Voter ID and Citizenship-Proof Rules in the US and Other Democracies
Most US states now ask voters for ID, increasingly photo ID, and proof-of-citizenship laws are spreading; most G7 democracies also check ID, though of recent adopters only Northern Ireland acted after documented fraud. [1][6][18][23][25][27][32][33][37][41]
States with an ID requirement in force
Number of states where every in-person voter is asked for an identification document, as NCSL counted at the time. Points are the years NCSL published a count; the line between them is not annual data.
States, by year of NCSL count
Number of states where every in-person voter is asked for an identification document, as NCSL counted at the time. Points are the years NCSL published a count; the line between them is not annual data. Read as states with an ID requirement in force: States. Dashed segments cross 1 definitional break in the source, explained in Method Changes below this graph. 5 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- States requesting or requiring ID
Events marked above
South Carolina asks voters for a document
The first state to do so; no photo was required, just a document bearing the voter's name.
First strict laws take effect in Georgia and Indiana
Indiana's law went ahead after the Supreme Court upheld it in Crawford v. Marion County.
Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin's law for 2014
Pending a court case, so the law was passed but not in force at that election.
North Carolina's law on hold
Under a temporary injunction from a federal judge, so NCSL counted it as passed but not in force.
Wyoming enacts its first ID law
After similar bills failed in 2013, 2017 and 2020.
Vertical dashed lines mark measurement changes. See method changes.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures [45]
Observations 4
Thirty-six states now ask for ID, up from 13 in 2000
The count has nearly tripled since 2000, and the chart marks Wyoming's first law in 2021. 6 1 Most of the change was laws being added or tightened rather than loosened: of 21 states that began with non-photo, non-strict laws, nine had made them stricter by 2021; only Texas and Virginia had eased theirs. 6
Voter ID began in 1950, and states under both parties had adopted it by 2000
Adoption sped up in 2011–2013, then levelled off
Subtleties
NCSL gives two different counts for 2000
Method Changes
2009: Counts taken from NCSL pages published at the time
From 2009 the points are the number of states NCSL's voter-ID page listed as having an ID requirement in force (2009–10: "broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates"; from 2012: laws "in place" or "in force"). Earlier points come from NCSL's retrospective histories. [45]
About this data
Full published range: 1950–2026. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – 1950–1980 and 2000 are from NCSL's own histories; 2009–2024 are NCSL's counts as published in the autumn before each federal election (archived copies of its voter-ID page), and 2026 is the current page. NCSL gives two figures for 2000: 13 (its 2021 newsletter, used here) and 14 (its History of Voter ID page). No NCSL count was found for 1981–1999 or 2001–2008.
States with an ID requirement in force
Compiled from NCSL pages, one count per year shown: 1950, 1970, 1971, 1977 and 1980 from the History of Voter ID page (the first five states); 2000 from The Canvass; 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024 from archived copies of the voter-ID page taken in or just before the autumn of each year; 2026 from the current page. The 2012 and 2014 counts were published before last-minute court blocks in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Washington, D.C. is excluded.
By type of ID
States with an ID requirement in force, split by whether a photo is required, with NCSL's "strict photo" states (no counted ballot without later showing photo ID) as a subset of the photo states.
States, by year of NCSL count
States with an ID requirement in force, split by whether a photo is required, with NCSL's "strict photo" states (no counted ballot without later showing photo ID) as a subset of the photo states. Read as by type of ID: States. 6 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Photo ID requested or required
- Non-photo ID accepted
- Strict photo ID (subset of photo)
Events marked above
Texas eases its law
After its 2011 law was found to intentionally discriminate against Latino and Black voters.
Virginia eases its law
West Virginia switches to photo ID
Its law previously required non-photo ID.
Wisconsin writes photo ID into its constitution
Voters approved an amendment enshrining the existing requirement.
Louisiana drops its affidavit option, from 2027
NCSL says this will make Louisiana the 11th strict photo-ID state once it takes effect.
New Hampshire drops student IDs
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures [46]
Observations 2
Photo ID has replaced non-photo ID, and strict photo laws grew from two to ten
In 2009 photo-ID states were a minority, and only Georgia and Indiana made voters without ID return later. 7 By 2026 photo-ID states outnumber non-photo ones two to one. 1 2 The chart marks the latest moves; Louisiana's, which takes effect in 2027, will make it the 11th strict photo state, NCSL says. 4 18
The strict-photo count has gone down as well as up
NCSL's strict list included Texas and Arkansas in 2014 but shrank by 2020 as courts and legislatures eased laws, including Texas's and Virginia's. 10 13 6 It then grew again: Arkansas and Missouri were back by 2022, North Carolina and Ohio joined by 2024 and New Hampshire by 2026, while Missouri left again. 14 15 2
About this data
Full published range: 2009–2026. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – 2009 is the earliest archived NCSL page with a photo split. 2012 is omitted because that year's page split only enacted laws, not laws in force.
By type of ID
Photo and non-photo counts are NCSL's stated figures. Strict-photo counts are counted from the "Strict / Photo ID" cell of each page's Table 1 (for 2009–10, the two states NCSL named as requiring voters without photo ID to return). In 2016 NCSL's photo and non-photo figures sum to 33, one more than its count of laws in force.
What US states ask of in-person voters, 2026
All 50 states and Washington, D.C., by NCSL's two-way classification of the ID law in force as of August 2026.
States (including D.C. in the last bar)
- No ID document requested (14 states and D.C.)15 · 29.4%
- Non-strict, photo ID requested14 · 27.5%
- Strict photo ID10 · 19.6%
- Non-strict, non-photo ID accepted8 · 15.7%
- Strict, non-photo ID accepted4 · 7.8%
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures [1]; National Conference of State Legislatures [2]
Observations 2
State rules differ along two lines: photo or not, and what happens without ID
Even strict states have exceptions and some offer free ID
Some strict states make room for voters who cannot easily get ID:
- Georgia accepts a "free voter ID card issued by the state or county". 3
- Wisconsin's law was allowed to stand on the state's pledge "to provide temporary free IDs to those in need". 3
- Tennessee lets an indigent voter who cannot get ID without paying a fee sign an affidavit instead. 3
NCSL's tables do not say whether every strict state offers a free ID card.
About this data
"Strict" means a voter without accepted ID votes a provisional ballot that counts only if they take a further step after Election Day, usually showing ID at an election office. In "non-strict" states some voters without ID can cast a ballot that counts without further action, for example by signing an affidavit. States with no document rule check voters in other ways, most often by signature. NCSL flags Alabama, Oklahoma, Wyoming and South Carolina as borderline cases between categories. These are in-person rules only; mail-ballot ID rules are not covered.
States with a law enacted
Cumulative number of states whose current documentary-proof-of-citizenship law had been enacted by each year, by NCSL's enactment dates. Not all are in effect.
States (cumulative), by year of enactment
Cumulative number of states whose current documentary-proof-of-citizenship law had been enacted by each year, by NCSL's enactment dates. Not all are in effect. Read as states with a law enacted: States (cumulative). 1 dated event is numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- States with a DPOC law enacted
Events marked above
Judge reinstates New Hampshire's affidavit alternative
A federal injunction on 28 May 2026 ruled that removing the qualified voter affidavit is unconstitutional.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures [47]
Observations 2
Proof-of-citizenship laws more than doubled in 2024–2026
Many proof-of-citizenship laws are not in force, or only ask when records cannot confirm citizenship
The chart counts laws enacted, not laws applied to every registrant:
- Not in force: Alabama's and Kansas's laws, Kansas's "due to court decision". Florida's begins in 2027. 17
- Partly blocked: a federal judge reinstated New Hampshire's affidavit alternative in May 2026. 17
- Only when records fail: six of the 13 states, including Georgia and Florida, ask for documents only if state records cannot confirm citizenship. 17 18
- Federal races only: Utah and South Dakota let voters without proof vote in federal but not state races. 18
About this data
Full published range: 2004–2026. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Built from NCSL's current list of 13 states, so a law enacted and later repealed would not appear. Arizona's 2004 law is the earliest on the list. Alabama's and Kansas's laws are not in effect; Florida's takes effect on 1 January 2027.
States with a law enacted
Derived, not published: a running count of the enactment years NCSL gives for each state — Arizona 2004; Georgia 2010; Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee 2011; Indiana, Louisiana and New Hampshire 2024; Wyoming 2025; Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah 2026. Guam (2025) is excluded.
How early in-person voting can start in the strict-photo-ID states
Days before Election Day that early in-person voting can begin in each of the 10 strict-photo-ID states, 2026 general-election rules. Zero means no early voting for all voters.
Days before Election Day
- Ohio29
- Indiana28
- Georgia22
- Kansas (varies by county)20
- Tennessee20
- North Carolina19
- Arkansas15
- Wisconsin14
- Mississippi0
- New Hampshire0
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures [2]; National Conference of State Legislatures [19]
Observations 2
Eight of the 10 strict-photo states also offer early voting to everyone, starting two to four weeks out
Ohio and Indiana open earliest, about four weeks before Election Day, and Wisconsin latest, two weeks before. 19 Strict ID and early voting already sit together in most strict states, without any national agreement pairing them.
Two strict-photo states offer no early voting
About this data
Start days are NCSL's wording turned into numbers for a Tuesday election: Georgia's "fourth Monday prior" is 22 days and North Carolina's "third Thursday before" is 19 days. Kansas counties may start as late as the Tuesday before the election. Indiana and Wisconsin call it in-person absentee voting. The average start date across all early-voting states is 27 days before the election. Alabama, the third state with no early voting, has a non-strict photo-ID law and is not shown. Days of voting offered are fewer than these figures, because early voting ends before Election Day and may not run every day.
The Carter–Baker Commission's ID bargain, 2005
The ID proposals of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, which reported in September 2005.
| What it said | |
|---|---|
| Photo ID at the polls (2.5.1) | States should require the REAL ID card, adapted to show citizenship, and "provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge" [20] |
| Proof of citizenship (2.5.2) | "All states should use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters" [20] |
| Access | States should reach out "by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge" [20] |
| Its view of fraud | "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" [20] |
| Dissent (Daschle, Overton, Yzaguirre) | The ID proposal was "the most troublesome recommendation", and "for some … nothing short of a modern day poll tax" [21] |
Sources: Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker Commission) [20]; Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker Commission) [21]
Observations 2
The commission paired photo ID with free cards and state outreach
The commission split, and its co-chair called Georgia's 2005 law a poll tax
Three commissioners dissented from the ID recommendation. 21 In a September 2005 interview, Carter said Georgia's new law, which charged about $20 for a five-year card or $35 for ten years, "is a poll tax", because the commission's plan required "that the voter ID card be free of charge". 22 Georgia now offers a free card. 3
Polling-place ID in the G7 democracies
What each G7 member asks of in-person voters. The table shows every member, not a chosen subset.
| Must in-person voters show ID? | Photo? | If a voter has no ID | Since | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Depends on the state: 36 states ask, 14 and D.C. do not [1] | Photo in 24 states [1] | Provisional ballot, affidavit or other check, by state [2] | South Carolina 1950 [5] |
| United Kingdom | Yes, for UK Parliament elections and English local elections; not for Scottish or Welsh devolved and council elections [23] | Yes [23] | Cannot vote in person; a free Voter Authority Certificate can be applied for in advance [23] | Northern Ireland 1985 (photo 2003); Great Britain 2023 [23] |
| Canada | Yes [33] | One government photo ID with address, or two authorised IDs [33] | Written declaration, vouched for by another elector at the same polling station [33] | 2007 [32] |
| France | Yes in communes of 1,000 or more people; not in smaller communes [37] | Yes; a national ID card or passport expired by under five years is accepted [37] | In small communes, the polling-station president may ask for proof "by any means" [37] | — |
| Germany | Only on request, especially if the voter has no polling card [38] | Not specified | A voter who cannot identify themselves on request is turned away [38] | — |
| Italy | Yes [41] | Yes, a public-administration document with photo [41] | A poll official who knows the voter, or another known local voter, attests to identity [41] | 1957 law [41] |
| Japan | No; voters are checked against the register [42] | No | If identity cannot be confirmed, the voter must declare who they are, or cannot vote [42] | — |
Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures [1]; National Conference of State Legislatures [2]; National Conference of State Legislatures [5]; House of Commons Library [23]; Library of Parliament (Canada) [32]; Justice Laws Website, Government of Canada [33]; Service Public (Direction de l'information légale et administrative) [37]; Bundesministerium der Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) [38]; Normattiva (Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato) [41]; e-Gov Laws and Regulations, Digital Agency of Japan [42]
Observations 4
Photo ID at the polls is required nationally in Italy, Britain and Canada, and in most of France
Italy's law requires an ID document "purché munito di fotografia" (provided it has a photograph). 41 Britain requires photo ID for UK Parliament elections, Canada requires government photo ID with an address or two other authorised IDs, and France requires ID in communes of 1,000 or more people. 23 33 37
Germany asks only on request, and Japan does not ask
Where ID is required or expected, the state often supplies the document or the registration
Germany requires every citizen aged 16 or over to hold a valid ID card, and registers eligible voters automatically from residence records. 39 40 Britain offers a free Voter Authority Certificate. 23
The Carter–Baker report observed that "most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards". 20 Whether each comparator's ID card is free or universal was not checked country by country.
Most comparators keep a fallback for voters without ID
Canada lets a voter without ID make a written declaration if another elector at the same polling station vouches for them; Italy lets a poll official or a known local voter attest to identity. 33 41 Britain has no such fallback on the day: in 2023 its then government rejected vouching, saying it "would undermine the integrity of the check". 23
Subtleties
Counts of "countries requiring voter ID" depend on what counts as ID
A country that checks a polling card, accepts any document, asks only on request or allows vouching can be counted either way. France's rule does not apply in its smallest communes, and Germany's applies only on request. 37 38 Global tallies circulating in the US debate were not traced to a source that publishes its country-by-country coding, so none is used here.
About this data
Why this set: the G7 is the complete group of large, high-income democracies most often compared with the US, and each member's rule can be checked against its own election law. A wider group such as the OECD's 38 members would be better, but no neutral, fetchable source classifies all of them (see Data still needed). A dash in the Since column means the start date was not established from the sources read.
Northern Ireland, Britain and Canada: why they adopted ID
When each place adopted voter ID, the reason it gave, and the fraud on record beforehand.
| Adopted | Stated reason | Fraud record before | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northern Ireland | ID 1985; photo 2003 [23] | Personation "on a planned and well organised basis" in the early 1980s [27] | 149 arrests for personation at the June 1983 general election [27] |
| Great Britain | Elections Act 2022; first used May 2023 [23] | Polling stations "had few checks in place to detect fraud" as other routes were secured; a "precautionary principle" [25] | Five convictions and six cautions for polling-station personation since 2016 [24] |
| Canada | Bill C-31, Royal Assent 22 June 2007 [32] | No identity check at all was "a significant deficiency … that could encourage fraudulent voting practices" [32] | None cited in the legislative summary [32] |
Sources: House of Commons Library [23]; House of Commons Library [24]; House of Commons Library [25]; House of Commons Library [27]; Library of Parliament (Canada) [32]
Observations 4
Northern Ireland adopted ID after organised personation
Even in Northern Ireland, personation's scale was never measured
A 1998 government review found postal-vote malpractice but said personation at polling stations "has, however, been impossible to quantify", while police experience "certainly suggests that abuse is taking place". 31
The Electoral Commission later wrote that the extent of fraud "has never been quantified", so the impact of the measures could not be assessed accurately. 31
Britain adopted ID to close a gap, not after a rise in detected personation
The Electoral Commission recommended ID in 2014 because polling-station voting "had few checks in place to detect fraud" once registration and postal voting were tightened. Lord Pickles, recommending pilots, accepted that allegations were low and prosecutions rare, and invoked a "precautionary principle". 25 Since 2016, polling-station personation has produced five convictions and six cautions (as of August 2025). 24
Canada adopted ID because no check existed, with no fraud episode cited
Canada's 2007 law followed a Commons committee that was "struck by the absence of any requirement for an elector to confirm his or her identity" and saw this as "a significant deficiency … that could encourage fraudulent voting practices". 32 The legislative summary cites no documented case of fraud as the reason.
About this data
Full published range: 2023-05–2024-07. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – These are the three elections in the Electoral Commission's table. The May 2024 figures come from the 278 authorities that reported before the general election, with only limited checks and no absolute numbers. All are minimums: people reminded by greeters before reaching the ballot desk were not recorded, and some returns were missing or wrong.
Share of people trying to vote in person
In people: in May 2023 about 37,000 were first turned away and 14,000 did not return and vote; in July 2024, 50,000 and 16,000. The Commission published no absolute numbers for May 2024.
Awareness of the photo-ID rule, July 2024 UK general election
Share of people aware they needed photo ID to vote at a polling station, by nation and group (public opinion survey for the Electoral Commission, carried out immediately after the election).
% aware of the requirement
- Scotland90%
- White people90%
- Wales89%
- Northern Ireland89%
- ABC1 social grades88%
- All Great Britain87%
- England87%
- C2DE social grades86%
- Ethnic minority communities76%
- Aged 18 to 2471%
Source: Electoral Commission [29]
Observations 1
Awareness of Britain's rule was lower among young and ethnic-minority voters
About this data
The Electoral Commission reports these figures. It gives older groups only as "at least 91%" for people aged 45 and over, so they are not plotted.
Northern Ireland's electoral register before and after the 2002 Act
Names on the register in August 2002, before the first canvass under individual registration, and in December 2002, after it.
Names on the register
- August 2002 (household registration)1,192,136
- December 2002 (individual registration)1,072,346
Source: Electoral Commission [30]
Observations 2
Northern Ireland's register fell 10% in 2002, mostly from new registration rules
The Electoral Commission attributed the fall mainly to ending the practice of carrying names forward. It rejected the claim that 120,000 people were disenfranchised, but found "some evidence" that eligible people previously registered had not re-enrolled. 30
The fall measures the registration reform passed with photo ID, not people turned away at the polls.
After photo ID, Northern Ireland recorded much less suspected personation and no fall in turnout
Researcher Stuart Wilks-Heeg, quoted by the Commons Library, found "no evidence to suggest a fall in turnout". The other measures cited: 27
About this data
The 2002 Act changed registration (individual forms with date of birth, National Insurance number and signature, and an end to carrying names forward) at the same time as it brought in photo ID, so this fall is a registration effect, not a measure of people deterred by ID at the polls.
Share of non-voters
Share of non-voters whose main reason for not voting was an electoral-process problem, a category that includes being unable to prove identity or address but also other problems such as not being on the list.
% of non-voters, by federal election
Share of non-voters whose main reason for not voting was an electoral-process problem, a category that includes being unable to prove identity or address but also other problems such as not being on the list. Read as share of non-voters: % of non-voters. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Electoral-process reasons, including ID
Source: Statistics Canada [49]
Observations 2
Few Canadian non-voters cite process problems, including ID
About this data
Full published range: 2015–2021. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey supplement for Elections Canada. The 2011 release did not report an electoral-process category, and no release for the April 2025 election was found. The ID-only share is not published in these releases.
This report covers ID shown at the polling station and documents needed to register. It does not cover ID for mail ballots, which NCSL tracks separately, or whether these rules change turnout, which is in Burdens of ID and citizenship-proof rules.
Subtleties
"Other democracies require ID" and "other democracies adopted ID because of fraud" are different claims
Britain's small turnaway rate does not by itself show the rule stopped fraud
About this data
US series. NCSL has published no single historical table, so the 1950–2026 line combines NCSL's two retrospective accounts with its voter-ID page as archived by the Internet Archive in the autumn of each federal election year from 2010 (September 2009 for the first point).
Each count is the figure NCSL stated at the time, not a reconstruction. Points are uneven, and the straight line between them is not annual data. The photo split uses NCSL's own photo/non-photo figures; strict-photo counts are counted from each archived Table 1.
Proof of citizenship. The cumulative line is derived from the enactment years on NCSL's current list of 13 states. It counts laws enacted, so it includes Alabama's and Kansas's laws that are not in effect and Florida's law that starts in 2027.
Early voting. Start days come from NCSL's state table; two are converted from day-of-week wording, as the chart note explains.
Comparators. Each G7 rule is taken from that country's own election law or official guidance, read in the original language; quotations in French, German, Italian and Japanese are given in the sources as published, with translations in the text.
Northern Ireland, Britain and Canada are given adoption histories because they are the cases most often cited in US debate.
Britain. Turnaway figures are from polling-station records reported to the Electoral Commission; the awareness figures are from a public opinion survey carried out for the Commission immediately after the election. Both are quoted from the Commission's own reports; the Commons Library briefing is used for personation, adoption history and the government's evaluation.
Related Data
Election Fraud and Voter Exclusion in the US, 1870s–2026
Most documented US election fraud was done by election officials, by absentee ballot or by buying votes, which polling-place ID checks do not reach, while officials' exclusion of eligible citizens ran statewide. [12][24][26][31][32][38]
The twenty cases, by method and whether a polling-place ID check would reach them
Each documented case from 1878 to 2020, counted once under the method its court or prosecution record puts at the centre. Colours show whether checking each in-person voter's ID would have touched that method.
