    “Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records. In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.”Hide quote

    Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records. In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

40. The Canvass, October 2021

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021-09-27 · supports

    “Requirements for voters to show some form of identification at the polls have become much more widespread since 2000. Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34.”Hide quote

    Requirements for voters to show some form of identification at the polls have become much more widespread since 2000. Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34.

41. Voter ID Laws

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

    “Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. The remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., use other methods to verify the identity of voters.”Hide quote

    Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. The remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., use other methods to verify the identity of voters.

42. Voter Citizenship Bills Top Lawmaker To-Do Lists in 2026

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-07-24 · supports

    “This year, four states required documentary proof of citizenship, or DPOC, to register to vote, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 13 (though not all are in effect due to past court decisions).”Hide quote

    This year, four states required documentary proof of citizenship, or DPOC, to register to vote, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 13 (though not all are in effect due to past court decisions).

43. U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts, Citing Proximity to the Election, to Allow NH to Ban Use of Student IDs for Voting

    American Democracy Minute, 2026-10-23 · supports

    “Oct. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted an earlier case using the Purcell principle: “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.””Hide quote

    Oct. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted an earlier case using the Purcell principle: “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”

Voter ID and Citizenship-Proof Rules in the US and Other Democracies

1. Voter ID Laws

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

   “Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. The remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., use other methods to verify the identity of voters. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of August 2026, 24 states ask for a photo ID and 12 states also accept non-photo IDs.”Hide quote

   Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. The remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., use other methods to verify the identity of voters. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of August 2026, 24 states ask for a photo ID and 12 states also accept non-photo IDs.

2. Voter ID Laws: Table 1, Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2026

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

   “Strict: Voters without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2026 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi New Hampshire [6] North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin [5] … Arizona North Dakota Wyoming [3] Iowa … Non-Strict … Alabama [1] Florida Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska Rhode Island South Carolina [4] South Dakota Texas West Virginia … Alaska Colorado Connecticut Delaware Oklahoma [2] Utah Virginia Washington”Hide quote

   Strict: Voters without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2026 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi New Hampshire [6] North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin [5] … Arizona North Dakota Wyoming [3] Iowa … Non-Strict … Alabama [1] Florida Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska Rhode Island South Carolina [4] South Dakota Texas West Virginia … Alaska Colorado Connecticut Delaware Oklahoma [2] Utah Virginia Washington

3. Voter ID Laws: Table 2, State-by-State Details of In-Effect Voter Identification Requirements

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

   “Georgia … Free voter ID card issued by the state or county. … Then in August 2016 an appeals court ruled that the law could be implemented as long as the state keeps its pledge to provide temporary free IDs to those in need, and to publicize the law. … "a voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee or who has a religious objection to being photographed shall be required to execute an affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election commission and then shall be allowed to vote." (Tenn. Code Ann. §2-7-112(f))”Hide quote

   Georgia … Free voter ID card issued by the state or county. … Then in August 2016 an appeals court ruled that the law could be implemented as long as the state keeps its pledge to provide temporary free IDs to those in need, and to publicize the law. … "a voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee or who has a religious objection to being photographed shall be required to execute an affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election commission and then shall be allowed to vote." (Tenn. Code Ann. §2-7-112(f))

4. Voter ID Laws: Voter ID News

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

   “2026 … Louisiana … Enacted SB 319 removes the option for a voter without an acceptable form of ID to complete an affidavit of identification in lieu of presenting ID, effective 2027. … 2026 … New Hampshire … Enacted HB 323 , removing student ID cards as a valid form of voter ID. … 2025 … West Virginia … Enacted HB 3016 requiring photo ID to vote; previously required non-photo ID. … 2025 … Wisconsin … Voters approved a constitutional amendment enshrining existing photo ID requirements.”Hide quote

   2026 … Louisiana … Enacted SB 319 removes the option for a voter without an acceptable form of ID to complete an affidavit of identification in lieu of presenting ID, effective 2027. … 2026 … New Hampshire … Enacted HB 323 , removing student ID cards as a valid form of voter ID. … 2025 … West Virginia … Enacted HB 3016 requiring photo ID to vote; previously required non-photo ID. … 2025 … Wisconsin … Voters approved a constitutional amendment enshrining existing photo ID requirements.

5. History of Voter ID (archived copy)

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020-01-17 · supports

   “That was when South Carolina became the first state to request that voters show some kind of identification document at the polls. No photo was required—just a document bearing the voter’s name. In 1970, Hawaii joined South Carolina with a voter ID requirement. Texas (1971), Florida (1977), and Alaska (1980) rounded out the first five. … By 2000, 14 states did so. These states had Democratic and Republican majorities. … Soon thereafter, Georgia and Indiana pioneered a new, “strict” form of voter ID. … These were first implemented in 2008 (after Indiana’s law was given the go-ahead by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Marion County). In 2011, 2012 and 2013, the pace of adoption accelerated.”Hide quote

   That was when South Carolina became the first state to request that voters show some kind of identification document at the polls. No photo was required—just a document bearing the voter’s name. In 1970, Hawaii joined South Carolina with a voter ID requirement. Texas (1971), Florida (1977), and Alaska (1980) rounded out the first five. … By 2000, 14 states did so. These states had Democratic and Republican majorities. … Soon thereafter, Georgia and Indiana pioneered a new, “strict” form of voter ID. … These were first implemented in 2008 (after Indiana’s law was given the go-ahead by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Marion County). In 2011, 2012 and 2013, the pace of adoption accelerated.

6. The Canvass: Voter ID: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been?

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021-09-27 · supports

   “Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34. … Of the 21 states that started with non-photo, non-strict requirements, nine have made their laws stricter. Just two states have eased their ID requirements: Texas in 2017 and Virginia in 2020. The Texas change came after a 2011 voter ID bill was found to intentionally discriminate against Latino and Black voters … Most notably, Wyoming enacted the state’s first voter ID law after similar bills failed in 2013, 2017 and 2020, bringing the total of states with voter ID laws to 35. … Like virtually all bills to add voter ID requirements or make existing requirements stricter, the action this year has been in Republican-led states.”Hide quote

   Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34. … Of the 21 states that started with non-photo, non-strict requirements, nine have made their laws stricter. Just two states have eased their ID requirements: Texas in 2017 and Virginia in 2020. The Texas change came after a 2011 voter ID bill was found to intentionally discriminate against Latino and Black voters … Most notably, Wyoming enacted the state’s first voter ID law after similar bills failed in 2013, 2017 and 2020, bringing the total of states with voter ID laws to 35. … Like virtually all bills to add voter ID requirements or make existing requirements stricter, the action this year has been in Republican-led states.

7. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, September 2009)

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2009-08-31 · supports

   “Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). … However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted.”Hide quote

   Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). … However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted.

8. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2010)

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2010-09-30 · supports

   “Twenty-six states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Eight of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). … However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted.”Hide quote

   Twenty-six states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Eight of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). … However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted.

9. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2012)

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2012-09-05 · supports

   “Thirty-one states presently have laws in place that will require all voters to show ID at the polls this November.”Hide quote

   Thirty-one states presently have laws in place that will require all voters to show ID at the polls this November.

10. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2014)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014-10-02 · supports

    “Introduction: A total of 34 states have passed laws requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. As of September 12, 2014, 32 of these voter identification laws are in force. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2014, 16 states ask for a photo ID and 16 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table One: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2014 … Strict … Arkansas* Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin[1]”Hide quote

    Introduction: A total of 34 states have passed laws requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. As of September 12, 2014, 32 of these voter identification laws are in force. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2014, 16 states ask for a photo ID and 16 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table One: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2014 … Strict … Arkansas* Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin[1]

11. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2016)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016-10-08 · supports

    “Introduction: A total of 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. 32 of these voter identification laws are in force in 2016. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2016, 17 states ask for a photo ID and 16 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2016** … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Wisconsin [7]”Hide quote

    Introduction: A total of 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. 32 of these voter identification laws are in force in 2016. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2016, 17 states ask for a photo ID and 16 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2016** … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Wisconsin [7]

12. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2018)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2018-10-01 · supports

    “Introduction: A total of 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, all of which are in force in 2018. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2018, 17 states ask for a photo ID and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2018** … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Wisconsin [6]”Hide quote

    Introduction: A total of 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, all of which are in force in 2018. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2018, 17 states ask for a photo ID and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2018** … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Wisconsin [6]

13. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2020)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020-10-01 · supports

    “Introduction: A total of 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020. (North Carolina's law has a temporary injunction on it, as of Dec. 31, 2019.) … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2020, 18 states ask for a photo ID (althought North Carolina's is on hold based on a preliminary injunction from a federal judge) and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Wisconsin [6]”Hide quote

    Introduction: A total of 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020. (North Carolina's law has a temporary injunction on it, as of Dec. 31, 2019.) … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect in 2020, 18 states ask for a photo ID (althought North Carolina's is on hold based on a preliminary injunction from a federal judge) and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Strict … Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Wisconsin [6]

14. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, October 2022)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2022-10-01 · supports

    “A total of 35 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of July 2022, 18 states ask for a photo ID and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2022 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Wisconsin [5]”Hide quote

    A total of 35 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of July 2022, 18 states ask for a photo ID and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2022 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Wisconsin [5]

15. Voter ID Laws (archived copy, October 2024)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024-02-02 · supports

    “Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of April 2024, 21 states ask for a photo ID and 15 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2024 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin [5]”Hide quote

    Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. … Using this categorization for laws that are in effect as of April 2024, 21 states ask for a photo ID and 15 states also accept non-photo IDs. … Table 1: Voter Identification Laws In Force in 2024 … Strict … Arkansas Georgia Indiana Kansas Mississippi North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin [5]

16. Voter Identification Requirements (archived copy, January 2015)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014-06-25 · complicates

    “As of October 13, 2014, 31 of these voter identification laws are in force. Pennsylvania's law has been struck down and will not be appealed; North Carolina's law, enacted in 2013, goes into effect in 2016; and Wisconsin has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court from implementing its law for 2014, pending a court case.”Hide quote

    As of October 13, 2014, 31 of these voter identification laws are in force. Pennsylvania's law has been struck down and will not be appealed; North Carolina's law, enacted in 2013, goes into effect in 2016; and Wisconsin has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court from implementing its law for 2014, pending a court case.

17. Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-01 · supports

    “States with Laws Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote … Alabama … Enacted in 2011. Not currently in effect. … Arizona … Enacted in 2004. … Florida … Enacted 2026, effective Jan. 1, 2027 … Georgia … Enacted in 2010. … Indiana … Enacted in 2024. … Kansas … Enacted in 2011. Not currently in effect due to court decision. … Louisiana … Enacted in 2024. … Mississippi … Enacted in 2026. … New Hampshire … Enacted in 2024. On May 28, 2026, a federal judge issued an injunction ruling that removal of the qualified voter affidavit is unconstitutional. … South Dakota … Enacted in 2026. … Tennessee … Enacted in 2011. … Utah … Enacted in 2026. … Wyoming … Enacted in 2025.”Hide quote

    States with Laws Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote … Alabama … Enacted in 2011. Not currently in effect. … Arizona … Enacted in 2004. … Florida … Enacted 2026, effective Jan. 1, 2027 … Georgia … Enacted in 2010. … Indiana … Enacted in 2024. … Kansas … Enacted in 2011. Not currently in effect due to court decision. … Louisiana … Enacted in 2024. … Mississippi … Enacted in 2026. … New Hampshire … Enacted in 2024. On May 28, 2026, a federal judge issued an injunction ruling that removal of the qualified voter affidavit is unconstitutional. … South Dakota … Enacted in 2026. … Tennessee … Enacted in 2011. … Utah … Enacted in 2026. … Wyoming … Enacted in 2025.

18. Voter Citizenship Bills Top Lawmaker To-Do Lists in 2026

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-07-24 · supports

    “This year, four states required documentary proof of citizenship, or DPOC, to register to vote, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 13 (though not all are in effect due to past court decisions). Laws in Utah and South Dakota establish bifurcated systems where eligible voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship at some point in the registration process are placed on a “federal only” list allowing them to cast ballots in federal but not state elections. … Once the law is effective, Louisiana will become the 11th state to have what NCSL defines as a “strict” photo ID law.”Hide quote

    This year, four states required documentary proof of citizenship, or DPOC, to register to vote, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 13 (though not all are in effect due to past court decisions). Laws in Utah and South Dakota establish bifurcated systems where eligible voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship at some point in the registration process are placed on a “federal only” list allowing them to cast ballots in federal but not state elections. … Once the law is effective, Louisiana will become the 11th state to have what NCSL defines as a “strict” photo ID law.

19. Early In-Person Voting

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-11 · supports

    “As of April 2026, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands offer early in-person voting to all voters (this includes states with all-mail elections). Three states—Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire—do not offer early in-person voting … The average start date is 27 days before the election. … Arkansas | Fifteen days before election … Georgia | Fourth Monday prior to a primary or election … Indiana | Twenty-eight days before election (in-person absentee) … Kansas | Twenty days before election or Tuesday before election (varies by county) … North Carolina | Third Thursday before election … Ohio | Twenty-nine days before election (the day after voter registration closes). … Tennessee | Twenty days before election … Wisconsin | Fourteen days preceding the election (in-person absentee).”Hide quote

    As of April 2026, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands offer early in-person voting to all voters (this includes states with all-mail elections). Three states—Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire—do not offer early in-person voting … The average start date is 27 days before the election. … Arkansas | Fifteen days before election … Georgia | Fourth Monday prior to a primary or election … Indiana | Twenty-eight days before election (in-person absentee) … Kansas | Twenty days before election or Tuesday before election (varies by county) … North Carolina | Third Thursday before election … Ohio | Twenty-nine days before election (the day after voter registration closes). … Tennessee | Twenty days before election … Wisconsin | Fourteen days preceding the election (in-person absentee).

20. Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform

    Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker Commission), 2005-09 · supports

    “2.5.1 … States should provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge. 2.5.2 The right to vote is a vital component of U.S. citizenship, and all states should use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters. … States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. … There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. … it is worth recalling that most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their democracies remain strong.”Hide quote

    2.5.1 … States should provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge. 2.5.2 The right to vote is a vital component of U.S. citizenship, and all states should use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters. … States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. … There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. … it is worth recalling that most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their democracies remain strong.

21. Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: statement of Tom Daschle, joined by Spencer Overton and Raul Yzaguirre

    Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker Commission), 2005-09 · complicates

    “The call for States to use the new REAL ID driver’s license for voter identification at the polls is the most troublesome recommendation in the Report. … REAL ID is a driver’s license, not a citizenship or a voting card. The Report notes that 12% of the voting age population lack a driver’s license. … For some, the Commission’s ID proposal constitutes nothing short of a modern day poll tax.”Hide quote

    The call for States to use the new REAL ID driver’s license for voter identification at the polls is the most troublesome recommendation in the Report. … REAL ID is a driver’s license, not a citizenship or a voting card. The Report notes that 12% of the voting age population lack a driver’s license. … For some, the Commission’s ID proposal constitutes nothing short of a modern day poll tax.

22. Jimmy Carter and James Baker

    PBS NewsHour, 2005-09-19 · complicates

    “In Georgia, legislation which I condemn, it is a poll tax because the Georgia law which ought to be overthrown by the courts requires that you buy a voter ID card, which costs you about $20 for five years, or $35 for 10 years. That is a poll tax. We require in our recommendations that the voter ID card be free of charge.”Hide quote

    In Georgia, legislation which I condemn, it is a poll tax because the Georgia law which ought to be overthrown by the courts requires that you buy a voter ID card, which costs you about $20 for five years, or $35 for 10 years. That is a poll tax. We require in our recommendations that the voter ID card be free of charge.

23. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187)

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · supports

    “Voters must show photo ID in a polling station before being issued with a ballot paper. … The provisions for Great Britain were introduced by Elections Act 2022. Voters in Northern Ireland have been required to show ID when voting in all elections there since 1985, and photo ID since 2003. … These requirements to do not apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru and to council elections in Scotland and Wales. … We do not believe there is a practical way to assure the attestation process in the polling station, that it would undermine the integrity of the check, and risk adding time and complexity to the polling station process both to those running it, and to those using it. … People without an existing acceptable form of voter ID can apply online or by post for a free Voter Authority Certificate (VAC). … The UK first elections outside of Northern Ireland to use voter ID were the local elections in England in 2023. The first general election to require voter ID was the July 2024 election.”Hide quote

    Voters must show photo ID in a polling station before being issued with a ballot paper. … The provisions for Great Britain were introduced by Elections Act 2022. Voters in Northern Ireland have been required to show ID when voting in all elections there since 1985, and photo ID since 2003. … These requirements to do not apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru and to council elections in Scotland and Wales. … We do not believe there is a practical way to assure the attestation process in the polling station, that it would undermine the integrity of the check, and risk adding time and complexity to the polling station process both to those running it, and to those using it. … People without an existing acceptable form of voter ID can apply online or by post for a free Voter Authority Certificate (VAC). … The UK first elections outside of Northern Ireland to use voter ID were the local elections in England in 2023. The first general election to require voter ID was the July 2024 election.

24. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187): How much of a problem is personation?

