Nearly half of the states have concluded their 2026 legislative sessions, and with the midterm elections only a little over five months away, a picture of how state election laws will differ from 2024 is taking shape. Between January 1 and May 1, 2026:

• At least 9 states¹ enacted 12 restrictive voting laws.² Of those laws, 9 are slated to be in effect when voters go to the polls in November. Most notably, South Dakota and Utah now require all citizens to show documents like a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote and Florida, Kentucky, and Mississippi will require those documents from some voters. Overall, lawmakers in at least 41 states have considered no fewer than 302 restrictive voting bills in 2026.

• At least 6 states³ enacted 16 expansive voting laws, 14 of which are slated to be in effect when voters go to the polls in November.⁴ Overall, lawmakers in at least 42 states have considered no fewer than 558 expansive voting bills in 2026. Virginia has led the tally this year, enacting 6 expansive laws so far, with at least 2 more awaiting the governor’s signature.

• So far this year, no state has enacted an election interference law.⁵ Overall, lawmakers in at least 25 states have considered no fewer than 65 interference bills in 2026.

With the 32 restrictive laws enacted in 2025, that means states have already enacted 44 restrictive laws during the two-year election cycle beginning January 2025, surpassing the previous high of 43 restrictive laws enacted in the 2021 through 2022 cycle. The explosion of restrictive voting legislation that began after the 2020 election has turned into a regular feature of the election landscape, with well over a hundred such laws enacted in the past five years. Many of the laws come from the same core group of states: Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming have each enacted at least 5 restrictive laws since 2021.

Multiple states are pushing back against such myths. At the federal level, a renewed effort to pass the SAVE Act — which demands that Americans show a passport or birth certificate to register to vote — failed in the Senate amid widespread public opposition. And multiple states are pushing back against the threat of federal interference by refusing to hand over their voters’ data, enacting laws designed to guard against such interference, and strengthening existing election security measures. These laws provide meaningful protections for voting rights, although they do not actively expand voting access.

First, we discuss a series of bills designed to limit the presence of federal law enforcement officers at polling places on Election Day without a valid reason. Federal law and many existing state laws offer protections against the unnecessary deployment of state or federal officials to polling places; several states have enacted or proposed legislation that would further protect voters from interference or intimidation. Many of these proposals focus specifically on curbing the activity of federal immigration enforcement in the vicinity of voting locations.

Additionally, at least 7 states⁶ have enacted legislation to bolster election security laws and safeguard the electoral process from interference. These laws improve ballot security, regulate postelection audits, proscribe AI-generated misinformation, and prevent voter intimidation. States proactively improving and protecting their elections is a significant trend with important implications for the voting rights of citizens of those states that we’ll continue to watch.

Finally, we provide an update on federal efforts to acquire state voter rolls, a topic we last covered in the October 2025 roundup. Election officials in at least 15 states have complied with federal requests for unredacted voter information. While we do not always count legislation related to these efforts as restrictive or interference, several states have considered bills that would compel officials to hand over voters’ sensitive information to federal agencies. This legislation could enable the federal government to force states to wrongly remove eligible voters from the rolls. President Trump’s recently issued executive order on elections, which illegally seeks to use the U.S. Postal Service to determine who gets to vote by mail, provides additional reason for caution about sharing voter rolls with federal agencies.⁷

Through May 1, at least 9 states¹ have enacted 12 restrictive laws.² During that period, at least 41 states considered no fewer than 302 bills with restrictive provisions. These laws restrict access to voting in several ways, including adding requirements to show documents like a passport or a birth certificate when registering to vote, strict voter ID provisions, and expanding challenges to voters’ eligibility. The provisions in 9 out of the 12 restrictive voting laws covered in this section are slated to be in effect for the upcoming midterm elections.³

Several states in 2026 have continued the trend of requiring documents such as a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote. States have multiple checks in place to prevent non-U.S. citizens from voting, yet multiple states have enacted laws premised on the myth of widespread noncitizen voting that will block some eligible American citizens from casting ballots.