All cases · Cases in this report
- Officials stuffing, forging or miscounting ballots8
- Absentee or mail ballot fraud6
- Vote buying2
- Voting in person in another's name, or repeatedly2
- Method not confirmed from a primary or court source2
Show all breakdowns
| Category | No: no one voted under a false identity | Partly: judges took part | Yes: in-person impersonation | Method not confirmed | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Officials stuffing, forging or miscounting ballots | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| Absentee or mail ballot fraud | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Vote buying | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Voting in person in another's name, or repeatedly | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Method not confirmed from a primary or court source | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Source: US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section [1]; US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [3]; US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [4]; US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [5]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [8]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [9]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [10]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [12]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [13]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [15]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [16]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [17]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [18]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [19]; US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [20]; JSTOR Daily [21]; US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section [22]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [23]; Supreme Court of Indiana (via Caselaw Access Project) [24]; North Carolina State Board of Elections [26]; New Jersey Globe [28]; The Washington Post (Justin Levitt) [32]; Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker) [35]
Observations 5
Most documented fraud was done by the people running the election
In eight of the twenty cases, election officials did the fraud themselves: stuffing the box, forging ballots or leaving returns out of the count. 12 16 17 18 19 22
In Chicago in 1982, election judges cast ballots in the names of voters who had moved or died, more than one-third of the votes in one precinct. 3 In another precinct, a Republican judge voted names a Democratic precinct captain gave her on slips of paper. 4
In-person voting in other people's names is in the record too
The record does contain the fraud a polling-place ID check is aimed at. Tammany Hall's paid "repeaters" voted several times each, changing their facial hair between votes. 13
In Chicago, the 7th Circuit wrote in 1987, precinct captains "vote their proxies on election day or find some reliable party member to do so", while "cooperative election judges refrain from challenging multiple votes by the same person under different names". 5
In Washington in 2004, one of 19 suspected "ghost voters" was confirmed to have voted in person in someone else's name. 15
An ID check would not have touched 14 of the 20 cases
In fourteen cases nobody came to the polls under a false identity: officials changed or added ballots, ballots went by mail, or real voters sold their votes.
An ID check confirms that the voter is the person registered under that name, which this fraud never relied on. Levitt describes polling-place ID rules as designed for "people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else". 32
Where in-person fraud happened, the people checking were often part of it
In Chicago and Kansas City, votes were cast in other people's names at the polls with election judges taking part or looking away. 5 10 An ID rule is enforced by those same judges.
Whether a photo requirement would still have made the ghost voting harder (by forcing judges to accept missing ID openly, or by deterring party workers) is not something the records measure.
The Carter–Baker Commission held that ID would deter some of these methods
The 2005 commission found "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". 35
It judged that a good ID system "could deter, detect, or eliminate" multiple voting and voting "using the identities of others or those who are deceased", the method of Chicago's ghost voting. It also called absentee ballots "the largest source of potential voter fraud". 35
About this data
This is the report's own classification of the cases it lists, not a sample of all US fraud; the table under Observations gives each case's source. Officials: Baltimore 1878, Blaine County OK (indictment upheld 1915), Kansas City 1936, New Orleans 1940, Harlan County KY 1942, Logan County WV 1970, Darlington County SC 1982, Chicago 1982. Absentee or mail: St. Louis 1980, Luzerne County PA 1981, Alexander County NC 1982, East Chicago 2003, North Carolina's 9th District 2018, Paterson 2020. Vote buying: Duval County TX 1982, Clay County NC 1982. In person: Tammany Hall's "repeaters" (late 19th century, known from a historian quoted by the Supreme Court) and Washington 2004 (one voter confirmed). Not confirmed: Texas 1948 (Box 13) and Illinois 1960. Several cases used more than one method; Chicago 1982 also involved vote buying, false registrations and absentee ballots, and Kansas City 1936 also involved padded registrations and some repeat voting. Each is counted once, under the method the record puts at its centre. "No" means officials wrote in or altered ballots, ballots went by mail, or real voters sold their votes. "Partly" covers Chicago 1982, where the 7th Circuit described precinct captains or party members voting the names of dead and departed registrants while "cooperative election judges" failed to challenge them, and Kansas City 1936, where one witness saw a man vote two or three times but the precinct boss testified that no "repeaters" were sent and the ghost votes were written in instead. In both, the ID check would have been run by the same judges taking part. "Yes" covers Tammany's paid repeaters and Washington's 2004 confirmed case. The Carter–Baker Commission held that ID could also "deter" multiple voting and voting in the names of the dead, which would place some of the "Partly" cases closer to "Yes".
Twenty documented cases of election fraud, 1878–2020
How each fraud was done, whether a polling-place ID check would reach it, and what happened.
| How it was done | Outcome, as of | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore, 1878 | Election judges stuffed the box with "twenty (and more)" unvoted ballots [12] | No | Convicted; Supreme Court heard their challenge, 1879 |
| Tammany Hall, New York, late 1800s | Paid "repeaters" voted several times in person, changing their whiskers between votes [13] | Yes | No prosecution record read |
| Blaine County, Oklahoma | County election board left lawful precinct returns out of the count [16] | No | Indictment reinstated by the Supreme Court, 1915 |
| Kansas City, 1936 | Officials wrote in ballots for padded "ghosts and sleepers", stuffed boxes and changed votes; one man seen voting two or three times [8] [9] [10] | Partly | 259 convictions; appeals read here affirmed, 1937–39 [7] |
| New Orleans, 1940 primary | Commissioners altered eighty-three and fourteen ballots and falsely certified the totals [17] | No | Indictment reached the Supreme Court, 1941; trial outcome not read |
| Harlan County, Kentucky, 1942 | Election officers forged blank ballots and put them in the box [18] | No | Supreme Court reinstated the indictment, 1944; trial outcome not read |
| Texas Senate primary, 1948 (Box 13) | Not confirmed: Stevenson alleged votes "fraudulently counted for Johnson" [20] | Not known | Not covered by the record read |
| Illinois, 1960 | Not confirmed: a recount found votes stolen from the Republican state's attorney, far fewer from Nixon [21] | Not known | Kennedy's win stood |
| Logan County, West Virginia, 1970 primary | Three officials cast "false and fictitious votes" on the machines and destroyed poll slips [19] | No | Convictions affirmed by the Supreme Court, 1974 |
| St. Louis, 1980 | Ward organisation opened absentee ballots and re-punched them [23] | No | Affirmed in part, reversed in part, 1988 |
| Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, 1981 | False and fraudulent absentee ballot materials [22] | No | Two convicted (by April 1984) |
| Darlington County, South Carolina, 1982 primary | Poll officials forged names on the poll list and voted for "no show" voters [22] | No | Two guilty pleas (by April 1984) |
| Alexander County, North Carolina, 1982 | A deputy sheriff and deputy court clerk voted nursing-home residents' absentee ballots [22] | No | Five convicted (by April 1984) |
| Clay County, North Carolina, 1982 | Votes bought for $50 to $125 by workers for both parties [22] | No | Eight convicted; the defeated sheriff pleaded guilty (by April 1984) |
| Duval County, Texas, 1982 primary | Votes bought with food stamps and welfare benefits [1] | No | 21 of 29 indicted convicted (by April 1985) |
| Chicago, 1982 | Judges cast ballots in the names of dead or departed voters and of nursing-home residents; voters paid $2.00; false registrations [3] [4] | Partly | 58 convicted by April 1985; 63 of 65 prosecuted [1] [2] |
| East Chicago, Indiana, 2003 primary | Absentee ballots held, marked in voters' presence and bought for cash [24] | No | Special election ordered, August 2004; 47 convicted or pleaded guilty (by October 2008) [25] |
| Washington governor's race, 2004 | 19 "ghost voters" found; one confirmed to have voted in person in another's name [15] | Yes | One confirmed case (as of 2008) |
| North Carolina 9th District, 2018 | Paid workers collected absentee requests and ballots, faked witness signatures and filled out ballots [26] | No | New election ordered, March 2019; all workers but Dowless pleaded guilty, and Dowless died before trial (as of March 2025) [27] |
| Paterson, New Jersey, 2020 | Hundreds of mail ballots found bundled in mailboxes; the winner charged with mail-ballot fraud [28] [29] | No | New election ordered, August 2020; Mendez indictment dismissed April 2026, state appealing; Jackson's charges being dropped (as of May 2026) [30] |
Sources: US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section [1]; Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library [2]; US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [3]; US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [4]; US Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri [7]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [8]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [9]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [10]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [12]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [13]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [15]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [16]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [17]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [18]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [19]; US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [20]; JSTOR Daily [21]; US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section [22]; US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project) [23]; Supreme Court of Indiana (via Caselaw Access Project) [24]; NBC News [25]; North Carolina State Board of Elections [26]; WSOC-TV [27]; New Jersey Globe [28]; New Jersey Globe [29]; New Jersey Globe [30]
Observations 7
Case by case: how each fraud was done, and what happened
Each row of the table gives how the fraud was done, whether a polling-place ID check would reach it, and what happened, as of the date shown.
Machine fraud was large, and was prosecuted
Kansas City's 1936 fraud led to hundreds of convictions and Chicago's 1982 fraud to dozens (see the table). 7 1 2 In Kansas City's ninth trial, the judge noted no jury had yet acquitted a defendant. 11
In one Kansas City precinct, the Republican congressional candidate received 120 votes and was credited with 46. 8
Kansas City's organisers chose not to send impersonators
A precinct captain testified that he put about 150 "ghosts and sleepers" on the roll. His ward bosses were "not sending repeaters" because "it would be easier to write in the votes", so he stuffed the box himself. 8
In another precinct about 150 names were written into the poll book after the polls closed, with as many ballots added. 9 In a third, one witness did see a man vote two or three times. 10
Stale rolls supplied the names the fraud used
Chicago's 1982 fraud used registrants whom precinct workers knew had died or moved but left on the list; ballots were then cast in their names. 3 4 Kansas City's fraud began with a padded roll. 8
A party to a 1987 lawsuit estimated that 9% of Chicago registrants were "tombstones, vacant lots, and people who have moved out of the city". 5
The fraud was caught by investigators and courts, not by ID rules
Chicago's 1982 fraud was exposed by an FBI investigation and a special grand jury, and Kansas City's by a federal grand jury and prosecutor. 2 7 East Chicago and North Carolina's 9th District were overturned by a state court and a state election board. 24 26 None of the records read here credits an identity check with catching a case.
Illinois 1960: fraud that was smaller than the presidential margin
Kennedy carried Illinois by about 9,000 votes. Edmund Kallina's study of the recount finds "a considerable number of votes" stolen in paper-ballot precincts from the Republican state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, and far fewer from Nixon. 21
On his reading, Adamowski would have won and Nixon would still have lost. How the votes were stolen is not described in the account read here. 21
Chicago 1982's fraud favoured the candidate who lost the governor's race
The 1982 governor's race was decided by 5,074 votes statewide. 6 The two Chicago schemes described on appeal cast straight Democratic tickets, the party of the losing candidate, Adlai Stevenson. 3 4 The Heritage Foundation attributes an estimate of at least 100,000 fraudulent votes citywide to US Attorney Dan Webb, citing press reports from 1983. 50 No primary source read gives a citywide count.
The three modern results voided or rerun, 2003–2020
The margin in each modern election that was voided or rerun, and what the record found.
| The margin | What the record found | |
|---|---|---|
| East Chicago, 2003 primary | Challenger won the in-person vote by 199 and lost the 1,950 absentee ballots by 477 [24] | Absentee fraud; special election ordered |
| North Carolina 9th District, 2018 | Harris led by 905 votes [26] | Result "corrupted" by an absentee-ballot operation; new election |
| Paterson, 2020 council election | Not given in the record read | Mail-ballot problems; rerun [28] |
Sources: Supreme Court of Indiana (via Caselaw Access Project) [24]; North Carolina State Board of Elections [26]; New Jersey Globe [28]
Observations 1
The modern cases that changed results were absentee
All three modern results that were voided or rerun turned on absentee or mail ballots.
The Supreme Court noted in 2008 that East Chicago's fraud was "perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud". 14
Heritage Foundation fraud list, entries by type
Entries in the Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map data file, as archived on 27 July 2026, by the fraud types Heritage assigns. One entry can carry several types, so the bars overlap and do not add up.
Entries tagged with each type
- Fraudulent use of absentee ballots387
- False registration386
- Ineligible voting380
- Buying votes208
- Duplicate voting177
- Ballot petition fraud113
- Miscellaneous41
- Impersonation fraud at the polls34
- Election overturned30
- Illegal "assistance" at the polls19
- Altering the vote count8
Source: The Heritage Foundation [33]; The Heritage Foundation [34]
Observations 3
In Heritage's own list, impersonation at the polls is among the smallest categories
Many of Heritage's impersonation entries involve mail ballots
Fourteen of the 34 impersonation entries are also tagged as absentee-ballot fraud, and two more describe mail ballots, such as a Colorado man who submitted his missing wife's absentee ballot in 2020. At most 18 describe only voting in person under another's name. 33
Indiana's ID law was upheld with no Indiana impersonation on record
When the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo-ID law in 2008, the lead opinion said the only fraud the law addresses is in-person impersonation, and "the record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history". 14
It upheld the law anyway, citing "flagrant examples" documented elsewhere in US history and the risk to close elections. 14
Subtleties
Every count here is of detected cases
Heritage calls its list "a sampling" that is "not comprehensive". 34 Impersonation that succeeds leaves no complaint and is hard to prove, so detected counts are a floor. No source estimates the undetected rate; the absence of a measure does not show the rate is zero, and it does not show it is large.
About this data
Counted by this report from the 1,619 rows of Heritage's own data file (fraud_type column, case-insensitive match on the key word of each type name, so rows Heritage misspells, such as "Ineligable Voting" or "Fraudlent use of absentee ballots", are counted), covering outcomes dated 1982–2025. Heritage calls the list "a sampling" that is "not comprehensive", and it has no denominator of ballots cast. Of the 34 entries tagged "impersonation at the polls", 14 are also tagged as absentee-ballot fraud and 2 more describe mail ballots in their text, so at most 18 describe only in-person impersonation. All Heritage categories are shown.
News21's alleged fraud cases, 2000–2012, by type
Alleged election-fraud cases News21 collected from public records requests to all 50 states, by the categories it published.
Alleged cases
- Absentee ballot fraud491 · 23.7%
- Registration fraud400 · 19.3%
- In-person voter impersonation10 · 0.5%
- All other categories (derived)1,167 · 56.4%
Source: News21 [31]
Observations 1
Two independent counts find impersonation rare among detected fraud
In News21's database of alleged cases since 2000, in-person impersonation is by far the smallest named category. 31
Justin Levitt, counting every specific, credible allegation from 2000 to 2014 rather than prosecutions, found about 31 incidents among more than 1 billion ballots cast in general and primary elections. 32 Both counts share the detection limit above.
About this data
News21 published counts only for these three categories. The residual is 2,068 minus the three named counts (2,068 − 491 − 400 − 10 = 1,167), which assumes the categories do not overlap; News21's statement that there were "207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation" is consistent with that. The residual is larger than any named category because the source does not break it down. These are allegations: of those whose resolution could be determined, News21 found 46 percent ended in acquittals, dropped charges or no charges.
Black voter registration in 1965, six originally covered states
Percentage of voting-age Black residents registered to vote in 1965, as tabulated for Congress and reproduced by the Supreme Court.
Black registration rate, 1965 (%)
- Virginia38.3%
- South Carolina37.3%
- Louisiana31.6%
- Georgia27.4%
- Alabama19.3%
- Mississippi6.7%
Source: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [38]
Observations 3
Louisiana: from 44% of registrants to under 1%
As the Supreme Court recounted in Louisiana v. United States (1965) 36:
| Year | Black share of Louisiana's registered voters |
|---|---|
| 1898, new constitution adopted | about 44% |
| Under a "grandfather clause" and, from 1921, an "interpretation test", until 1944 | "never exceeded one percent" |
| 1956 | about 15% |
After 1956 a legislative committee and the Citizens Councils challenged Black voters on the rolls, and "thousands of Negroes, but virtually no whites, were purged". 36
Before the Voting Rights Act, registration barely moved
By the Attorney General's estimates to Congress in 1965, Black registration barely moved in the decade before the Act, with white registration "roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead". 37
| State | Black registration, earlier | Black registration, latest |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 14.2% (1958) | 19.4% (1964) |
| Louisiana | 31.7% (1956) | 31.8% (1965) |
| Mississippi | 4.4% (1954) | 6.4% (1964) |
The table Congress used in 2006, charted above, shows the gap still there in 1965: Mississippi's white rate was 69.9 percent. 38
The tools turned on officials' discretion
The courts found that Louisiana's interpretation test gave registrars "a virtually uncontrolled discretion as to who should vote and who should not", and that registrars in 21 parishes used it against Black applicants. 36
The other main tool, the poll tax, was a charge for voting; the Supreme Court struck it down for state elections in 1966. 40 Whether a uniform, free photo ID resembles these tools is a judgement the sources do not settle.
About this data
White registration in the same table: Alabama 69.2, Georgia 62.6, Louisiana 80.5, Mississippi 69.9, South Carolina 75.7, Virginia 61.1. The six are the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the set the source tabulates. The 1965 figures predate or coincide with the Act; the Georgia white figure is printed "62.[6]" in the source text.
Black voter registration in 2004, the same six states
Percentage of voting-age Black residents registered to vote in 2004, Census Bureau figures in the same table.
Black registration rate, 2004 (%)
- Mississippi76.1%
- Alabama72.9%
- Louisiana71.1%
- South Carolina71.1%
- Georgia64.2%
- Virginia57.4%
Source: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [38]
Observations 1
By 2004 the gaps had closed or nearly closed
About this data
White registration in 2004: Alabama 73.8, Georgia 63.5, Louisiana 75.1, Mississippi 72.3, South Carolina 74.4, Virginia 68.2. 1965 and 2004 come from different collections (Congress's 1965 estimates; Census Bureau surveys in 2004), so the change mixes a real rise with a change of source.
Remedies for fraud and exclusion, 1888–2002
The main national reforms, in order.
Filled marker: major event Hollow: minor
Showing 7 of 7 events
1888
· Ballot reform
Louisville, Massachusetts and New York adopt the official secret ballot
Source: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [42]
1896
· Ballot reform
"Almost 90 percent of the States" have adopted the secret ballot
Source: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [42]
1965
· Right to vote · major event
Voting Rights Act
With federal examiners and preclearance.
Source: US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [40]
1966
· Right to vote
Poll tax struck down for state elections
Source: US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [40]
1970
· Right to vote
Literacy tests and similar devices banned nationwide
Source: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [39]
1993
· Registration and lists
National Voter Registration Act
Set rules for list maintenance.
Source: US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [41]
2002
· Registration and lists
Help America Vote Act
Set an ID rule for some first-time voters who registered by mail.
Source: US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [41]
Sources: Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [39]; US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [40]; US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [41]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project) [42]
Observations 1
Remedies, in order
The secret ballot spread after 1888; reformers wanted to end vote buying, since a buyer could no longer watch the bribed voter. 42
The spread of state voter-ID laws since 2000 is covered in the report on ID rules. No source read measures whether any of these rules caused the decline of machine fraud.
Florida's first removal list, 2000
By the Civil Rights Commission's account.
| Names | |
|---|---|
| Supposed felons, dead people and duplicates | 181,157 [43] |
| Of those, identified as felons | about 65,776 [43] |
| Found in May 2000 to have been wrongly added | about 8,000 [43] |
| Leon County could confirm | 34 of nearly 700 sent to it [43] |
Source: US Commission on Civil Rights [43]
Observations 2
Florida 2000: a removal list with many errors
A competing reading of the Florida data
Abigail Thernstrom testified to the Senate in 2001 that the Commission's own data showed whites "erroneously placed on the purge list at almost twice the rate of blacks". 45 The sources agree the list was badly inaccurate; they disagree on whether its errors fell harder on Black voters.
Observations
Georgia 2018: registrations on hold, with photo ID as the fallback
Officials who refused to certify were made to certify
In June 2022, Otero County, New Mexico, certified its primary only after the state supreme court ordered it to. 47
In November 2022, two Cochise County, Arizona, supervisors voted to delay certification past the legal deadline. A judge ordered certification and both were indicted: Peggy Judd pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour, and Tom Crosby was awaiting trial as of September 2025 (no later outcome found). 48 Refusals in 2025–26 were not searched.
Northern Ireland: exclusion through the franchise and ward lines
The UK's Cameron Commission found in 1969 that in Londonderry about three in five adults were Catholic while Unionists held three in five council seats, and that the property-based local franchise excluded about a quarter of those who could vote in Stormont elections. 49 Northern Ireland's later voter-ID laws are covered in the report on ID rules.