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · complicates

    “The Electoral Commission has found little evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. … Since 2016 there have been five convictions and six cautions for polling station personation. … In 2023 there were two allegations of polling station personation. Neither resulted in any further action as police no offence had been committed. In 2024 there were seven allegations of polling station personation, but none led to prosecution.”Hide quote

    The Electoral Commission has found little evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. … Since 2016 there have been five convictions and six cautions for polling station personation. … In 2023 there were two allegations of polling station personation. Neither resulted in any further action as police no offence had been committed. In 2024 there were seven allegations of polling station personation, but none led to prosecution.

25. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187): Why was voter ID introduced?

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · supports

    “However, it recommended in 2014 that voter ID should be extended from Northern Ireland to the whole of the UK, particularly as registration and postal voting had been made more secure but polling station voting had few checks in place to detect fraud. A report by the then government’s Anti-Corruption Champion recommended in 2016 that the government should consider pilot voter ID schemes in Great Britain. … Lord Pickles acknowledged the number of allegations of polling station fraud were low and prosecutions were rare in his 2016 review of electoral fraud. However, he cautioned that: …there is a concern that the absence of evidence does not mean this practice is not taking place. And even if it is not, there is a precautionary principle that comes into play in terms of the potential for it to happen…”Hide quote

    However, it recommended in 2014 that voter ID should be extended from Northern Ireland to the whole of the UK, particularly as registration and postal voting had been made more secure but polling station voting had few checks in place to detect fraud. A report by the then government’s Anti-Corruption Champion recommended in 2016 that the government should consider pilot voter ID schemes in Great Britain. … Lord Pickles acknowledged the number of allegations of polling station fraud were low and prosecutions were rare in his 2016 review of electoral fraud. However, he cautioned that: …there is a concern that the absence of evidence does not mean this practice is not taking place. And even if it is not, there is a precautionary principle that comes into play in terms of the potential for it to happen…

26. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187): Voters turned away

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · supports

    “At the 2024 general election at least 0.25% of electors were turned away from polling stations, around 50,000 people. Two-thirds (34,000) did return with acceptable ID and were issued with a ballot paper. This meant 16,000 did not return. This is equivalent of 0.08% of all polling station voters. This is an underestimate as 20 constituencies in Great Britain did not provide data. At the 2023 local elections in England, at least 0.7% of voters were turned away initially. Most people did come back after being turned away (63%), but some did not (37%). This means at least 0.25% of all people who tried to vote in person (or around 14,000 people) did not get a ballot paper. … These figures are likely to be an underestimate because of the way the data was collected.”Hide quote

    At the 2024 general election at least 0.25% of electors were turned away from polling stations, around 50,000 people. Two-thirds (34,000) did return with acceptable ID and were issued with a ballot paper. This meant 16,000 did not return. This is equivalent of 0.08% of all polling station voters. This is an underestimate as 20 constituencies in Great Britain did not provide data. At the 2023 local elections in England, at least 0.7% of voters were turned away initially. Most people did come back after being turned away (63%), but some did not (37%). This means at least 0.25% of all people who tried to vote in person (or around 14,000 people) did not get a ballot paper. … These figures are likely to be an underestimate because of the way the data was collected.

27. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187): Does it prevent personation?

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · supports

    “The then Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland reported that in the early 1980s personation was taking place on a “planned and well organised basis”. Concerns about the level of voter fraud in Northern Ireland culminated in 1983 when 149 arrests were made for personation during the June 1983 General Election. … There was no evidence to suggest a fall in turnout, but there was plenty of evidence that fraud declined sharply. At the 2005 UK General Election, just 55 tendered ballots were issued in Northern Ireland, a 94% reduction compared to 1983. There has been just one conviction for personation in Northern Ireland since 2002. Meanwhile, public confidence in the integrity of elections in Northern Ireland is up. In the early 2000s, 66% of Northern Irish electors believed electoral fraud was commonplace in some areas. By 2017, the proportion who thought at least some fraud took place was 28%, in line with the rest of the UK.”Hide quote

    The then Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland reported that in the early 1980s personation was taking place on a “planned and well organised basis”. Concerns about the level of voter fraud in Northern Ireland culminated in 1983 when 149 arrests were made for personation during the June 1983 General Election. … There was no evidence to suggest a fall in turnout, but there was plenty of evidence that fraud declined sharply. At the 2005 UK General Election, just 55 tendered ballots were issued in Northern Ireland, a 94% reduction compared to 1983. There has been just one conviction for personation in Northern Ireland since 2002. Meanwhile, public confidence in the integrity of elections in Northern Ireland is up. In the early 2000s, 66% of Northern Irish electors believed electoral fraud was commonplace in some areas. By 2017, the proportion who thought at least some fraud took place was 28%, in line with the rest of the UK.

28. Voter ID (Research Briefing CBP 9187): The impact of voter ID

    House of Commons Library, 2025-08-06 · complicates

    “It is not possible to attribute a change in turnout to one factor. … The report noted 3% of non-voters said they did not vote because they did not have ID, and 1% said it was because they did not agree with the requirement to show ID to vote at a polling station. … It concluded there is not enough evidence to determine whether this is the case and that it cannot be determined whether or not the identification checks made it easier to detect personation … 87% of people said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse … This is a positive change from the 2019 general election when 72% said that they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse.”Hide quote

    It is not possible to attribute a change in turnout to one factor. … The report noted 3% of non-voters said they did not vote because they did not have ID, and 1% said it was because they did not agree with the requirement to show ID to vote at a polling station. … It concluded there is not enough evidence to determine whether this is the case and that it cannot be determined whether or not the identification checks made it easier to detect personation … 87% of people said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse … This is a positive change from the 2019 general election when 72% said that they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse.

29. Voter ID at the 2024 UK general election (page last updated 19 August 2025)

    Electoral Commission, 2024-07-29 · supports

    “This means that one in 1,200 voters who tried to vote at a polling station were not given a ballot paper at the UK general election due to the ID requirement. … Our research carried out immediately following the general election found that 87% of people were aware of the need to bring ID when voting in person. … Awareness levels were slightly higher in Scotland and Wales (90% and 89%) compared to England (87%). These are in line with the awareness levels in Northern Ireland (89%), where the requirement to show photo ID has been in place since 2003. However, as we have previously found, awareness levels varied across the population and were lower for: 18 to 24-year-olds (71%) compared to older age groups (at least 91% for those aged 45 and over) people from ethnic minority communities (76%) compared to white people (90%) people in social grades C2DE (86%) compared to ABC1 (88%). … By the close of poll, 0.08% of people who tried to vote in person were not issued with a ballot paper due to the ID requirement. This means around 16,000 people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID. … Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) * May 2024 figures are based on data from the 278 English and Welsh local authorities that submitted figures before the UK general election. Due to the timing of the UK general election, only limited data quality checks were possible on the May 2024 data – data which could not be checked was removed. Absolute numbers are not available for the May 2024 elections … greeters were used in some polling stations to welcome voters, remind them about the need to show photographic ID, and help speed up the voting process (they did not have the power to turn people away from polling stations). Voters may therefore have been made aware of the requirement by greeters before they got to the ballot issuing desk where they would have been recorded as unable to vote. … missing returns from polling stations, for example where some stations in a local authority did not submit a data return … It is not possible to quantify the level of inaccuracy in the data but, overall, these types of errors would result in an underestimate of the impact of the ID requirement. … We found that 4% of the people who said they did not vote gave an unprompted reason that was related to the ID rules. … However, we cannot use these figures to accurately quantify the impact of voter ID on turnout. … The clearest evidence relates to the lower, C2DE social grade. When prompted, 10% of people who did not vote said that the ID requirement was the reason, with 6% saying that this was because they did not have the required ID. This was higher for C2DE non-voters compared to ABC1 non-voters (8% compared to 3%).”Hide quote

    This means that one in 1,200 voters who tried to vote at a polling station were not given a ballot paper at the UK general election due to the ID requirement. … Our research carried out immediately following the general election found that 87% of people were aware of the need to bring ID when voting in person. … Awareness levels were slightly higher in Scotland and Wales (90% and 89%) compared to England (87%). These are in line with the awareness levels in Northern Ireland (89%), where the requirement to show photo ID has been in place since 2003. However, as we have previously found, awareness levels varied across the population and were lower for: 18 to 24-year-olds (71%) compared to older age groups (at least 91% for those aged 45 and over) people from ethnic minority communities (76%) compared to white people (90%) people in social grades C2DE (86%) compared to ABC1 (88%). … By the close of poll, 0.08% of people who tried to vote in person were not issued with a ballot paper due to the ID requirement. This means around 16,000 people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID. … Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) * May 2024 figures are based on data from the 278 English and Welsh local authorities that submitted figures before the UK general election. Due to the timing of the UK general election, only limited data quality checks were possible on the May 2024 data – data which could not be checked was removed. Absolute numbers are not available for the May 2024 elections … greeters were used in some polling stations to welcome voters, remind them about the need to show photographic ID, and help speed up the voting process (they did not have the power to turn people away from polling stations). Voters may therefore have been made aware of the requirement by greeters before they got to the ballot issuing desk where they would have been recorded as unable to vote. … missing returns from polling stations, for example where some stations in a local authority did not submit a data return … It is not possible to quantify the level of inaccuracy in the data but, overall, these types of errors would result in an underestimate of the impact of the ID requirement. … We found that 4% of the people who said they did not vote gave an unprompted reason that was related to the ID rules. … However, we cannot use these figures to accurately quantify the impact of voter ID on turnout. … The clearest evidence relates to the lower, C2DE social grade. When prompted, 10% of people who did not vote said that the ID requirement was the reason, with 6% saying that this was because they did not have the required ID. This was higher for C2DE non-voters compared to ABC1 non-voters (8% compared to 3%).

30. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An assessment of its first year in operation

    Electoral Commission, 2003-12 · complicates

    “In August 2002, the month prior to the first canvass under the new system, a total of 1,192,136 names were on the electoral register for Northern Ireland. When the December 2002 register was published the number of names had reduced by 119,790 to 1,072,346. … We concluded that the reduction could be explained by a number of factors, of which the removal of the practice of carrying names forward from the previous register for a period of one year is likely to have been the most significant. … We do not agree with the assertion that 120,000 or so persons were disenfranchised as a result of the new legislation being introduced although there is some evidence to suggest that eligible persons previously registered have not enrolled under the new system.”Hide quote

    In August 2002, the month prior to the first canvass under the new system, a total of 1,192,136 names were on the electoral register for Northern Ireland. When the December 2002 register was published the number of names had reduced by 119,790 to 1,072,346. … We concluded that the reduction could be explained by a number of factors, of which the removal of the practice of carrying names forward from the previous register for a period of one year is likely to have been the most significant. … We do not agree with the assertion that 120,000 or so persons were disenfranchised as a result of the new legislation being introduced although there is some evidence to suggest that eligible persons previously registered have not enrolled under the new system.

31. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An assessment of its first year in operation (quoting the 1998 review, Administering Elections in Northern Ireland)

    Electoral Commission, 2003-12 · complicates

    “Personation at polling stations has, however, been impossible to quantify. No evidence has been presented and the review has been unable to discover any concrete proof that it occurs at a significant level. However, despite the fact that no one has come forward with evidence, either to the Review, or indeed, during the last three elections, the experience of RUC officers on duty at polling stations certainly suggests that abuse is taking place. … the precise extent of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland has never been quantified and therefore it is not possible to assess accurately the impact of the measures put in place to prevent it.”Hide quote

    Personation at polling stations has, however, been impossible to quantify. No evidence has been presented and the review has been unable to discover any concrete proof that it occurs at a significant level. However, despite the fact that no one has come forward with evidence, either to the Review, or indeed, during the last three elections, the experience of RUC officers on duty at polling stations certainly suggests that abuse is taking place. … the precise extent of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland has never been quantified and therefore it is not possible to assess accurately the impact of the measures put in place to prevent it.

32. Legislative Summary of Bill C-31: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act

    Library of Parliament (Canada), 2007-06-22 · supports

    “The changes proposed in the bill are a response by the government to a series of recommendations proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its 13th Report in June 2006, entitled Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change. … In the course of its deliberations the Committee was struck by the absence of any requirement for an elector to confirm his or her identity when presenting himself or herself at a polling station to vote. As long as the person’s name is on the list of electors, he or she is entitled to vote. … The Committee considered this lack of proper identification to be a significant deficiency in the voting process and one that could encourage fraudulent voting practices.”Hide quote

    The changes proposed in the bill are a response by the government to a series of recommendations proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its 13th Report in June 2006, entitled Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change. … In the course of its deliberations the Committee was struck by the absence of any requirement for an elector to confirm his or her identity when presenting himself or herself at a polling station to vote. As long as the person’s name is on the list of electors, he or she is entitled to vote. … The Committee considered this lack of proper identification to be a significant deficiency in the voting process and one that could encourage fraudulent voting practices.

33. Canada Elections Act, section 143

    Justice Laws Website, Government of Canada, 2026-09-30 · supports

    “(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of such a government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or (b) two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1), each of which establishes the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address. … (3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.1(1) in writing if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling station and who … vouches for the elector by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.1(2) in writing.”Hide quote

    (a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of such a government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or (b) two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1), each of which establishes the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address. … (3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.1(1) in writing if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling station and who … vouches for the elector by making the solemn declaration referred to in subsection 549.1(2) in writing.

34. Reasons for not voting in the federal election, October 19, 2015

    Statistics Canada, 2016-02-22 · supports

    “During the 2015 federal election, 8% of non-voters identified reasons related to the electoral process as the cause for not voting. This included reasons such as not being able to prove one's identity or address, or not being on the voters list.”Hide quote

    During the 2015 federal election, 8% of non-voters identified reasons related to the electoral process as the cause for not voting. This included reasons such as not being able to prove one's identity or address, or not being on the voters list.

35. Reasons for not voting in the federal election, October 21, 2019

    Statistics Canada, 2020-02-26 · supports

    “Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2019 federal election, 5% identified issues with the electoral process as the reason for not voting, including not being able to prove their identity or address, a lack of information about the voting process, or issues with the voter information card.”Hide quote

    Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2019 federal election, 5% identified issues with the electoral process as the reason for not voting, including not being able to prove their identity or address, a lack of information about the voting process, or issues with the voter information card.

36. Reasons for not voting in the federal election, September 20, 2021

    Statistics Canada, 2022-02-16 · supports

    “Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2021 federal election, electoral process issues accounted for 7% of reasons for not voting, including not being able to prove identity or address, lacking information about the voting process, or having issues travelling to a polling station.”Hide quote

    Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2021 federal election, electoral process issues accounted for 7% of reasons for not voting, including not being able to prove identity or address, lacking information about the voting process, or having issues travelling to a polling station.

37. Élections : papiers d'identité à présenter pour voter

    Service Public (Direction de l'information légale et administrative), 2026-09-21 · supports

    “Pour voter, vous devez prouver votre identité. … Carte nationale d'identité (valide ou périmée depuis moins de 5 ans) … Dans une commune de moins de 1 000 habitants, la pièce d’identité n'est pas obligatoire. Mais en cas de doute, le président du bureau de vote peut vous demander de prouver votre identité par tout moyen.”Hide quote

    Pour voter, vous devez prouver votre identité. … Carte nationale d'identité (valide ou périmée depuis moins de 5 ans) … Dans une commune de moins de 1 000 habitants, la pièce d’identité n'est pas obligatoire. Mais en cas de doute, le président du bureau de vote peut vous demander de prouver votre identité par tout moyen.

38. Bundeswahlordnung, § 56 Stimmabgabe

    Bundesministerium der Justiz (Gesetze im Internet), 1985 · supports

    “(3) Danach tritt der Wähler an den Tisch des Wahlvorstandes. Auf Verlangen hat er seine Wahlbenachrichtigung abzugeben und, insbesondere wenn er seine Wahlbenachrichtigung nicht vorlegt, sich über seine Person auszuweisen.”Hide quote

    (3) Danach tritt der Wähler an den Tisch des Wahlvorstandes. Auf Verlangen hat er seine Wahlbenachrichtigung abzugeben und, insbesondere wenn er seine Wahlbenachrichtigung nicht vorlegt, sich über seine Person auszuweisen.

39. Personalausweisgesetz, § 1 Ausweispflicht; Ausweisrecht

    Bundesministerium der Justiz (Gesetze im Internet), 2009 · supports

    “(1) Deutsche im Sinne des Artikels 116 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes sind verpflichtet, einen gültigen Ausweis zu besitzen, sobald sie 16 Jahre alt sind und der allgemeinen Meldepflicht unterliegen oder, ohne ihr zu unterliegen, sich überwiegend in Deutschland aufhalten.”Hide quote

    (1) Deutsche im Sinne des Artikels 116 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes sind verpflichtet, einen gültigen Ausweis zu besitzen, sobald sie 16 Jahre alt sind und der allgemeinen Meldepflicht unterliegen oder, ohne ihr zu unterliegen, sich überwiegend in Deutschland aufhalten.