South Dakota and Utah enacted new laws requiring prospective voters to show documents like a passport or a birth certificate when registering to vote in state and local elections.⁴ Those who cannot satisfy those requirements will be able to vote only in federal elections. In addition, Utah’s law requires election officials to review existing voter registration records to determine whether registrants are U.S. citizens. Impacted voters receive only 30 days to respond to a notice with documents like a passport or birth certificate before they are removed from the voter rolls. A review conducted by Utah earlier this year prior to the introduction of the new registration requirements found zero instances of noncitizen voting, confirming that the state’s existing systems for ensuring only eligible Americans vote are working.

A Kentucky law allows the state to enter into agreements allowing federal agencies to review its list of registered voters and flag individuals they believe are noncitizens.⁵ Flagged voters would have to provide one of only a handful of acceptable documents such as a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers before they head to the polls; if they don’t, they must cast a provisional ballot and sign an affidavit attesting to their citizenship. The law does not require any additional verification by state officials or specify precautions federal agencies would take, despite documented concerns that federal data sources are neither complete nor reliable enough to verify citizenship.

A Florida law that goes into effect in 2027 will require election officials to compare voter registrations against department of motor vehicles records.⁶ It stipulates that anyone whose citizenship can’t be verified, including almost any registrant without a driver’s license, must present a valid document proving their citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate. It will also require anyone whose name on their citizenship document differs from the name on their present ID to submit proof of a legal name change, a burden on many citizens, especially married women who have changed their surnames. Additionally, the law requires state officials to run the voter rolls through a separate verification program and require voters identified as noncitizens to verify their citizenship or be removed from the rolls.

Mississippi enacted a law that extends existing proof-of-citizenship requirements to additional voters.⁷ Previously, voters had to provide documents like a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote only if both state and federal records indicated they were noncitizens; now, voters will have to show their papers if either state or federal records are unable to confirm their citizenship.

On the voter ID front, multiple states have narrowed accepted identity documents, which can make voting harder for eligible Americans. The Florida law covered above also limits the acceptable forms of voter identification, removing from the list debit or credit cards, student IDs, retirement center IDs, neighborhood association IDs, and public assistance IDs. New Hampshire, too, removed student IDs from its list.⁸ Utah repealed language allowing voters to use copies of current utility bills or bank statements as identification.⁹ Nebraska shortened from a week to three days the period voters have to present valid ID after casting a provisional ballot.¹⁰ All these voter ID laws, except for Florida’s, are slated to be in place for the midterms.

Elsewhere, a Kansas law invalidates driver’s licenses that reflect the gender identity of the holder if it differs from the one they were assigned at birth.¹¹ Since driver’s licenses are among the few kinds of voter ID accepted in Kansas, the new law would leave many transgender voters without an acceptable voter ID unless they obtain a new ID with the gender marked as the state now requires. The law is being challenged in court. Another Kansas law risks removing eligible voters from the rolls by giving voters just 45 days to respond to address-confirmation notices if the department of motor vehicles believes they received a license in another state.¹²

South Dakota will now allow voter registration challenges by any voter in the same county based on suspected noncitizen status.¹³ West Virginia will allow election officials to challenge a voter’s residency based on a new, stringent set of residency factors.¹⁴ Challenged voters risk having their voter registrations canceled if a notice of the challenge is returned undeliverable or they do not present proof of residency in person within 30 days of receiving notice. With little time to respond and possible problems with the mail, eligible voters have an increased risk of being removed.

Finally, Mississippi is trying to get ahead of a potential Supreme Court ruling. The state currently accepts mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days thereafter. That policy has been challenged in a pending Supreme Court case, Watson v. Republican National Committee. Under this new “trigger law,” which would go into effect only if the Court overturns Mississippi’s policy, mail ballots would have to be received the day before Election Day — setting the deadline a full day earlier than would be expected under an unfavorable ruling in that case.¹⁵ We do not include this law in our count of restrictive laws because it will not take effect unless the Court overturns Mississippi’s policy.

While the State Voting Laws Roundup does not track redistricting legislation, the Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais has already led some states to engage in aggressive mid-decade redistricting, in some cases by special session. Although redistricting battles may not directly restrict voting access, the effects of gerrymandering can be similarly disenfranchising by diluting the voting power of Americans of color. The expected elimination of many majority Black and Latino districts in the South would prevent those communities from having the opportunity to elect candidates who represent their interests.