The fraud record and the exclusion record have no common measure
The fraud cases are counted in convictions and altered ballots per precinct; the exclusion record is counted in registration rates across whole states. No source converts both into votes lost or gained, so which danger has been larger cannot be read from these data.
About this data
What is measured. Named cases where a court opinion, a Justice Department report or a state election board describes how fraud or exclusion was done. Added to these are three compilations of detected modern fraud (Heritage, News21, Levitt) and the registration tables the Supreme Court reproduced.
How the cases are classified. The case chart is this report's own classification of the cases listed; each case's row in the table gives the source for its method.
Scanning errors. Court opinions are read in the Caselaw Access Project's text, which contains some scanning errors (for example "62.[6]"). Quotes keep those errors rather than correcting them.
Why there is no time series. No source publishes a consistent count of election-crime prosecutions by year or method: the Justice Department's annual reports list examples, not totals, and the compilations differ in method and coverage. The registration figures are published for 1965 and 2004 in one table; the annual state tables that would make a series were not reached (see Data still needed).
What this is commonly mistaken for. A count of detected cases is not a count of fraud. A case where fraud was proven is not proof that the outcome changed: of the cases here, East Chicago, North Carolina's 9th District and Paterson were voided or rerun, while Illinois 1960 and Chicago 1982 did not change the top race.
Non-Citizens on US Voter Rolls
State reviews find non-citizens at hundredths of a percent of registrants or fewer, and the database flags they start from include many citizens; how many go undetected is unmeasured. [8][20][16][1]
Non-citizen registrants found per million registrants, by state review
Non-citizens each review found on the rolls, per million people registered in that state at the time. Each bar is a different review, period and method; the status of the count is in each label.
Non-citizen registrants per million registrants
- Georgia, 2024 audit (confirmed)2.4
- Kansas, 1999–2013 (court finding)22.1
- Ohio, 2024 referrals (apparent)73.2
- Iowa, 2024 review (identified)120.4
- Louisiana, 2025 (suspected, preliminary)134.5
Source: United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse) [22]; Associated Press (via WALB) [14]; Associated Press (via WOSU) [10]; The Highland County Press [12]; Associated Press (via News4JAX) [8]; Louisiana Illuminator (via News From The States) [13]
Observations 6
Every state that looked found some non-citizens on its rolls
Confirmed registrants are hundredths of a percent of the rolls or fewer
Even the tallest bar, Louisiana's preliminary count reaching back to records from the 1980s, is about 130 per million registrants. 13 Georgia's confirmed count is the shortest, 14 and Kansas's court finding was 0.002% of its registrants. 22
The bars span two orders of magnitude partly because the states count different things: Georgia counted only cases it had "conclusively identified", while Ohio and Louisiana counted apparent or suspected cases not tested in court. 14 13
A check of a whole statewide roll is now routine
Texas ran its entire roll, more than 18 million voters, through SAVE in 2025 and flagged about 0.015% of it. 2 3 Ohio's office says it now identifies non-citizens "at the time of registration". 9
Before SAVE was opened to bulk checks in 2025, states such as Georgia and North Carolina relied on licence, jury and individual immigration-record checks. 24 14 20
Kansas: dozens of non-citizens over 19 years, against 31,089 applicants blocked
The longest record comes from the Kansas litigation. The district court found that at most 67 non-citizens registered or tried to register, and 39 got onto the rolls; it found the cases "largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake". 22
Kansas's proof-of-citizenship law, meanwhile, left 31,089 applicants denied registration. These are applicants who did not supply documents, not people shown to be citizens. 22
Georgia held 1,634 applicants SAVE could not verify before they reached the rolls
Georgia's first citizenship audit, announced in March 2022, counted applicants held at registration rather than people on the roll: 28
- 2,258 applications held in "pending citizenship" status; none was added to the rolls and none had voted.
- 1,634 of them could not be verified by SAVE; the office called them non-citizens.
- 624 could not be run through SAVE for lack of information, and were held because licence records listed them as non-citizens.
Because none reached the rolls, they are not in the chart. "Not verified" by SAVE is not the same as confirmed: SAVE can miss citizens whose status is absent from federal records. 4
Most non-citizens reach the rolls through paperwork errors
The reviews describe the same few routes:
- Clerical error: Texas found people registered by county staff even though they had marked themselves non-citizens on the application. 7 3
- Licence-record coding: Arizona's motor vehicle agency coded everyone licensed before 1996 as a citizen, so 218,000 registrants had no proof of citizenship on file. All had sworn they were citizens, and by October 2024 two had been identified as non-citizens. 23
- Misunderstanding: some North Carolina voters said they did not know they could not vote. 20
- Administrative anomalies: the Kansas court attributed most of its 39 cases to error and confusion. 22
Georgia found its 20 because they had sworn they were not citizens to get out of jury duty. 14 Each route runs through a check at the point of registration, which is where a records check or a documentary-proof rule would apply.
About this data
Derived, not published: each state's count divided by its registrant count, times one million, rounded to one decimal place. Kansas: 39 confirmed registrants, 1999–2013, over the 1,762,330 registered on 1 January 2013, 22.1 (the court rounded the share to 0.002%). Georgia 2024: 20 confirmed of 8.2 million, 2.4. Ohio 2024: 597 apparent non-citizens referred for prosecution (not convicted), over the 8,159,946 registered in November 2024, 73.2. Iowa 2024: 277 identified of nearly 2.3 million, taken as 2.3 million, 120.4. Louisiana 2025: 390 suspected, preliminary, over roughly 2.9 million, 134.5, with records reaching back to the 1980s. Where a source rounds the registrant count ("nearly", "roughly"), the rate uses the rounded figure, so it is approximate. Texas is not shown because its review has not published a count of confirmed non-citizens; its flags are in the next chart but one. These are found cases; none of these reviews estimates undetected ones.
Non-citizen votes found per million ballots, by election
Ballots that reviews found were cast by non-citizens, per million ballots cast in that election. Each bar is a different review and method.
Non-citizen votes found per million ballots cast
- Brennan Center survey, 2016 (42 jurisdictions)1.3
- Ohio, 2020 general2.2
- North Carolina, 2016 general8.5
- Iowa, 2024 general21.9
Source: Brennan Center for Justice [21]; Associated Press (via CBS Pittsburgh) [11]; North Carolina State Board of Elections [20]; Associated Press (via News4JAX) [8]
Observations 3
Some non-citizens vote, and every review finds a few
Every review that checked ballots found a few non-citizen voters; the chart shows the rate for each single election. 8 20 11 Iowa also found five whose ballots were rejected. 8 Counts that span several elections, or that are referrals rather than findings, are below.
| Review | Non-citizen voters found or referred |
|---|---|
| Louisiana, records back to the 1980s | 79 who voted at least once 4 |
| Ohio, 2024 referral batch | 138 who had cast ballots 10 |
| Tennessee | 42 referred to the FBI 4 |
| Indiana | "at least 21" 4 |
| Texas, first SAVE referrals (June 2025) | 33 voters 2 |
| Texas, September 2026 | 117 cases referred for investigation 1 |
Votes found are between about 1 and 22 per million ballots
Iowa's 2024 rate is the highest in the chart, and North Carolina's 2016 rate is less than half of it. 8 20
The lowest bar, the Brennan Center's 2016 survey, comes from interviews with officials in 42 jurisdictions with large non-citizen populations, not a records check; New York City declined to take part. 21 The Brennan Center is an advocacy organisation.
Referrals rarely become prosecutions
Ohio's suspected voter-fraud referrals of all kinds, sent to county prosecutors: 9
- 633 sent;
- 12 taken up; prosecutors said the others lacked evidence to pursue indictments;
- 6 indicted after the Attorney General took the cases to grand juries.
After the 2018 referrals, "only a handful were ever prosecuted". 11 Some non-citizens who voted said they did not know they were barred, and North Carolina found some had been misinformed by registration drives or a precinct official. 20
A case not prosecuted is not thereby shown to involve an eligible voter, and a referral is not thereby shown to involve an ineligible one.
Subtleties
Detected cases are a floor
Each review finds only people who appear as non-citizens in some government record: a licence issued to a green-card holder, a jury-duty excusal, an immigration file. 14 8 20
A non-citizen who never declared that status to any agency would not be flagged. No source here measures how many such people exist, so these counts cannot rule out a larger undetected number; they also cannot show one.
About this data
Derived, not published: votes found divided by ballots cast, times one million, rounded to one decimal place. Brennan Center 2016: about 30 suspected votes referred in 42 high-immigrant jurisdictions that tabulated 23.5 million votes, 1.3 (an interview survey of officials, not a records check). Ohio 2020: 13 cast ballots, over nearly 6 million votes, 2.2. North Carolina 2016: 41 of nearly 4.8 million, 8.5. Iowa 2024: 35 of more than 1.6 million, 21.9 (five more were rejected). Each rate uses the source's rounded ballot total ("nearly", "more than"), so it is approximate. Ohio's later figure of 167 voters spans federal elections from 2018, so it has no single-election denominator and is not shown here.
Share of flagged registrants later shown to be citizens
Of the people a database match flagged as possible non-citizens, the share later shown to be citizens, by program. Each figure is as of the date its source gives and is a minimum where reviews are unfinished.
Flagged people later shown to be citizens (%)
- Denton County, Texas (SAVE, 2025)16.7%
- Texas statewide (SAVE, 2025–26)21.2%
- Alabama (state agency records, 2024)61.5%
- North Carolina (DMV records, 2016)97.6%
Source: NPR (via VPM) [3]; Texas Secretary of State [1]; Texas Secretary of State [2]; Associated Press (via WSLS) [16]; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [19]
Observations 8
Flag lists shrink sharply on review
In every program with a published follow-up, a large share of the people flagged turned out to be citizens, from about a sixth in Denton County to nearly all of North Carolina's licence-record flags. 3 1 16 19
The share depends on the database. Licence records keep showing people as non-citizens after they naturalise, as in Texas in 2019 and North Carolina in 2016. SAVE's misses fall on people whose citizenship is missing from federal records, such as those who acquired it through a parent. 25 19 4
Texas: 578 of 2,724 SAVE flags shown to be citizens, 117 referred
- October 2025: SAVE flagged 2,724 of more than 18 million registrants; counties mailed notices and cancelled those who did not reply in 30 days. 2
- December 2025: Denton County had 84 flagged voters: 14 proved citizenship, 14 had marked "not a citizen" on their forms and were registered in error (none had voted), and 56 were cancelled for not replying, five of them because their notices were undeliverable. 3
- July 2026: the state elections director said SAVE had "some inaccurate information" and told counties to reinstate some voters, without yet saying how many. 6
- September 2026: 578 had demonstrated citizenship, 506 of them because passport data reached SAVE after the state's first run, and 117 cases were referred for investigation of possible non-citizen voting. 1
No count of confirmed non-citizens among the 2,724 has been published.
Alabama: about 2,000 of 3,251 flagged were citizens
In August 2024 Alabama made 3,251 people inactive, using non-citizen numbers recorded by its unemployment and licence agencies. The Secretary of State's chief of staff testified to what followed: 16
- About 2,000 were citizens: more than 900 proved it themselves, and another 1,000 were cleared when the office checked licence records.
- At least 159 were removed, "a few" of whom said on their forms that they were non-citizens.
A federal court halted the program because it ran inside the 90-day window before a federal election. 16 Lawyers opposing a similar Virginia program said the licence-record check confirmed 93.8% of Alabama's checkbox-based flags as citizens, without confirming the rest as non-citizens. 17
Iowa's pre-election list and its later count came from different checks
Two weeks before the 2024 election, Iowa challenged the ballots of 2,176 people who had once told its transportation department they were not citizens. 8
After it gained access to federal immigration records, it identified 277 non-citizen registrants and 35 voters. 8 The later count is not described as a subset of the earlier list, so it is a smaller final count from a better source, not a measured rate of wrong flags.
Virginia removed 1,610 people; no count of citizens among them exists
Virginia's program removed 1,610 registrants inside the 90-day window in 2024. According to the voters' lawyers, the district court found the state had not shown that any of them were non-citizens, while crediting evidence that citizens had been removed. 17
The Supreme Court stayed that order on 30 October 2024, with three justices dissenting. 18 No count of how many of them were citizens has been found.
SAVE has checked tens of millions of voters, with no published error rate
What the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court in September 2026 about the revamped SAVE: 24
- Checked: more than 65 million voters in 26 states.
- Flagged as potential non-citizens: 28,635. These are flags, not confirmed non-citizens.
- Error rate: not released, as the groups challenging it noted.
USCIS's own fact sheet says SAVE may be unable to confirm people who acquired citizenship through a parent. 4 In 2016, before the overhaul, North Carolina found that about 75% of people who later proved citizenship were still listed as non-citizens in SAVE. 19
States' own records would have cleared some flagged citizens
Texas did not check its SAVE list against its own licence records before sending it to counties. In Travis County, 11 of 97 flagged voters had already given the licence agency proof of citizenship. 5
Across the counties that answered Votebeat, at least 33 citizens had been identified by December 2025. 5 The Texas Secretary of State wrote to USCIS that state licence records sometimes "inaccurately reflect a person's current citizenship status". 7
Texas's 2019 review flagged almost 100,000, including about 25,000 listed in error
In 2019 Texas questioned the citizenship of almost 100,000 registrants, using licence records from people who had once said they were not citizens. The state later said it had overstated the list by about 25,000 names, counties found hundreds of naturalised citizens on it, and the state agreed in a settlement to scrap it. 25
About this data
Derived: citizens shown divided by people flagged. Denton County, Texas: 14 of 84 noticed (as of December 2025), 16.7%. Texas statewide: 578 of 2,724 SAVE flags demonstrated citizenship (as of September 2026), 21.2%. Alabama: about 2,000 of 3,251 flagged in 2024 were citizens, by the state's own testimony, 61.5% (about 62%). North Carolina: the State Board found 97.6% of people the DMV identified as non-citizens were citizens (2016 audit, as described by the Fourth Circuit). Iowa is not shown: its 2,176 pre-election flags came from Department of Transportation records, and its later 277 came from a separate check, so the share of the 2,176 who were citizens has not been published.
Non-citizens found against citizens wrongly flagged, by review
The two counts each review with a published follow-up produces.
| Ineligible registrants found, referred or removed | Citizens wrongly flagged | |
|---|---|---|
| Texas, statewide SAVE check | 117 cases referred [1] | 578 [1] |
| Denton County, Texas | 14 non-citizens [3] | 14, plus 56 cancelled for not replying, status unknown [3] |
| Alabama, 2024 | At least 159 removed [16] | About 2,000 [16] |
Sources: Texas Secretary of State [1]; NPR (via VPM) [3]; Associated Press (via WSLS) [16]
Observations 1
Both kinds of error appear in the same reviews
Each review produces two counts: ineligible registrants found, and eligible citizens wrongly flagged.
In the reviews with published follow-ups, citizens wrongly flagged outnumber the non-citizens confirmed.
Non-citizen voters found, against two recent close margins
Votes separating the candidates in two close races, beside the non-citizen voters that the same states' reviews found. Counts, not rates.
Votes or people
- Georgia, 2020 presidential margin11,779
- Iowa 1st District, 2024 margin798
- Georgia, DHS-flagged registrants who had ever voted (2026)150
- Iowa, non-citizens who voted in 2024 (statewide)35
- Georgia, confirmed non-citizens who had ever voted (2024 audit)9
Source: Associated Press (via WDBJ7) [26]; Iowa Capital Dispatch (via Little Village) [27]; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [15]; Associated Press (via News4JAX) [8]; Associated Press (via WALB) [14]
Observations 2
The non-citizen votes found are far below recent close margins
Both margins dwarf the non-citizen voters the same states' reviews found, even counting every DHS-flagged Georgian who had ever voted in any election. 26 14 15 27 8 Iowa's count is statewide, so fewer could have been in the close district.
North Carolina's audit found that even if every ineligible ballot it identified in 2016 had gone to the winner, no race would have had a different outcome. 20
Some local elections are decided by a handful of votes
Louisiana's Secretary of State said fraud was not systemic but noted that some local elections had been decided by a handful of votes; she did not say whether any non-citizen votes affected them. 13
A race decided by single digits is within the range of counts found statewide. No source here matches non-citizen voters to the precincts or districts where they voted.
About this data
Georgia's 2020 presidential margin after the recount; Iowa's 1st Congressional District margin in 2024 after its recount, from AP's unofficial results. The Iowa count of 35 is statewide, so at most 35 of them could have been in the 1st District. Georgia's 150 are registrants DHS identified as possible non-citizens who had ever voted, in any election; Georgia's 9 are confirmed non-citizens who had voted in some earlier election, none in November 2024.
Ohio's non-citizen referrals, by year announced
Apparent non-citizens Ohio's Secretary of State referred for possible prosecution, as AP compared them in August 2024. More than 8 million people are registered in Ohio.
Apparent non-citizens referred
- 2019354
- 2021117
- 2022148
- 2024597
Source: Associated Press (via WOSU) [10]; Associated Press (via CBS Pittsburgh) [11]; Statehouse News Bureau (via WYSU) [9]
Observations 2
Ohio has found non-citizen registrants in every batch since 2019
Every batch in the chart contains non-citizen registrants, at sizes that vary widely. 10 In October 2025 Ohio forwarded to the Justice Department 1,084 cases going back to 2018 that included 167 people who allegedly voted in a federal election. 9 The batches cover different elections and methods, so they do not show a trend.
Ohio's counts are a small fraction of its electorate
Ohio had 8,159,946 registered voters and 5,851,387 ballots cast in November 2024. 12 The alleged voters in the 2025 referral span every federal election from 2018 to 2024; dividing them by one election's ballots would overstate the rate. 9 The Secretary of State, a Republican, called non-citizen registration "exceedingly rare". 9
About this data
The years are when referrals were announced, not when the elections took place, and each batch covers different elections. Of the 2024 referrals, 138 had cast ballots; of the 2021 referrals (for 2020), 13; of the 277 referred after the 2018 election, 77. No 2020 or 2023 batch appears in AP's comparison. In October 2025 the office forwarded 1,084 cases going back to 2018, which prosecutors had not acted on, to the Justice Department; that overlaps the earlier batches and is not a new year's count.
These reviews compare a state's voter list against records that say someone is not a citizen: driver's licence files, jury-duty excusals, immigration records and, since 2025, the federal SAVE database.
They count three different things that are often run together, each much smaller than the one before:
- people flagged by a database match;
- people confirmed as non-citizens on the rolls;
- confirmed non-citizens who voted.
No review counts people whose non-citizen status appears in no record, so every figure here is a floor rather than an estimate of the total.
About this data
Why there is no time series. Each state review is a one-off, using its own databases, period and definition of a case, so the reviews cannot be joined into a national series. Ohio's referral batches are the only repeated count, and they are shown as a comparison by year of announcement because each batch covers different elections and AP's comparison omits 2020 and 2023.
How the per-million figures were made. They are derived by dividing each published count by the registrant or ballot total in the same source, then multiplying by one million; the inputs are listed in each chart's note. They compare scale, not identical measures: some counts are confirmed cases, others are referrals or suspected cases.
Who published the figures. Most counts are announcements by elected secretaries of state, several of them made shortly before elections. The Brennan Center and the Virginia filing come from advocacy groups and litigants. SAVE's national totals are the federal government's own figures in litigation and have not been audited.
Burdens of ID and Citizenship-Proof Rules: Missing Documents, Rejections and Turnout
Few citizens have no photo ID, but millions hold outdated licences or cannot readily reach proof of citizenship; Kansas and Texas rules blocked tens of thousands; effects on overall turnout are small and disputed. [1][2][14][16][27][28]
Share of returned mail ballots rejected
Share of returned mail ballots that were rejected (2024: not counted) in each November general election, as reported by states to the federal Election Administration and Voting Survey.
Rejected, % of returned mail ballots, by November general election
Share of returned mail ballots that were rejected (2024: not counted) in each November general election, as reported by states to the federal Election Administration and Voting Survey. Read as share of returned mail ballots rejected: Rejected, % of returned mail ballots. Dashed segments cross 2 definitional breaks in the source, explained in Method Changes below this graph. 2 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Texas
- Georgia
- United States
Events marked above
Texas SB 1: ID number required on mail ballots
The ID number on the envelope must match the one on the voter's registration record.
Georgia SB 202: ID number replaces signature matching
Absentee applications and ballots are checked against an ID number instead of a signature.
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab (report by M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee) [33]
Vertical dashed lines mark measurement changes. See method changes.
Source: U.S. Election Assistance Commission [39]
Observations 4
Texas has stayed well above its 2020 rate and the national rate
Texas's line rises after its ID-number rule and stays well above both its 2020 rate and the national line. 19 20 23 24 25 Texas also sent 5.8% of its 2024 mail ballots into curing, the process for fixing errors, against 1.5% nationally. 20 24 The figures are not split by reason, so the share due to the ID rule is unknown.