40. Bundeswahlordnung, § 16 Eintragung der Wahlberechtigten in das Wählerverzeichnis

    Bundesministerium der Justiz (Gesetze im Internet), 1985 · supports

    “(1) Von Amts wegen sind in das Wählerverzeichnis alle Wahlberechtigten einzutragen, die am 42. Tage vor der Wahl (Stichtag) bei der Meldebehörde gemeldet sind”Hide quote

    (1) Von Amts wegen sind in das Wählerverzeichnis alle Wahlberechtigten einzutragen, die am 42. Tage vor der Wahl (Stichtag) bei der Meldebehörde gemeldet sind

41. Testo Unico delle leggi recanti norme per la elezione della Camera dei deputati (D.P.R. 30 marzo 1957, n. 361), art. 57

    Normattiva (Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato), 1957-03-30 · supports

    “Essi devono esibire la carta d'identità o altro documento d'identificazione rilasciato dalla pubblica Amministrazione, purché munito di fotografia. … In mancanza d'idoneo documento d'identificazione, uno dei membri dell'Ufficio che conosca personalmente l'elettore ne attesta l'identità, apponendo la propria firma nella colonna di identificazione. Se nessuno dei membri dell'Ufficio è in grado di accertare sotto la sua responsabilità l'identità dell'elettore, questi può presentare un altro elettore del Comune, noto all'Ufficio, che ne attesti l'identità.”Hide quote

    Essi devono esibire la carta d'identità o altro documento d'identificazione rilasciato dalla pubblica Amministrazione, purché munito di fotografia. … In mancanza d'idoneo documento d'identificazione, uno dei membri dell'Ufficio che conosca personalmente l'elettore ne attesta l'identità, apponendo la propria firma nella colonna di identificazione. Se nessuno dei membri dell'Ufficio è in grado di accertare sotto la sua responsabilità l'identità dell'elettore, questi può presentare un altro elettore del Comune, noto all'Ufficio, che ne attesti l'identità.

42. Public Offices Election Act (公職選挙法), Articles 44 and 50

    e-Gov Laws and Regulations, Digital Agency of Japan, 1950 · supports

    “選挙人は、選挙人名簿又はその抄本（…）の対照を経なければ、投票をすることができない。 … 投票管理者は、投票をしようとする選挙人が本人であるかどうかを確認することができないときは、その本人である旨を宣言させなければならない。 その宣言をしない者は、投票をすることができない。”Hide quote

    選挙人は、選挙人名簿又はその抄本（…）の対照を経なければ、投票をすることができない。 … 投票管理者は、投票をしようとする選挙人が本人であるかどうかを確認することができないときは、その本人である旨を宣言させなければならない。 その宣言をしない者は、投票をすることができない。

43. Report on the 2024 UK Parliamentary general election and the May 2024 elections

    Electoral Commission, 2024-11 · complicates

    “These generally positive perceptions of the poll are reflected in views on electoral fraud – 87% of people said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse (England 86%, Scotland 90%, Wales 88%, and Northern Ireland 88%). This is a positive change from the 2019 general election when 72% said that they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse.”Hide quote

    These generally positive perceptions of the poll are reflected in views on electoral fraud – 87% of people said that they thought voting in general was safe from fraud and abuse (England 86%, Scotland 90%, Wales 88%, and Northern Ireland 88%). This is a positive change from the 2019 general election when 72% said that they thought voting was safe from fraud and abuse.

44. Report on the May 2023 local elections in England (page last updated 13 September 2023)

    Electoral Commission, 2023-07-13 · supports

    “at least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station in May 2023 were not able to because of the voter ID requirement – this was equivalent to approximately 14,000 people who were not issued with a ballot paper”Hide quote

    at least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station in May 2023 were not able to because of the voter ID requirement – this was equivalent to approximately 14,000 people who were not issued with a ballot paper

45. The Canvass: Voter ID: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been?

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021-09-27 · supports

    “Requirements for voters to show some form of identification at the polls have become much more widespread since 2000. Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34.”Hide quote

    Requirements for voters to show some form of identification at the polls have become much more widespread since 2000. Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34.

46. Voter ID Laws

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-03 · supports

    “NCSL categorizes voter ID laws in two ways: what type of ID is required (photo or non-photo) and what actions are available for voters who do not have ID (strict or non-strict). These two categorization schemes can and do overlap.”Hide quote

    NCSL categorizes voter ID laws in two ways: what type of ID is required (photo or non-photo) and what actions are available for voters who do not have ID (strict or non-strict). These two categorization schemes can and do overlap.

47. Legislative Approaches to Ensuring Only Citizens Vote

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-01 · supports

    “Thirteen states and Guam have passed legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote at some point in the registration process. Some laws are not in effect due to court decisions.”Hide quote

    Thirteen states and Guam have passed legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote at some point in the registration process. Some laws are not in effect due to court decisions.

48. Voter ID at the 2024 UK general election (page last updated 19 August 2025)

    Electoral Commission, 2024-07-29 · supports

    “Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) * May 2024 figures are based on data from the 278 English and Welsh local authorities that submitted figures before the UK general election. Due to the timing of the UK general election, only limited data quality checks were possible on the May 2024 data – data which could not be checked was removed. Absolute numbers are not available for the May 2024 elections”Hide quote

    Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) * May 2024 figures are based on data from the 278 English and Welsh local authorities that submitted figures before the UK general election. Due to the timing of the UK general election, only limited data quality checks were possible on the May 2024 data – data which could not be checked was removed. Absolute numbers are not available for the May 2024 elections

49. Reasons for not voting in the federal election, September 20, 2021

    Statistics Canada, 2022-02-16 · supports

    “Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2021 federal election, electoral process issues accounted for 7% of reasons for not voting, including not being able to prove identity or address, lacking information about the voting process, or having issues travelling to a polling station.”Hide quote

    Among Canadians who did not vote in the 2021 federal election, electoral process issues accounted for 7% of reasons for not voting, including not being able to prove identity or address, lacking information about the voting process, or having issues travelling to a polling station.

Non-Citizens on US Voter Rolls

1. Texas Secretary of State Refers 117 Cases for Investigation of Noncitizen Voting

   Texas Secretary of State, 2026-09-15 · supports

   “The Office of the Texas Secretary of State today referred 117 cases to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation of potential noncitizen voting. … This review narrowed the number of potential noncitizens. The additional review showed that 578 voters demonstrated citizenship. Of those, citizenship was proven for 506 because passport information was added to SAVE after the state’s initial run. The Office of the Texas Secretary of State advised counties to reinstate these registrations if they were removed.”Hide quote

   The Office of the Texas Secretary of State today referred 117 cases to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation of potential noncitizen voting. … This review narrowed the number of potential noncitizens. The additional review showed that 578 voters demonstrated citizenship. Of those, citizenship was proven for 506 because passport information was added to SAVE after the state’s initial run. The Office of the Texas Secretary of State advised counties to reinstate these registrations if they were removed.

2. Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database

   Texas Secretary of State, 2025-10-20 · supports

   “After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas. … That process led to a referral of 33 voters to the Office of the Attorney General in June.”Hide quote

   After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas. … That process led to a referral of 33 voters to the Office of the Attorney General in June.

3. Trump’s SAVE tool is looking for noncitizen voters. But it’s flagging U.S. citizens too

   NPR (via VPM), 2025-12-10 · complicates

   “The tally of 2,724 potential noncitizens is about 0.015% of the state’s voters. … Denton County election director Frank Phillips told NPR that so far out of the 84 flagged registered voters he sent notices to, 14 have proven their citizenship. The county determined that another 14 people were registered in error because they had indicated on registration forms they were not citizens. The county has canceled their registrations. None had voted. … Fifty-five people in Denton County besides Nel have also had their registration canceled after not responding to the notice, including five people whose notices came back as undeliverable, according to Phillips.”Hide quote

   The tally of 2,724 potential noncitizens is about 0.015% of the state’s voters. … Denton County election director Frank Phillips told NPR that so far out of the 84 flagged registered voters he sent notices to, 14 have proven their citizenship. The county determined that another 14 people were registered in error because they had indicated on registration forms they were not citizens. The county has canceled their registrations. None had voted. … Fifty-five people in Denton County besides Nel have also had their registration canceled after not responding to the notice, including five people whose notices came back as undeliverable, according to Phillips.

4. Trump’s SAVE tool is looking for noncitizen voters. But it’s flagging U.S. citizens too

   NPR (via VPM), 2025-12-10 · complicates

   “More than 47 million voters have been run through SAVE, according to the agency. States that have announced their results so far have not identified large numbers of suspected noncitizens casting ballots. Louisiana found 79 likely noncitizens voted in elections going back to the 1980s, Tennessee referred 42 potential noncitizens who cast ballots to the FBI, and Indiana said it found “at least 21” noncitizens who voted. … USCIS’ own fact sheet warns that “if an individual with acquired citizenship has not received a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS (e.g., some foreign-born children of U.S. citizens) or is not designated as a U.S. citizen in [Social Security Administration] records, SAVE may not be able to confirm that individual’s U.S. citizenship.””Hide quote

   More than 47 million voters have been run through SAVE, according to the agency. States that have announced their results so far have not identified large numbers of suspected noncitizens casting ballots. Louisiana found 79 likely noncitizens voted in elections going back to the 1980s, Tennessee referred 42 potential noncitizens who cast ballots to the FBI, and Indiana said it found “at least 21” noncitizens who voted. … USCIS’ own fact sheet warns that “if an individual with acquired citizenship has not received a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS (e.g., some foreign-born children of U.S. citizens) or is not designated as a U.S. citizen in [Social Security Administration] records, SAVE may not be able to confirm that individual’s U.S. citizenship.”

5. Texas flagged some voters as ‘potential noncitizens’ but they had already provided proof of citizenship

   Votebeat, 2025-12-18 · complicates

   “Texas officials have now determined that 11 registered voters in Travis County flagged as potential noncitizens actually provided proof of citizenship while obtaining a driver’s license or state ID at the Texas Department of Public Safety, according to county leaders. … Votebeat sought information from 24 counties and to date, election officials who have responded confirmed they have collectively identified at least 33 U.S. citizens on the list. At least 218 people flagged, and potentially more, registered at DPS and should have been required to provide proof of citizenship that the agency should have on file, according to officials from 11 counties.”Hide quote

   Texas officials have now determined that 11 registered voters in Travis County flagged as potential noncitizens actually provided proof of citizenship while obtaining a driver’s license or state ID at the Texas Department of Public Safety, according to county leaders. … Votebeat sought information from 24 counties and to date, election officials who have responded confirmed they have collectively identified at least 33 U.S. citizens on the list. At least 218 people flagged, and potentially more, registered at DPS and should have been required to provide proof of citizenship that the agency should have on file, according to officials from 11 counties.

6. Texas confirms some flagged as potential noncitizens on voter rolls had provided DPS proof of citizenship

   Votebeat, 2026-07-30 · complicates

   “Adkins said the state is still working through the data and that she couldn’t yet say how many of the 2,724 people had provided proof of citizenship to DPS and should thus be reinstated if they were already removed from the voter roll. She characterized SAVE as having “some inaccurate information” but added that “most of the data that we got out of SAVE was consistent with what DPS had.””Hide quote

   Adkins said the state is still working through the data and that she couldn’t yet say how many of the 2,724 people had provided proof of citizenship to DPS and should thus be reinstated if they were already removed from the voter roll. She characterized SAVE as having “some inaccurate information” but added that “most of the data that we got out of SAVE was consistent with what DPS had.”

7. Texas election chief raised concerns about the federal tool used to flag potential noncitizens

   The Texas Tribune, 2026-07-16 · complicates

   ““As my staff has informed you, county voter registrars have obtained citizenship documentation from some Texas voters who were identified in the SAVE system as potential Non-citizens,” Nelson’s letter says. “We are aware of instances in which state driver’s license records inaccurately reflect a person’s current citizenship status. In addition, we have learned of individuals who were mistakenly registered to vote—such as due to a clerical error by a voter registrar—even though they acknowledged on a voter registration application that they are not U.S. citizens.””Hide quote

   “As my staff has informed you, county voter registrars have obtained citizenship documentation from some Texas voters who were identified in the SAVE system as potential Non-citizens,” Nelson’s letter says. “We are aware of instances in which state driver’s license records inaccurately reflect a person’s current citizenship status. In addition, we have learned of individuals who were mistakenly registered to vote—such as due to a clerical error by a voter registrar—even though they acknowledged on a voter registration application that they are not U.S. citizens.”

8. Iowa review finds 35 noncitizens voted last fall. That is a tiny fraction of the ballots cast

   Associated Press (via News4JAX), 2025-03-20 · supports

   “A review of Iowa's voter rolls found 35 people who are not U.S. citizens were among more than 1.6 million Iowa voters who cast ballots in the 2024 general election, despite them being ineligible to vote. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said Thursday that his office also identified 277 noncitizens who were registered to vote, a small percentage of the nearly 2.3 million registered voters. … The new numbers are also a fraction of the original number — 2,176 — that Pate’s office identified last year, just two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, after comparing the state’s voter rolls to a list of people who self-reported as noncitizens to the Iowa Department of Transportation. … The review also found five noncitizens that cast a ballot that was ultimately rejected by county review boards.”Hide quote

   A review of Iowa's voter rolls found 35 people who are not U.S. citizens were among more than 1.6 million Iowa voters who cast ballots in the 2024 general election, despite them being ineligible to vote. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said Thursday that his office also identified 277 noncitizens who were registered to vote, a small percentage of the nearly 2.3 million registered voters. … The new numbers are also a fraction of the original number — 2,176 — that Pate’s office identified last year, just two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, after comparing the state’s voter rolls to a list of people who self-reported as noncitizens to the Iowa Department of Transportation. … The review also found five noncitizens that cast a ballot that was ultimately rejected by county review boards.

9. Ohio's secretary of state forwards alleged voter fraud cases to DOJ after local prosecutors don't act

   Statehouse News Bureau (via WYSU), 2025-10-28 · supports

   “Secretary of State Frank LaRose said he’s found 1,084 alleged cases of noncitizens who registered to vote, including 167 people who allegedly voted in a federal election going back to 2018. … "What we know is that noncitizens registering is exceedingly rare. It's even more rare for noncitizens to actually cast a ballot, especially now that we've got a really good process in place for identifying that at the time of registration and checking for that," LaRose said. … LaRose had asked county prosecutors to act on 633 cases of suspected voter fraud last year. Prosecutors took up just 12 of them, saying the others lacked evidence to pursue indictments. LaRose took the cases to Attorney General Dave Yost, who presented them to grand juries. Six cases resulted in indictments, including a person who died in December 2022.”Hide quote

   Secretary of State Frank LaRose said he’s found 1,084 alleged cases of noncitizens who registered to vote, including 167 people who allegedly voted in a federal election going back to 2018. … "What we know is that noncitizens registering is exceedingly rare. It's even more rare for noncitizens to actually cast a ballot, especially now that we've got a really good process in place for identifying that at the time of registration and checking for that," LaRose said. … LaRose had asked county prosecutors to act on 633 cases of suspected voter fraud last year. Prosecutors took up just 12 of them, saying the others lacked evidence to pursue indictments. LaRose took the cases to Attorney General Dave Yost, who presented them to grand juries. Six cases resulted in indictments, including a person who died in December 2022.

10. Ohio finds 597 noncitizens who voted or registered recently, a fraction of its electorate

    Associated Press (via WOSU), 2024-08-22 · supports

    “Ohio’s elections chief on Wednesday referred for possible prosecution 597 apparent noncitizens who either registered to vote or cast a ballot in a recent election — a higher number than he normally finds but still a tiny fraction of the state’s electorate. Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said that of those cases, 138 were found to have cast ballots and 459 registered but did not vote. … The total compares to 148 noncitizen cases referred in 2022, 117 in 2021 and 354 in 2019. More than 8 million people are registered to vote in Ohio.”Hide quote

    Ohio’s elections chief on Wednesday referred for possible prosecution 597 apparent noncitizens who either registered to vote or cast a ballot in a recent election — a higher number than he normally finds but still a tiny fraction of the state’s electorate. Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said that of those cases, 138 were found to have cast ballots and 459 registered but did not vote. … The total compares to 148 noncitizen cases referred in 2022, 117 in 2021 and 354 in 2019. More than 8 million people are registered to vote in Ohio.

11. Ohio IDs 117 Noncitizens Who Voted or Registered In 2020

    Associated Press (via CBS Pittsburgh), 2021-07-12 · supports

    “Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said that of those, 13 cast ballots and 104 registered but did not vote. … LaRose made a similar referral of 277 individuals to Yost after the 2018 election, including 77 who cast a ballot. Only a handful were ever prosecuted, according to data from the Franklin County prosecutor's office. Ohio produced an extraordinary level of access in last year's presidential election, setting records with nearly 6 million votes cast”Hide quote

    Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said that of those, 13 cast ballots and 104 registered but did not vote. … LaRose made a similar referral of 277 individuals to Yost after the 2018 election, including 77 who cast a ballot. Only a handful were ever prosecuted, according to data from the Franklin County prosecutor's office. Ohio produced an extraordinary level of access in last year's presidential election, setting records with nearly 6 million votes cast

12. LaRose certifies official 2024 general election results

    The Highland County Press, 2024-12-03 · supports

    “In total, Ohio’s final voter participation rate for 2024 stands at 71.7 percent, with 5,851,387 out of 8,159,946 registered voters casting ballots statewide.”Hide quote

    In total, Ohio’s final voter participation rate for 2024 stands at 71.7 percent, with 5,851,387 out of 8,159,946 registered voters casting ballots statewide.

