Public Opinion on Voting Rules and Confidence in US Elections

Public Opinion on Voting Rules and Confidence in US Elections

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

   Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

   “Requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification (83%) ... Making early, in-person voting available for at least two weeks prior to the election (80%) ... Today, majorities in both parties (89% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans) favor at least two weeks of early, in-person voting. ... More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote. ... 77% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans support automatic voter registration. ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... At least seven-in-ten adults across racial and ethnic groups favor requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting machines, photo identification requirements and early, in-person voting periods of at least two weeks.”Hide quote

   Requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification (83%) ... Making early, in-person voting available for at least two weeks prior to the election (80%) ... Today, majorities in both parties (89% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans) favor at least two weeks of early, in-person voting. ... More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote. ... 77% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans support automatic voter registration. ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... At least seven-in-ten adults across racial and ethnic groups favor requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting machines, photo identification requirements and early, in-person voting periods of at least two weeks.

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

   Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

   “ASK FORM 2 [N=1,784] GOVID Requiring all voters to show government issued photo identification to vote ... ERLY Making early, in-person voting available to voters for at least two weeks prior to Election Day ... Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online”Hide quote

   ASK FORM 2 [N=1,784] GOVID Requiring all voters to show government issued photo identification to vote ... ERLY Making early, in-person voting available to voters for at least two weeks prior to Election Day ... Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online

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

   Pew Research Center, 2024-02-07 · supports

   “While there is substantial support in both parties for requiring a photo ID to vote, there is a sizable partisan divide in these views: Nearly all Republicans (95%), compared with 69% of Democrats, favor this requirement. ... The share of Democrats supporting this has risen from 61% to 69% since last year.”Hide quote

   While there is substantial support in both parties for requiring a photo ID to vote, there is a sizable partisan divide in these views: Nearly all Republicans (95%), compared with 69% of Democrats, favor this requirement. ... The share of Democrats supporting this has risen from 61% to 69% since last year.

4. Republicans and Democrats Move Further Apart in Views of Voting Access

   Pew Research Center, 2021-04-22 · supports

   “There has been little change since 2018 in views of requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Republicans continue to overwhelmingly support this policy (93% favor), while it draws support from a smaller majority of Democrats (61%). ... a declining share of Republicans support automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote (38% today vs. 49% in 2018). ... At the same time, the share of Democrats who support automatic voter registration has ticked up slightly – from 78% in 2018 to 82% today. ... And while only a narrow majority of White Democrats (54%) favor requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote, larger shares of Black (65%), Hispanic (72%) and Asian Democrats (71%) say the same.”Hide quote

   There has been little change since 2018 in views of requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Republicans continue to overwhelmingly support this policy (93% favor), while it draws support from a smaller majority of Democrats (61%). ... a declining share of Republicans support automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote (38% today vs. 49% in 2018). ... At the same time, the share of Democrats who support automatic voter registration has ticked up slightly – from 78% in 2018 to 82% today. ... And while only a narrow majority of White Democrats (54%) favor requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote, larger shares of Black (65%), Hispanic (72%) and Asian Democrats (71%) say the same.

5. Americans Endorse Both Early Voting and Voter Verification

   Gallup, 2024-10-24 · supports

   “76% of U.S. adults favor the concept of early voting. Two other election law policies are supported by even more Americans -- requiring photo identification to vote (84%) and providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time (83%). ... Of these three policies, only early voting garners majority-level backing from Republicans -- but at 57%, Republicans’ support is 38 percentage points lower than Democrats’. ... Democrats are now 14 points more likely than they were in 2022 to support requiring photo identification to vote, and Republicans’ current 57% support for early voting -- while not significantly different from 2022 -- is down from 74% in a 2016 survey. ... [Table: by political party] Democrat Independent Republican ... Requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship 66% 84% 96% ... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote 67% 84% 98% ... [Table: by race/ethnicity] People of color White adults ... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote 80 86 ... Requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship 76 87”Hide quote

   76% of U.S. adults favor the concept of early voting. Two other election law policies are supported by even more Americans -- requiring photo identification to vote (84%) and providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time (83%). ... Of these three policies, only early voting garners majority-level backing from Republicans -- but at 57%, Republicans’ support is 38 percentage points lower than Democrats’. ... Democrats are now 14 points more likely than they were in 2022 to support requiring photo identification to vote, and Republicans’ current 57% support for early voting -- while not significantly different from 2022 -- is down from 74% in a 2016 survey. ... [Table: by political party] Democrat Independent Republican ... Requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship 66% 84% 96% ... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote 67% 84% 98% ... [Table: by race/ethnicity] People of color White adults ... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote 80 86 ... Requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship 76 87