Between January 1 and May 1, 2026, at least 6 states¹enacted 16 laws that make it easier to vote.² At least 42 states considered no fewer than 558 bills with expansive provisions. The number of enacted expansive laws has outpaced the number of restrictive laws so far in 2026, but this still does not come close to the nearly 2-to-1 ratio of expansive to restrictive laws seen in the period from 2021 through 2024. The expansive provisions in 14 out of 16 of the laws covered in this section are slated to be in effect before the upcoming midterm elections.³ Virginia has been the most active state in expanding voting access, having already enacted 6 expansive laws.⁴ New Jersey has also been active, with 3 expansive laws enacted so far.⁵

First, several states implemented stronger protections for voters within their existing State Voting Rights Acts. A Virginia law prohibits drawing legislative districts that would minimize the voting power of voters of color and requires voting materials to be provided in additional languages.⁶ Washington enacted two laws that expand opportunities for voters to challenge election practices that violate the law and, if necessary, sue to stop such practices.⁷ Maryland also enacted a new law that protects the voting rights of voters of color in elections for municipal and county governments, as part of a yearslong effort to enact a full State Voting Rights Act.⁸

Second, early voting periods have been expanded in two states. New Jersey will now allow municipalities to provide four additional days of early voting for municipal elections,⁹ and Virginia added early voting hours from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the second and third Sundays before Election Day.¹⁰ Elsewhere on the early voting front, Maryland will now require some local bus routes to stop at the entrance of early voting locations.¹¹

Third, legislators in three states have made it easier to apply for and cure mail ballots. In New Jersey, Garden State voters can now fix technical defects, such as forgetting to put the ballot into the mail ballot envelope.¹² A Nebraska law, which also contained restrictive provisions, repeals an existing requirement that voters who register to vote at the same time as requesting a mail ballot provide additional identifying documents.¹³ One Virginia law extends deadlines for fixing defects with mail ballots and expands notice requirements for rejected ballots,¹⁴ and another allows voters who applied for but did not receive a mail ballot within 10 days of the election to request an emergency replacement.¹⁵

Fourth, two states have developed additional protections for voters against challenges of their voter registration. A Virginia law repeals the ability of an individual voter to challenge another voter’s registration.¹⁶ In Washington, a new law makes it harder to frivolously challenge voter registrations by providing additional protections for challenged voters and prohibiting challenges by voters from another county.¹⁷ Protections like these help limit harmful mass challenges of voter registrations that can result in eligible voters having their registrations canceled.

In addition to the categories above, states have made other changes to expand access to voting. A Virginia law imposes additional restrictions on who can be disqualified from voting due to mental incapacity and institutes a new process for such people to petition for a restoration of their voting rights.¹⁸ A New Jersey law that takes effect in 2028 expands automatic voter registration to additional state agencies and requires such agencies to automatically update voter registrations when voters provide new information.¹⁹ Additionally, the law helps ensure individuals scheduled for release from incarceration receive non-driver ID cards and allows incarcerated individuals to pre-register to vote under some circumstances. New Hampshire now requires towns and cities to have at least one polling station for every 15,000 registered voters during presidential elections.²⁰ Previously, cities could have as few as one polling place regardless of population.

Of final note, the Virginia legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would automatically restore the voting rights of those convicted of a felony upon their release from incarceration.²¹ It will take effect only if approved by voters in a referendum this fall. Current Virginia law gives the governor sole discretion to restore voting rights for people convicted of felonies. Virginia also enacted an accompanying law that would only take effect if voters approve the constitutional amendment. It would make a number of conforming changes to state law to ensure registration opportunities for previously incarcerated individuals.²² State felony disenfranchisement laws keep millions of Americans from voting even after they have returned to their communities. These voting bans disproportionately affect Black Americans. Neither the proposed amendment nor the trigger law are included in our count of expansive laws because they will only take effect if voters approve the constitutional amendment.

While no new election interference laws have been enacted so far in 2026, at least 65 such bills have been proposed across 25 states. There are also a few new laws that don’t meet our definition of election interference but relate closely to the federal government’s efforts to meddle in elections, and legislators in some states are still considering election interference bills.

