State Voting Laws Roundup: October 2026

State legislatures over the past two years have sustained their focus on new voting legislation, but most voters will not face new barriers to voting in November’s elections. A number of states have enacted laws restricting access to voting — with a particular focus on questioning voters’ citizenship — that may require some voters to clear new hurdles this fall. Overall, states continue to pass more laws expanding access to voting than those restricting access.

Since the 2024 election, lawmakers in 22 states¹ have enacted 47 new restrictive laws² that will make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote compared to the laws in place during the 2024 election. The total number of restrictive laws passed remains at record highs, though many of the new laws target smaller subsets of voters than restrictive voting legislation passed by the same states in prior years. Not all these new laws will affect voters in the same way nor be felt this fall: 38 of these laws and parts of one other are slated to be in effect for the midterms.³ The rest, which include some of the most burdensome new laws enacted this year, will take effect after the election or are currently blocked by court orders.

At the same time, lawmakers in 32 states⁴ have also been busy since the 2024 election enacting 61 expansive laws,⁵ which make it easier for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote compared to existing state law.

Some of the most notable new laws — both restrictive and expansive — that will be in effect for the midterms include:

• “Show your papers” laws: Voters in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah will face new requirements to provide documents such as a passport or birth certificate when registering to vote. In South Dakota and Utah, these laws apply to all voters, and individuals who do not provide these documents will only be allowed to vote in federal elections. Mississippi’s new law will impact a smaller subset of voters whose information is not found in existing state and federal citizenship databases. These policies have been implemented even though millions of Americans lack easy access to these documents and the federal effort to impose such documentation requirements nationwide through the SAVE Act has stalled.⁶
• Restrictions on student IDs: In Indiana, New Hampshire, and Montana, state-issued student IDs can no longer be used as a form of identification at the polls.⁷ Because college students often lack official government identification, especially from their state of residence, these laws threaten to disenfranchise many younger or first-time voters.
• Omnibus election laws: Colorado and Utah each enacted laws that include a wide variety of provisions related to elections. The expansive Colorado law includes more opportunities to vote at universities, an expanded period to vote by mail, and more time off for workers to vote.⁸ The restrictive Utah law includes provisions that limit the acceptable documents voters can use to establish their identity, make it more difficult to vote by mail, and require mail ballots to be received by the close of polls on election day.⁹
• State Voting Rights Acts: Voters in five states now have additional protections from racial discrimination in voting thanks to new or expanded State Voting Rights Acts.¹⁰These laws, enacted in Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, will help ensure equal voting opportunities for all voters.

Below, we summarize trends from 2026 so far and since the 2024 election.

2026 Trends

Between January 1, 2026 and September 1, 2026:

• At least 11 states¹¹ enacted 14 restrictive voting laws.¹² Of all restrictive laws passed since January, 10 are slated to be in effect for the midterms. Overall, lawmakers in at least 41 states have considered no fewer than 310 restrictive voting bills in 2026.
• At least 15 states¹³ enacted 31 expansive voting laws.¹⁴ Of all expansive laws passed since January, 20 laws and parts of 4 more are slated to be in effect for the midterms. Overall, lawmakers in at least 42 states have considered no fewer than 581 expansive voting bills in 2026.
• Only 3 states — Louisiana, Nebraska, and New Hampshire — have enacted both expansive and restrictive laws in 2026. 
• So far this year, no state has enacted an election interference law.¹⁵ Overall, lawmakers in at least 25 states have considered no fewer than 65 interference bills in 2026.

We note three major trends in 2026 so far. First, states have passed more than twice as many expansive laws as restrictive ones, returning to the trend in recent years after a year of relatively little expansive legislative activity in 2025. Second, so far this year, for the first time since the Brennan Center began consistently tracking election interference legislation in 2022, states have not passed a single election interference law — laws that threaten the people and processes that make elections work or increase opportunities for partisan interference in election results or administration. Some states, in fact, have done the opposite.

Third, lawmakers have enacted 24 new laws that strengthen election safety and security. These laws are not coded as expansive or restrictive, but they are relevant at a time when the federal government is attempting to usurp states’ constitutional control over election administration and undermine public confidence in elections. All but one of these laws and parts of another are slated to be in effect for the midterm elections.¹⁶ As we noted in our May roundup, federal law and many existing state laws offer protections against the unnecessary deployment of state or federal officials to polling places; seven states have enacted laws that further restrict the activity of federal law enforcement and immigration officers at polling places on Election Day.¹⁷ In addition, legislators have been working to protect elections from other threats, including AI-generated deepfakes and misinformation in political advertisements, electioneering at the polls, and voter intimidation and harassment. 