13. Louisiana election investigation finds 79 noncitizens have voted since 1980s

    Louisiana Illuminator (via News From The States), 2025-09-04 · supports

    “Louisiana’s top election official said she has discovered 390 non-citizen registered voters in the state, with 79 voting in at least one election over the past several decades. The 390 suspected non-citizen voters represent approximately 0.01% of the roughly 2.9 million registered voters in Louisiana. … In a later interview, Landry acknowledged the possibility that some of her findings could be attributed to errors or outdated information. … While Landry said voter fraud is “not a systemic problem in Louisiana,” she noted that some local elections have been decided by just a handful of votes. She didn’t say if the newly discovered noncitizen voters impacted any of those elections.”Hide quote

    Louisiana’s top election official said she has discovered 390 non-citizen registered voters in the state, with 79 voting in at least one election over the past several decades. The 390 suspected non-citizen voters represent approximately 0.01% of the roughly 2.9 million registered voters in Louisiana. … In a later interview, Landry acknowledged the possibility that some of her findings could be attributed to errors or outdated information. … While Landry said voter fraud is “not a systemic problem in Louisiana,” she noted that some local elections have been decided by just a handful of votes. She didn’t say if the newly discovered noncitizen voters impacted any of those elections.

14. Georgia citizenship audit finds few noncitizens on voter rolls

    Associated Press (via WALB), 2024-10-23 · supports

    “Georgia’s top elections official said Wednesday that a check of voter rolls found that 20 of the 8.2 million people registered to vote in the state are not U.S. citizens. … His office said none of those people has cast a ballot in November’s general election, but nine of the 20 had voted in previous elections and the other 11 had no record of voting. Additionally, there are 156 people whose citizenship status requires additional investigation and his office has opened case files for those individuals, Raffensperger said. … Raffensperger said the 20 people who were conclusively identified as noncitizens lived in seven counties, mostly in metro Atlanta, and had filled out a sworn statement saying they were not citizens to get out of jury duty.”Hide quote

    Georgia’s top elections official said Wednesday that a check of voter rolls found that 20 of the 8.2 million people registered to vote in the state are not U.S. citizens. … His office said none of those people has cast a ballot in November’s general election, but nine of the 20 had voted in previous elections and the other 11 had no record of voting. Additionally, there are 156 people whose citizenship status requires additional investigation and his office has opened case files for those individuals, Raffensperger said. … Raffensperger said the 20 people who were conclusively identified as noncitizens lived in seven counties, mostly in metro Atlanta, and had filled out a sworn statement saying they were not citizens to get out of jury duty.

15. Most ‘noncitizen voters’ DHS found in Georgia were never voters at all

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2026-07-17 · supports

    “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security claims to have found about 2,500 noncitizen voters in Georgia, according to a report released during President Donald Trump’s speech Thursday on election security. … Most of the people flagged by DHS had applied to become registered voters but were in a “pending” status, according to the secretary of state’s office. … Georgia has 8.1 million registered voters as of Friday. But only about 150 registrants identified as possible noncitizens by DHS had previously voted, the secretary of state’s office said.”Hide quote

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security claims to have found about 2,500 noncitizen voters in Georgia, according to a report released during President Donald Trump’s speech Thursday on election security. … Most of the people flagged by DHS had applied to become registered voters but were in a “pending” status, according to the secretary of state’s office. … Georgia has 8.1 million registered voters as of Friday. But only about 150 registrants identified as possible noncitizens by DHS had previously voted, the secretary of state’s office said.

16. Federal judge to halt Alabama program that purged thousands of legal voters

    Associated Press (via WSLS), 2024-10-16 · complicates

    “Under the August initiative, the secretary of state’s office identified 3,251 potential noncitizens registered to vote using foreign national numbers collected by state agencies on both unemployment benefits and driver's license applications. … Approximately 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were legally registered citizens, according to testimony from the secretary of state’s chief of staff Clay Helms on Tuesday. More than 900 of the initial 3,251 voters proved they were legal voters by September, according to Helms' testimony. On Tuesday, less than a month before the election, another 1,000 were reactivated after the secretary of state's office doublechecked driver's license information from the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Helms said. … At least 159 people from the list were “disqualified” after the purge in August, meaning they will be removed from the voter rolls. … “A few” of those disqualified indicated on voter removal forms that they were noncitizens, according to Helms' written testimony.”Hide quote

    Under the August initiative, the secretary of state’s office identified 3,251 potential noncitizens registered to vote using foreign national numbers collected by state agencies on both unemployment benefits and driver's license applications. … Approximately 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were legally registered citizens, according to testimony from the secretary of state’s chief of staff Clay Helms on Tuesday. More than 900 of the initial 3,251 voters proved they were legal voters by September, according to Helms' testimony. On Tuesday, less than a month before the election, another 1,000 were reactivated after the secretary of state's office doublechecked driver's license information from the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Helms said. … At least 159 people from the list were “disqualified” after the purge in August, meaning they will be removed from the voter rolls. … “A few” of those disqualified indicated on voter removal forms that they were noncitizens, according to Helms' written testimony.

17. Private Plaintiffs-Respondents' Response in Opposition to Emergency Application for Stay, Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, No. 24A407

    Supreme Court of the United States (filing by the private respondents), 2024-10-29 · complicates

    “When Alabama engaged in a similar system based on checkboxes on forms from the Alabama Department of Labor, the error rate was astronomical. After a lawsuit was filed, the Secretary cross-checked the checkbox data with documents on file with the driver’s license agency and immediately confirmed the citizenship of 93.8% of them. … To be clear, the data did not confirm noncitizenship among the remaining 6.2 percent. … Critically, while Applicants failed to show that any of the 1,610 people removed from the rolls from the Purge Program were in fact noncitizens, the court credited Respondents’ “evidence that revealed that citizens have been removed from those rolls.””Hide quote

    When Alabama engaged in a similar system based on checkboxes on forms from the Alabama Department of Labor, the error rate was astronomical. After a lawsuit was filed, the Secretary cross-checked the checkbox data with documents on file with the driver’s license agency and immediately confirmed the citizenship of 93.8% of them. … To be clear, the data did not confirm noncitizenship among the remaining 6.2 percent. … Critically, while Applicants failed to show that any of the 1,610 people removed from the rolls from the Purge Program were in fact noncitizens, the court credited Respondents’ “evidence that revealed that citizens have been removed from those rolls.”

18. Order in Pending Case, 24A407 Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2024-10-30 · complicates

    “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. … Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson, would deny the application.”Hide quote

    The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. … Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson, would deny the application.

19. Public Interest Legal Foundation v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, 996 F.3d 257

    United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2021-05-10 · complicates

    “After consulting these sources of information, the Board found that the DMV and SAVE information had a high rate of inaccuracy. The Board determined that 97.6% of persons identified by the DMV as noncitizens, in fact were citizens, and that about 75% of individuals who later provided proof of citizenship continued to be listed as noncitizens in the SAVE system.”Hide quote

    After consulting these sources of information, the Board found that the DMV and SAVE information had a high rate of inaccuracy. The Board determined that 97.6% of persons identified by the DMV as noncitizens, in fact were citizens, and that about 75% of individuals who later provided proof of citizenship continued to be listed as noncitizens in the SAVE system.

20. Post-Election Audit Report: 2016 General Election

    North Carolina State Board of Elections, 2017-04 · supports

    “Even assuming all ineligible ballots identified in this report were cast for the prevailing candidate, no races -- statewide or local -- would have had a different outcome than the one already certified by the state. … Nearly 4.8 million N.C. voters participated in the 2016 general election, the largest number in state history. … 41 non-citizens with legal status (green card, etc.) cast ballots. The State Constitution only permits U.S. citizens to register and to vote. The audit pairing state and federal databases identified an additional 34 voters who provided documents showing they are U.S. citizens. Investigators continue to review 61 additional records. … A number of non-citizens said they were not aware that they were prohibited from voting.”Hide quote

    Even assuming all ineligible ballots identified in this report were cast for the prevailing candidate, no races -- statewide or local -- would have had a different outcome than the one already certified by the state. … Nearly 4.8 million N.C. voters participated in the 2016 general election, the largest number in state history. … 41 non-citizens with legal status (green card, etc.) cast ballots. The State Constitution only permits U.S. citizens to register and to vote. The audit pairing state and federal databases identified an additional 34 voters who provided documents showing they are U.S. citizens. Investigators continue to review 61 additional records. … A number of non-citizens said they were not aware that they were prohibited from voting.

21. Noncitizen Voting: The Missing Millions

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2017-05-05 · supports

    “Across 42 jurisdictions, election officials who oversaw the tabulation of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 general election referred only an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution. In other words, improper noncitizen votes accounted for 0.0001 percent of the 2016 votes in those jurisdictions. … In the ten counties with the largest populations of noncitizens in 2016, only one reported any instances of noncitizen voting, consisting of fewer than 10 votes, and New York City, home to two of the counties, declined to provide any information.”Hide quote

    Across 42 jurisdictions, election officials who oversaw the tabulation of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 general election referred only an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution. In other words, improper noncitizen votes accounted for 0.0001 percent of the 2016 votes in those jurisdictions. … In the ten counties with the largest populations of noncitizens in 2016, only one reported any instances of noncitizen voting, consisting of fewer than 10 votes, and New York City, home to two of the counties, declined to provide any information.

22. Fish v. Kobach, Nos. 16-2105-JAR-JPO and 15-9300-JAR-JPO, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse), 2018-06-18 · supports

    “These figures amount to 31,089 total applicants who were denied registration for failure to provide DPOC, 16,802 of whom applied through the DOV. … the evidence shows that 67 noncitizen individuals registered to vote under the attestation regime, or attempted to register after the DPOC law was passed. Of these, 39 successfully registered to vote despite the attestation requirement, and 28 noncitizens attempted to register to vote after the DPOC law was passed but were thwarted by operation of that law. … there are only 39 confirmed noncitizens who successfully registered to vote between 1999 and 2013 when the DPOC law became effective. This is but .002% of all registered voters in Kansas as of January 1, 2013 (1,762,330). … these numbers support the opinions of Drs. Minnite, McDonald, and Hersh that while there is evidence of a small number of noncitizen registrations in Kansas, it is largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake.”Hide quote

    These figures amount to 31,089 total applicants who were denied registration for failure to provide DPOC, 16,802 of whom applied through the DOV. … the evidence shows that 67 noncitizen individuals registered to vote under the attestation regime, or attempted to register after the DPOC law was passed. Of these, 39 successfully registered to vote despite the attestation requirement, and 28 noncitizens attempted to register to vote after the DPOC law was passed but were thwarted by operation of that law. … there are only 39 confirmed noncitizens who successfully registered to vote between 1999 and 2013 when the DPOC law became effective. This is but .002% of all registered voters in Kansas as of January 1, 2013 (1,762,330). … these numbers support the opinions of Drs. Minnite, McDonald, and Hersh that while there is evidence of a small number of noncitizen registrations in Kansas, it is largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake.

23. Arizona labeled longtime residents as citizens without proof for years, leading to voter roll errors

    Votebeat, 2024-10-03 · complicates

    “The Secretary of State’s Office issued a revised estimate that said more than twice as many voters — 218,000 — were affected … New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. … All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens.”Hide quote

    The Secretary of State’s Office issued a revised estimate that said more than twice as many voters — 218,000 — were affected … New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. … All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens.

24. The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks

    NPR (via OPB), 2026-09-25 · complicates

    “In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. … They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system’s error rate, or how many Americans’ citizenship was misrepresented “and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits.””Hide quote

    In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. … They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system’s error rate, or how many Americans’ citizenship was misrepresented “and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits.”

25. Texas voting rights groups win settlement from secretary of state

    The Texas Tribune, 2019-04-26 · complicates

    “Three months after first questioning the citizenship status of almost 100,000 registered voters, the Texas secretary of state has agreed to end a review of the voter rolls for supposed noncitizens that was flawed from the start. … A top election official in the secretary of state’s office later acknowledged that his office had overstated the number of flagged voters by about 25,000 names because of the mistake. And local officials quickly noted they had been able to verify that hundreds of other individuals on the list were naturalized citizens.”Hide quote

    Three months after first questioning the citizenship status of almost 100,000 registered voters, the Texas secretary of state has agreed to end a review of the voter rolls for supposed noncitizens that was flawed from the start. … A top election official in the secretary of state’s office later acknowledged that his office had overstated the number of flagged voters by about 25,000 names because of the mistake. And local officials quickly noted they had been able to verify that hundreds of other individuals on the list were naturalized citizens.

26. Georgia again certifies election results showing Biden won

    Associated Press (via WDBJ7), 2020-12-07 · supports

    “Biden’s lead dropped from 12,670 to 11,779.”Hide quote

    Biden’s lead dropped from 12,670 to 11,779.

27. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks wins reelection after recount, AP projects

    Iowa Capital Dispatch (via Little Village), 2024-12-02 · supports

    “As of the latest updates from the AP, Miller-Meeks won with unofficial results showing her at 206,955 votes to Bohannan’s 206,157 — a 798-vote margin”Hide quote

    As of the latest updates from the AP, Miller-Meeks won with unofficial results showing her at 206,955 votes to Bohannan’s 206,157 — a 798-vote margin

28. Citizenship Audit Finds 1,634 Noncitizens Attempted to Register to Vote

    Georgia Secretary of State, 2022-03-28 · complicates

    “The review found that 1,634 people who had attempted to register to vote were not able to be verified by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Due to Georgia’s existing citizenship check procedures, the noncitizens identified in the citizenship check were placed into “pending citizenship” status and were not able to vote. … The search found 1,634 individuals who had attempted to register to vote in Georgia despite not being citizens. In total, 2,258 voter registration applications are currently in “pending citizenship” status. The difference between the two numbers is because there were 624 records where the Secretary of State’s office was not able to obtain the required information to utilize the SAVE verification tool. … All 2,258 individuals were placed in pending status and not added to the voter rolls. None of these individuals have cast ballots in Georgia elections.”Hide quote

    The review found that 1,634 people who had attempted to register to vote were not able to be verified by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Due to Georgia’s existing citizenship check procedures, the noncitizens identified in the citizenship check were placed into “pending citizenship” status and were not able to vote. … The search found 1,634 individuals who had attempted to register to vote in Georgia despite not being citizens. In total, 2,258 voter registration applications are currently in “pending citizenship” status. The difference between the two numbers is because there were 624 records where the Secretary of State’s office was not able to obtain the required information to utilize the SAVE verification tool. … All 2,258 individuals were placed in pending status and not added to the voter rolls. None of these individuals have cast ballots in Georgia elections.

Burdens of ID and Citizenship-Proof Rules: Missing Documents, Rejections and Turnout

1. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. For these individuals, a mismatched address is the largest issue. Ninety-six percent of those with some discrepancy have a license that does not have their current address, 1.5% have their current address but not their current name, and just over 2% do not have their current address or current name on their license. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.”Hide quote

   Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. For these individuals, a mismatched address is the largest issue. Ninety-six percent of those with some discrepancy have a license that does not have their current address, 1.5% have their current address but not their current name, and just over 2% do not have their current address or current name on their license. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.

2. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed. Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC.”Hide quote

   Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed. Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC.

3. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “Over a quarter of Black adult citizens and Hispanic adult citizens do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address (28% and … 27% respectively), compared to about one out of five adult citizens who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander (21%) or White (18%). Eighteen percent of Black adult citizens, 15% of Hispanic adult citizens, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander adult citizens do not have a license at all, compared to just 5% of White adult citizens.”Hide quote

   Over a quarter of Black adult citizens and Hispanic adult citizens do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address (28% and … 27% respectively), compared to about one out of five adult citizens who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander (21%) or White (18%). Eighteen percent of Black adult citizens, 15% of Hispanic adult citizens, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander adult citizens do not have a license at all, compared to just 5% of White adult citizens.

4. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million).”Hide quote

   This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million).

5. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “Twenty-three percent of Democrats (23 million people), 16% of Republicans (15.7 million people), and 31% of independents/others (10.5 million people) indicate they do not have a license with their current name and/or address. Nearly 15 million people indicate they do not have a license at all, including 9% of Democrats (8.6 million people), 6% of Republicans (6.2 million people), and 18% of independents/others (5.9 million people).”Hide quote

   Twenty-three percent of Democrats (23 million people), 16% of Republicans (15.7 million people), and 31% of independents/others (10.5 million people) indicate they do not have a license with their current name and/or address. Nearly 15 million people indicate they do not have a license at all, including 9% of Democrats (8.6 million people), 6% of Republicans (6.2 million people), and 18% of independents/others (5.9 million people).

6. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · supports

   “Younger Americans overall are far less likely to have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address, with 41% of those between the ages of 18-24 and 38% between the ages of 25-29 indicating this, compared to 24% between the ages of 30-49, 13% between the ages of 50-64, and 11% of adult citizens over the age of 65. … Thirty-nine percent of those with annual incomes under $30,000 do not have a license with their current name and/or address, including 23% who do not have a license at all. Twenty-one percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 annually do not have a license with their current name and/or address, compared to 15% making between $50,000 and $100,000 and 9% of those making over $100,000.”Hide quote

   Younger Americans overall are far less likely to have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address, with 41% of those between the ages of 18-24 and 38% between the ages of 25-29 indicating this, compared to 24% between the ages of 30-49, 13% between the ages of 50-64, and 11% of adult citizens over the age of 65. … Thirty-nine percent of those with annual incomes under $30,000 do not have a license with their current name and/or address, including 23% who do not have a license at all. Twenty-one percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 annually do not have a license with their current name and/or address, compared to 15% making between $50,000 and $100,000 and 9% of those making over $100,000.

7. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · complicates

   “VoteRiders, Public Wise, the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement (CDCE) at the University of Maryland, and the Brennan Center for Justice contracted with SSRS, a highly regarded survey firm, to obtain a nationally representative sample of the U.S. adult citizen population. The sample of 2,386 respondents was drawn from SSRS’s probability panel and a random sample of known pre-paid cellular phone numbers. Included in the sample are oversamples of 18-24-year-olds, Black respondents, Hispanic respondents, Black and Hispanic 18-24-year olds, and individuals with income less than $30,000 per year. The survey was fielded 9/12/23 - 10/4/23. All of the results below are weighted.”Hide quote

   VoteRiders, Public Wise, the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement (CDCE) at the University of Maryland, and the Brennan Center for Justice contracted with SSRS, a highly regarded survey firm, to obtain a nationally representative sample of the U.S. adult citizen population. The sample of 2,386 respondents was drawn from SSRS’s probability panel and a random sample of known pre-paid cellular phone numbers. Included in the sample are oversamples of 18-24-year-olds, Black respondents, Hispanic respondents, Black and Hispanic 18-24-year olds, and individuals with income less than $30,000 per year. The survey was fielded 9/12/23 - 10/4/23. All of the results below are weighted.

8. Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2024-06 · complicates

   “Some people do not have a license because they “don’t like driving/don’t drive” (31%), they are “not interested” (8%), or they have anxiety about driving (3%). Nineteen percent of individuals without a driver’s license cite bureaucratic or economic factors as the reasons for which they do not have a license, including the cost of getting a license (8%), financial/legal difficulties including unpaid tickets/fines (4%), lack of time (4%), or lack of underlying documents (3%).”Hide quote

   Some people do not have a license because they “don’t like driving/don’t drive” (31%), they are “not interested” (8%), or they have anxiety about driving (3%). Nineteen percent of individuals without a driver’s license cite bureaucratic or economic factors as the reasons for which they do not have a license, including the cost of getting a license (8%), financial/legal difficulties including unpaid tickets/fines (4%), lack of time (4%), or lack of underlying documents (3%).

9. Which U.S. citizens lack easy access to documentary proof of citizenship?

   Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland, 2025-04-10 · supports

   “More males (over 12 million, 11%) than females (over 9 million, 8%) do not have or cannot easily access DPOC. Importantly, the estimate for females should be viewed as a lower bound, as we do not have an estimate for the number of males or females whose current legal name does not match the name on their DPOC, and women are more likely to change their names upon marriage or divorce.”Hide quote

   More males (over 12 million, 11%) than females (over 9 million, 8%) do not have or cannot easily access DPOC. Importantly, the estimate for females should be viewed as a lower bound, as we do not have an estimate for the number of males or females whose current legal name does not match the name on their DPOC, and women are more likely to change their names upon marriage or divorce.

10. Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2006-11 · complicates

    “As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready access to citizenship documents. … As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.”Hide quote

    As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready access to citizenship documents. … As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.

11. Arizona labeled longtime residents as citizens without proof for years, leading to voter roll errors

    Votebeat, 2024-10-03 · supports

    “New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. … All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens. Overall, at least 696,713 residents in Arizona received their license prior to 1996 and have been categorized in state records as U.S. citizens, without providing proof of citizenship. At least 218,000 of them are voters, according to data provided by the Secretary of State’s Office. … The problem has been occurring since 2004, when Arizona enacted a unique law requiring documented proof of citizenship to vote. … Under the law, Arizona driver’s licenses issued after October 1996 count as proof of citizenship for someone registering to vote.”Hide quote

    New information obtained by Votebeat this week showed that the MVD has historically categorized anyone with a pre-1996 license as a U.S. citizen, even though the agency has not obtained their proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. … All of the voters attested to their U.S. citizenship under penalty of perjury when they registered to vote, as required by federal law. Only two on the list have so far been identified as noncitizens. Overall, at least 696,713 residents in Arizona received their license prior to 1996 and have been categorized in state records as U.S. citizens, without providing proof of citizenship. At least 218,000 of them are voters, according to data provided by the Secretary of State’s Office. … The problem has been occurring since 2004, when Arizona enacted a unique law requiring documented proof of citizenship to vote. … Under the law, Arizona driver’s licenses issued after October 1996 count as proof of citizenship for someone registering to vote.

12. Investigation into 200+ names finds 8 non-citizens voted in Maricopa County since 2012

    AZFamily (KTVK/KPHO), 2026-09-28 · complicates

    “The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office referred 207 people registered to vote who were suspected of not being U.S. citizens to the attorney’s office, according to Mitchell. Sixty of those had voted in at least one election. During their investigation, the attorney’s office found that eight of those 60 were not US citizens. … All eight received their driver’s license before Oct. 1, 1996, when the MVD started requiring proof of citizenship for a driver’s license, according to Mitchell. … More than 2.5 million people are registered to vote in Maricopa County.”Hide quote

    The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office referred 207 people registered to vote who were suspected of not being U.S. citizens to the attorney’s office, according to Mitchell. Sixty of those had voted in at least one election. During their investigation, the attorney’s office found that eight of those 60 were not US citizens. … All eight received their driver’s license before Oct. 1, 1996, when the MVD started requiring proof of citizenship for a driver’s license, according to Mitchell. … More than 2.5 million people are registered to vote in Maricopa County.

13. Fish v. Schwab, No. 18-3133 (opinion)

    United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2020-04-29 · complicates

    “The Secretary also identified an incident, summarized in a letter in the record, where employees of a hog farm “were transported to [a county] office by their employer to register to vote” even though a county clerk stated that “some of these employees felt they were pressured to register even though they may not be legal.” … In its preliminary injunction analysis, the district court had concluded that the evidence submitted about this incident was “insufficient to show that noncitizens actually voted.” Id., Vol. 4, at 867 (Mem. & Order, filed May 17, 2016).”Hide quote

    The Secretary also identified an incident, summarized in a letter in the record, where employees of a hog farm “were transported to [a county] office by their employer to register to vote” even though a county clerk stated that “some of these employees felt they were pressured to register even though they may not be legal.” … In its preliminary injunction analysis, the district court had concluded that the evidence submitted about this incident was “insufficient to show that noncitizens actually voted.” Id., Vol. 4, at 867 (Mem. & Order, filed May 17, 2016).

14. Fish v. Kobach, Nos. 16-2105-JAR-JPO and 15-9300-JAR-JPO, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse), 2018-06-18 · supports

    “As of March 28, 2016, before the preliminary injunction was issued requiring Defendant to register to vote applicants suspended or canceled for failure to provide DPOC, there were 14,770 applicants on the suspense list. Of these, 5,655 were motor voter applicants. As of March 28, 2016, 16,319 individuals had their applications canceled under K.A.R. § 7-23-15 due to lack of DPOC. Of these, 11,147 were motor voter applicants. These figures amount to 31,089 total applicants who were denied registration for failure to provide DPOC, 16,802 of whom applied through the DOV. … Canceled or suspended applicants represented 12.4% of new voter registrations between January 1, 2013 and December 11, 2015.”Hide quote

    As of March 28, 2016, before the preliminary injunction was issued requiring Defendant to register to vote applicants suspended or canceled for failure to provide DPOC, there were 14,770 applicants on the suspense list. Of these, 5,655 were motor voter applicants. As of March 28, 2016, 16,319 individuals had their applications canceled under K.A.R. § 7-23-15 due to lack of DPOC. Of these, 11,147 were motor voter applicants. These figures amount to 31,089 total applicants who were denied registration for failure to provide DPOC, 16,802 of whom applied through the DOV. … Canceled or suspended applicants represented 12.4% of new voter registrations between January 1, 2013 and December 11, 2015.

15. Fish v. Kobach, Nos. 16-2105-JAR-JPO and 15-9300-JAR-JPO, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse), 2018-06-18 · supports

    “the evidence shows that 67 noncitizen individuals registered to vote under the attestation regime, or attempted to register after the DPOC law was passed. Of these, 39 successfully registered to vote despite the attestation requirement, and 28 noncitizens attempted to register to vote after the DPOC law was passed but were thwarted by operation of that law. … although Dr. Richman did not provide a margin of error, Dr. Ansolabehere did, and determined that Dr. Richman’s estimate that 0.7% of the people on the suspense list are noncitizens is statistically indistinguishable from zero. … Moreover, taken at face value, the corollary to Dr. Richman’s estimate that 0.7% of people on the Suspense List are noncitizens, is that more than 99% of the individuals on the suspense list are United States citizens. … there are only 39 confirmed noncitizens who successfully registered to vote between 1999 and 2013 when the DPOC law became effective. This is but .002% of all registered voters in Kansas as of January 1, 2013 (1,762,330). … these numbers support the opinions of Drs. Minnite, McDonald, and Hersh that while there is evidence of a small number of noncitizen registrations in Kansas, it is largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake. … The Court has already determined that at most, 67 noncitizens registered or attempted to register in Kansas over the last 19 years.”Hide quote

    the evidence shows that 67 noncitizen individuals registered to vote under the attestation regime, or attempted to register after the DPOC law was passed. Of these, 39 successfully registered to vote despite the attestation requirement, and 28 noncitizens attempted to register to vote after the DPOC law was passed but were thwarted by operation of that law. … although Dr. Richman did not provide a margin of error, Dr. Ansolabehere did, and determined that Dr. Richman’s estimate that 0.7% of the people on the suspense list are noncitizens is statistically indistinguishable from zero. … Moreover, taken at face value, the corollary to Dr. Richman’s estimate that 0.7% of people on the Suspense List are noncitizens, is that more than 99% of the individuals on the suspense list are United States citizens. … there are only 39 confirmed noncitizens who successfully registered to vote between 1999 and 2013 when the DPOC law became effective. This is but .002% of all registered voters in Kansas as of January 1, 2013 (1,762,330). … these numbers support the opinions of Drs. Minnite, McDonald, and Hersh that while there is evidence of a small number of noncitizen registrations in Kansas, it is largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake. … The Court has already determined that at most, 67 noncitizens registered or attempted to register in Kansas over the last 19 years.

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

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

    “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.

17. In Texas, thousands of mail ballots were rejected following new ID requirements

    NPR (via KUT), 2022-03-16 · supports

    “Perhaps most notably, in Harris County — home to Houston, and the state's most populous county — officials said they rejected a whopping 19% percent of the mail ballots they received, or 6,888 mail ballots in total. During the primary election in 2018, the county had only rejected 135 mail ballots out of more than 48,000, election officials said in a statement. That's less than 0.3%. But the issues were widespread, as final figures have come out. In Williamson County — a historically Republican suburban county north of Austin that's been turning blue in the past few years — officials there rejected 11.5% of returned mail ballots. … And the ID number they provide has to match what's on their voter registration record, which could be from decades ago. … The ID field was located under the envelope flap, which Davis said is easy to miss. … "Based on what we have heard from county election officials, the vast majority of mail-in ballot rejections were due to voters who did not provide any ID information on their carrier envelope," Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, said in a statement.”Hide quote

    Perhaps most notably, in Harris County — home to Houston, and the state's most populous county — officials said they rejected a whopping 19% percent of the mail ballots they received, or 6,888 mail ballots in total. During the primary election in 2018, the county had only rejected 135 mail ballots out of more than 48,000, election officials said in a statement. That's less than 0.3%. But the issues were widespread, as final figures have come out. In Williamson County — a historically Republican suburban county north of Austin that's been turning blue in the past few years — officials there rejected 11.5% of returned mail ballots. … And the ID number they provide has to match what's on their voter registration record, which could be from decades ago. … The ID field was located under the envelope flap, which Davis said is easy to miss. … "Based on what we have heard from county election officials, the vast majority of mail-in ballot rejections were due to voters who did not provide any ID information on their carrier envelope," Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, said in a statement.

18. New study shows lasting effects of Texas’ ID requirements to vote by mail

    Votebeat, 2025-05-28 · supports

    “The study found that 30,000 voters in that primary — or 1 out of 7 voters who started the process to vote by mail — had either their application or ballot rejected, and that “roughly 90% of these individuals did not find another way to participate in the 2022 primary.” … About 85% of voters whose applications or ballots were rejected had voted in general elections in 2016, 2018, and 2020 … Texas has long had strict limits on voting by mail, allowing it only for certain groups of people, including voters age 65 and up and people with disabilities. … They looked at the demographics and the voting history of the roughly 215,000 Texans who requested a mail ballot for that primary … Out of the more than 18,000 voters whose mail ballots were rejected, only 344 voted in person.”Hide quote

    The study found that 30,000 voters in that primary — or 1 out of 7 voters who started the process to vote by mail — had either their application or ballot rejected, and that “roughly 90% of these individuals did not find another way to participate in the 2022 primary.” … About 85% of voters whose applications or ballots were rejected had voted in general elections in 2016, 2018, and 2020 … Texas has long had strict limits on voting by mail, allowing it only for certain groups of people, including voters age 65 and up and people with disabilities. … They looked at the demographics and the voting history of the roughly 215,000 Texans who requested a mail ballot for that primary … Out of the more than 18,000 voters whose mail ballots were rejected, only 344 voted in person.

19. 2022 EAVS Data Brief: Texas

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

    “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

20. 2024 EAVS Data Brief: Texas

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025 · supports

    “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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 2022 EAVS Data Brief: United States

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

    “97.4% of returned mail ballots counted • 1.5% of returned mail ballots rejected”Hide quote

    97.4% of returned mail ballots counted • 1.5% of returned mail ballots rejected

24. 2024 EAVS Data Brief: United States

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025 · supports

    “66,867,671 mail ballots transmitted … 72.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters … 98.8% of returned mail ballots counted … 1.5% of mail ballots entered ballot curing process”Hide quote

    66,867,671 mail ballots transmitted … 72.0% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters … 98.8% of returned mail ballots counted … 1.5% of mail ballots entered ballot curing process

25. 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. … 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. … Georgia [2] 1,311,361 26.1 1,759,036 1,316,165 74.8”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. … 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. … Georgia [2] 1,311,361 26.1 1,759,036 1,316,165 74.8

26. 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. … 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. … 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

27. Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018 (Quarterly Journal of Economics 136(4), 2021)

    National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021-05 · complicates

    “Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. … Based on this specification, we obtain point estimates of -0.1 percentage point for effects both on overall registration and turnout (with 95 percent confidence intervals of [-2.3; 2.1pp] and [-3.0; 2.8pp], respectively), and +1.4pp for the effect on the turnout of non-white voters relative to whites (with a 95 percent confidence interval of [-0.5; 3.2pp]). … However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived.”Hide quote

    Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. … Based on this specification, we obtain point estimates of -0.1 percentage point for effects both on overall registration and turnout (with 95 percent confidence intervals of [-2.3; 2.1pp] and [-3.0; 2.8pp], respectively), and +1.4pp for the effect on the turnout of non-white voters relative to whites (with a 95 percent confidence interval of [-0.5; 3.2pp]). … However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived.

28. Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws (GAO-14-634, reissued 27 February 2015)

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014-09 · supports

    “GAO conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to compare voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee to turnout in the four comparison states that did not have changes in their voter ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general elections. … GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis.”Hide quote

    GAO conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to compare voter turnout in Kansas and Tennessee to turnout in the four comparison states that did not have changes in their voter ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general elections. … GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis.

29. Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws (GAO-14-634, reissued 27 February 2015)

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014-09 · supports

    “Age. In Kansas, the turnout effect among registrants who were 18 years old in 2008 was 7.1 percentage points larger in size than the turnout effect among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53. The change in turnout in Tennessee was reduced among 18 year-old registrants by 1.3 percentage points more than among 44 to 53 year-olds. … We estimate that turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants … In Kansas, the reduction in turnout for people registered to vote within 1 year prior to Election Day 2008 was 5.2 percentage points larger in size than for people registered to vote for 20 years or longer prior to Election Day 2008. In Tennessee, the effect on turnout for people registered to vote within 1 year prior to Election Day 2008 was 4.6 percentage points larger than the effect for people registered to vote for 20 years or longer prior to Election Day 2008.”Hide quote

    Age. In Kansas, the turnout effect among registrants who were 18 years old in 2008 was 7.1 percentage points larger in size than the turnout effect among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53. The change in turnout in Tennessee was reduced among 18 year-old registrants by 1.3 percentage points more than among 44 to 53 year-olds. … We estimate that turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants … In Kansas, the reduction in turnout for people registered to vote within 1 year prior to Election Day 2008 was 5.2 percentage points larger in size than for people registered to vote for 20 years or longer prior to Election Day 2008. In Tennessee, the effect on turnout for people registered to vote within 1 year prior to Election Day 2008 was 4.6 percentage points larger than the effect for people registered to vote for 20 years or longer prior to Election Day 2008.

30. Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws (GAO-14-634, reissued 27 February 2015)

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014-09 · complicates

    “Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant. … GAO identified direct costs for these forms of ID in 17 states that require voters to present a photo or government-issued ID at the polls and do not allow voters to affirm their own identities, and found that driver's license direct costs, for example, range from $14.50 to $58.50.”Hide quote

    Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant. … GAO identified direct costs for these forms of ID in 17 states that require voters to present a photo or government-issued ID at the polls and do not allow voters to affirm their own identities, and found that driver's license direct costs, for example, range from $14.50 to $58.50.

31. Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws (GAO-14-634, reissued 27 February 2015)

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014-09 · complicates

    “GAO's estimates are limited to turnout in the 2012 general election in Kansas and Tennessee and do not apply to other states or time periods. … In comments on draft report excerpts the Kansas, Tennessee, and Arkansas Secretary of State Offices disagreed with GAO's criteria for selecting treatment and comparison states and Kansas and Tennessee questioned the reliability of one dataset used to assess turnout.”Hide quote

    GAO's estimates are limited to turnout in the 2012 general election in Kansas and Tennessee and do not apply to other states or time periods. … In comments on draft report excerpts the Kansas, Tennessee, and Arkansas Secretary of State Offices disagreed with GAO's criteria for selecting treatment and comparison states and Kansas and Tennessee questioned the reliability of one dataset used to assess turnout.

32. 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

    “Our post-election telephone survey of Georgia voters included more than 1,200 Georgians who participated in the 2022 midterm election. … Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot. Of those who voted in-person (Election Day or Early In-Person), 75% reported wait times of ten minutes or less. In terms of overall voting experience, 72% rated their experience as excellent, up from 55% of voters following the 2020 presidential contest.”Hide quote

    Our post-election telephone survey of Georgia voters included more than 1,200 Georgians who participated in the 2022 midterm election. … Overall, only 1.1% of survey respondents reported they encountered an issue while casting their ballot. Of those who voted in-person (Election Day or Early In-Person), 75% reported wait times of ten minutes or less. In terms of overall voting experience, 72% rated their experience as excellent, up from 55% of voters following the 2020 presidential contest.

33. 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.

34. Georgia’s Racial Turnout Gap Grew in 2022

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2022-12-16 · supports

    “Turnout in Georgia is especially worthy of examination, considering that its newly enacted Senate Bill 202 erected multiple barriers to voting in the state. … White turnout was 8.6 percentage points higher than nonwhite turnout in the midterm election this year — higher than any general election in the past decade, and roughly 50 percent higher than in the last two midterms. … Several factors affect turnout, including poll site resources and weather, among others, so we cannot say whether the passage of S.B. 202 is the cause of the turnout gaps’ growth.”Hide quote

    Turnout in Georgia is especially worthy of examination, considering that its newly enacted Senate Bill 202 erected multiple barriers to voting in the state. … White turnout was 8.6 percentage points higher than nonwhite turnout in the midterm election this year — higher than any general election in the past decade, and roughly 50 percent higher than in the last two midterms. … Several factors affect turnout, including poll site resources and weather, among others, so we cannot say whether the passage of S.B. 202 is the cause of the turnout gaps’ growth.

35. Racial Turnout Gap Grew in Georgia — Again

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2024-12-23 · complicates

    “One takeaway is that the gap in turnout rates between white and Black voters in Georgia grew by 3 percentage points between 2020 and 2024 … That’s roughly equal to how much the turnout gap grew between 2016 and 2020, but looking only at the change in the gap can be misleading. Between 2016 and 2020, turnout among both white and Black voters increased, but it increased more for white voters; that’s what drove up the turnout gap. This year, white turnout went up again in Georgia, but Black turnout declined by 0.6 points.”Hide quote

    One takeaway is that the gap in turnout rates between white and Black voters in Georgia grew by 3 percentage points between 2020 and 2024 … That’s roughly equal to how much the turnout gap grew between 2016 and 2020, but looking only at the change in the gap can be misleading. Between 2016 and 2020, turnout among both white and Black voters increased, but it increased more for white voters; that’s what drove up the turnout gap. This year, white turnout went up again in Georgia, but Black turnout declined by 0.6 points.

36. Voter ID at the 2024 UK general election (page last updated 19 August 2025)

    Electoral Commission, 2024-07-29 · complicates

    “Only 58% of people were aware of the Voter Authority Certificate and this was similar across England, Scotland, and Wales. … 0.08% of people who tried to vote at a polling station in July 2024 were not able to because of the ID requirement … At least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were initially not issued with a ballot paper because they did not have an accepted form of ID. Around two-thirds of these people returned later in the day with an accepted form of ID and were able to vote. By the close of poll, 0.08% of people who tried to vote in person were not issued with a ballot paper due to the ID requirement. This means around 16,000 people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID. … Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) … We found that 4% of the people who said they did not vote gave an unprompted reason that was related to the ID rules. … The clearest evidence relates to the lower, C2DE social grade. When prompted, 10% of people who did not vote said that the ID requirement was the reason, with 6% saying that this was because they did not have the required ID. This was higher for C2DE non-voters compared to ABC1 non-voters (8% compared to 3%).”Hide quote

    Only 58% of people were aware of the Voter Authority Certificate and this was similar across England, Scotland, and Wales. … 0.08% of people who tried to vote at a polling station in July 2024 were not able to because of the ID requirement … At least 0.25% of people who tried to vote at a polling station were initially not issued with a ballot paper because they did not have an accepted form of ID. Around two-thirds of these people returned later in the day with an accepted form of ID and were able to vote. By the close of poll, 0.08% of people who tried to vote in person were not issued with a ballot paper due to the ID requirement. This means around 16,000 people who tried to vote at a polling station were not issued with a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID. … Table 1: Polling station voters who were initially turned away and percentage of those who did not return May 2023 (England) May 2024* (England and Wales) July 2024 (Great Britain) Initially turned away 0.7% (37,000) 0.6% 0.25% (50,000) Turned away and did not return 0.25% (14,000) 0.2% 0.08% (16,000) … We found that 4% of the people who said they did not vote gave an unprompted reason that was related to the ID rules. … The clearest evidence relates to the lower, C2DE social grade. When prompted, 10% of people who did not vote said that the ID requirement was the reason, with 6% saying that this was because they did not have the required ID. This was higher for C2DE non-voters compared to ABC1 non-voters (8% compared to 3%).

37. Fish v. Kobach, Nos. 16-2105-JAR-JPO and 15-9300-JAR-JPO, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse), 2018-06-18 · complicates

    “There was little admissible evidence presented at trial about the rate of DPOC possession by suspended and canceled applicants. … There is no evidence about how many canceled and suspended applicants in fact lack DPOC, although the Court can reasonably infer from the suspense and cancelation numbers that either (1) these applicants lack immediate access to such documents because they were repeatedly notified of the need to produce DPOC in order to register, yet they did not complete the registration process; or (2) these applicants were not well enough informed about the DPOC requirement to locate their DPOC and provide it to the county election office in order to become registered; or (3) these applicants were otherwise unable or unwilling to go through the steps to produce DPOC. Dr. Jesse Richman estimates that only 2.2% of the applicants on the suspense list lack access to DPOC, based on a survey he conducted of individuals on the suspense list. Yet Dr. Richman’s results are not statistically distinguishable from zero, as the margin of error is 2.7%. Furthermore, Dr. Richman concludes that 97.8% of citizens on the suspense list have what he describes as “immediate access” to DPOC, but his estimate includes individuals who do not personally possess DPOC, but have someone who “keeps” such a document for them. Obtaining a document from another person constitutes an additional step in the voter registration process, which increases the costs of voting. … The remaining category of evidence offered by Defendant to demonstrate the degree of noncitizen registration in Kansas is statistical estimates generated by his expert, Dr. Jesse Richman.”Hide quote

    There was little admissible evidence presented at trial about the rate of DPOC possession by suspended and canceled applicants. … There is no evidence about how many canceled and suspended applicants in fact lack DPOC, although the Court can reasonably infer from the suspense and cancelation numbers that either (1) these applicants lack immediate access to such documents because they were repeatedly notified of the need to produce DPOC in order to register, yet they did not complete the registration process; or (2) these applicants were not well enough informed about the DPOC requirement to locate their DPOC and provide it to the county election office in order to become registered; or (3) these applicants were otherwise unable or unwilling to go through the steps to produce DPOC. Dr. Jesse Richman estimates that only 2.2% of the applicants on the suspense list lack access to DPOC, based on a survey he conducted of individuals on the suspense list. Yet Dr. Richman’s results are not statistically distinguishable from zero, as the margin of error is 2.7%. Furthermore, Dr. Richman concludes that 97.8% of citizens on the suspense list have what he describes as “immediate access” to DPOC, but his estimate includes individuals who do not personally possess DPOC, but have someone who “keeps” such a document for them. Obtaining a document from another person constitutes an additional step in the voter registration process, which increases the costs of voting. … The remaining category of evidence offered by Defendant to demonstrate the degree of noncitizen registration in Kansas is statistical estimates generated by his expert, Dr. Jesse Richman.

38. Fish v. Schwab, No. 18-3133 (opinion)

    United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2020-04-29 · supports

    “In Bednasek, No. 18-3134, we conclude the DPOC requirement unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote and thus AFFIRM the district court’s … injunction. Likewise, in Fish, No. 18-3133, we AFFIRM the district court’s injunction because section 5 of the NVRA preempts the DPOC requirement.”Hide quote

    In Bednasek, No. 18-3134, we conclude the DPOC requirement unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote and thus AFFIRM the district court’s … injunction. Likewise, in Fish, No. 18-3133, we AFFIRM the district court’s injunction because section 5 of the NVRA preempts the DPOC requirement.

39. The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report

    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

40. Georgia’s Racial Turnout Gap Grew in 2022 (charts and methods note)

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2022-12-16 · supports

    “To estimate the racial turnout rate in each election, we leverage snapshots from L2 following the general elections. These are dated 5/16/2015, 1/27/2017, 12/22/2018, 2/4/2021, and 11/20/2022. … We sum the predicted probabilities to determine the number of ballots cast by voters of each race/ethnicity. In each year, the denominator is taken from 5-year ACS estimates of the citizen voting age population (CVAP).”Hide quote

    To estimate the racial turnout rate in each election, we leverage snapshots from L2 following the general elections. These are dated 5/16/2015, 1/27/2017, 12/22/2018, 2/4/2021, and 11/20/2022. … We sum the predicted probabilities to determine the number of ballots cast by voters of each race/ethnicity. In each year, the denominator is taken from 5-year ACS estimates of the citizen voting age population (CVAP).

41. Racial Turnout Gap Grew in Georgia — Again (charts and methods note)

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2024-12-23 · supports

    “Generally, the Brennan Center calculates turnout rates by dividing the number of ballots cast by members of a given racial group by the five-year citizen voting-age population (CVAP) estimates for that group, which come from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). However, since there is always a lag of a few years on these estimates, the CVAP numbers currently only go through 2022. To determine the CVAP for each racial group in 2024, we had to project the 2022 numbers forward by two years.”Hide quote

    Generally, the Brennan Center calculates turnout rates by dividing the number of ballots cast by members of a given racial group by the five-year citizen voting-age population (CVAP) estimates for that group, which come from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). However, since there is always a lag of a few years on these estimates, the CVAP numbers currently only go through 2022. To determine the CVAP for each racial group in 2024, we had to project the 2022 numbers forward by two years.

Voter Roll Maintenance in the US

1. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Chapter 3: Voter Registration

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

   “Between the close of registration for the 2022 general election and the close of registration for the 2024 general election, states reported removing 21,298,175 records from their voter lists. This was equal to 9.1% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2024 general election. At the state level, 62.3% of the states reported removing a number of registrants that added up to between 3% and 10% of their total registered voters. There were some exceptions to this trend: Utah’s removals accounted for the lowest percentage of total registrants at 0.8%, and Puerto Rico reported the highest percentage of removals at 22.2%”Hide quote

   Between the close of registration for the 2022 general election and the close of registration for the 2024 general election, states reported removing 21,298,175 records from their voter lists. This was equal to 9.1% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2024 general election. At the state level, 62.3% of the states reported removing a number of registrants that added up to between 3% and 10% of their total registered voters. There were some exceptions to this trend: Utah’s removals accounted for the lowest percentage of total registrants at 0.8%, and Puerto Rico reported the highest percentage of removals at 22.2%

2. Errata Note: 2024 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Dataset

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2026-02-12 · supports

   “Page 153: Death and Other percentages updated in Figure 7. Three Removal Reasons Accounted for the Majority of the Voter Registration Removals … No Response to Notices and Missed Two Federal General Elections 33.5% … Moved Out of Jurisdiction 30.8% … Death 21.6% … Duplicate Voter Registration Record 8.1% … Other 3.4% … Voter's Request 2.6% … Criminal Conviction/Incarceration 1.5%”Hide quote

   Page 153: Death and Other percentages updated in Figure 7. Three Removal Reasons Accounted for the Majority of the Voter Registration Removals … No Response to Notices and Missed Two Federal General Elections 33.5% … Moved Out of Jurisdiction 30.8% … Death 21.6% … Duplicate Voter Registration Record 8.1% … Other 3.4% … Voter's Request 2.6% … Criminal Conviction/Incarceration 1.5%

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Chapter 3: Voter Registration

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

   “Because registration removal can take up to two federal general election cycles to complete for some registration records, particularly in states that are subject to the NVRA, it is inevitable that voter lists will contain some number of voter records for individuals who are no longer eligible to vote.”Hide quote

   Because registration removal can take up to two federal general election cycles to complete for some registration records, particularly in states that are subject to the NVRA, it is inevitable that voter lists will contain some number of voter records for individuals who are no longer eligible to vote.

4. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Chapter 3: Voter Registration

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

   “The 2024 EAVS added “Duplicate voter registration record” as a new reason for removing a registration from the voter list to account for cases where a duplicate record is found in the voter list and is completely removed rather than merged or linked with another registration record. This type of removal accounted for 8.1% of all registration removals reported by states. For most states, removing registration records because they were duplicates comprised less than 5% of all records removed from their voter lists. Vermont (20.8%) and Texas (50.9%) reported the highest percentages of registration records removed because they were duplicates.”Hide quote

   The 2024 EAVS added “Duplicate voter registration record” as a new reason for removing a registration from the voter list to account for cases where a duplicate record is found in the voter list and is completely removed rather than merged or linked with another registration record. This type of removal accounted for 8.1% of all registration removals reported by states. For most states, removing registration records because they were duplicates comprised less than 5% of all records removed from their voter lists. Vermont (20.8%) and Texas (50.9%) reported the highest percentages of registration records removed because they were duplicates.

5. Errata Note: 2022 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Dataset (version 1.1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-12-18 · supports

   ““Between the close of registration for the 2020 general election and the close of registration for the 2022 general election, states reported removing 19,284,010 records from their voter registration rolls. This was equal to 8.6% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2022 general election.” … “Failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and to vote in two consecutive federal general elections accounted for 25.6% of removals.””Hide quote

   “Between the close of registration for the 2020 general election and the close of registration for the 2022 general election, states reported removing 19,284,010 records from their voter registration rolls. This was equal to 8.6% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2022 general election.” … “Failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and to vote in two consecutive federal general elections accounted for 25.6% of removals.”

6. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report

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

   “The most common reason was a cross-jurisdiction change of address, which accounted for 26.8% of all removals, followed by death of the registrant (25.6%).”Hide quote

   The most common reason was a cross-jurisdiction change of address, which accounted for 26.8% of all removals, followed by death of the registrant (25.6%).

7. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021 · supports

   “Between the close of registration for the 2018 general election and the close of registration for the 2020 general election, states reported removing 18,781,054 records from their voter registration rolls. This was equal to 8.2% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2020 general election. … The most common reason was failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and to vote in two consecutive federal general elections, which accounted for 32.1% of removals. Cross-jurisdiction change of address and death of the registrant were the other two major reasons for states’ removal of registrants from their rolls (28.5% and 21.4%, respectively).”Hide quote

   Between the close of registration for the 2018 general election and the close of registration for the 2020 general election, states reported removing 18,781,054 records from their voter registration rolls. This was equal to 8.2% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2020 general election. … The most common reason was failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and to vote in two consecutive federal general elections, which accounted for 32.1% of removals. Cross-jurisdiction change of address and death of the registrant were the other two major reasons for states’ removal of registrants from their rolls (28.5% and 21.4%, respectively).

8. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2018 Comprehensive Report

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

   “Between the close of registration for the 2016 general elections and the close of registration for the 2018 general elections, states reported removing 17,300,470 records from their registration rolls. The number of removed registrants comprised up to 8.2 percent of the total registered voters in the reported election period. … The most common was failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and vote in two consecutive federal general elections, which accounted for 35.3 percent of the total removals. Cross-jurisdiction change of address and death of the registrant were the other two major reasons for states to remove registrants from their rolls (24.7 percent and 21.6 percent, respectively).”Hide quote

   Between the close of registration for the 2016 general elections and the close of registration for the 2018 general elections, states reported removing 17,300,470 records from their registration rolls. The number of removed registrants comprised up to 8.2 percent of the total registered voters in the reported election period. … The most common was failure to both respond to a confirmation notice and vote in two consecutive federal general elections, which accounted for 35.3 percent of the total removals. Cross-jurisdiction change of address and death of the registrant were the other two major reasons for states to remove registrants from their rolls (24.7 percent and 21.6 percent, respectively).