Texas's rate fell sharply after the first primary
The March 2022 primary's spike (chart below) was not repeated in November. 16 19 The state election office credited redesigned envelopes, extra instructions, voter education and voters getting used to the rule. 16 Note too that 2020 was Texas's low point: its 2016 and 2018 rates were about twice as high. 26
Georgia's rate fell after SB 202 and has sat near the national rate
Georgia's line, high under signature matching in 2016 and 2018, has sat close to the national line since SB 202 replaced signatures with an ID number. 21 22 23 24 39 26 Its 2020 point is a floor, because the state's count missed some county rejections. 25
In a survey of county election offices, 32% said fewer mail ballots were rejected in 2022, though a plurality said the new verification had not reduced rejections. 33
The two states' ID-number rules produced opposite movements
Texas's number had to match whichever one was on the voter's registration record, and rejections rose; Georgia's replaced signature matching, and rejections fell. 16 33 So an ID requirement's effect on rejections depends on its design and what it replaces. It is not evidence about polling-place photo ID.
Subtleties
Method Changes
2020: Georgia's 2020 rejections incomplete
The EAC notes that Georgia's 2020 rejection count includes only ballots counties had entered into the state registration system by February 2021, "which does not necessarily include all ballots rejected by counties", so Georgia's 2020 rate is a floor. [39]
2024: Counted share only
The 2024 state data briefs publish the share of returned mail ballots counted but not the share rejected. The 2024 points are 100 minus the counted share, which also includes any ballots neither counted nor rejected, so they slightly overstate rejection. [39]
About this data
Full published range: 2016–2024. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – The survey has collected mail-ballot counts since 2004, but before 2016 its tables for Georgia count in-person early votes as absentee ballots (the 2012 report lists 1.9 million Georgia absentee ballots returned, against about 213,000 mail ballots in 2016), so earlier cycles are not comparable for this chart. Every general election from 2016 to the latest release (2024) is shown. Primaries are not covered by the survey; Texas's March 2022 primary is shown separately below.
Share of returned mail ballots rejected
2016: rejected divided by returned, calculated from the counts in the 2016 report's Overview Table 2 (its own percentage column divides by ballots transmitted): Texas 8,177 / 468,150 = 1.75%, Georgia 13,677 / 213,033 = 6.42%, US 318,728 / 33,378,450 = 0.95%. 2018 and 2020: the reports' rejected share of returned ballots. 2022: the state and national data briefs' rejected share. 2024: 100 minus the briefs' counted share (US 2024: 100 − 98.8 = 1.2). National figures are the EAC's US totals, which include Texas and Georgia.
Turnout gap
Turnout of white citizens of voting age minus turnout of nonwhite and of Black citizens, in percentage points, from the Brennan Center's voter-file analysis. SB 202 was enacted in 2021, so 2022 is the first general election under it.
White turnout minus group turnout (percentage points), by November general election
Turnout of white citizens of voting age minus turnout of nonwhite and of Black citizens, in percentage points, from the Brennan Center's voter-file analysis. SB 202 was enacted in 2021, so 2022 is the first general election under it. Read as turnout gap: White turnout minus group turnout (percentage points). Use the Table switch to see every value.
- White minus nonwhite
- White minus Black
Source: Brennan Center for Justice [40]
Observations 3
Georgia's racial turnout gap widened in 2022, the first general election under SB 202
In November 2022 the gap between white and nonwhite turnout was the widest since at least 2014. 34
The gap was already moving before SB 202, and its authors do not attribute it to the law
The white–Black gap also rose in 2016 and 2020 before the law and fell in the 2018 midterm. 40 The Brennan Center, which wrote that SB 202 "erected multiple barriers to voting", says "we cannot say whether the passage of S.B. 202 is the cause" of the 2022 widening. 34 Its 2024 analysis is in the next chart. 35
Georgia voters reported few problems in 2022
In a survey of more than 1,200 Georgians who voted in 2022, few reported problems: 32
- 1.1% said they had a problem casting a ballot.
- 75% of in-person voters waited ten minutes or less.
- 72% rated their experience excellent, up from 55% after 2020.
The survey reached only people who voted, so it cannot show how many were deterred.
About this data
Full published range: 2014–2022. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Every general election in the analysis is shown. The Brennan Center's later 2024 analysis uses a different turnout estimate and is shown separately; the two cannot be joined into one line.
Turnout gap
Values are the article's Datawrapper chart data ("White-Nonwhite Turnout Gap in Georgia, 2014–2022" and "White-Black Turnout Gap in Georgia, 2014–2022"), rounded to one decimal; for example the published 2022 gaps are 8.5546 and 7.3364. Race is self-reported or modelled by the data vendor; turnout is ballots cast over citizen voting-age population. The vertical unit is percentage points of turnout, not a percentage of the electorate.
Turnout by race
Ballots cast as a share of citizen voting-age population, from the Brennan Center's 2024 voter-file analysis.
Turnout, % of citizen voting-age population, by November presidential election
Ballots cast as a share of citizen voting-age population, from the Brennan Center's 2024 voter-file analysis. Read as turnout by race: Turnout, % of citizen voting-age population. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- White
- Black
Source: Brennan Center for Justice [41]
Observations 1
Black turnout in Georgia dipped in 2024 while white turnout rose
The white–Black gap grew about as much from 2020 to 2024 as from 2016 to 2020, but for a different reason: this time Black turnout fell slightly, where before both groups rose. 35 41 This analysis uses a different turnout estimate from the 2014–2022 chart, so the two sets of gaps are not comparable.
About this data
Full published range: 2016–2024. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – These are the three presidential elections the analysis covers. Its 2024 denominator is projected forward from 2022 Census estimates.
Turnout by race
Values are the data behind the article's Datawrapper chart "Turnout Rates by Race, 2016–2024", published as fractions (e.g. white 2024 0.7471, Black 2024 0.5927) and shown here as percentages rounded to one decimal.
Adult citizens without each kind of document, 2023
Estimated US citizens aged 18 or over, national survey fielded September–October 2023. "No photo ID of any kind" and "outdated licence" are separate groups; the proof-of-citizenship bars are a separate question.
Adult citizens (estimated)
- No government photo ID of any kind2,600,000
- No non-expired driver's licence20,760,000
- Unexpired licence lacking current name or address28,600,000
- No proof-of-citizenship document at all3,800,000
- Cannot readily reach proof of citizenship (includes none)21,300,000
Source: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [1]; Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [2]; Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [7]
Observations 3
Few citizens have no photo ID at all; many more hold an outdated licence
The bar for no photo ID of any kind, about 1% of adult citizens, is a fraction of the bar for a licence without current name or address, nearly always an old address. 1 Whether that group is burdened depends on the rule: a law accepting any current photo ID does not touch them; one requiring a matching address would.
About one citizen in ten cannot readily produce proof of citizenship
Over 9% of adult citizens have no birth certificate, passport, naturalization or citizenship certificate, or could not get to one by the next day; far fewer have none at all. 2 The survey did not ask about the marriage or divorce records people who changed their name usually need, so its authors call the estimate for women a lower bound. 9
The survey was commissioned by voting-access groups and run by an independent firm
Its sponsors were VoteRiders (which helps voters get ID), Public Wise, the Brennan Center and the University of Maryland's Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement; the firm SSRS fielded it. 7 It is self-reported and the only recent national measure; no survey by a government agency or a group favouring ID laws was found to compare it with.
Subtleties
The 2006 survey's larger figure measured something else
A 2006 Brennan Center survey found 11% of adult citizens lacked "current, unexpired" government photo ID, and 7% lacked ready access to proof of citizenship. 10 The 2023 survey's smallest bar counts people with no photo ID of any kind. The two are not a trend, and the 2006 figure is not the number of citizens with no ID.
About this data
Survey sponsored by VoteRiders, Public Wise, the University of Maryland's Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement and the Brennan Center, run by SSRS with 2,386 respondents; counts are the authors' projections onto Census population figures. "No non-expired driver's licence" includes people who hold other photo ID such as a passport or state ID card, which is why it is far larger than "no photo ID of any kind". "Cannot readily reach proof of citizenship" includes those with none at all. The bars are not additive.
Reasons given for having no driver's licence, 2023
Share of adult citizens without a driver's licence giving each reason. The four bureaucratic or economic reasons (cost, fines, time and documents) together come to 19%.
Share of those without a licence (%)
- Don't drive or don't like driving31%
- Not interested8%
- Anxiety about driving3%
- Cost of a licence8%
- Unpaid fines or other financial or legal difficulties4%
- Lack of time4%
- Lack of underlying documents3%
Source: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [8]
Observations 1
A licence is often missing for reasons other than cost
Not driving is by far the most common reason for having no licence; cost and other bureaucratic or economic reasons together account for about a fifth. 8 In 2014 GAO found licence fees in strict-ID states ranged from $14.50 to $58.50. 30 No source measures the time and travel needed to obtain documents.
About this data
Reasons as listed in the survey report; not every reason respondents gave is listed, so the bars do not sum to 100. "Unpaid fines" is the report's "financial/legal difficulties including unpaid tickets/fines".
No licence, or a licence without current name or address, by race and party, 2023
Share of adult citizens in each group. The first part of each bar is no driver's licence at all; the second is a licence that does not show the holder's current name or address.
No licence at all · Share of adult citizens in group (%)
- Black18%
- Independents/others18%
- Hispanic15%
- Asian/Pacific Islander13%
- Democrats9%
- Republicans6%
- White5%
Show all breakdowns
| Category | No licence at all | Licence lacks current name or address | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Black | 18% | 10% | 28% |
| Hispanic | 15% | 12% | 27% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 13% | 8% | 21% |
| White | 5% | 13% | 18% |
| Democrats | 9% | 14% | 23% |
| Republicans | 6% | 10% | 16% |
| Independents/others | 18% | 13% | 31% |
Source: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [3]; Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [5]
Observations 1
Black, Hispanic and independent citizens are most likely to have no licence at all
On the chart's default view, no licence at all, Black, Hispanic and independent citizens are about three times as likely as white citizens or Republicans to have none. 3 5 For white citizens the more common problem is an outdated licence. 3 A missing licence is not the same as missing photo ID, which the survey does not break down by group.
About this data
The source gives the total without a licence showing current name and address, and the share with no licence at all; the second segment is the total minus the first. A person with no licence may still hold another photo ID.
No licence with current name and address, by age and income, 2023
Share of adult citizens in each group without a driver's licence showing their current name and address (includes those with no licence).
Share of adult citizens in group (%)
- Age 18–2441%
- Age 25–2938%
- Age 30–4924%
- Age 50–6413%
- Age 65+11%
- Income under $30,00039%
- Income $30,000–$50,00021%
- Income $50,000–$100,00015%
- Income over $100,0009%
Source: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [6]
About this data
The source does not split these totals into "no licence" and "outdated licence" except for incomes under $30,000, where 23% have no licence at all.
Proof of citizenship not readily available, by race and party, 2023
Share of adult citizens in each group. The first part of each bar has no birth certificate, passport, naturalization or citizenship certificate; the second has one but could not get to it by the next day.
Has none · Share of adult citizens in group (%)
- Independents4%
- People of color3%
- Democrats2%
- White1%
- Republicans1%
Show all breakdowns
| Category | Has none | Has one but not readily available | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| People of color | 3% | 8% | 11% |
| White | 1% | 7% | 8% |
| Democrats | 2% | 8% | 10% |
| Republicans | 1% | 6% | 7% |
| Independents | 4% | 9% | 13% |
Source: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland [4]
Observations 1
About this data
The source gives the share without ready access (including those with none) and the share with none; the second segment is the difference.
Kansas: applicants blocked by proof of citizenship against non-citizens found
Registration applications suspended or cancelled for lack of proof of citizenship from 1 January 2013 until the 2016 preliminary injunction, beside the trial court's counts of non-citizen registrations over about 19 years.
People
- Applications suspended or cancelled (2013–2016)31,089
- Non-citizens who registered or tried to (about 19 years)67
- Non-citizens confirmed on the rolls (1999–2013)39
Source: United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse) [14]; United States District Court for the District of Kansas (via Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse) [15]
Observations 2
Kansas blocked 31,089 applicants against at most 39 non-citizens on its rolls
The blocked applications were 12.4% of new registrations from 2013 to 2015; the confirmed non-citizens on the rolls were 0.002% of registered voters. 14 15
The trial court noted that even the state's expert's estimate implied more than 99% of applicants held in suspense were citizens. 15 In 2020 the Tenth Circuit upheld its injunction, holding that the requirement unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and was preempted by federal registration law. 38
Non-citizen registrations in Kansas were real but few
The court did find confirmed non-citizen registrations. 15 Kansas also offered anecdotes, including a clerk's letter about hog-farm employees taken by their employer to register who felt pressured "even though they may not be legal". 13
In 2016 the court found that evidence "insufficient to show that noncitizens actually voted". 13 After trial it found the confirmed cases "largely explained by administrative error, confusion, or mistake". 15
Subtleties
"Blocked" is not the same as "unable to prove citizenship"
The 31,089 are applicants who did not supply a document in time. The court found "no evidence about how many" of them lacked one. 37 It inferred they lacked ready access, did not know enough about the rule, or were unable or unwilling to take the steps. 37
The only estimate came from the state's expert, Jesse Richman, in a survey of the suspense list: 37
| Richman's estimate | Figure | The court's view |
|---|---|---|
| Applicants lacking access to proof of citizenship | 2.2% | Not distinguishable from zero (margin of error 2.7%) |
| Citizens with "immediate access" | 97.8% | Includes people whose document someone else "keeps", itself an extra step |
The record does not say how many could have complied with more effort and how many had no document.
About this data
Figures are the federal district court's findings after a 2018 trial. "Blocked" is applicants suspended or cancelled, not citizens shown to be unable to obtain documents; the court found no evidence on how many lacked them. The 67 are the 39 who registered before the law and 28 stopped by it. The non-citizen counts cover registrations from 1999; the blocked count covers about three years.
Maricopa County, Arizona: suspected non-citizen registrants referred for investigation, 2026
The county attorney's review of registrants referred by the county recorder, announced 28 September 2026. The county has more than 2.5 million registered voters.
People
- Referred as suspected non-citizens207
- Had voted at least once60
- Found to be non-citizens who voted8
Source: AZFamily (KTVK/KPHO) [12]
Observations 2
Arizona found 218,000 long-registered voters without proof of citizenship on file
Arizona has required proof of citizenship for state elections since 2004, and accepts a licence issued after 1996 as proof. Its motor-vehicle records coded everyone licensed earlier as a citizen without seeing proof, so at least 218,000 voters had full-ballot status without the document on file. 11
All had sworn to their citizenship, and when this was announced in October 2024 two had been identified as non-citizens. 11 The case shows that long-registered citizens have often never been asked for documents, and that the records used to check citizenship can be wrong.
The same records gap let a few non-citizens vote in Maricopa County
Only a handful of the referrals proved to be non-citizens who had voted, all licensed before October 1996, the group whose records had wrongly shown citizenship. 12 No statewide outcome for Arizona's 218,000 has been published.
About this data
All eight confirmed non-citizens had Arizona licences issued before October 1996, the group whose citizenship the state's licence records had wrongly treated as proven. No charging decisions were announced.
Mail ballots rejected in Texas's March 2022 primary, the first under SB 1
Share of returned mail ballots rejected, statewide and in two large counties, with Harris County's 2018 primary as the before point.
Rejected, % of mail ballots returned
- Texas statewide, March 202212.38%
- Harris County, March 202219%
- Williamson County, March 202211.5%
- Harris County, March 20180.3%
Source: NPR (via Texas Public Radio) [16]; NPR (via KUT) [17]
Observations 1
Texas rejected 12.38% of mail ballots in the first primary under SB 1
Statewide, 24,636 mail ballots were rejected, and Harris County's rate leapt from almost none in its 2018 primary. 16 17 Officials said most were rejected for a missing or mismatched ID number: voters missed the field under the envelope flap, or the number had to match one on a registration record that could be decades old. 16 17
About this data
Statewide and Williamson County figures are officials' final counts as reported by NPR; Harris County's are the county's. Texas permits mail voting only for voters aged 65 and over, voters with disabilities and a few other groups, so this is a burden on those voters in particular. The 2018 Harris figure is "less than 0.3%" in the source.
What Texans with rejected mail voting did next, March 2022 primary
Brennan Center analysis (Journal of Politics, 2025) of every Texan who requested a mail ballot for the March 2022 primary.
Voters
- Requested a mail ballot215,000
- Application or ballot rejected30,000
- Mail ballot rejected18,000
- Ballot rejected, then voted in person344
Source: Votebeat [18]
Observations 1
About 90% of rejected Texas mail voters did not vote another way
Very few rejected voters found another way: "roughly 90%" did not take part in the primary at all. 18 They were not occasional voters; about 85% had voted in every general election from 2016 to 2020. 18
Texas allows mail voting only for certain groups, including voters aged 65 and over and people with disabilities. 18 The study covers one primary; no follow-up exists for the general elections, where rejection rates were lower.
About this data
Counts are as reported by Votebeat from the study ("roughly", "more than"). About 85% of those rejected had voted in the 2016, 2018 and 2020 general elections.
Estimated effect of strict voter ID laws on turnout
Point estimates in percentage points: the national voter-file panel (all states with strict ID laws, 2008–2018) and GAO's two-state study (2012 general election against 2008). Negative means lower turnout.
Effect on turnout (percentage points)
- National panel: registration−0.1%
- National panel: turnout−0.1%
- GAO: Kansas turnout−1.9%
- GAO: Tennessee turnout−2.2%
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research [27]; U.S. Government Accountability Office [28]
Observations 4
The national panel finds no turnout or registration effect from strict ID laws
Cantoni and Pons's nationwide panel of 1.6 billion voter-record observations, 2008–2018, found strict ID laws had "no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation". 27 It covers ID at the polls, not proof of citizenship at registration or ID numbers on mail ballots.
The same study finds no effect on fraud, actual or perceived
The panel also finds "strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived". 27
GAO estimated turnout fell 2 to 3 points more in Kansas and Tennessee
GAO compared Kansas and Tennessee, which tightened their ID rules for the 2012 general election, with four states that did not, and found turnout fell more in both. 28 GAO says the estimates do not apply to other states or years; the two states' election offices disputed its comparison states and one dataset. 31
Of the ten earlier studies GAO reviewed, five found no significant turnout effect, four a decrease and one an increase. 30
The national and state estimates are less opposed than they look
GAO's Kansas and Tennessee estimates lie inside the national study's 95 percent confidence interval for the average effect. 27 28 The national study rules out large average effects, not effects of that size in particular states or elections.
Neither measures burden directly. The blocked applicants, rejected ballots and people without ID in this report met an obstacle; turnout studies measure whether the total number voting changed.
About this data
The national estimates carry 95% confidence intervals of −3.0 to +2.8 points (turnout) and −2.3 to +2.1 (registration). GAO reports ranges across its three data sources rather than confidence intervals; the bar shows the end of each range nearer zero, and the larger ends are 2.2 (Kansas) and 3.2 (Tennessee).
Estimated extra turnout effect on particular groups
How much more (negative) or less (positive) a group's turnout changed than a comparison group's, in percentage points.
Difference in effect (percentage points)
- National panel: non-white vs white1.4%
- GAO Kansas: Black vs white−3.7%
- GAO Tennessee: Black vs white−1.5%
- GAO Kansas: aged 18 vs 44–53−7.1%
- GAO Tennessee: aged 18 vs 44–53−1.3%
- GAO Kansas: newly registered vs 20+ years−5.2%
- GAO Tennessee: newly registered vs 20+ years−4.6%
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research [27]; U.S. Government Accountability Office [29]
Observations 2
GAO found larger drops among young, newly registered and Black registrants
In Kansas the extra drop was largest for 18-year-olds, then for the newly registered, then for Black registrants; Tennessee showed the same pattern, smaller for age and race. GAO found no larger effect for Hispanic or Asian-American registrants. 29
The national panel finds no extra effect on non-white voters, and more campaign contact
The national study's estimate for non-white relative to white turnout is slightly positive and not significantly different from zero. Campaigns became 4.7 points more likely to contact non-white voters, which "might have offset modest effects" of the laws. 27 If so, the lack of a turnout effect partly reflects effort spent overcoming the rule, not a rule with no cost.
About this data
The national panel estimate (+1.4) has a 95% confidence interval of −0.5 to +3.2 and compares non-white with white voters across all strict-ID states. GAO's estimates are for Kansas and Tennessee in 2012 and compare Black with white registrants, 18-year-olds with 44–53-year-olds, and those registered under a year with those registered 20 years or more.
Great Britain: people turned away at a polling station for lack of accepted ID
Share of people who tried to vote in person, from polling-station staff records, in the first three rounds of elections with the requirement: those first turned away, and those who did not come back and vote.