6. Eight in 10 Americans Favor Early Voting, Photo ID Laws

   Gallup, 2022-10-14 · supports

   “large majorities of Americans favor three measures meant to make voting easier: early voting (78% in favor), automatic voter registration (65%) and sending absentee ballots to all eligible voters (60%). ... One restrictive policy that most Americans (79%) are on board with, however, is requiring photo identification to vote. ... Republicans' support for early voting has declined (falling 14 points, from 74% in 2016 to 60% today), while Democrats' support has risen 10 points to 95%, widening the partisan gap from 11 to 35 points. Meanwhile, Republicans' support for requiring photo identification has remained high, now 97%, while Democrats' has declined 10 points, to 53%. This expands the partisan gap from 32 to 44 points.”Hide quote

   large majorities of Americans favor three measures meant to make voting easier: early voting (78% in favor), automatic voter registration (65%) and sending absentee ballots to all eligible voters (60%). ... One restrictive policy that most Americans (79%) are on board with, however, is requiring photo identification to vote. ... Republicans' support for early voting has declined (falling 14 points, from 74% in 2016 to 60% today), while Democrats' support has risen 10 points to 95%, widening the partisan gap from 11 to 35 points. Meanwhile, Republicans' support for requiring photo identification has remained high, now 97%, while Democrats' has declined 10 points, to 53%. This expands the partisan gap from 32 to 44 points.

7. Four in Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Early Voting

   Gallup, 2016-08-22 · supports

   “While majorities of Republicans and Democrats favor voter ID laws, Republicans (95%) overwhelmingly support them. Democratic support is more tepid, at 63%.”Hide quote

   While majorities of Republicans and Democrats favor voter ID laws, Republicans (95%) overwhelmingly support them. Democratic support is more tepid, at 63%.

8. Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider

   Gallup, 2024-09-25 · supports

   “Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively. ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84”Hide quote

   Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat confident that the votes for president this year will be accurately cast and counted. ... This has led to a record-high 56-percentage-point partisan gap, with 84% of Democrats versus 28% of Republicans having faith in the accuracy of the vote. ... At the same time, the percentage of Americans saying they are “not at all confident” in the vote has steadily climbed from 6% in 2004 to 19% today. ... In 2004, when George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were more confident than Democrats ... Americans are far more positive about the integrity of the vote at their own polling place, as 76% say they are very or somewhat confident the votes will be accurately cast and counted there. ... Seventy-four percent of Republicans versus just under half of independents and fewer Democrats say each of these irregularities will be a major problem across the country. ... Smaller percentages of all party groups -- 37% of Democrats, 34% of Republicans and 32% of independents -- expect eligible voters to be prevented from voting. ... the percentages of Democrats and independents calling this a major problem spiked in 2020, to 62% and 47%, respectively. ... Confidence in Accuracy of Each Presidential Election, by Party Republicans Independents Democrats 2004 87 69 59 2008 57 63 57 2016 55 59 85 2020 44 57 76 2024 28 58 84

9. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

   Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

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

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

10. How We Voted in 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. How confident are Americans in the midterm elections’ fairness and accuracy?

    Pew Research Center, 2026-08-05 · supports

    “A narrow majority of Americans (55%) are confident that this November’s midterm elections will be conducted fairly and accurately – down from 61% ahead of the 2024 elections, 64% in 2022 and 59% in 2020. ... 55% now say they have confidence the upcoming midterms will be conducted fairly and accurately. This is up from 47% in the summer of 2024 and 46% in the summer of 2022. ... 58% now express confidence in the fairness and accuracy of this year’s elections. Confidence today is substantially lower than in 2024 (77%) and 2022 (81%). Confidence remains higher than in April 2020, when 46% of Democrats expressed confidence ... an overwhelming majority of the public (90%) says it is very or somewhat important that “no eligible voters are prevented from voting” in U.S. elections. Nearly as many (85%) say it is important that “no ineligible voters are permitted to vote.””Hide quote

    A narrow majority of Americans (55%) are confident that this November’s midterm elections will be conducted fairly and accurately – down from 61% ahead of the 2024 elections, 64% in 2022 and 59% in 2020. ... 55% now say they have confidence the upcoming midterms will be conducted fairly and accurately. This is up from 47% in the summer of 2024 and 46% in the summer of 2022. ... 58% now express confidence in the fairness and accuracy of this year’s elections. Confidence today is substantially lower than in 2024 (77%) and 2022 (81%). Confidence remains higher than in April 2020, when 46% of Democrats expressed confidence ... an overwhelming majority of the public (90%) says it is very or somewhat important that “no eligible voters are prevented from voting” in U.S. elections. Nearly as many (85%) say it is important that “no ineligible voters are permitted to vote.”