On the other hand, several states have enacted laws this year to protect voters, election administrators, and election processes. These laws don’t meet the criteria for any of our categories, but each represents a new guardrail to prevent election meddling, including by the federal government.

Two election interference bills almost became law. One bill that passed the Georgia Senate would have mandated full hand recounts for nearly all federal and statewide elections.¹ Partial hand-counts are valuable election security tools, but full hand-counts are more error-prone than machine counting. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a bill that would have tipped the scales on election disputes by forcing all state or federal constitutional challenges to election laws to be heard in a district court with judges known to be sympathetic to the current legislative majority.²

Among the election interference bills still moving are measures that would prohibit electronic voting machines and require hand-counts of all ballots.³

Federal Agents

Another trend derives from the possibility of the administration sending armed agents to polling places. Amid the surge of immigration enforcement operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and other federal agencies, many state lawmakers are pushing legislation that would protect voters from interference and intimidation by those agents. Federal and state laws already explicitly prohibit the federal government from carrying out these threats, but many states are working to provide additional protections.

New Mexico and Oregon have both enacted laws that mirror existing federal restrictions on federal law enforcement and immigration officers at polling places on Election Day.⁴ A new Virginia law would restrict members of the National Guard from interfering with voting, and another bill awaiting the governor’s signature would restrict federal immigration enforcement at the polls.⁵ A bill in Washington would provide voters and election workers with greater protection from immigration enforcement operations during an election, and a bill in California would, among other provisions, prohibit law enforcement from interfering with election administration, ban military personnel from polling places, and allow the attorney general, secretary of state, or relevant county election officials to sue to enforce these provisions.⁶ Lawmakers in Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have introduced similar proposals.⁷

On the other hand, some state lawmakers have introduced bills that would facilitate the presence of federal agents. In Illinois, two bills would prohibit state or local governments from restricting the activity of federal immigration enforcement officers.⁸ Similarly, a New Jersey bill repeals an existing ban on police and law enforcement officers at polling places.⁹ An Arizona proposal would have mandated federal immigration officers at every polling place and ballot drop box in the state.¹⁰

Other Election Protection Legislation

Additionally, at least 7 states have passed laws across a variety of topics to strengthen their elections against interference.¹¹

A South Dakota law strengthens chain-of-custody requirements for ballots¹² and a Wyoming law strengthens postelection audit procedures by requiring additional hand-count audits of a small portion of ballots in particular races.¹³ New laws in Tennessee, Vermont, and Maine regulate the use of deepfakes in political communications by requiring disclosures on messages that contain AI-generated media.¹⁴ A Utah law enhances existing prohibitions on online election-related harassment.¹⁵ Lastly, Oregon and South Dakota passed laws strengthening the process of certifying presidential election results by prohibiting faithless electors.¹⁶

Federal Data Sharing

Some states are considering legislative proposals to either aid or protect against the Trump administration’s efforts to assert control over election administration. Since May 2025, the Department of Justice has attempted to acquire nearly every state’s unredacted voter registration list. These demands present serious privacy and legal concerns, as these lists contain confidential personal data, like partial Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. While most states have denied these requests, election officials in at least 15 states have complied. These requests are not the only means by which the federal government has sought sensitive voter data from the states. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice recently targeted ballots and election records in Fulton County, Georgia, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Wayne County, Michigan, an unprecedented and unnecessary effort that has created similar privacy concerns for voters.

Some states’ legislatures have attempted to compel officials to hand over voters’ sensitive information to federal agencies. The Georgia Senate passed a resolution urging the secretary of state to comply with the Justice Department and hand over the state’s voter registration list.¹⁷ Two Minnesota bills would require their secretary of state to provide any data related to elections to the federal government upon request.¹⁸ Additionally, as discussed, a Kentucky law authorizes sending complete records to the federal government.¹⁹

Other state lawmakers are pushing back. Two Connecticut bills provide the state’s attorney general with additional powers to retain custody of voting records and equipment in the face of subpoenas or warrants from the federal government.²⁰ A bill in Louisiana places similar restrictions on how sensitive voter data can be shared with federal agencies.²¹ Finally, a resolution proceeding through the Alaska Legislature expresses concern about the use of voter data that state officials gave the Justice Department in December 2025.²²