Share of people attempting to vote in person (%)
- May 2023 local, first turned away0.7%
- May 2023 local, did not return and vote0.25%
- May 2024 local, first turned away0.6%
- May 2024 local, did not return and vote0.2%
- July 2024 general, first turned away0.25%
- July 2024 general, did not return and vote0.08%
Source: Electoral Commission [36]
Observations 2
Great Britain's turnaways were small and fell at each election
Some British non-voters say the ID rule kept them away
Around 4% of people who did not vote in 2024 gave an unprompted reason related to the ID rules, and non-voters in lower social grades were more likely to say they lacked the required ID. 36 This is the closest published measure of deterrence beyond those turned away at the door; no US equivalent was found.
About this data
From the Electoral Commission's Table 1. May 2023 covers English local elections, May 2024 English and Welsh local elections (data from 278 authorities, with no absolute numbers), and July 2024 the general election across Great Britain. The Commission says the records undercount. A free Voter Authority Certificate is available to people without accepted ID; 58% knew of it in 2024. About 4% of non-voters in July 2024 gave an unprompted reason related to ID; that is a share of non-voters, a different denominator, and is not plotted.
What this does and does not measure
This report counts people who met an obstacle — no document, a blocked application, a rejected ballot — and estimates whether total turnout changed.
It does not establish that everyone affected was eligible: in Kansas even the state's expert implied more than 99% of suspended applicants were citizens; elsewhere it is unknown. 15 Nor does it measure fraud prevented. The national panel finds no effect on fraud, and non-citizen registration is covered in Non-Citizens on US Voter Rolls. 27
State comparisons use the federal survey's definitions. Great Britain is the only other country shown, because its Electoral Commission publishes counts of people turned away for lack of ID; other democracies' rules are in Voter ID Rules in the US and Other Democracies.
Public Opinion on Voting Rules and Confidence in US Elections
Photo ID and early voting have majority support in both parties in Pew and Gallup polls, confidence mostly follows who holds or wins power, and studies disagree on whether strict ID laws raise it. [1][5][8][15][18][19][20]
Favor requiring photo ID to vote
Share of US adults who favour requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification, and who favour automatically registering all eligible citizens, in every Pew American Trends Panel wave that asked. Republicans and Democrats include independents who lean to each party.
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification, and who favour automatically registering all eligible citizens, in every Pew American Trends Panel wave that asked. Republicans and Democrats include independents who lean to each party. Read as favor requiring photo ID to vote: % who favor. Dashed segments cross 1 definitional break in the source, explained in Method Changes below this graph. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Rep/lean Rep
- Dem/lean Dem
Vertical dashed lines mark measurement changes. See method changes.
Source: Pew Research Center [24]
Observations 4
Photo ID has majority support in both parties
Every Pew reading since 2018 shows large majorities of both parties in favour of photo ID (chart). 1 Gallup's October 2024 poll agrees, at 84% of adults. 5
MIT's post-election survey of voters finds Republican support "nearly unanimous" (92.4% in 2024) and Democratic support rebounding after a dip. 10
Democratic support for photo ID has risen since 2021–22
In Pew's series, Democratic support was flat at 61% from 2021 to 2023 and then rose in 2024 and 2025 (chart). 3 1 Gallup's Democrats dipped in 2022 and then rose 14 points by 2024. 6 5
Republican support stayed in the 90s throughout. The rise came while photo ID was being argued over in Congress and the states; the surveys do not establish why it happened.
Support for photo ID crosses racial groups
Pew finds at least seven in ten adults in each racial and ethnic group it reports favour photo ID requirements (2025). 1 Among Democrats in 2021, White Democrats were the least supportive.
Access measures divide the parties more than ID does
Automatic registration splits the parties far more than photo ID, and Republican support for it fell after 2018 and has not recovered (chart). 1 4
No-excuse mail voting splits them further: 83% of Democrats and 32% of Republicans favoured it in 2025. 1 Of the access measures Pew asks about, only early in-person voting has majority support in both parties.
Method Changes
2025-08: Some interviews by telephone
Pew: "This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone." Earlier waves from October 2016 to June 2024 "were conducted fully online". [24]
Favor automatically registering all eligible citizens
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification, and who favour automatically registering all eligible citizens, in every Pew American Trends Panel wave that asked. Republicans and Democrats include independents who lean to each party. Read as favor automatically registering all eligible citizens: % who favor. Dashed segments cross 1 definitional break in the source, explained in Method Changes below this graph. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Rep/lean Rep
- Dem/lean Dem
Vertical dashed lines mark measurement changes. See method changes.
Source: Pew Research Center [24]
Method Changes
2025-08: Some interviews by telephone
Pew: "This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone." Earlier waves from October 2016 to June 2024 "were conducted fully online". [24]
About this data
Full published range: 2018-10–2025-08. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Pew first asked both items in this wording in September–October 2018 and most recently in August 2025. Party figures are published for 2018, 2021, 2024 and 2025; for July 2023 Pew states the Democratic photo-ID figure (61%) but not the Republican one, and for April 2020 and July 2023 it publishes automatic-registration party values only as unlabelled chart points, so those points are omitted rather than read off a chart. Totals for 2020 and 2023 are the topline's "strongly" plus "somewhat favor".
Favor two weeks of early in-person voting
Share of US adults who favour making early in-person voting available for at least two weeks before Election Day. Leaners are counted with each party.
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour making early in-person voting available for at least two weeks before Election Day. Leaners are counted with each party. Read as favor two weeks of early in-person voting: % who favor. Dashed segments cross 1 definitional break in the source, explained in Method Changes below this graph. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Rep/lean Rep
- Dem/lean Dem
Vertical dashed lines mark measurement changes. See method changes.
Source: Pew Research Center [25]
Observations 2
Republican support for early voting rose in 2025
In Pew's series, Republican support for two weeks of early in-person voting was nearly flat from 2021 to January 2024, then rose in August 2025 (chart). 1
Gallup's differently worded item runs the other way over a longer period: Republican support fell between 2016 and 2024 while Democrats' stayed high (Gallup chart below). 5 6 Read together, the two series show Republican support falling after 2016 and partly recovering by 2025.
Both majorities exist, but how many back both is not published
Method Changes
2025-08: Some interviews by telephone
Pew: "This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone." Earlier waves from October 2016 to June 2024 "were conducted fully online". [25]
About this data
Full published range: 2021-04–2025-08. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Pew first asked this item in April 2021; it was asked again in January 2024 and August 2025.
Favor photo ID at the polling place
Share of US adults who favour each policy in the three Gallup polls that asked all three. Gallup's party groups do not include leaners, so Republican and Democratic figures are not directly comparable with Pew's.
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour each policy in the three Gallup polls that asked all three. Gallup's party groups do not include leaners, so Republican and Democratic figures are not directly comparable with Pew's. Read as favor photo ID at the polling place: % who favor. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Source: Gallup [26]
Observations 1
Gallup's series shows the same pattern from 2016
Favor early voting
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour each policy in the three Gallup polls that asked all three. Gallup's party groups do not include leaners, so Republican and Democratic figures are not directly comparable with Pew's. Read as favor early voting: % who favor. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Source: Gallup [26]
Favor automatic voter registration
% who favor, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults who favour each policy in the three Gallup polls that asked all three. Gallup's party groups do not include leaners, so Republican and Democratic figures are not directly comparable with Pew's. Read as favor automatic voter registration: % who favor. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Source: Gallup [26]
About this data
Full published range: 2016-08–2024-10. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Gallup asked these items in August 2016, July 2022 and October 2024 (telephone polls of about 1,000 adults; margin of error ±4 points).
Support for requiring proof of citizenship at first registration, by party and race, October 2024
Share of US adults who favour requiring people registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship (Gallup, October 1–12, 2024).
% who favor
- All adults83%
- Republicans96%
- Independents84%
- Democrats66%
- White adults87%
- People of color76%
Source: Gallup [5]; Gallup [23]
Observations 1
Proof of citizenship at registration has the same level of support as photo ID
Support for requiring proof of citizenship at first registration matches support for photo ID, and divides by party and race in the same way (chart). 5 23
Gallup asked the question for the first time in 2024, so there is no trend. The question does not say what documents would count, which is where the dispute over such rules lies (see the burdens of ID and citizenship rules).
About this data
Gallup asked this item for the first time in 2024, so there is no trend. Party groups exclude leaners. "People of color" is Gallup's grouping of Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander respondents.
Votes cast by people not eligible to vote
Share of US adults who expect each irregularity to be a major problem in that year's presidential election.
% saying a major problem, by presidential election year
Share of US adults who expect each irregularity to be a major problem in that year's presidential election. Read as votes cast by people not eligible to vote: % saying a major problem. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Source: Gallup [27]
Observations 2
The parties fear different failures, and the gap has grown on one side
Republicans have grown more likely to expect ineligible voting to be a major problem, and Democrats less likely (chart). 8 Concern that eligible voters will be blocked is similar in both parties, apart from a Democratic spike in 2020 (next chart). 8
In open-ended answers in October 2026, 19% of Republican voters raised illegitimate or fraudulent votes. 14
Democratic voters more often raised legitimate voters being denied access (10%) or interference by the Trump administration (11%). 14
Eligible voters not being allowed to cast a vote
% saying a major problem, by presidential election year
Share of US adults who expect each irregularity to be a major problem in that year's presidential election. Read as eligible voters not being allowed to cast a vote: % saying a major problem. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Source: Gallup [27]
About this data
Full published range: 2008–2024. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – All years Gallup publishes by party for these two items: 2008, 2016, 2020 and 2024.
Votes cast by people not eligible to vote
Values are from the article's table "Party Groups' Concerns About Ineligible People Voting".
Eligible voters not being allowed to cast a vote
Values are from the article's table "Party Groups' Concerns About Eligible Voters Being Blocked From Voting".
Confidence that ineligible voters will be stopped and eligible voters can vote, by candidate supported, October 2026
Share of registered voters very or somewhat confident in each statement about the November 2026 elections (Pew, September 28–October 4, 2026).
% confident
- Noncitizens who try to vote will be stopped — all voters68%
- Noncitizens who try to vote will be stopped — Republican supporters45%
- Noncitizens who try to vote will be stopped — Democratic supporters90%
- All legally qualified voters can vote — all voters80%
- All legally qualified voters can vote — Republican supporters90%
- All legally qualified voters can vote — Democratic supporters72%
Source: Pew Research Center [14]
Observations 1
About this data
Values are the NET (very plus somewhat confident) column of the data table for Pew's chart "Democratic supporters are more confident than GOP backers that noncitizens are not able to vote". Groups are supporters of each party's House candidates. "All voters" (Pew's "All RVs") includes those backing neither.
Very or somewhat confident
Share of US adults very or somewhat confident, asked before each election. Changes of president are marked under the chart.
% confident, by election year
Share of US adults very or somewhat confident, asked before each election. Changes of president are marked under the chart. Read as very or somewhat confident: % confident. 4 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Republicans
- Independents
- Democrats
Events marked above
Obama takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Trump takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Trump questions mail voting
Gallup links that year's fall in Republican confidence to "then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting".
Source: Gallup [9]
Biden takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Source: Gallup [28]
Observations 3
Confidence in the count follows the party in power
Republicans were more confident than Democrats under George W. Bush, the two converged in 2008, and Democrats were more confident under Barack Obama and Joe Biden (changes of president are marked under the chart). 8 9 The gap reached a record 56 points in 2024. 8
A study pooling about 30 national surveys from 2000 to 2012 finds "a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence". It attributes the decade's fall in national confidence almost entirely to "a forty-point decline among Republicans". 11
The exceptions point to what leaders say, not only who wins
Gallup names two exceptions. In 2008 both parties stood at 57%, and in 2020 Republican confidence fell under a Republican president "amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting" (marked on the chart). 9
A study of 2016 finds the winner effect outweighed pre-election "rigged" messaging from elites. 22 In 2018 there was essentially no winner effect at all. 12
The national level has not collapsed; the share with no confidence has grown
About this data
Full published range: 2004–2024. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Gallup's whole series. It was not asked in 2010, 2012 or 2014. Midterm years (2006, 2018, 2022) ask about "the votes" rather than "the votes for president". Where a year had two readings (2004, 2016) the value is the one Gallup charts. Party groups exclude leaners. Points to 2022 are from this article's two trend tables; the 2024 points are from Gallup's 2024 release (source 8), whose table of each presidential election repeats the earlier presidential-year values.
Very or somewhat confident (voters, post-election)
Share of voters very or somewhat confident, asked in the weeks after each November election. Winners of the presidency: Democratic 2012 and 2020, Republican 2016 and 2024.
% confident, by election year
Share of voters very or somewhat confident, asked in the weeks after each November election. Winners of the presidency: Democratic 2012 and 2020, Republican 2016 and 2024. Read as very or somewhat confident (voters, post-election): % confident. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Republicans
- Democrats
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab [29]
Observations 1
After each election the winner's side becomes more confident
MIT's post-election survey of voters shows the swing directly: each party's confidence in the nationwide count rises after its candidate wins the presidency and falls after a loss (chart). 10
Earlier work on 2000–2012 put the average rise among winners at about 20 points for confidence in one's own vote, against a fall of about 2 points among losers. 11
In 2016 Democrats went from 15 points more confident than Republicans before the election to 13 points less confident after it. 12
About this data
Full published range: 2012–2024. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Survey of the Performance of American Elections, as charted in Figure 25 of How We Voted in 2024. The source's chart has no 2018 point, and its 2014 Democratic point is unlabelled, so 2014 is omitted. Values are the labels printed on the source chart.
Very or somewhat confident
Share of US adults very or somewhat confident, asked in spring or summer before each federal election. Leaners are counted with each party.
% confident, by survey fieldwork month
Share of US adults very or somewhat confident, asked in spring or summer before each federal election. Leaners are counted with each party. Read as very or somewhat confident: % confident. 2 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All adults
- Rep/lean Rep
- Dem/lean Dem
Events marked above
Biden takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Trump returns to office
Source: Gallup [15]
Source: Pew Research Center [30]
Observations 1
Ahead of the 2026 midterm, there is no partisan gap in Pew's measure
In July 2026 Republicans and Democrats were about equally confident that the November elections would be conducted fairly and accurately (chart). 13
Republican confidence rose and Democratic confidence fell after the change of administration (marked under the chart). The convergence came from both sides moving, not from either party's confidence reaching earlier highs. 13
About this data
Full published range: 2020-04–2026-07. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Pew's four published readings. For July 2026 the Democratic value is the 58% stated in Pew's text; the chart on the same page prints a net of 54 for Democrats, and Pew does not explain the difference.
Votes cast in person
Share of registered voters very or somewhat confident that votes cast each way across the US will be counted as intended, asked each October. Groups are supporters of each party's candidates (president in 2020 and 2024, House in 2022 and 2026).
% confident, by October of each election year
Share of registered voters very or somewhat confident that votes cast each way across the US will be counted as intended, asked each October. Groups are supporters of each party's candidates (president in 2020 and 2024, House in 2022 and 2026). Read as votes cast in person: % confident. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All voters
- Republican candidate supporters
- Democratic candidate supporters
Source: Pew Research Center [31]
Votes cast by absentee or mail-in ballot
% confident, by October of each election year
Share of registered voters very or somewhat confident that votes cast each way across the US will be counted as intended, asked each October. Groups are supporters of each party's candidates (president in 2020 and 2024, House in 2022 and 2026). Read as votes cast by absentee or mail-in ballot: % confident. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- All voters
- Republican candidate supporters
- Democratic candidate supporters
Source: Pew Research Center [31]
Observations 1
Confidence in mail ballots is lower and has fallen among Democrats in 2026
Voters are less confident in the mail count than the in-person count, and Democratic confidence in mail ballots fell sharply in 2026 while Republicans' edged up (chart). 14
Confidence follows voters' own method: 76% of mail and absentee voters are confident in the mail count, against 47% of in-person voters. 14 Mail-ballot rules are covered in a separate topic.
About this data
Full published range: 2020-10–2026-10. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Pew's four October readings. "All voters" includes registered voters who back neither party's candidates.
Confident in the honesty of elections
Share of US adults answering yes to whether they have confidence in the honesty of elections, the same question Gallup asks in more than 100 countries.
% answering yes, by survey year
Share of US adults answering yes to whether they have confidence in the honesty of elections, the same question Gallup asks in more than 100 countries. Read as confident in the honesty of elections: % answering yes. 4 dated events are numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- US adults
Events marked above
Obama takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Trump takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Biden takes office
Source: Gallup [15]
Trump returns to office
Source: Gallup [15]
Source: Gallup [32]
Observations 1
US confidence in election honesty has been low by this measure for two decades
US confidence in the honesty of elections has averaged 45% since 2006, with its low in 2016 (chart). 15 This is a different question from Gallup's domestic vote-count item, and gives lower figures.
Party was recorded only from 2024. That year the Democratic–Republican gap was 55 points; in 2025 it closed to 4 points. 15
In 2026 it reopened: 63% of Democrats were confident against 37% of Republicans. 15
About this data
Full published range: 2006–2026. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – Gallup's whole US World Poll series. The 2026 US survey was fielded May 1–June 10, 2026, by telephone, among adults aged 15 and older. Party is published only from 2024.
US confidence in the honesty of elections, by approval of national leadership, 2006–2026
Average share confident in the honesty of elections among Americans who approve and who disapprove of the country's leadership, by administration (Gallup World Poll).
% confident
- Bush 2006–08: approvers71%
- Bush 2006–08: disapprovers37%
- Obama 2009–16: approvers63%
- Obama 2009–16: disapprovers31%
- Trump I 2017–20: approvers64%
- Trump I 2017–20: disapprovers29%
- Biden 2021–24: approvers81%
- Biden 2021–24: disapprovers30%
- Trump II 2025–26: approvers47%
- Trump II 2025–26: disapprovers49%
Source: Gallup [15]
Observations 1
The approver–disapprover gap held for three presidents, widened under Biden and vanished in 2025
Americans who approved of national leadership were the more confident group under Bush, Obama and Trump's first term; under Biden the gap widened, and since 2025 it has vanished (chart). 15
Gallup attributes the collapse partly to approvers changing from mostly Democrats to mostly Republicans, and partly to Democratic confidence falling and Republican confidence rising under Trump. 15
About this data
Values are from the data table of Gallup's chart "Confidence in Honesty of Elections in U.S., by Approval of Country's Leadership". The article's text rounds the same Trump II averages to 46% and 48%, and its per-administration gaps (35, 30, 35 and 51 points) differ by a point from the table's because each is calculated before rounding. Approval of national leadership is used rather than party because the World Poll did not record US party identification before 2024.
Approvers and disapprovers of national leadership confident in election honesty: world median and the US
Share confident in the honesty of elections among those who approve and disapprove of their national leadership (Gallup World Poll). The world figure is the 2025 median across more than 100 countries.
% confident
- World median 2025: approvers70%
- World median 2025: disapprovers30%
- US 2025: approvers51%
- US 2025: disapprovers45%
- US 2026: approvers41%
- US 2026: disapprovers52%
Source: Gallup [15]
Observations 2
A winner–loser gap is the global norm; the US is now the exception
Experts rate US counting well even as public confidence divides
The Electoral Integrity Project's expert survey found US integrity scores fell in 2024, but rated "the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election" strong; the weak areas were "electoral boundaries, media and finance". 16 Expert scores measure the process, not public belief, and do not address whether ineligible people voted.
About this data
Gallup publishes only the global median, not each country's figures, so the full distribution cannot be shown here. The world median is for 2025 because Gallup's 2026 global collection was incomplete at publication.
Confident in the statewide count
Share of Georgia voters very or somewhat confident, in surveys after the 2020 election, in 2021, and after the 2022 midterm, the first general election under SB 202.
% confident, by survey wave
Share of Georgia voters very or somewhat confident, in surveys after the 2020 election, in 2021, and after the 2022 midterm, the first general election under SB 202. Read as confident in the statewide count: % confident. 1 dated event is numbered on a strip under the graph and listed below it. Use the Table switch to see every value.
- Democrats
- Republicans
Events marked above
Georgia SB 202 enacted
Tightened ID rules for mail ballots.
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab (M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee) [17]
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab (M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee) [33]
Observations 1
Georgia's confidence rebound came on the side that won
Republican confidence in Georgia's statewide count rebounded in 2022, the first general election under SB 202 (marked under the chart), while Democratic confidence dipped. 17
The authors caution that the rebound may reflect "the noted winner's effect", since the Georgia GOP won every statewide office except a Senate seat in 2022. 17 Voting itself went smoothly: 1.1% of respondents reported a problem casting a ballot. 17
About this data
Full published range: 2020–2022. Every plotted line runs the whole of it – All three waves in Hood and McKee's Figure 1. Independents are also charted in the source but their labels cannot be matched to years unambiguously, so they are omitted.
Georgia voters: did SB 202 change your confidence in Georgia elections? 2022
Self-reported effect of SB 202 on confidence, by party, among Georgia voters surveyed after the 2022 midterm (Hood and McKee).