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

    Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

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

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

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

    Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

    “Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points. ... Bush: 2006-2008 71% 37% Obama: 2009-2016 63% 31% Trump I: 2017-2020 64% 29% Biden: 2021-2024 81% 30% Trump II: 2025-2026 47% 49%”Hide quote

    Forty-nine percent are confident in electoral honesty, while 51% are not. Americans’ relative lack of confidence in the integrity of elections is nothing new — it has averaged 45% since 2006 — but who lacks confidence is. In 2026, 63% of Democrats are confident in the honesty of elections, higher than either Republicans (37%) or political independents (35%). The World Poll has asked about party identification in the U.S. only since 2024, when there was a 55-percentage-point divide in confidence between Democrats and Republicans. This divide closed to just four points in 2025 but has reopened this year ... In 2026, confidence in the honesty of elections is, for the first time, significantly higher among Americans who disapprove (52%) of their country’s leadership than approve (41%) ... Over the past two years, an average of 46% of approvers have expressed confidence in the honesty of elections, compared with 48% of disapprovers. ... In 2025 (with final global data collection not yet complete in 2026), a median of 70% of approvers of their national leadership had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30% of disapprovers — a gap of 40 points. ... No other country in the world in the past 15 years has seen this pattern, in which people disapproving of their leadership are significantly more confident in the honesty of elections than those approving of their leadership. ... From 2006 to 2020, there was a consistent and large gap in electoral confidence between Americans who approved of and those who disapproved of U.S. leadership under the administrations of George W. Bush (averaging 35 points), Barack Obama (averaging 30 points) and Donald Trump (averaging 35 points). After Joe Biden won the presidency in the 2020 election, the results of which Trump challenged, this confidence gap ballooned to 51 points. ... Bush: 2006-2008 71% 37% Obama: 2009-2016 63% 31% Trump I: 2017-2020 64% 29% Biden: 2021-2024 81% 30% Trump II: 2025-2026 47% 49%

16. Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025 (PEI 11.0)

    Electoral Integrity Project, 2025-07 · complicates

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Does Voter ID Improve Public Confidence in the Integrity of Elections? (Working Paper 2518)

    Jeffrey Milyo, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, 2025 · supports

    “In contrast to the findings of previous studies, strict voter ID requirements are shown to have a substantively large and statistically significant impact on the probability that citizens express confidence (and especially high confidence) in the integrity of elections. ... strict voter ID increases the probability that an individual indicates high confidence by 14 percentage points, which is a 25% increase relative to the mean ... Rather it appears that employing a direct measure of confidence in the integrity of elections from the CES and examining a longer time-period than Cantoni and Pons (2021) is what matters more for the novel support for strict voter ID requirements presented here. ... Finally, an important limitation of this study is that the number of states that have adopted (or removed) strict voter ID requirements during the study period is limited.”Hide quote

    In contrast to the findings of previous studies, strict voter ID requirements are shown to have a substantively large and statistically significant impact on the probability that citizens express confidence (and especially high confidence) in the integrity of elections. ... strict voter ID increases the probability that an individual indicates high confidence by 14 percentage points, which is a 25% increase relative to the mean ... Rather it appears that employing a direct measure of confidence in the integrity of elections from the CES and examining a longer time-period than Cantoni and Pons (2021) is what matters more for the novel support for strict voter ID requirements presented here. ... Finally, an important limitation of this study is that the number of states that have adopted (or removed) strict voter ID requirements during the study period is limited.

19. Revisiting Public Opinion on Voter Identification and Voter Fraud in an Era of Increasing Partisan Polarization

    Stanford Law Review, vol. 68, no. 6 (Charles Stewart III, Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily), 2016-08 · contests

    “We demonstrate once again, but with the benefit of new survey data, that people who live in states with voter identification laws do not have greater confidence in elections or perceive lower rates of voter impersonation fraud. ... We note, however, that strong majorities continue to support such laws, even though a large share of the population remains unaware of the existence of voter identification requirements.”Hide quote

    We demonstrate once again, but with the benefit of new survey data, that people who live in states with voter identification laws do not have greater confidence in elections or perceive lower rates of voter impersonation fraud. ... We note, however, that strong majorities continue to support such laws, even though a large share of the population remains unaware of the existence of voter identification requirements.

20. Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018 (NBER Working Paper 25522; Quarterly Journal of Economics 136(4), 2021)

    National Bureau of Economic Research (Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons), 2019-02 · contests

    “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. ... 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. ... Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Gallup Poll Social Series, October 1–12, 2024: Election Laws Topline and Tabs

    Gallup, 2024-10-23 · supports

    “QN107B: Favor/oppose photo identification BY Total + Gender + Race I + Age + Education + Party I.D. + Household Income ... Total Male Female White Non-white ... Favor ... 84% 84% 84% 86% 80% ... QN107G: Favor/oppose proof of citizenship BY Total + Gender + Race I + Age + Education + Party I.D. + Household Income ... Favor ... 83% 86% 80% 87% 76%”Hide quote

    QN107B: Favor/oppose photo identification BY Total + Gender + Race I + Age + Education + Party I.D. + Household Income ... Total Male Female White Non-white ... Favor ... 84% 84% 84% 86% 80% ... QN107G: Favor/oppose proof of citizenship BY Total + Gender + Race I + Age + Education + Party I.D. + Household Income ... Favor ... 83% 86% 80% 87% 76%

24. Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID (trend charts and topline)

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “Long-standing support in both parties for paper ballot backups, requiring photo ID ... Majorities support several proposals to increase ballot access, but partisan gaps remain ... Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Aug. 4-10, 2025.”Hide quote

    Long-standing support in both parties for paper ballot backups, requiring photo ID ... Majorities support several proposals to increase ballot access, but partisan gaps remain ... Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted Aug. 4-10, 2025.

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

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “The partisan gap over in-person early voting is narrower, and support has grown among Republicans since last year. Today, majorities in both parties (89% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans) favor at least two weeks of early, in-person voting.”Hide quote

    The partisan gap over in-person early voting is narrower, and support has grown among Republicans since last year. Today, majorities in both parties (89% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans) favor at least two weeks of early, in-person voting.

26. Eight in 10 Americans Favor Early Voting, Photo ID Laws (trend table); Americans Endorse Both Early Voting and Voter Verification (2024 party table)

    Gallup, 2022-10-14 · supports

    “Trend in Three Election-Law Policies, by Party ID U.S. adults Republicans Independents Democrats ... Jul 5-26, 2022 78 60 79 95 Aug 15-16, 2016 80 74 80 85 ... Jul 5-26, 2022 79 97 84 53 Aug 15-16, 2016 80 95 83 63 ... Jul 5-26, 2022 65 47 65 81 Aug 15-16, 2016 63 51 58 80 ”Hide quote

    Trend in Three Election-Law Policies, by Party ID U.S. adults Republicans Independents Democrats ... Jul 5-26, 2022 78 60 79 95 Aug 15-16, 2016 80 74 80 85 ... Jul 5-26, 2022 79 97 84 53 Aug 15-16, 2016 80 95 83 63 ... Jul 5-26, 2022 65 47 65 81 Aug 15-16, 2016 63 51 58 80

27. Partisan Split on Election Integrity Gets Even Wider (trend tables)

    Gallup, 2024-09-25 · supports

    “Gallup has asked about the risks of ineligible people casting votes and eligible people being denied the vote in most presidential election years since 2004. Over that time, Republicans have grown more concerned about the prospect of ineligible people voting, while Democrats have grown less concerned and independents’ views haven’t changed.”Hide quote

    Gallup has asked about the risks of ineligible people casting votes and eligible people being denied the vote in most presidential election years since 2004. Over that time, Republicans have grown more concerned about the prospect of ineligible people voting, while Democrats have grown less concerned and independents’ views haven’t changed.

28. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

    Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. How confident are Americans in the midterm elections’ fairness and accuracy? (chart data)

    Pew Research Center, 2026-08-05 · supports

    “Confidence in the fairness and accuracy of elections is lower than in past years, but with no partisan gap ... Apr ’20 Rep/Lean Rep 55 20 75 Aug ’22 Rep/Lean Rep 34 12 46 Jul ’24 Rep/Lean Rep 36 11 47 Jul ’26 Rep/Lean Rep 42 13 55 Apr ’20 Dem/Lean Dem 37 9 46 Aug ’22 Dem/Lean Dem 43 37 81 Jul ’24 Dem/Lean Dem 38 39 77 Jul ’26 Dem/Lean Dem 37 16 54”Hide quote

    Confidence in the fairness and accuracy of elections is lower than in past years, but with no partisan gap ... Apr ’20 Rep/Lean Rep 55 20 75 Aug ’22 Rep/Lean Rep 34 12 46 Jul ’24 Rep/Lean Rep 36 11 47 Jul ’26 Rep/Lean Rep 42 13 55 Apr ’20 Dem/Lean Dem 37 9 46 Aug ’22 Dem/Lean Dem 43 37 81 Jul ’24 Dem/Lean Dem 38 39 77 Jul ’26 Dem/Lean Dem 37 16 54

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

    Pew Research Center, 2026-10-20 · supports

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

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

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

    Gallup, 2026-10-07 · supports

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

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

33. Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia, Figure 1

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

    “Figure 1. State-Level Voter Confidence in Georgia, 2020-2022 ... In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022.”Hide quote

    Figure 1. State-Level Voter Confidence in Georgia, 2020-2022 ... In 2020 state-level voter confidence for Republicans craters at only 26%, but rebounds to 70% in 2022.

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.