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

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

   “From 2014 to 2016, 16,696,470 citizens (8.8 percent of all registrants) were removed from state voter registration rolls (NVRA Table 4b). … The most common reason for a registrant’s removal from the rolls was cross-jurisdiction change of address (31.1 percent) … Overall, 4,110,047 registrants (24.6 percent) were removed due to death.”Hide quote

   From 2014 to 2016, 16,696,470 citizens (8.8 percent of all registrants) were removed from state voter registration rolls (NVRA Table 4b). … The most common reason for a registrant’s removal from the rolls was cross-jurisdiction change of address (31.1 percent) … Overall, 4,110,047 registrants (24.6 percent) were removed due to death.

10. Errata Note: 2016 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Dataset (version 1.1)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-12-18 · supports

    ““...followed by the NVRA process of failing to respond to a confirmation notice and not voting in the following two Federal elections (26.9 percent).” … U.S. Total: 4,495,100 for Total Voter Removed for Failure to Return Confirmation Notice”Hide quote

    “...followed by the NVRA process of failing to respond to a confirmation notice and not voting in the following two Federal elections (26.9 percent).” … U.S. Total: 4,495,100 for Total Voter Removed for Failure to Return Confirmation Notice

11. The 2014 EAC Election Administration and Voting Survey Comprehensive Report

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

    “Over 14.8 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the 2 years leading up to the 2014 midterm election (see Table 4b), including those who moved to a different jurisdiction. … Overall, States removed 7.8% of registered voters in 2014. Of the over 14.8 million voters removed from the rolls, over 4.6 million, or 31.5%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … Overall, over 2.7 million voters, or 18.6% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal of inactive voters was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and subsequent failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 5.2 million voters, or 35.5% of the total removals.”Hide quote

    Over 14.8 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the 2 years leading up to the 2014 midterm election (see Table 4b), including those who moved to a different jurisdiction. … Overall, States removed 7.8% of registered voters in 2014. Of the over 14.8 million voters removed from the rolls, over 4.6 million, or 31.5%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … Overall, over 2.7 million voters, or 18.6% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal of inactive voters was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and subsequent failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 5.2 million voters, or 35.5% of the total removals.

12. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2011–2012

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2013-06-30 · supports

    “Nearly 13.7 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election (see Table 4b). … Overall, States removed 7.1% of registered voters in 2012. Of the nearly 13.7 million voters removed from the rolls, over 3.7 million, or 27.1%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … nearly 3.0 million voters, or 21.6% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal of inactive voters was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and subsequent failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 4.1 million voters, or 30.1% of the total removals.”Hide quote

    Nearly 13.7 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election (see Table 4b). … Overall, States removed 7.1% of registered voters in 2012. Of the nearly 13.7 million voters removed from the rolls, over 3.7 million, or 27.1%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … nearly 3.0 million voters, or 21.6% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal of inactive voters was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and subsequent failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 4.1 million voters, or 30.1% of the total removals.

13. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2009–2010

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2011-06-30 · supports

    “Over 15 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2010 Federal elections (see Table 4b). … Overall, States removed 8.0% of the number of registered voters in 2010. Of the 15 million voters removed from the rolls, nearly 3.8 million, or 25.2%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … nearly 3.0 million voters, or 19.8% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal, however, was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 6.1 million voters, or 40.7% of the total removals.”Hide quote

    Over 15 million voters were removed from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2010 Federal elections (see Table 4b). … Overall, States removed 8.0% of the number of registered voters in 2010. Of the 15 million voters removed from the rolls, nearly 3.8 million, or 25.2%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions … nearly 3.0 million voters, or 19.8% of all voters removed, were removed because they had died. The leading cause of removal, however, was a failure to respond to a confirmation notice and failure to vote in the two most recent Federal elections, accounting for 6.1 million voters, or 40.7% of the total removals.

14. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2007–2008

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2009-06-30 · supports

    “caused the removal of nearly 12.7 million voters from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2008 Presidential election (see Table 4b). … On average, States removed 6.6% of their reported 2008 registered voters. Of voters removed from the rolls, 2.7 million, or 21.7%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions, and nearly as many, 2.4 million, were removed because they had died. … 3.9 million voters, or 30.9% of the total removals, were removed due to this reason”Hide quote

    caused the removal of nearly 12.7 million voters from registration rolls in the two years leading up to the 2008 Presidential election (see Table 4b). … On average, States removed 6.6% of their reported 2008 registered voters. Of voters removed from the rolls, 2.7 million, or 21.7%, were removed because they moved to other jurisdictions, and nearly as many, 2.4 million, were removed because they had died. … 3.9 million voters, or 30.9% of the total removals, were removed due to this reason

15. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2005–2006

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2007-06-30 · supports

    “Of the 42 States that responded to this portion of the survey some 13 million registrants were removed from the voter lists during the 2004–2006 survey period. This number accounted for about 7.6 percent of the registration rolls nationwide. … Some 3.5 million registrants were removed from the voter rolls for failure to vote in two consecutive Federal elections, which amounts to 27.1 percent of all removals among the 34 States providing this information. … The number removed due to a move out of the jurisdiction was 3.0 million, or 23.1 percent of all removals. Removals were due to death in 2.0 million cases, or 15.7 percent of all removals.”Hide quote

    Of the 42 States that responded to this portion of the survey some 13 million registrants were removed from the voter lists during the 2004–2006 survey period. This number accounted for about 7.6 percent of the registration rolls nationwide. … Some 3.5 million registrants were removed from the voter rolls for failure to vote in two consecutive Federal elections, which amounts to 27.1 percent of all removals among the 34 States providing this information. … The number removed due to a move out of the jurisdiction was 3.0 million, or 23.1 percent of all removals. Removals were due to death in 2.0 million cases, or 15.7 percent of all removals.

16. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2003–2004

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2005-06-30 · supports

    “States that responded to the survey reported the removal of 12.5 million registrants from the voter lists during the 2002-2004 reporting period, or 8.3 percent of total reported registration. The12.5 million removed from voter lists in the 2002-2004 compares with approximately 15 million registrants in 2000-2002 and 13 million registrants in 1998-2000. In the 2002-2004 period, 4.6 million registrants were removed for failure to vote in two consecutive federal elections, amounting to 45.3 percent of all removals in the nation. … About 3.4 million registrants were removed for other reasons that included moved out of the county, moved out of the state, declared mentally incompetent, or the registration was determined to be a duplicate registration.”Hide quote

    States that responded to the survey reported the removal of 12.5 million registrants from the voter lists during the 2002-2004 reporting period, or 8.3 percent of total reported registration. The12.5 million removed from voter lists in the 2002-2004 compares with approximately 15 million registrants in 2000-2002 and 13 million registrants in 1998-2000. In the 2002-2004 period, 4.6 million registrants were removed for failure to vote in two consecutive federal elections, amounting to 45.3 percent of all removals in the nation. … About 3.4 million registrants were removed for other reasons that included moved out of the county, moved out of the state, declared mentally incompetent, or the registration was determined to be a duplicate registration.

17. Errata Note: 2024 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Dataset

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2026-02-12 · complicates

    “Nationally, 38,803,086 confirmation notices were sent between the 2022 general election and the month before the 2024 general election, accounting for 19.1% of the active voters reported by states in 2024. This percentage was higher than what was reported by states in 2022 (13.7%) and in 2020 (14.3%). Table 1 shows that unreturned confirmation notices accounted for 68.9% of the total confirmation notices sent. … States reported that 8.5% of confirmation notices were returned as undeliverable, and confirmation notices returned by voters accounted for the lowest percentages of confirmation notices sent (see Table 1).”Hide quote

    Nationally, 38,803,086 confirmation notices were sent between the 2022 general election and the month before the 2024 general election, accounting for 19.1% of the active voters reported by states in 2024. This percentage was higher than what was reported by states in 2022 (13.7%) and in 2020 (14.3%). Table 1 shows that unreturned confirmation notices accounted for 68.9% of the total confirmation notices sent. … States reported that 8.5% of confirmation notices were returned as undeliverable, and confirmation notices returned by voters accounted for the lowest percentages of confirmation notices sent (see Table 1).

18. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), opinion of the Court

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell Legal Information Institute), 2018-06-11 · supports

    “Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA. … It has been estimated that 24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—are either invalid or significantly inaccurate. … Not only are States allowed to remove registrants who satisfy these requirements, but federal law makes this removal mandatory. … Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. … Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.”Hide quote

    Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA. … It has been estimated that 24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—are either invalid or significantly inaccurate. … Not only are States allowed to remove registrants who satisfy these requirements, but federal law makes this removal mandatory. … Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. … Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

19. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018), Breyer, J., dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell Legal Information Institute), 2018-06-11 · complicates

    “The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because they changed their residences. … In response to those 1.5 million notices, Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4%) which said, in effect, “You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved.” Ibid. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, “You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.” In the end, however, there were more than 1,000,000 notices—the vast majority of notices sent—to which Ohio received back no return card at all. … those 1 million or so voters accounted for about 13% of Ohio’s voting population. … the failure of more than 1 million Ohio voters to respond to forward-able notices (the vast majority of those sent) shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant.”Hide quote

    The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because they changed their residences. … In response to those 1.5 million notices, Ohio only received back about 60,000 return cards (or 4%) which said, in effect, “You are right, Ohio. I have, in fact, moved.” Ibid. In addition, Ohio received back about 235,000 return cards which said, in effect, “You are wrong, Ohio, I have not moved.” In the end, however, there were more than 1,000,000 notices—the vast majority of notices sent—to which Ohio received back no return card at all. … those 1 million or so voters accounted for about 13% of Ohio’s voting population. … the failure of more than 1 million Ohio voters to respond to forward-able notices (the vast majority of those sent) shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant.

20. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018), Sotomayor, J., dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell Legal Information Institute), 2018-06-11 · complicates

    “amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Hamilton County, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.””Hide quote

    amici point to an investigation that revealed that in Hamilton County, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.”

21. 52 U.S. Code § 20507 — Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration

    Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2026 · supports

    “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of— (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant … A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. … A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant— (A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or (B)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and (ii) has not voted or appeared to vote … during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.”Hide quote

    conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of— (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant … A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. … A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant— (A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or (B)(i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and (ii) has not voted or appeared to vote … during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that occurs after the date of the notice.

22. Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, No. 12-15738 (11th Cir.)

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2014-04-01 · complicates

    “This first effort by Secretary Detzner to identify non-citizens was far from perfect. For example, Plaintiffs Karla V. Arcia and Melande Antoine were identified as non-citizen voters to be removed from the voter rolls. This, despite the fact that they were both United States citizens eligible to vote in the 2012 elections. … Rather than use the DHSMV records, this second program relied on the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. … Because we conclude that Florida’s program was an attempt to systematically remove names from the voter rolls in violation of the 90 Day Provision, we reverse and remand. … Eligible voters removed days or weeks before Election Day will likely not be able to correct the State’s errors in time to vote.”Hide quote

    This first effort by Secretary Detzner to identify non-citizens was far from perfect. For example, Plaintiffs Karla V. Arcia and Melande Antoine were identified as non-citizen voters to be removed from the voter rolls. This, despite the fact that they were both United States citizens eligible to vote in the 2012 elections. … Rather than use the DHSMV records, this second program relied on the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. … Because we conclude that Florida’s program was an attempt to systematically remove names from the voter rolls in violation of the 90 Day Provision, we reverse and remand. … Eligible voters removed days or weeks before Election Day will likely not be able to correct the State’s errors in time to vote.

23. Statistics

    Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), 2026-09-30 · supports

    “Identifies voters who appear to have moved from one ERIC member to another using voter registration data and MVD Data. … Once a member has a list maintenance report, after validating the data, they take steps to act on the report in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. … Cross-State Movers … 2021 28 States + DC 3,490,162 … 2022 31 States + DC 2,433,532 … 2024 21 States + DC 701,420 … 2026 22 States + DC 668,803 … Total 14,600,683 31,170,181 1,459,110 681,231 As of September 30, 2026”Hide quote

    Identifies voters who appear to have moved from one ERIC member to another using voter registration data and MVD Data. … Once a member has a list maintenance report, after validating the data, they take steps to act on the report in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. … Cross-State Movers … 2021 28 States + DC 3,490,162 … 2022 31 States + DC 2,433,532 … 2024 21 States + DC 701,420 … 2026 22 States + DC 668,803 … Total 14,600,683 31,170,181 1,459,110 681,231 As of September 30, 2026

24. About ERIC

    Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), 2026 · complicates

    “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient , published in 2012, found that approximately 1 out of 8 voter registrations in the U.S. were no longer valid or significantly inaccurate … Illegal voting is exceedingly rare but maintaining accurate voter rolls reduces the opportunity for such behavior and it helps build confidence in election outcomes. … Which States Are Members Of ERIC? Alaska Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Utah Vermont Virginia Washington and Wisconsin The District of Columbia is also a member.”Hide quote

    Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient , published in 2012, found that approximately 1 out of 8 voter registrations in the U.S. were no longer valid or significantly inaccurate … Illegal voting is exceedingly rare but maintaining accurate voter rolls reduces the opportunity for such behavior and it helps build confidence in election outcomes. … Which States Are Members Of ERIC? Alaska Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Utah Vermont Virginia Washington and Wisconsin The District of Columbia is also a member.

25. Republican states swore off a voting tool. Now they're scrambling to recreate it

    NPR, 2023-10-20 · complicates

    “Nine states — all Republican-led — have now withdrawn from ERIC. They all left without a plan to replace it.”Hide quote

    Nine states — all Republican-led — have now withdrawn from ERIC. They all left without a plan to replace it.

26. Electronic Registration Information Center (secondary source)

    Wikipedia, 2026-10 · complicates

    “The states, in order of departure, are Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas. … Iowa no longer agreed with ERIC rules requiring all member states to abide with its bylaws. One of the main complaints was how ERIC requires member states to perform outreach to unregistered voters to encourage them to register. … Virginia's commissioner of elections Susan Beals said concerns about data security and stewardship were the basis of her decision. … In July 2024, Hawaii joined ERIC. … In March 2026, Virginia's governor Abigail Spanberger signed an executive order directing the Commissioner of Elections to rejoin ERIC.”Hide quote

    The states, in order of departure, are Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas. … Iowa no longer agreed with ERIC rules requiring all member states to abide with its bylaws. One of the main complaints was how ERIC requires member states to perform outreach to unregistered voters to encourage them to register. … Virginia's commissioner of elections Susan Beals said concerns about data security and stewardship were the basis of her decision. … In July 2024, Hawaii joined ERIC. … In March 2026, Virginia's governor Abigail Spanberger signed an executive order directing the Commissioner of Elections to rejoin ERIC.

27. Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade

    Pew Center on the States, 2012-02 · supports

    “Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state. … For this report, a “no longer valid” record represents a person who is on the rolls but no longer eligible to cast a vote, likely due to having moved or died. An “inaccurate” record represents an eligible voter whose file has incorrect data. … These were identified based on data indicating a voter died, moved, or had been inactive from 2004 to March 2011. … Because not all states provide complete records, an analysis of Catalist’s data likely underestimates the number of inaccurate and no longer valid records. … Approximately 12.7 million records nationwide that appear to be out of date and no longer reflect the voter’s current information. … About 12 million records with incorrect addresses … Once duplicates among categories are eliminated, approximately 24 million registration records, or nearly 13 percent of the national total, are estimated to be inaccurate or no longer valid. … total 2,758,578 … researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population.”Hide quote

    Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state. … For this report, a “no longer valid” record represents a person who is on the rolls but no longer eligible to cast a vote, likely due to having moved or died. An “inaccurate” record represents an eligible voter whose file has incorrect data. … These were identified based on data indicating a voter died, moved, or had been inactive from 2004 to March 2011. … Because not all states provide complete records, an analysis of Catalist’s data likely underestimates the number of inaccurate and no longer valid records. … Approximately 12.7 million records nationwide that appear to be out of date and no longer reflect the voter’s current information. … About 12 million records with incorrect addresses … Once duplicates among categories are eliminated, approximately 24 million registration records, or nearly 13 percent of the national total, are estimated to be inaccurate or no longer valid. … total 2,758,578 … researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population.

28. Study: 1.8 Million Dead People Still Registered To Vote

    NPR, 2012-02-14 · complicates

    “There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.”Hide quote

    There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.

29. Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2018-07-20 · complicates

    “An investigation by the New York state attorney general found that New York City’s Board of Elections had improperly deleted more than 200,000 names from the voter rolls. … And in Virginia in 2013, nearly 39,000 voters were removed from the rolls when the state relied on a faulty database to delete voters who allegedly had moved out of the commonwealth. Error rates in some counties ran as high as 17 percent. … We found that between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls … Almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls between 2014 and 2016 than between 2006 and 2008. This growth in the number of removed voters represented an increase of 33 percent … When done correctly, purges ensure the voter rolls are accurate and up-to-date. When done incorrectly, purges disenfranchise legitimate voters … the records of fewer than 5,000 of the more than 7,700 erroneously listed voters had been corrected by September 2016. … According to one analysis, more than 68,000 of the 80,000 voters identified as possibly dead were weak matches. This policy of flagging voters based on a weak match without further investigation was eventually changed when Texas settled litigation that had arisen on account of the bad purge.”Hide quote

    An investigation by the New York state attorney general found that New York City’s Board of Elections had improperly deleted more than 200,000 names from the voter rolls. … And in Virginia in 2013, nearly 39,000 voters were removed from the rolls when the state relied on a faulty database to delete voters who allegedly had moved out of the commonwealth. Error rates in some counties ran as high as 17 percent. … We found that between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls … Almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls between 2014 and 2016 than between 2006 and 2008. This growth in the number of removed voters represented an increase of 33 percent … When done correctly, purges ensure the voter rolls are accurate and up-to-date. When done incorrectly, purges disenfranchise legitimate voters … the records of fewer than 5,000 of the more than 7,700 erroneously listed voters had been corrected by September 2016. … According to one analysis, more than 68,000 of the 80,000 voters identified as possibly dead were weak matches. This policy of flagging voters based on a weak match without further investigation was eventually changed when Texas settled litigation that had arisen on account of the bad purge.

30. Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote (Crosscheck section and notes)

    Brennan Center for Justice, 2018-07-20 · complicates

    “Crosscheck compares the voter registration list of each participating state against the voter registration lists of the other participating states and flags all records that have the same first name, last name, and date of birth. … A 2017 study led by Stanford professor Sharad Goel found that if applied nationwide, Crosscheck would “impede 300 legal votes for every double vote prevented.” … United States Announces Settlement with New York City Board of Elections Resolving Improper Removal of Voters from Registration Rolls,” news release, October 31, 2017”Hide quote

    Crosscheck compares the voter registration list of each participating state against the voter registration lists of the other participating states and flags all records that have the same first name, last name, and date of birth. … A 2017 study led by Stanford professor Sharad Goel found that if applied nationwide, Crosscheck would “impede 300 legal votes for every double vote prevented.” … United States Announces Settlement with New York City Board of Elections Resolving Improper Removal of Voters from Registration Rolls,” news release, October 31, 2017

31. Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, Chapter 5: The Reality of List Maintenance

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2001-06 · complicates

    “The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 possible duplicate registrants, deceased persons, and felons without civil rights restoration. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons. In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list. … In Leon County, the supervisor of elections was provided a list of nearly 700 names to purge from the voting rolls. Yet the Supervisor could only confirm 34 as actual felons … Professor Darryl Paulson testified that the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections estimated that 15 percent of those purged were purged in error and they were disproportionately African American. … in Miami-Dade County, over half of the African Americans who appealed from the Florida felon exclusion list were successfully reinstated to the voter rolls.”Hide quote

    The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 possible duplicate registrants, deceased persons, and felons without civil rights restoration. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons. In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list. … In Leon County, the supervisor of elections was provided a list of nearly 700 names to purge from the voting rolls. Yet the Supervisor could only confirm 34 as actual felons … Professor Darryl Paulson testified that the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections estimated that 15 percent of those purged were purged in error and they were disproportionately African American. … in Miami-Dade County, over half of the African Americans who appealed from the Florida felon exclusion list were successfully reinstated to the voter rolls.

32. Databases, Felons, and Voting: Errors and Bias in the Florida Felons Exclusion List in the 2000 Presidential Elections

    Harvard Kennedy School (Guy Stuart, RWP02-041), 2002-09 · complicates

    “a) the 2000 felons’ exclusion list had a considerable number of errors in it, probably more than 25% of the names on the list were on there in error; b) these errors were racially biased, such that more African-American registered voters were on the list in error than either Whites or Latinos; and c) that the decentralized process by which the felons’ list was used to purge the voter rolls resulted in a sometimes judicious but sometimes partisan purging process – Democratic county supervisors were less likely to use the felons’ list than Republican ones, but even the latter found considerable, biased errors in the list.”Hide quote

    a) the 2000 felons’ exclusion list had a considerable number of errors in it, probably more than 25% of the names on the list were on there in error; b) these errors were racially biased, such that more African-American registered voters were on the list in error than either Whites or Latinos; and c) that the decentralized process by which the felons’ list was used to purge the voter rolls resulted in a sometimes judicious but sometimes partisan purging process – Democratic county supervisors were less likely to use the felons’ list than Republican ones, but even the latter found considerable, biased errors in the list.

33. Testimony by Abigail Thernstrom before the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate

    Manhattan Institute, 2001-06-27 · contests

    “A misleading analysis of errors in the “purge list” of convicted felons ineligible to vote. Their own data on the "purge list" show the opposite of what they claim: whites were erroneously placed on the purge list at almost twice the rate of blacks.”Hide quote

    A misleading analysis of errors in the “purge list” of convicted felons ineligible to vote. Their own data on the "purge list" show the opposite of what they claim: whites were erroneously placed on the purge list at almost twice the rate of blacks.

34. Why Are 53,000 Voter Registrations On Hold In Georgia?

    Georgia Public Broadcasting, 2018-10-24 · complicates

    “On the final day of voter registration in Georgia, a report from The Associated Press found the Georgia Secretary of State’s office has more than 53,000 voter registrations on hold under the state’s “exact match” law. … the AP’s analysis of the applications found nearly 70 percent of those on hold are black. … If you do not mail in your proper identification before Nov. 6, you can verify your information using your driver’s license or state photo ID at the polls.”Hide quote

    On the final day of voter registration in Georgia, a report from The Associated Press found the Georgia Secretary of State’s office has more than 53,000 voter registrations on hold under the state’s “exact match” law. … the AP’s analysis of the applications found nearly 70 percent of those on hold are black. … If you do not mail in your proper identification before Nov. 6, you can verify your information using your driver’s license or state photo ID at the polls.

35. Ohio Secretary Of State Confident About Voter Purge Process

    WOSU Public Media, 2019-09-03 · complicates

    “The Ohio Democrat Party last week sued to stop the purge from happening as scheduled on September 6, citing concerns that there are voters on the list who want to remain active. Voting rights activists said that 4,000 voters were wrongly included. … The Secretary of State’s Office originally identified more than 235,000 voters on what it called the “registration reset list.””Hide quote

    The Ohio Democrat Party last week sued to stop the purge from happening as scheduled on September 6, citing concerns that there are voters on the list who want to remain active. Voting rights activists said that 4,000 voters were wrongly included. … The Secretary of State’s Office originally identified more than 235,000 voters on what it called the “registration reset list.”

36. Secretary Of State Expects Another Outreach To Deleted Voters

    WVXU, 2019-09-17 · complicates

    “LaRose said 14,000 of those initial 235,000 registration are now active because voters updated their addresses or responded to voting rights groups, who asked LaRose for that list to reach out to them.”Hide quote

    LaRose said 14,000 of those initial 235,000 registration are now active because voters updated their addresses or responded to voting rights groups, who asked LaRose for that list to reach out to them.

37. Judge orders Alabama to stop purging possible noncitizens from voter rolls

    The Denver Gazette, 2024-10-16 · complicates

    “Allen “blew the deadline when he announced a purge program to begin eighty-four days before the 2024 General Election,” Manasco wrote. In August, Allen had notified 3,251 registered voters who he said had been assigned alien registration numbers that they would be moved to “inactive” status on the state’s voter roll until they could confirm their citizenship. … Court papers revealed that Allen’s program was flawed in that it had resulted in about 2,000 citizens being deactivated who were then forced to take steps to reregister to vote.”Hide quote

    Allen “blew the deadline when he announced a purge program to begin eighty-four days before the 2024 General Election,” Manasco wrote. In August, Allen had notified 3,251 registered voters who he said had been assigned alien registration numbers that they would be moved to “inactive” status on the state’s voter roll until they could confirm their citizenship. … Court papers revealed that Allen’s program was flawed in that it had resulted in about 2,000 citizens being deactivated who were then forced to take steps to reregister to vote.

38. Order in Pending Case, Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, No. 24A407

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2024-10-30 · complicates

    “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The October 25, 2024 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, case Nos. 1:24-cv-1778 and 1:24-cv-1807, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal … Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson, would deny the application.”Hide quote

    The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The October 25, 2024 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, case Nos. 1:24-cv-1778 and 1:24-cv-1807, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal … Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson, would deny the application.

39. Private Plaintiffs-Respondents’ Response in Opposition to Emergency Application for Stay, Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, No. 24A407 (an advocacy filing)

    Campaign Legal Center and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 2024-10-29 · complicates

    “Critically, while Applicants failed to show that any of the 1,610 people removed from the rolls from the Purge Program were in fact noncitizens, the court credited Respondents’ “evidence that revealed that citizens have been removed from those rolls.” … When Alabama engaged in a similar system based on checkboxes on forms from the Alabama Department of Labor, the error rate was astronomical. After a lawsuit was filed, the Secretary cross-checked the checkbox data with documents on file with the driver’s license agency and immediately confirmed the citizenship of 93.8% of them. … the elections board ultimately “found that the DMV and SAVE information had a high rate of inaccuracy.” Id. at 261. Indeed, it “determined that 97.6% of persons identified by the DMV as noncitizens, in fact were citizens, and that about 75% of individuals who later provided proof of citizenship continued to be listed as noncitizens in the SAVE system.””Hide quote

    Critically, while Applicants failed to show that any of the 1,610 people removed from the rolls from the Purge Program were in fact noncitizens, the court credited Respondents’ “evidence that revealed that citizens have been removed from those rolls.” … When Alabama engaged in a similar system based on checkboxes on forms from the Alabama Department of Labor, the error rate was astronomical. After a lawsuit was filed, the Secretary cross-checked the checkbox data with documents on file with the driver’s license agency and immediately confirmed the citizenship of 93.8% of them. … the elections board ultimately “found that the DMV and SAVE information had a high rate of inaccuracy.” Id. at 261. Indeed, it “determined that 97.6% of persons identified by the DMV as noncitizens, in fact were citizens, and that about 75% of individuals who later provided proof of citizenship continued to be listed as noncitizens in the SAVE system.”

40. Judicial Watch: Voter Registration in 353 Counties in 29 States Exceeds 100% (archived copy)

    Judicial Watch, 2020-10-16 · supports

    “Our newly released study reveals that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. … This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. … Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots. … The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.”Hide quote

    Our newly released study reveals that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. … This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. … Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots. … The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.

41. Do Hundreds of Counties Have 1.8 Million 'Ghost Voters' in the US?

    Snopes, 2020-11-06 · contests

    “"The American Community Survey is sample-based. It is not a census," statistician Philip Stark … "Using the ACS to determine the number of eligible voters is problematic." … If you haven't voted, you haven't voted fraudulently. … The key column in the Judicial Watch study that gives the percentage difference of registered voters over CVAP (the citizen voting age population from the ACS) is misleading because it includes inactive voters, Stark said.”Hide quote

    "The American Community Survey is sample-based. It is not a census," statistician Philip Stark … "Using the ACS to determine the number of eligible voters is problematic." … If you haven't voted, you haven't voted fraudulently. … The key column in the Judicial Watch study that gives the percentage difference of registered voters over CVAP (the citizen voting age population from the ACS) is misleading because it includes inactive voters, Stark said.

42. Misleading Claim of Dead Registered Voters in Pennsylvania

    FactCheck.org, 2020-11-10 · contests

    “It alleged that more than 21,000 voters registered in Pennsylvania were dead and asked that the court order the state to remove them from the rolls before the election. Instead, Judge John Jones III cited PILF’s questionable methodology in developing its purported list of ineligible voters, its decision to file the suit at the “eleventh hour,” and the fact that Pennsylvania’s system for stripping deceased voters from the rolls appears to work. … Jones noted that more than half of the purportedly deceased voters on a list of 9,300 names PILF sent to the secretary of the commonwealth in May didn’t appear on the list the organization submitted in October. … Pennsylvania’s secretary of the commonwealth and PILF settled this lawsuit on April 1. Nothing in the settlement confirms the number of supposedly dead registered voters that PILF had claimed. But the secretary of the commonwealth did agree to compare Pennsylvania’s voter rolls to death data published by the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC”Hide quote

    It alleged that more than 21,000 voters registered in Pennsylvania were dead and asked that the court order the state to remove them from the rolls before the election. Instead, Judge John Jones III cited PILF’s questionable methodology in developing its purported list of ineligible voters, its decision to file the suit at the “eleventh hour,” and the fact that Pennsylvania’s system for stripping deceased voters from the rolls appears to work. … Jones noted that more than half of the purportedly deceased voters on a list of 9,300 names PILF sent to the secretary of the commonwealth in May didn’t appear on the list the organization submitted in October. … Pennsylvania’s secretary of the commonwealth and PILF settled this lawsuit on April 1. Nothing in the settlement confirms the number of supposedly dead registered voters that PILF had claimed. But the secretary of the commonwealth did agree to compare Pennsylvania’s voter rolls to death data published by the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC

43. Legal watchdog scores with elimination of 5 million ineligible voters

    Washington Examiner (via Colorado Politics), 2025-04-04 · supports

    “A long-term campaign by a conservative legal watchdog to clean up the nation’s voter rolls has led to the erasure of over five million ineligible names since 2017. … The watchdog scored its biggest victory in Los Angeles County, which eliminated 1.2 million ineligible names after being sued to do what the NVRA demanded. … New York City removed 918,139 ineligible names. Kentucky erased 735,000 ineligible voter names.”Hide quote

    A long-term campaign by a conservative legal watchdog to clean up the nation’s voter rolls has led to the erasure of over five million ineligible names since 2017. … The watchdog scored its biggest victory in Los Angeles County, which eliminated 1.2 million ineligible names after being sued to do what the NVRA demanded. … New York City removed 918,139 ineligible names. Kentucky erased 735,000 ineligible voter names.

44. Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database

    Texas Secretary of State, 2025-10-20 · supports

    “After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas. … If a response is not received by the county in 30 days, the registration will be cancelled. In the event that a registration is cancelled, it can be immediately reinstated by providing proof of U.S. citizenship to an elections office or at a polling location.”Hide quote

    After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas. … If a response is not received by the county in 30 days, the registration will be cancelled. In the event that a registration is cancelled, it can be immediately reinstated by providing proof of U.S. citizenship to an elections office or at a polling location.

45. Texas confirms some flagged as potential noncitizens on voter rolls had provided DPS proof of citizenship

    Votebeat and The Texas Tribune, 2026-07-30 · complicates

    “Election officials across the state should immediately reinstate some voters who were incorrectly flagged as potential noncitizens through a federal program, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office told county officials Wednesday. … Adkins said the state is still working through the data and that she couldn’t yet say how many of the 2,724 people had provided proof of citizenship to DPS and should thus be reinstated if they were already removed from the voter roll. She characterized SAVE as having “some inaccurate information” but added that “most of the data that we got out of SAVE was consistent with what DPS had.””Hide quote

    Election officials across the state should immediately reinstate some voters who were incorrectly flagged as potential noncitizens through a federal program, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office told county officials Wednesday. … Adkins said the state is still working through the data and that she couldn’t yet say how many of the 2,724 people had provided proof of citizenship to DPS and should thus be reinstated if they were already removed from the voter roll. She characterized SAVE as having “some inaccurate information” but added that “most of the data that we got out of SAVE was consistent with what DPS had.”

46. The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks

    OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · complicates

    “The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens. … In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.”Hide quote

    The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens. … In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.

47. Trump's SAVE tool is looking for noncitizen voters. But it's flagging U.S. citizens too

    NPR (via VPM), 2025-12-10 · complicates

    “The tally of 2,724 potential noncitizens is about 0.015% of the state’s voters. … the overhauled system has been widely criticized for being rolled out without public notice, congressional input or transparency about its accuracy.”Hide quote

    The tally of 2,724 potential noncitizens is about 0.015% of the state’s voters. … the overhauled system has been widely criticized for being rolled out without public notice, congressional input or transparency about its accuracy.

48. Texas Secretary of State Refers 117 Cases for Investigation of Noncitizen Voting

    Texas Secretary of State, 2026-09-15 · complicates

    “This review narrowed the number of potential noncitizens. The additional review showed that 578 voters demonstrated citizenship. Of those, citizenship was proven for 506 because passport information was added to SAVE after the state’s initial run. The Office of the Texas Secretary of State advised counties to reinstate these registrations if they were removed.”Hide quote

    This review narrowed the number of potential noncitizens. The additional review showed that 578 voters demonstrated citizenship. Of those, citizenship was proven for 506 because passport information was added to SAVE after the state’s initial run. The Office of the Texas Secretary of State advised counties to reinstate these registrations if they were removed.

49. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Executive Summary (earlier cycles from each EAC NVRA/EAVS report cited above)

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

    “States also reported data on their efforts to keep voter registration lists current and accurate, known as list maintenance. … More than 21 million voter registration records were removed from states’ voter lists between the close of registration for the 2022 general election and the close of registration for the 2024 general election.”Hide quote

    States also reported data on their efforts to keep voter registration lists current and accurate, known as list maintenance. … More than 21 million voter registration records were removed from states’ voter lists between the close of registration for the 2022 general election and the close of registration for the 2024 general election.

50. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Executive Summary (earlier cycles from each EAC NVRA/EAVS report cited above)

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

    “The most common reasons for removal were failing to return a confirmation notice and not voting in two consecutive federal general elections, and moving out of the voting jurisdiction.”Hide quote

    The most common reasons for removal were failing to return a confirmation notice and not voting in two consecutive federal general elections, and moving out of the voting jurisdiction.

51. Statistics

    Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), 2026-09-30 · supports

    “The table below provides the total number of out-of-date or inaccurate records identified by report type and year since ERIC began offering list maintenance reports in 2013.”Hide quote

    The table below provides the total number of out-of-date or inaccurate records identified by report type and year since ERIC began offering list maintenance reports in 2013.