Increased confidence · % of voters
- Republicans59.1%
- All voters42.2%
- Independents36.6%
- Democrats29.1%
Show all breakdowns
| Category | Increased confidence | Decreased confidence | Don't know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All voters | 42.2% | 24.6% | 33.2% | 100% |
| Republicans | 59.1% | 7% | 33.9% | 100% |
| Independents | 36.6% | 21.3% | 42.1% | 100% |
| Democrats | 29.1% | 46.8% | 24.1% | 100% |
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab (M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee) [17]
Observations 1
SB 202 raised confidence for most Republicans and lowered it for a plurality of Democrats
Most Republicans said SB 202 had increased their confidence; a plurality of Democrats said it had decreased theirs (chart). 17 A rule passed by one party raised confidence on that party's side and lowered it on the other.
About this data
From Table 1 of the report ("SB 202 and Its Effect on Voter Confidence"). "Increased" adds "greatly" and "somewhat increase" (all voters 14.7 + 27.5 = 42.2); "decreased" adds "somewhat" and "greatly decrease" (16.2 + 8.4 = 24.6); "don't know" is as published. Each row sums to 100, which is the bar total.
Studies of whether ID rules change confidence
Four studies of whether ID rules themselves move confidence, rather than who wins. They use different measures and periods, and their results differ.
| Data and design | Confidence measure | Finding | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stewart, Ansolabehere and Persily (2016) | National surveys; residents of ID and non-ID states compared | Confidence in elections; perceived impersonation | No greater confidence in ID states [19] |
| Cantoni and Pons (2019; QJE 2021) | 1.6 billion voter-file observations, 2008–2018; difference-in-differences | Perceived fraud | "no effect on fraud – actual or perceived" [20] |
| Milyo (2025, working paper) | Cooperative Election Study module, 2008–2022; within-state change in strict ID law, with party controls | Confidence in the honesty and integrity of state elections | High confidence up 14 percentage points [18] |
| Clinton (APSR) | Opinion data 2008–2024 and a 2024 survey experiment | Confidence in results | Voters trust results less under procedures they oppose; effects largest for voter ID [21] |
Sources: Jeffrey Milyo, Department of Economics, University of Missouri [18]; Stanford Law Review, vol. 68, no. 6 (Charles Stewart III, Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily) [19]; National Bureau of Economic Research (Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons) [20]; Election Law Blog (Rick Hasen, reproducing the APSR abstract) [21]
Observations 3
One study finds strict ID raises confidence
Milyo finds that adopting strict ID raised the probability of high confidence by 14 percentage points, "a 25% increase relative to the mean", using a direct question about the honesty and integrity of state elections and controlling for party. 18
He notes as "an important limitation" that few states adopted or removed strict ID in the period. 18
Two national studies find no effect on confidence
Stewart, Ansolabehere and Persily find that people in states with ID laws "do not have greater confidence in elections or perceive lower rates of voter impersonation fraud", and that many people do not know whether their state has such a law. 19
Cantoni and Pons find strict ID has "no effect on fraud – actual or perceived", alongside no effect on turnout. 20 Milyo attributes his different result to the direct confidence measure and longer period, not to his party controls. 18
Agreement with the rules matters as well as who wins
Clinton finds voters "less likely to express confidence in election results conducted using procedures they oppose", beyond the effects of partisan control and outcomes, with "particularly large" effects for voter ID laws and among Republicans and independents. 21
This fits the Georgia pattern. It suggests a rule raises confidence among its supporters and lowers it among its opponents, so its net effect on confidence depends on how widely it is supported.
About this data
What this measures. These are opinion surveys of adults or registered voters. Each pollster's figures are shown in its own series, because Pew counts independents who lean to a party as partisans and Gallup does not.
Wording differs. Gallup asks about "photo identification at their voting place", Pew about "government-issued photo identification".
What it does not measure. No series measures whether a given rule changed anyone's confidence; the four studies above take that up. Opinion polls are commonly read as evidence about fraud or access themselves; they measure belief, not the rate of either. For what is actually found, see the burdens of ID and citizenship rules and non-citizens on voter rolls.
How it compares. The only consistent cross-country measure here is Gallup's World Poll, which asks the same honesty question in more than 100 countries and publishes the global median. No source found gives per-country support for photo ID in the same wording, so support for ID rules has no international comparison.
Margin of error. Gallup's telephone polls have a margin of error of about ±4 points, so year-to-year moves of a few points in its policy series are within noise. Gallup itself calls Republicans' fall in early-voting support from 60% to 57% "not significantly different". 5
Federal and State Power Over Voter ID and Registration Rules
The Constitution gives election rules to states and Congress, not the President; both parties' national bills stalled in the Senate, and courts blocked the 2025 executive order's citizenship rule but not the 2026 order. [1][23][27][30][31][34][35]
The Elections Clause of the US Constitution, the source of state and congressional power over election rules.
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Observations 1
The Elections Clause names state legislatures and Congress, not the President
The clause says the times, places and manner of congressional elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations". 1
The President's part is the ordinary one for any law: every bill is presented to him to sign or veto. 2 The clause gives him no power to set election rules by order.
Key holdings on who sets the rules and what they may require, 2008–2026
The main court rulings on who sets voter ID and registration rules.
| Date and vote | Holding | |
|---|---|---|
| Crawford v. Marion County Election Board | 28 Apr 2008; 6–3, no majority opinion [7] | Upheld Indiana's photo-ID law for in-person voting against a facial challenge, on the record in that case [10] |
| Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona | 17 Jun 2013; 7–2 [6] | The NVRA bars Arizona from requiring documentary proof of citizenship from federal-form applicants; Congress's Elections Clause power is "paramount" but covers how elections are held, not who may vote [3] [4] [5] |
| Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute | 11 Jun 2018 | Ohio's process of removing voters who did not vote and did not return a notice does not violate the NVRA [15] |
| Moore v. Harper | 27 Jun 2023 | The Elections Clause does not shield state legislatures from review by state courts [14] |
| LULAC v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.) | 31 Oct 2025 | Permanently enjoined the EAC from implementing the 2025 order's proof-of-citizenship section [30] |
| California v. Trump (D. Mass.) | 24 Jun 2026, judgment 13 Jul 2026 | The challenged sections of the 2025 order exceed the President's constitutional authority and conflict with the NVRA, UOCAVA and HAVA; under appeal [31] [32] |
| Trump v. California | 24 Aug 2026; stay granted, 3 justices dissenting [34] [36] | The 2026 order is "an internal directive"; the states' challenge is likely not justiciable; no ruling on lawfulness [34] [35] [36] |
| SAVE database stay | 25 Sep 2026 | Stayed the June order blocking the revamped SAVE system, so DHS can use it again [37] |
Sources: Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [3]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [4]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [5]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [6]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [7]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [10]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [14]; Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [15]; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia [30]; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School [31]; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School [32]; Supreme Court of the United States [34]; Supreme Court of the United States [35]; Supreme Court of the United States [36]; OPB (NPR) [37]
Observations 5
The Supreme Court calls Congress's power over federal elections "paramount"
In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) the Court quoted its 1880 ruling: Congress's power over the times, places and manner of congressional elections "is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient". 3
On that basis it held that the NVRA overrode Arizona's demand for documentary proof of citizenship from people using the federal form. 5 A national ID or proof-of-citizenship law for federal elections would rest on this power.
The same ruling held that who may vote is for the states
The Court said the Elections Clause "empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them". 4 It added that Arizona could ask the Election Assistance Commission to add its requirement to the form's state-specific instructions, and go to court if refused. 5
Voter qualifications such as citizenship are set by the states; checking them at registration sits where the two powers meet.
Crawford (2008) upheld Indiana's photo-ID law without proof of impersonation in Indiana
Justice Stevens's lead opinion accepted Indiana's interests in deterring fraud and in public confidence, which "has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process". 9 It held those interests "both neutral and sufficiently strong" to defeat the facial challenge. 10
Three more justices concurred, finding the burden of a free photo ID "simply not severe". 7 13 The vote was 6–3, with no opinion joined by a majority. 7
The Crawford record contained no in-person impersonation in Indiana, and an estimated 43,000 residents without ID
The lead opinion said the only fraud the law addresses is in-person impersonation, and "the record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history". It relied instead on documented cases elsewhere. 8
It also recorded the trial court's estimate that around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state licence or ID card. 11 The dissent said the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State's citizens". 12
State courts can review state legislatures' election rules
Moore v. Harper (2023) held that the Elections Clause "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review". 14 "The states" in this argument means each state's whole constitutional system, including its courts and constitution, not only its legislature.
About this data
The ITCA vote of 7–2 is from the opinion's own line-up: Justice Scalia wrote for six justices, Justice Kennedy joined in part, and Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
Federal voting laws and bills on registration and ID, 1965–2026
The federal laws in force on registration and ID, and the main bills since 2021.
| What it does on registration and ID | Status | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 | Voting Rights Act | Section 2 bars voting practices, including registration procedures, that discriminate by race, colour or language-minority status [16] | In force; the preclearance formula was struck down in Shelby County (2013) [16] |
| 1993 | National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) | Registration by mail and at licence and benefits offices; a federal mail form that asks only for a sworn statement of citizenship; list-maintenance rules, including no systematic removals within 90 days of a federal election [17] [6] [21] | In force |
| 2002 | Help America Vote Act (HAVA) | Statewide registration databases; a licence number or last four Social Security digits on registrations; photo ID or a utility bill, bank statement or similar document for first-time voters who registered by mail [18] [19] [20] | In force |
| 2021–22 | Freedom to Vote Act (Democratic) | National early voting, same-day registration; ID states to accept alternatives [22] | Failed cloture, Oct 2021 and Jan 2022 (49–51) [22] [23] |
| 2025 | SAVE Act (Republican) | Documentary proof of citizenship to register [24] | Passed House, 220–208, 10 Apr 2025 [24] |
| 2026 | SAVE America Act (Republican) | Proof of citizenship to register and photo ID to vote [25] | Passed House 11 Feb and 22 Jul 2026; a separate photo-ID-only bill (S. 5271) failed cloture in the Senate, 52–46, 8 Aug 2026 [25] [26] [27] |
Sources: Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII) [6]; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [16]; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [17]; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division [18]; Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [19]; Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [20]; Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School [21]; Congressional Research Service [22]; United States Senate Periodical Press Gallery [23]; NBC News [24]; Just The News [25]; American Democracy Minute [26]; United States Senate [27]
Observations 4
Federal law already contains an ID rule, for first-time voters who registered by mail
Since 2002, HAVA has required a first-time voter who registered by mail to show one of these: 19
- "a current and valid photo identification"
- a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document with their name and address
A voter without one may cast a provisional ballot. 19 HAVA also bars states from processing a federal registration without a driver's licence number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. 20
The rule accepts non-photo documents and covers only first-time voters who registered by mail; it does not ask for proof of citizenship. 19
Congress has set national floors for registration and voting several times since 1965
The Voting Rights Act, the NVRA and HAVA each imposed rules on how states run federal elections: how people register, how rolls are cleaned and what new mail registrants must show. 16 17 18
They leave each state to choose what ID to ask for at the polls and whether to demand documents proving citizenship, within the limits ITCA set for the federal form. 5
The federal registration form asks only for a sworn statement of citizenship
The Freedom to Vote Act would have set national access rules and required ID states to accept alternatives
The bill would have required early voting, no-excuse absentee voting and same-day registration, and required states with ID laws "to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements". 22
The two parties' main bills of the past five years therefore both sought national standards, in opposite directions: one mandating ID and proof of citizenship, the other limiting what ID states could demand.
Recent national voting-rules bills fell short of 60 Senate votes
Senators voting yes on the two recorded cloture-type votes on national voting-rules bills, 2022 and 2026, against the 60 needed to end debate.
Senators voting yes
- Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (Democratic), 19 Jan 202249
- S. 5271, photo ID only (Republican), 8 Aug 202652
- Needed to end debate60
Source: United States Senate Periodical Press Gallery [23]; United States Senate [27]
Observations 3
Both parties' recent national bills stalled at the Senate's 60-vote threshold
The House has passed the SAVE Act or SAVE America Act three times
- 10 April 2025: the SAVE Act (proof of citizenship to register) passed 220–208, with four Democrats in favour. 24
- 11 February 2026: the SAVE America Act, which combined it with a photo-ID requirement, passed 218–213. 25
- 22 July 2026: the House passed it again, packaged with the National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate. 26
Status of the SAVE America Act on 23 October 2026: passed by the House, not by the Senate
After the 8 August vote, Republicans looked to the budget reconciliation process, which cannot be filibustered, as a route for the bill. A budget plan was paused when President Trump intervened. 28 No later Senate vote was found in reporting checked on 23 October 2026.
About this data
Yes votes only; the recorded results were 49–51 and 52–46. The 2022 vote was on the combined Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act vehicle (H.R. 5746). The 2026 vote was on a stripped-down version of the SAVE America Act requiring photo ID but no proof of citizenship, as reported by American Democracy Minute (an advocacy outlet) citing The Hill; the official Senate roll-call pages could not be fetched. The earlier 20 October 2021 cloture failure on the Freedom to Vote Act is not shown, because the source read does not give its tally. These are not the only Senate votes on either bill.
Live federal measures on 23 October 2026
Where each federal measure on proof of citizenship and ID stood ten days before the midterms.
| What it does | Status on 23 Oct 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| SAVE America Act | Proof of citizenship to register; photo ID to vote [25] | Passed House; not passed by Senate [25] [27] |
| Executive Order 14248 (25 Mar 2025) | Directs the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal form [29] | Proof-of-citizenship section permanently enjoined by two district courts; on appeal in the First Circuit [30] [32] |
| Executive Order 14399 (31 Mar 2026) | Directs DHS to compile "State Citizenship Lists" from federal records, including SAVE data [33] | District-court injunction stayed by the Supreme Court, 24 Aug 2026 [34] |
| Revamped SAVE database | DHS citizenship checks of whole voter rolls against linked Social Security records. The government reports more than 65 million voters verified in 26 states and 28,635 flagged as potential non-citizens [39] [38] | Blocked by a district judge in June 2026; that order stayed by the Supreme Court, 25 Sep 2026 [37] [39] |
Sources: Just The News [25]; United States Senate [27]; Federal Register [29]; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia [30]; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School [32]; Federal Register [33]; Supreme Court of the United States [34]; OPB (NPR) [37]; OPB (NPR) [38]; OPB (NPR) [39]
Observations 5
Two courts held the 2025 order's proof-of-citizenship section beyond presidential power
Executive Order 14248 told the Election Assistance Commission to require "documentary proof of United States citizenship" on the national mail registration form. 29
The federal court in Washington, D.C. permanently barred the commission from implementing that section in October 2025, on the plaintiffs' separation-of-powers claims. 30 The federal court in Massachusetts followed in June 2026, holding that the challenged sections "exceeded the President's constitutional authority" and conflicted with the NVRA, UOCAVA and HAVA. The government has appealed. 31 32
The Supreme Court let the 2026 order's citizenship lists proceed
Executive Order 14399 directs DHS to send each state a list of adult citizens built from federal citizenship, Social Security and SAVE records. 33
On 24 August 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the injunction against it, calling the order "an internal directive" that "neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch". It held the states were unlikely to have standing, since they need not use the lists. 34
That stay was not a ruling on whether the order is lawful
The majority wrote that its ruling "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell." 35 The dissent said the decision "merely postpones adjudication" of whether the President's actions are lawful. 36
The only merits rulings on presidential power so far are the two district-court rulings on the 2025 order. 31
The revamped SAVE database is back in use, with no published error rate
A district judge blocked the revamped SAVE system in June 2026 under the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 39 In September the Supreme Court stayed that order, saying it stopped "individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law" during the 90 days before an election. 37
The checks and flags in the table are the government's own figures, and its opponents said no error rate had been released. 38 What those flags turned out to be is in the report on non-citizens on voter rolls.
States still set most ID rules, and those rules keep changing
The number of states asking for ID at the polls has nearly tripled since 2000, reaching 36 in September 2026. Thirteen states had passed proof-of-citizenship laws by July 2026; not all are in effect because of court rulings. 40 41 42
The Supreme Court let New Hampshire enforce a new law dropping student IDs on 22 October 2026, saying lower federal courts "should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election". 43 The state-by-state detail and its trend are in the report on voter ID rules.
This report is a dated legal record. It is as of 23 October 2026, ten days before the midterms, and several items will change soon: the SAVE America Act in a lame-duck session, the First Circuit appeals, and the litigation over the SAVE database.
Subtleties
This is a legal record, so it has no trend chart
Laws, orders and rulings are dated events, not quantities measured each year, so there is no time series of federal power to plot. This report's chart compares Senate votes instead.
The one countable trend in this area, the number of states with ID laws, is charted in the voter ID rules report to keep one copy of that data. Its NCSL counts are quoted above. 40 41
"The courts blocked Trump's election order" mixes up two orders
Crawford turned on the record in that case
The lead opinion rejected a facial challenge "on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation". 10 It did not hold that every photo-ID law is valid, or that a challenge brought by voters who show a heavy burden must fail. Indiana's law offered free ID, and did not apply to absentee ballots sent by mail. 8
ITCA did not decide whether states may ever require proof of citizenship
The ruling covered applicants using the federal form, and left Arizona free to ask the Election Assistance Commission to add proof of citizenship to its state instructions. 5
It also said it "would raise serious constitutional doubts" if federal law kept a state from getting the information needed to enforce its voter qualifications — a route by which a state could seek the information it needs. 4
Data still needed
- A complete, current classification of polling-place ID rules for every OECD member, from a neutral source such as the Comparative Voter Identification Law dataset (Barton, Representation, 2022)The G7 table here is verified from each country's own law, but G7 is a small group. The only OECD-wide counts found come from advocacy sources and disagree, and the CVIL article could not be fetched, so the US cannot yet be placed in the full distribution of rich democracies.
- Which strict-photo-ID states issue a free ID card for voting, with the documents needed to get oneWhether the ID is free and easy to obtain is the core of the Carter–Baker bargain and of the burden argument; NCSL's tables name Georgia's free card and Wisconsin's free temporary ID but do not list every state.
- Personation allegations and convictions in Great Britain before and after 2023 on one consistent annual basis, and the May 2025 turnaway figuresThe Commons Library summarises the allegations in passing, and the Electoral Commission's voter-ID report stops at July 2024, so the before-and-after series in Britain is incomplete.
- The share of Canadian non-voters who could not prove identity or address, separated from other electoral-process reasonsStatistics Canada publishes only the combined category, so the burden of Canada's ID rule cannot be read off the series directly.
Sources
Voter ID and Citizenship-Proof Rules in the US and Other Democracies
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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))”
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))
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
Thirty-one states presently have laws in place that will require all voters to show ID at the polls this November.
- 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]”
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]
- 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]”
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]
- 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]”
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]
- 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]”
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]
- 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]”
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]
- 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]”
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]
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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).”
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).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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…”
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…
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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%).”
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%).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
(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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
(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.
- 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.”
(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.
- 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”
(1) Von Amts wegen sind in das Wählerverzeichnis alle Wahlberechtigten einzutragen, die am 42. Tage vor der Wahl (Stichtag) bei der Meldebehörde gemeldet sind
- 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.”
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.
- 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。”
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。
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
Election Fraud and Voter Exclusion in the US, 1870s–2026
- Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section for 1984
US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, 1985-04 · supports
“Illinois, N.D. - In an investigation in the City of Chicago, fifty-eight individuals, including city employees and election judges, thus far have been convicted of vote fraud in the November 1982, general election. The investigation continues. … Texas, S.D. - A total of twenty-nine persons were indicted, and twenty-one persons convicted, of buying votes with food stamps and welfare benefits in Duval County, Texas. This series of cases focused on the 1982 Texas primary election, and was investigated jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Texas Rangers.”
Illinois, N.D. - In an investigation in the City of Chicago, fifty-eight individuals, including city employees and election judges, thus far have been convicted of vote fraud in the November 1982, general election. The investigation continues. … Texas, S.D. - A total of twenty-nine persons were indicted, and twenty-one persons convicted, of buying votes with food stamps and welfare benefits in Duval County, Texas. This series of cases focused on the 1982 Texas primary election, and was investigated jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Texas Rangers.
- An Interview with Dan Webb (IST-A-L-2016-034), abstract
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, 2016-12 · supports
“The FBI conducted an extensive investigation, and a grand jury issued a report detailing the scope and breadth of the vote fraud. Webb’s office cooperated with the FBI during its investigation and prosecuted sixty five individuals for federal election crimes; sixty-three of those were convicted.”
The FBI conducted an extensive investigation, and a grand jury issued a report detailing the scope and breadth of the vote fraud. Webb’s office cooperated with the FBI during its investigation and prosecuted sixty five individuals for federal election crimes; sixty-three of those were convicted.
- United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1985-04-15 · supports
“On the day of the general election, Hicks distributed ballot applications, along with the names of registered voters who had moved away or died, to the election judges, including the appellant. The election judges completed the ballot applications with the names of the phantom voters. Then, using the fraudulent ballot applications, the election judges cast votes according to Hicks’ instructions. … Appellant watched as Hicks solicited voters and paid them $2.00 per vote. As a result of these activities, more than one-third of the 330 votes cast in the 17th precinct that election day were fraudulent. … In over two hours of voting, approximately 52 residents voted. Appellant and the other election judges cast nearly all of those votes for the straight Democratic Party ticket by punching 10. During the voting, a Democratic Party election judge paid residents small amounts of money for their votes as appellant watched.”
On the day of the general election, Hicks distributed ballot applications, along with the names of registered voters who had moved away or died, to the election judges, including the appellant. The election judges completed the ballot applications with the names of the phantom voters. Then, using the fraudulent ballot applications, the election judges cast votes according to Hicks’ instructions. … Appellant watched as Hicks solicited voters and paid them $2.00 per vote. As a result of these activities, more than one-third of the 330 votes cast in the 17th precinct that election day were fraudulent. … In over two hours of voting, approximately 52 residents voted. Appellant and the other election judges cast nearly all of those votes for the straight Democratic Party ticket by punching 10. During the voting, a Democratic Party election judge paid residents small amounts of money for their votes as appellant watched.
- United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1985-10-09 · supports
“including the defendant Cusack, falsely registered to vote by claiming to reside at addresses within the precinct when they actually resided elsewhere. … Although the canvass disclosed that a number of persons who were registered to vote in the precinct had died, moved away, or for some other reason had become ineligible to vote, these persons were not struck from the list of eligible voters. … Watson testified that on election day the defendants gave her slips of paper with names on them and instructed her to cast ballots for the straight Democratic ticket using these names, and that over the course of the day she did fill out several ballot applications and cast several ballots using these names.”
including the defendant Cusack, falsely registered to vote by claiming to reside at addresses within the precinct when they actually resided elsewhere. … Although the canvass disclosed that a number of persons who were registered to vote in the precinct had died, moved away, or for some other reason had become ineligible to vote, these persons were not struck from the list of eligible voters. … Watson testified that on election day the defendants gave her slips of paper with names on them and instructed her to cast ballots for the straight Democratic ticket using these names, and that over the course of the day she did fill out several ballot applications and cast several ballots using these names.
- Kasper v. Board of Election Commissioners, 814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1987-01-27 · supports
“The dead awaken just in time to vote on election day. By one estimate in this litigation, 9% of the “voters” registered in Chicago are tombstones, vacant lots, and people who have moved out of the city. These ghost voters answer the call of precinct captains, who vote their proxies on election day or find some reliable party member to do so. Cooperative election judges refrain from challenging multiple votes by the same person under different names.”
The dead awaken just in time to vote on election day. By one estimate in this litigation, 9% of the “voters” registered in Chicago are tombstones, vacant lots, and people who have moved out of the city. These ghost voters answer the call of precinct captains, who vote their proxies on election day or find some reliable party member to do so. Cooperative election judges refrain from challenging multiple votes by the same person under different names.
- In re Contest of the Election for the Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, 93 Ill. 2d 463
Supreme Court of Illinois (via Caselaw Access Project), 1983-01-07 · complicates
“Thus, the certification revealed that the Republican candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, Thompson and Ryan, had been elected by a plurality of 5,074 votes.”
Thus, the certification revealed that the Republican candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, Thompson and Ryan, had been elected by a plurality of 5,074 votes.
- Snapshot History: Maurice Milligan
US Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri, 2015-02-26 · supports
“Local election results often showed vote totals for machine candidates that exceeded the total population in several wards and precincts. … U.S. Attorney Maurice M. Milligan and his staff prosecuted the resulting vote fraud cases for a total of 259 convictions.”
Local election results often showed vote totals for machine candidates that exceeded the total population in several wards and precincts. … U.S. Attorney Maurice M. Milligan and his staff prosecuted the resulting vote fraud cases for a total of 259 convictions.
- Devoe v. United States, 103 F.2d 584 (8th Cir. 1939)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1939-05-03 · supports
“Hayde succeeded in getting upon the list about 150 “ghosts and sleepers”; that late in October, 1936, Hayde asked Frances Ryan and Devoe how they were going to handle the precinct with respect to the “ghosts and sleepers” and whether they were going to send people to cast the “ghost and sleeper” vote; that they told him that they were not sending repeaters to the precinct, and that it would be easier to write in the votes for the “ghosts and sleepers” … that he prepared the ballots for the “ghosts and sleepers”, and, with some considerable difficulty, succeeded in stuffing the ballot box with these votes; that the stuffing was completed before the polls were closed; that the votes which had been cast were not counted … The Republican candidate for Congress received in fact 120 votes … His Democratic opponent was given 605 votes, when in fact he received 515 votes. … The judgment is affirmed.”
Hayde succeeded in getting upon the list about 150 “ghosts and sleepers”; that late in October, 1936, Hayde asked Frances Ryan and Devoe how they were going to handle the precinct with respect to the “ghosts and sleepers” and whether they were going to send people to cast the “ghost and sleeper” vote; that they told him that they were not sending repeaters to the precinct, and that it would be easier to write in the votes for the “ghosts and sleepers” … that he prepared the ballots for the “ghosts and sleepers”, and, with some considerable difficulty, succeeded in stuffing the ballot box with these votes; that the stuffing was completed before the polls were closed; that the votes which had been cast were not counted … The Republican candidate for Congress received in fact 120 votes … His Democratic opponent was given 605 votes, when in fact he received 515 votes. … The judgment is affirmed.
- Luteran v. United States, 93 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1937)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1937-11-29 · supports
“About 7:30 in the evening, a half hour after the polls closed, Luteran announced that he would have to have about 150 more votes. Over the protest of some of the officials, but with the assistance of others, about 150 names furnished by Luteran were written into the poll book and a like number of ballots put in the box. … Approximately 95 ballots showed that they had been changed from Republican ballots to Democratic ballots.”
About 7:30 in the evening, a half hour after the polls closed, Luteran announced that he would have to have about 150 more votes. Over the protest of some of the officials, but with the assistance of others, about 150 names furnished by Luteran were written into the poll book and a like number of ballots put in the box. … Approximately 95 ballots showed that they had been changed from Republican ballots to Democratic ballots.
- Walker v. United States, 93 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1937)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1937-11-29 · supports
“she saw Drummond put a handful of ballots in the box, “seemingly from his pocket.” She observed one of the men who had threatened Mrs. Aulgur vote repeatedly, as much as two or three times at that voting place … The judgments appealed from are therefore affirmed.”
she saw Drummond put a handful of ballots in the box, “seemingly from his pocket.” She observed one of the men who had threatened Mrs. Aulgur vote repeatedly, as much as two or three times at that voting place … The judgments appealed from are therefore affirmed.
- United States v. Clark, 19 F. Supp. 981 (W.D. Mo. 1937)
US District Court, Western District of Missouri (via Caselaw Access Project), 1937-06-29 · supports
“This was the ninth in a series of similar cases, all revealing similar shameful debaucheries of the ballot box, in no one of which has a single individual among those charged been found not guilty by a jury.”
This was the ninth in a series of similar cases, all revealing similar shameful debaucheries of the ballot box, in no one of which has a single individual among those charged been found not guilty by a jury.
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1879-10 · supports
“were judges of election at different voting precincts in the city of Baltimore, at the election held in that city, and in the State of Maryland, on the fifth day of November, 1878, at which representatives to the Forty-sixth Congress were voted for. … by then and there fraudulently and clandestinely putting and placing in the ballot-box of the said precinct twenty (and more) ballots … This charge, it will be observed, is for the offence commonly known as “ stuffing the ballot-box. … upon which indictments they were severally tried, convicted, and sentenced by said court to fine and imprisonment.”
were judges of election at different voting precincts in the city of Baltimore, at the election held in that city, and in the State of Maryland, on the fifth day of November, 1878, at which representatives to the Forty-sixth Congress were voted for. … by then and there fraudulently and clandestinely putting and placing in the ballot-box of the said precinct twenty (and more) ballots … This charge, it will be observed, is for the offence commonly known as “ stuffing the ballot-box. … upon which indictments they were severally tried, convicted, and sentenced by said court to fine and imprisonment.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), lead opinion, note 11
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 2008-04-28 · supports
“Infamous examples abound in the New York City elections of the late 19th century, conducted under the influence of the Tammany Hall political machine. “Big Tim” Sullivan, a New York state senator and — briefly—a United States Congressman, insisted that his “repeaters” (individuals paid to vote multiple times) have whiskers … M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928).”
Infamous examples abound in the New York City elections of the late 19th century, conducted under the influence of the Tammany Hall political machine. “Big Tim” Sullivan, a New York state senator and — briefly—a United States Congressman, insisted that his “repeaters” (individuals paid to vote multiple times) have whiskers … M. Werner, Tammany Hall 439 (1928).
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), lead opinion
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 2008-04-28 · contests
“The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), lead opinion, note 12
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 2008-04-28 · supports
“While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud. For example, after a hotly contested gubernatorial election in 2004, Washington conducted an investigation of voter fraud and uncovered 19 “ghost voters.” … After a partial investigation of the ghost voting, one voter was confirmed to have committed in-person voting fraud.”
While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud. For example, after a hotly contested gubernatorial election in 2004, Washington conducted an investigation of voter fraud and uncovered 19 “ghost voters.” … After a partial investigation of the ghost voting, one voter was confirmed to have committed in-person voting fraud.
- United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1915-06-21 · supports
“The first charges a conspiracy of the two defendants, who were officers and a majority of the county election board of Blaine County, Oklahoma, to injure and oppress certain legally qualified electors … To that end, it is alleged, the defendants agreed that irrespective of the precinct returns being lawful and regular they would omit them from their count and from their returns to the state election board. … Judgment reversed.”
The first charges a conspiracy of the two defendants, who were officers and a majority of the county election board of Blaine County, Oklahoma, to injure and oppress certain legally qualified electors … To that end, it is alleged, the defendants agreed that irrespective of the precinct returns being lawful and regular they would omit them from their count and from their returns to the state election board. … Judgment reversed.
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1941-05-26 · supports
“The first count of the indictment alleged that a primary election was held on September 10, 1940, for the purpose of nominating a candidate of … The overt acts alleged were that the appellees altered eighty-three ballots cast for one candidate and fourteen cast for another, marking and counting .them as votes for a third candidate, and that they falsely certified the number of votes cast for the respective candidates to the chairman of the Second Congressional District Committee.”
The first count of the indictment alleged that a primary election was held on September 10, 1940, for the purpose of nominating a candidate of … The overt acts alleged were that the appellees altered eighty-three ballots cast for one candidate and fourteen cast for another, marking and counting .them as votes for a third candidate, and that they falsely certified the number of votes cast for the respective candidates to the chairman of the Second Congressional District Committee.
- United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1944-05-22 · supports
“The indictment charged that a general election was held November 3, 1942, in Harlan County, Kentucky, for the purpose of electing a Senator of the United States, at which election the defendants served as the duly qualified officers of election … The indictment charged that the defendants, pursuant to their plan, tore from the official ballot book and stub book furnished them, blank unvoted ballots and marked, forged, and voted the same for the candidate of a given party … Reversed.”
The indictment charged that a general election was held November 3, 1942, in Harlan County, Kentucky, for the purpose of electing a Senator of the United States, at which election the defendants served as the duly qualified officers of election … The indictment charged that the defendants, pursuant to their plan, tore from the official ballot book and stub book furnished them, blank unvoted ballots and marked, forged, and voted the same for the candidate of a given party … Reversed.
- Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (1974)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1974-06-03 · supports
“The evidence at trial showed that by using the power of their office, the petitioners convinced three election officials in charge of the Mount Gay precinct in Logan County to cast false and fictitious votes on the voting machines and then to destroy poll slips so that the number of persons who had actually voted could not be determined except from the machine tally. … On May 12, 1970, a primary election was held in West Virginia … Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals without passing on its interpretation of § 241.”
The evidence at trial showed that by using the power of their office, the petitioners convinced three election officials in charge of the Mount Gay precinct in Logan County to cast false and fictitious votes on the voting machines and then to destroy poll slips so that the number of persons who had actually voted could not be determined except from the machine tally. … On May 12, 1970, a primary election was held in West Virginia … Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals without passing on its interpretation of § 241.
- Johnson v. Stevenson, 170 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1948)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1948-10-07 · complicates
“Johnson also filed under oath what he calls an opposition to the temporary injunction which takes issue with some of the factual allegations of the petition and proposes at a proper time and in a proper forum to show illegal votes in larger numbers which were counted for Stevenson than those Stevenson claims were fraudulently counted for Johnson.”
Johnson also filed under oath what he calls an opposition to the temporary injunction which takes issue with some of the factual allegations of the petition and proposes at a proper time and in a proper forum to show illegal votes in larger numbers which were counted for Stevenson than those Stevenson claims were fraudulently counted for Johnson.
- Should Nixon Have Demanded a Recount? (on Kallina, Journal of American Studies, 1978)
JSTOR Daily, 2016-12-02 · complicates
“When Kennedy won the state with 9,000 more votes than Richard Nixon, Republicans quickly accused the Democrats of tampering with the vote. … Where this was possible—in precincts using paper ballots—the recount showed that a considerable number of votes appeared to have been stolen from Adamowski, but much fewer from Nixon. Kallina argues that, if the recount had been able to detect fraud in machine voting as well, Adamowski would have won, but Nixon would still have lost.”
When Kennedy won the state with 9,000 more votes than Richard Nixon, Republicans quickly accused the Democrats of tampering with the vote. … Where this was possible—in precincts using paper ballots—the recount showed that a considerable number of votes appeared to have been stolen from Adamowski, but much fewer from Nixon. Kallina argues that, if the recount had been able to detect fraud in machine voting as well, Adamowski would have won, but Nixon would still have lost.
- Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section for 1983
US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, 1984-04 · supports
“Alice Mae Yarborough and her daughter Vernie Mae Yarborough pled guilty to one count of multiple voting in the June 8, 1982 primary election in Darlington County, South Carolina … In Statesville, North Carolina, five defendants were convicted and sentenced for their roles in subverting the 1982 general election in Alexander County, North Carolina. … The Yarboroughs were poil officials who utilized their access to the poll list an voting machine to forge voter's names and vote numerous ballots for "no show" voters during the election. … The indictment alleged that the defendants defrauded the voters of Luzerne County of their right to fair and non-corrupt elections by submitting false and fraudulent absentee ballot materials. … A federal jury had convicted four of the defendants of mail fraud, conspiracy, and multiple-voting for their fraudulent voting of absentee ballots of nursing home residents. … The lead defendants, Deputy Sheriff Mark Douglas Odom and Deputy Clerk of Court Joyce Geraldine Beach … In Bryson City, North Carolina, eight defendants were convicted and sentenced for their roles in subverting the November 1982 election in Clay County, North Carolina. The trial evidence showed a massive vote-buying scheme, with the detendants purchasing votes for the Democratic Party slate at prices ranging between $50 and $125 per voter. … Former Republican Sheriff Hartsell Moore, who was defeated by Barnard in his 1982 reelection effort, received a prison term of 15 months and a $2,000 fine on his guilty plea to two counts of vote-buying. … a successful scheme to fraudulently affect the outcome of a close legislative contest for Missouri State Representative in 1980.”
Alice Mae Yarborough and her daughter Vernie Mae Yarborough pled guilty to one count of multiple voting in the June 8, 1982 primary election in Darlington County, South Carolina … In Statesville, North Carolina, five defendants were convicted and sentenced for their roles in subverting the 1982 general election in Alexander County, North Carolina. … The Yarboroughs were poil officials who utilized their access to the poll list an voting machine to forge voter's names and vote numerous ballots for "no show" voters during the election. … The indictment alleged that the defendants defrauded the voters of Luzerne County of their right to fair and non-corrupt elections by submitting false and fraudulent absentee ballot materials. … A federal jury had convicted four of the defendants of mail fraud, conspiracy, and multiple-voting for their fraudulent voting of absentee ballots of nursing home residents. … The lead defendants, Deputy Sheriff Mark Douglas Odom and Deputy Clerk of Court Joyce Geraldine Beach … In Bryson City, North Carolina, eight defendants were convicted and sentenced for their roles in subverting the November 1982 election in Clay County, North Carolina. The trial evidence showed a massive vote-buying scheme, with the detendants purchasing votes for the Democratic Party slate at prices ranging between $50 and $125 per voter. … Former Republican Sheriff Hartsell Moore, who was defeated by Barnard in his 1982 reelection effort, received a prison term of 15 months and a $2,000 fine on his guilty plea to two counts of vote-buying. … a successful scheme to fraudulently affect the outcome of a close legislative contest for Missouri State Representative in 1980.
- United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via Caselaw Access Project), 1988-03-25 · supports
“On one occasion Wellington Hamilton Lemmer (a campaign worker for the Seventh Ward Organization and a confidential government informant) entered Webbe’s office at the Seventh Ward Organization. Lemmer saw Webbe, Townsley (a close associate of Webbe, Jr. and an integral member of the Seventh Ward Organization) and two others with opened absentee ballots and observed that they were punching holes in the ballots. … For reasons to be stated, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
On one occasion Wellington Hamilton Lemmer (a campaign worker for the Seventh Ward Organization and a confidential government informant) entered Webbe’s office at the Seventh Ward Organization. Lemmer saw Webbe, Townsley (a close associate of Webbe, Jr. and an integral member of the Seventh Ward Organization) and two others with opened absentee ballots and observed that they were punching holes in the ballots. … For reasons to be stated, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004)
Supreme Court of Indiana (via Caselaw Access Project), 2004-08-06 · supports
“Of the 8,227 votes personally cast on election day, Pabey received 199 more votes than Pastrick. But of the 1,950 absentee ballots, Pastrick defeated Pabey by 477 votes … their unauthorized possession of completed ballots [a species of vote fraud defined by Ind.Code 3-14-2-16(4) and (5) ], the unauthorized possession of unmarked ballots [a species of "vote fraud" per Ind.Code 3-14-2-16(6) ], their presence while voters marked and completed their absentee ballots … and the direct solicitation of a vote for cash all yielded absentee votes which respondent Pastrick concedes are invalid. … We reverse the trial court's determination denying a special election and remand to the trial court with directions to promptly order a special election”
Of the 8,227 votes personally cast on election day, Pabey received 199 more votes than Pastrick. But of the 1,950 absentee ballots, Pastrick defeated Pabey by 477 votes … their unauthorized possession of completed ballots [a species of vote fraud defined by Ind.Code 3-14-2-16(4) and (5) ], the unauthorized possession of unmarked ballots [a species of "vote fraud" per Ind.Code 3-14-2-16(6) ], their presence while voters marked and completed their absentee ballots … and the direct solicitation of a vote for cash all yielded absentee votes which respondent Pastrick concedes are invalid. … We reverse the trial court's determination denying a special election and remand to the trial court with directions to promptly order a special election
- Do absentee ballots facilitate fraud?
NBC News, 2008-10-16 · supports
“Forty-seven people either pleaded guilty or were convicted of various crimes as a result of the investigation.”
Forty-seven people either pleaded guilty or were convicted of various crimes as a result of the investigation.
- Order in the Matter of Investigation of Election Irregularities Affecting Counties Within the 9th Congressional District
North Carolina State Board of Elections, 2019-03-13 · supports
“After the 2018 General Election, districtwide, the apparent results of CD-9 were as follows: Harris 139,246, McCready 138,341, and Scott 5,130. Accordingly, Harris led by a margin of 905 votes, or 0.3% of the total number of votes tallied. … Dowless hired workers he paid in cash to collect absentee request forms, to collect absentee ballots, and to falsify absentee ballot witness certifications. … such as falsely witnessing ballots, filling out ballots, and tracing over signatures of witnesses to match the ink color of the voter. … the 2018 General Election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District was corrupted by fraud, improprieties, and irregularities so pervasive that its results are tainted as the fruit of an operation manifestly unfair to the voters and corrosive to our system of representative government.”
After the 2018 General Election, districtwide, the apparent results of CD-9 were as follows: Harris 139,246, McCready 138,341, and Scott 5,130. Accordingly, Harris led by a margin of 905 votes, or 0.3% of the total number of votes tallied. … Dowless hired workers he paid in cash to collect absentee request forms, to collect absentee ballots, and to falsify absentee ballot witness certifications. … such as falsely witnessing ballots, filling out ballots, and tracing over signatures of witnesses to match the ink color of the voter. … the 2018 General Election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District was corrupted by fraud, improprieties, and irregularities so pervasive that its results are tainted as the fruit of an operation manifestly unfair to the voters and corrosive to our system of representative government.
- With two guilty pleas, NC9 election fraud saga comes to an end
WSOC-TV, 2025-03-21 · supports
“Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman confirmed Lisa Britt and Woody Hester both pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the investigation. … Dowless died before facing a judge. All other workers pleaded guilty.”
Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman confirmed Lisa Britt and Woody Hester both pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the investigation. … Dowless died before facing a judge. All other workers pleaded guilty.
- After voter fraud allegations, judge orders new election in Paterson
New Jersey Globe, 2020-08-19 · supports
“Judge Ernest Caposela today ordered a new election in a Paterson city council election that led to criminal charges against the winner and others. … Mendez is accused of fraud in casting mail-in votes, unauthorized possession of ballots, tampering with public records, and falsifying or tampering with records.”
Judge Ernest Caposela today ordered a new election in a Paterson city council election that led to criminal charges against the winner and others. … Mendez is accused of fraud in casting mail-in votes, unauthorized possession of ballots, tampering with public records, and falsifying or tampering with records.
- Voter fraud charges against Paterson councilman dropped after six years
New Jersey Globe, 2026-04-13 · complicates
“Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed dismissed the case on speedy trial grounds and the state prosecutors’ failure to disclose an immunity agreement that had been reached with a key witness, according to the Paterson Press. … when the U.S. Postal Inspection Service found hundreds of mail-in ballots bound together in a series of mail deposit boxes.”
Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed dismissed the case on speedy trial grounds and the state prosecutors’ failure to disclose an immunity agreement that had been reached with a key witness, according to the Paterson Press. … when the U.S. Postal Inspection Service found hundreds of mail-in ballots bound together in a series of mail deposit boxes.
- Prosecutors will drop criminal charges against Paterson’s Michael Jackson
New Jersey Globe, 2026-05-15 · complicates
“While vacating the charges against Jackson, Davenport is taking a different approach with Mendez. Her office moved yesterday to appeal the dismissal of his indictment by a Superior Court judge last month.”
While vacating the charges against Jackson, Davenport is taking a different approach with Mendez. Her office moved yesterday to appeal the dismissal of his indictment by a Superior Court judge last month.
- Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed
News21, 2012-08-12 · supports
“A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. … Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. … There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases. … Of reported election-fraud allegations in the database whose resolution could be determined, 46 percent resulted in acquittals, dropped charges or decisions not to bring charges.”
A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. … Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. … There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases. … Of reported election-fraud allegations in the database whose resolution could be determined, 46 percent resulted in acquittals, dropped charges or decisions not to bring charges.
- A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
The Washington Post (Justin Levitt), 2014-08-06 · supports
“requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else … I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix. So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”
requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else … I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix. So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
- Election Fraud Map data file (vfdb.csv), archived 27 July 2026
The Heritage Foundation, 2026-07-27 · complicates
“id,full_name,year,outcome,source,case_type,fraud_type,fraud_type_code,state … Barry Morphew was charged with one count of forgery and one count of a mail-in ballot offense after submitting a completed absentee ballot on behalf of his missing wife during the 2020 general election in Chaffee County.”
id,full_name,year,outcome,source,case_type,fraud_type,fraud_type_code,state … Barry Morphew was charged with one count of forgery and one count of a mail-in ballot offense after submitting a completed absentee ballot on behalf of his missing wife during the 2020 general election in Chaffee County.
- Election Fraud Map: A Sampling of Proven Instances of Election Fraud
The Heritage Foundation, 2025-12-12 · complicates
“The Election Fraud Map displays a sampling of proven instances of election fraud. Every case ended in a finding that the individual engaged in wrongdoing in an election hoping to affect its outcome—or that the results were sufficiently in question to be overturned. While not comprehensive, this map demonstrates vulnerabilities in the election process and the ways in which fraud is committed.”
The Election Fraud Map displays a sampling of proven instances of election fraud. Every case ended in a finding that the individual engaged in wrongdoing in an election hoping to affect its outcome—or that the results were sufficiently in question to be overturned. While not comprehensive, this map demonstrates vulnerabilities in the election process and the ways in which fraud is committed.
- Building Confidence in U.S. Elections
Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter–Baker), 2005-09 · complicates
“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. … A good ID system could deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud— such as multiple voting or voting by individuals using the identities of others or those who are deceased — and thus it can enhance confidence. … Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”
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. … A good ID system could deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud— such as multiple voting or voting by individuals using the identities of others or those who are deceased — and thus it can enhance confidence. … Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.
- Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1965-03-08 · supports
“beginning with the adoption of the Louisiana Constitution of 1898, when approximately 44% of all the registered voters in the State were Negroes, the State had put into effect a successful policy of denying Negro citizens the right to vote because of their race. … From the adoption of the 1921 interpretation test until 1944, the District Court’s opinion stated, the percentage of registered voters in Louisiana who were Negroes never exceeded one percent. … in the next dozen years the proportion of registered voters who were Negroes rose from two-tenths of one percent to approximately 15% by March 1956. … The committee and the Citizens Councils also began a wholesale challenging of Negro names already on the voting rolls, with the result that thousands of Negroes, but virtually no whites, were purged from the rolls of voters. … The interpretation test, the court found, vested in the voting registrars a virtually uncontrolled discretion as to who should vote and who should not.”
beginning with the adoption of the Louisiana Constitution of 1898, when approximately 44% of all the registered voters in the State were Negroes, the State had put into effect a successful policy of denying Negro citizens the right to vote because of their race. … From the adoption of the 1921 interpretation test until 1944, the District Court’s opinion stated, the percentage of registered voters in Louisiana who were Negroes never exceeded one percent. … in the next dozen years the proportion of registered voters who were Negroes rose from two-tenths of one percent to approximately 15% by March 1956. … The committee and the Citizens Councils also began a wholesale challenging of Negro names already on the voting rolls, with the result that thousands of Negroes, but virtually no whites, were purged from the rolls of voters. … The interpretation test, the court found, vested in the voting registrars a virtually uncontrolled discretion as to who should vote and who should not.
- South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1966-03-07 · supports
“According to estimates by the Attorney General during hearings on the Act, registration of voting-age Negroes in Alabama rose only from 14.2% to 19.4% between 1958 and 1964; in Louisiana it barely inched ahead from 31.7% to 31.8% between 1956 and 1965; and in Mississippi it increased only from 4.4% to 6.4% between 1954 and 1964. In each instance, registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead of Negro registration.”
According to estimates by the Attorney General during hearings on the Act, registration of voting-age Negroes in Alabama rose only from 14.2% to 19.4% between 1958 and 1964; in Louisiana it barely inched ahead from 31.7% to 31.8% between 1956 and 1965; and in Mississippi it increased only from 4.4% to 6.4% between 1954 and 1964. In each instance, registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead of Negro registration.
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 2013-06-25 · supports
“The following chart, compiled from the Senate and House Reports, compares voter registration numbers from 1965 to those from 2004 in the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before Congress when it reauthorized the Act in 2006: 1965 2004 White Black Gap White Black Gap Alabama 69.2 19.3 49.9 73.8 72.9 0.9 Georgia 62.[6] 27.4 35.2 63.5 64.2 -0.7 Louisiana 80.5 31.6 48.9 75.1 71.1 4.0 Mississippi 69.9 6.7 63.2 72.3 76.1 -3.8 South 75.7 37.3 38.4 74.4 71.1 3.3 Carolina Virginia 61.1 38.3 22.8 68.2 57.4 10.8 … There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act.”
The following chart, compiled from the Senate and House Reports, compares voter registration numbers from 1965 to those from 2004 in the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before Congress when it reauthorized the Act in 2006: 1965 2004 White Black Gap White Black Gap Alabama 69.2 19.3 49.9 73.8 72.9 0.9 Georgia 62.[6] 27.4 35.2 63.5 64.2 -0.7 Louisiana 80.5 31.6 48.9 75.1 71.1 4.0 Mississippi 69.9 6.7 63.2 72.3 76.1 -3.8 South 75.7 37.3 38.4 74.4 71.1 3.3 Carolina Virginia 61.1 38.3 22.8 68.2 57.4 10.8 … There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act.
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 2013-06-25 · supports
“In 1970, Congress reauthorized the Act for another five years … Congress also extended the ban in § 4(a) on tests and devices nationwide. … The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.”
In 1970, Congress reauthorized the Act for another five years … Congress also extended the ban in § 4(a) on tests and devices nationwide. … The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.
- History of Federal Voting Rights Laws
US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2015-08-06 · supports
“President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. … In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.”
President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. … In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
- Statutes Enforced by the Voting Section
US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports
“The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. … The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002.”
The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. … The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002.
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), plurality opinion
Supreme Court of the United States (via Caselaw Access Project), 1992-05-26 · supports
“State attempts to standardize the ballots were easily thwarted — the vote buyer could simply place a ballot in the hands of the bribed voter and watch until he placed it in the polling box. … After several failed attempts to adopt the Australian system in Michigan and Wisconsin, the Louisville, Kentucky, municipal government, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the State of New York adopted the Australian system in 1888. … By 1896, almost 90 percent of the States had adopted the Australian system. … Commentators argued that it would diminish the growing evil of bribery by removing the knowledge of whether it had been successful.”
State attempts to standardize the ballots were easily thwarted — the vote buyer could simply place a ballot in the hands of the bribed voter and watch until he placed it in the polling box. … After several failed attempts to adopt the Australian system in Michigan and Wisconsin, the Louisville, Kentucky, municipal government, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the State of New York adopted the Australian system in 1888. … By 1896, almost 90 percent of the States had adopted the Australian system. … Commentators argued that it would diminish the growing evil of bribery by removing the knowledge of whether it had been successful.
- Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, Chapter 5: The Reality of List Maintenance
US Commission on Civil Rights, 2001-06 · supports
“The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 possible duplicate registrants, deceased persons, and felons without civil rights restoration. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons. In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list. … For example, in Miami-Dade County, over half of the African Americans who appealed from the Florida felon exclusion list were successfully reinstated to the voter rolls. … In Leon County, the supervisor of elections was provided a list of nearly 700 names to purge from the voting rolls. Yet the Supervisor could only confirm 34 as actual felons (St. Pete Times, 12/6/00).”
The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 possible duplicate registrants, deceased persons, and felons without civil rights restoration. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons. In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list. … For example, in Miami-Dade County, over half of the African Americans who appealed from the Florida felon exclusion list were successfully reinstated to the voter rolls. … In Leon County, the supervisor of elections was provided a list of nearly 700 names to purge from the voting rolls. Yet the Supervisor could only confirm 34 as actual felons (St. Pete Times, 12/6/00).
- Databases, Felons, and Voting: Errors and Bias in the Florida Felons Exclusion List in the 2000 Presidential Elections (RWP02-041)
Harvard Kennedy School (Guy Stuart), 2002-09 · supports
“a) the 2000 felons’ exclusion list had a considerable number of errors in it, probably more than 25% of the names on the list were on there in error; b) these errors were racially biased, such that more African-American registered voters were on the list in error than either Whites or Latinos; and c) that the decentralized process by which the felons’ list was used to purge the voter rolls resulted in a sometimes judicious but sometimes partisan purging process – Democratic county supervisors were less likely to use the felons’ list than Republican ones, but even the latter found considerable, biased errors in the list.”
a) the 2000 felons’ exclusion list had a considerable number of errors in it, probably more than 25% of the names on the list were on there in error; b) these errors were racially biased, such that more African-American registered voters were on the list in error than either Whites or Latinos; and c) that the decentralized process by which the felons’ list was used to purge the voter rolls resulted in a sometimes judicious but sometimes partisan purging process – Democratic county supervisors were less likely to use the felons’ list than Republican ones, but even the latter found considerable, biased errors in the list.
- Testimony by Abigail Thernstrom Before the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate
Manhattan Institute, 2001-06-27 · contests
“Their own data on the "purge list" show the opposite of what they claim: whites were erroneously placed on the purge list at almost twice the rate of blacks.”
Their own data on the "purge list" show the opposite of what they claim: whites were erroneously placed on the purge list at almost twice the rate of blacks.
- Why Are 53,000 Voter Registrations On Hold In Georgia?
Georgia Public Broadcasting, 2018-10-24 · complicates
“On the final day of voter registration in Georgia, a report from The Associated Press found the Georgia Secretary of State’s office has more than 53,000 voter registrations on hold under the state’s “exact match” law. … the AP’s analysis of the applications found nearly 70 percent of those on hold are black. … If you do not mail in your proper identification before Nov. 6, you can verify your information using your driver’s license or state photo ID at the polls.”
On the final day of voter registration in Georgia, a report from The Associated Press found the Georgia Secretary of State’s office has more than 53,000 voter registrations on hold under the state’s “exact match” law. … the AP’s analysis of the applications found nearly 70 percent of those on hold are black. … If you do not mail in your proper identification before Nov. 6, you can verify your information using your driver’s license or state photo ID at the polls.
- New Mexico election standoff and ‘attack on democracy’ ends
KOB 4, 2022-06-18 · complicates
“A standoff ended Friday when a group of defiant local officials in New Mexico gave in to the state and voted to certify their June 7 primary election results, after they had been refusing to do so. … The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ordered them to certify the votes by Friday’s deadline”
A standoff ended Friday when a group of defiant local officials in New Mexico gave in to the state and voted to certify their June 7 primary election results, after they had been refusing to do so. … The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ordered them to certify the votes by Friday’s deadline
- Arizona’s Cochise County wants federal investigation of 2022 election
Votebeat, 2025-09-17 · complicates
“two Republican Cochise supervisors in November 2022 to vote to delay the certification of the county’s midterm election results past the legal deadline. A judge later ordered the supervisors to certify the election. A year after their vote to delay the certification, a state grand jury indicted the two supervisors, Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, on charges of conspiracy and interference with an elections officer. Judd has since pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. But Crosby pleaded not guilty, and is awaiting a trial.”
two Republican Cochise supervisors in November 2022 to vote to delay the certification of the county’s midterm election results past the legal deadline. A judge later ordered the supervisors to certify the election. A year after their vote to delay the certification, a state grand jury indicted the two supervisors, Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, on charges of conspiracy and interference with an elections officer. Judd has since pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. But Crosby pleaded not guilty, and is awaiting a trial.
- Disturbances in Northern Ireland: Report of the Commission Appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland (Cameron Report), chapter 12
HMSO (via CAIN, Ulster University), 1969-09 · supports
“The most glaring case was Londonderry County Borough, where sixty per cent of the adult population was Catholic but where sixty per cent of the seats on the Corporation were held by Unionists. … In practice therefore it excluded from the local government franchise about one-quarter of those entitled to vote at Stormont elections, where adult universal suffrage operates.”
The most glaring case was Londonderry County Borough, where sixty per cent of the adult population was Catholic but where sixty per cent of the seats on the Corporation were held by Unionists. … In practice therefore it excluded from the local government franchise about one-quarter of those entitled to vote at Stormont elections, where adult universal suffrage operates.
- Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: 100,000 Stolen Votes in Chicago
The Heritage Foundation, 2008-04-16 · complicates
“the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.”
the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.
Non-Citizens on US Voter Rolls
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.””
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.”
- 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.”
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.
- 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.””
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.”
- 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.””
“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.”
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.””
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.”
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.””
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.”
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
Biden’s lead dropped from 12,670 to 11,779.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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).”
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).
- 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).”
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).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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%).”
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%).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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).”
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).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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”
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
- 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”
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
- 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”
327,241 mail ballots transmitted 83.6% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters 98.3% of returned mail ballots counted
- 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”
97.4% of returned mail ballots counted • 1.5% of returned mail ballots rejected
- 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”
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
- 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”
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
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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%).”
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%).
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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).”
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).
- 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.”
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.
Public Opinion on Voting Rules and Confidence in US Elections
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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%.”
While majorities of Republicans and Democrats favor voter ID laws, Republicans (95%) overwhelmingly support them. Democratic support is more tepid, at 63%.
- 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”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.””
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.”
- 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.”
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.
- 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%”
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%
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- “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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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%”
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%
- 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.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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 ”
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
- 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.”
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.
- 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”
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
- 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%.”
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%.
- 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”
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
- 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”
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
- 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% ”
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%
- 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.”
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.
Federal and State Power Over Voter ID and Registration Rules
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (the Elections Clause)
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports
“The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 (presentment)
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports
“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated”
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports
“The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.””
The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.”
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports
“Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.”
Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports
“We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), syllabus
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports
“That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. … Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined in part. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions.”
That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. … Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined in part. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), syllabus
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports
“Stevens, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.”
Stevens, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates
“The requirement does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail … the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. … The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists”
The requirement does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail … the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. … The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. … It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports
“While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports
“In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters. … The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute.”
In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters. … The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), opinion of Stevens, J.
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates
“She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.”
She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), Souter, J., dissenting
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · complicates
“threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, see ante, at 14–15 (lead opinion), and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting, see ante, at 15–16.”
threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, see ante, at 14–15 (lead opinion), and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting, see ante, at 15–16.
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2008-04-28 · supports
“The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.””
The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
- Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), opinion of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2023-06-27 · complicates
“We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. 756 (2018), syllabus
Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2018-06-11 · supports
“Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA.”
Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA.
- Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports
“Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting practices and procedures (including redistricting plans and at-large election systems and voter registration procedures) that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. … On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA.”
Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting practices and procedures (including redistricting plans and at-large election systems and voter registration procedures) that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. … On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA.
- Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports
“The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.”
The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.
- Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports
“The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.”
The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.
- 52 U.S.C. §21083(b), Requirements for voters who register by mail (HAVA §303(b))
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2002 · supports
“An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter … An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 21082(a) of this title.”
An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter … An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 21082(a) of this title.
- 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5), Verification of voter registration information (HAVA §303(a))
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2002 · supports
“an application for voter registration for an election for Federal office may not be accepted or processed by a State unless the application includes— (I) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a current and valid driver’s license, the applicant’s driver’s license number; or (II) in the case of any other applicant (other than an applicant to whom clause (ii) applies), the last 4 digits of the applicant’s social security number.”
an application for voter registration for an election for Federal office may not be accepted or processed by a State unless the application includes— (I) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a current and valid driver’s license, the applicant’s driver’s license number; or (II) in the case of any other applicant (other than an applicant to whom clause (ii) applies), the last 4 digits of the applicant’s social security number.
- 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A) (NVRA §8)
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1993 · supports
“A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”
A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
- The Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747): Overview of Major Provisions (IN11781)
Congressional Research Service, 2021-10-21 · supports
“On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;”
On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;
- Wednesday, January 19, 2022
United States Senate Periodical Press Gallery, 2022-01-19 · supports
“Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.”
Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.
- House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections
NBC News, 2025-04-10 · supports
“Lawmakers approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats — Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joining every Republican present in support of the measure.”
Lawmakers approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in a 220-208 vote, with four Democrats — Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joining every Republican present in support of the measure.
- House passes GOP's SAVE America Act
Just The News, 2026-02-11 · supports
“The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.”
The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.
- U.S. House Passes the SAVE America Act and Will Combine It With a Defense Appropriations Bill to Make it Harder to Vote Down in the Senate
American Democracy Minute, 2026-07-23 · supports
“July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.”
July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.
- Roll Call Vote 119th Congress - 2nd Session, Vote Number 231
United States Senate, 2026-08-08 · supports
“Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2”
Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2
- Trump pumps brakes on Senate budget plan, delaying GOP SAVE America push
Fox News, 2026-08-08 · supports
“That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.”
That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.
- Executive Order 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, 90 FR 14005
Federal Register, 2025-03-28 · supports
“(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508: (A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3)”
(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508: (A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-0946 (CKK), Order (Doc. 217)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2025-10-31 · supports
“are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any action to implement or give effect to Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248, including taking any action based on the Executive Order to modify the content of the federal voter registration application form described in 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) to require documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from taking any action to implement or give effect to Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 14,248, including taking any action based on the Executive Order to modify the content of the federal voter registration application form described in 52 U.S.C. § 20508(a)(2) to require documentary proof of United States citizenship.
- California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports
“However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.”
However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.
- California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports
“On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).”
On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).
- Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, 91 FR 17125
Federal Register, 2026-04-03 · supports
“shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List). The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.”
shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List). The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.
- Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)
Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports
“The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).”
The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).
- Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)
Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.
- Trump v. California, No. 26A124, Sotomayor, J., with whom Kagan, J., joins, dissenting
Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · complicates
“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”
Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.
- The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks
OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · supports
“In siding with the Trump administration, the court’s majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government “from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.””
In siding with the Trump administration, the court’s majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government “from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.”
- The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks
OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · complicates
“In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens. … They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system’s error rate”
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
- The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks
OPB (NPR), 2026-09-25 · complicates
“Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records. In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records. In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
- The Canvass, October 2021
National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021-09-27 · supports
“Requirements for voters to show some form of identification at the polls have become much more widespread since 2000. Back then, 13 states had voter ID requirements—by 2020, that number had nearly tripled to 34.”
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.
- 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.”
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.
- 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).”
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).
- U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts, Citing Proximity to the Election, to Allow NH to Ban Use of Student IDs for Voting
American Democracy Minute, 2026-10-23 · supports
“Oct. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted an earlier case using the Purcell principle: “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.””
Oct. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted an earlier case using the Purcell principle: “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”