Post-2024 Trends

In the two years since the 2024 election: 

• At least 22 states¹⁸ enacted 47 restrictive voting laws.¹⁹ Thirty-eight of these laws and parts of 1 more are slated to be in effect for the midterms.
• At least 32 states²⁰ enacted 61 expansive voting laws. Fifty of these laws and parts of 4 more are slated to be in effect for the midterms.
• At least 8 states²¹ enacted 9 election interference laws.²² Eight of these laws and parts of 1 more are slated to be in effect for the midterms.

The main trend is that states have enacted almost as many restrictive and election interference laws as expansive voting laws during this period. (For a complete list of these 47 new restrictive laws, refer to the “State Voting Laws Enacted Since the 2024 Election” table below.) Twenty-one of the restrictive voting laws enacted since the 2024 election have established onerous voter ID requirements or show-your-papers requirements, such as requiring a passport or birth certificate to register to vote.²³ These legislative efforts are clearly driven by myths about widespread noncitizen voting. Attempts to pass such legislation at the federal level through the SAVE Act have failed. At the same time, over the last two years, 7 states²⁴ have enacted laws that use flawed or misleading federal data for voter list maintenance, which could lead to the removal of eligible American citizens from the rolls. These laws coincide with the Department of Justice’s demands to access voter rolls from nearly every state, which include confidential voter data. At least 16 states have provided this sensitive data to the department. Four states, however, are driving a new set of expansive laws: Virginia has enacted 8 new laws, New Jersey 5, and both Maryland and Washington 4. A growing number of states, including those four, have enacted or bolstered State Voting Rights Acts.²⁵

In total, 17 states²⁶ have enacted at least one expansive law and at least one restrictive law since the 2024 election. That does not mean, of course, that the policies cancel each other out, as they may address entirely different aspects of voting. And in many instances, these states’ laws are clearly moving primarily in one direction or another. Utah, for example, enacted a roughly two-day extension to the period to cure signature mismatches on mail ballots,²⁷ but also enacted new show-your-papers requirements and a comprehensive restrictive law.²⁸ In other words, in many states, the effects of the restrictive laws are likely to be more significant than those of the expansive laws, or vice versa. 

Between January 1 and September 1, at least 11 states¹ have enacted 14 restrictive laws.² This tally includes 2 laws enacted since our May roundup.³ Ten of those laws are set to be in effect for the 2026 midterms.⁴ This year, at least 41 states have considered no fewer than 310 restrictive voting bills. This section covers new restrictive laws enacted since our May roundup, then revisits consequential restrictive laws enacted since the 2024 election that are slated to be in effect for the 2026 midterms.

Restrictive Laws Enacted Since May

Two states imposed harsher voter ID requirements. Some policies requiring voters to verify their identity are reasonable, but increasing documentation requirements and limiting acceptable documents risks disenfranchising eligible voters. An Iowa law in effect for the midterms tightens voter ID requirements by removing an option for voters without acceptable photo ID to have another registered voter in the same precinct sign an oath attesting to their identity.⁵ In Louisiana, after the midterms, voters will have fewer photo ID options, and voters without photo ID must now provide two alternative forms of ID instead of being able to sign an affidavit.⁶

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) vetoed a bill that would have shortened the early voting period in the state for primary, runoff, and other non-general elections from 17 days to 10.⁷ The bill would also broadly expand the procedure for challenging a voter’s registration within the state in ways that heighten the risks of frivolous or large-scale challenges to voter eligibility. It would also allow for challenges to ballots during the counting process, creating clear conditions for delay, confusion, and abuse. Legislators in the state may still override the veto before the November election.

Restrictive Laws Since 2024

Between the 2024 election and September 1, 2026, 22 states have enacted 47 restrictive voting laws.⁸ Thirty-eight of those laws and parts of 1 other are slated to be in effect for the midterms.⁹ Of those, some in particular stand out for enacting wide-reaching restrictive changes.

South Dakota and Utah both enacted laws in 2026 that require prospective voters to show documents like a passport or birth certificate when registering to vote for state elections.¹⁰ Both laws are currently slated to be in effect, although the South Dakota law faces a court challenge. Voters who cannot provide these documents will only be able to vote in federal elections in those states. Florida and Mississippi also enacted laws requiring many prospective voters whose U.S. citizenship cannot be verified by incomplete databases to present a birth certificate, passport, or another document proving citizenship when registering to vote.¹¹ The Mississippi law is already in effect. The Florida law tightens voter ID requirements as well, removing student IDs, debit and credit cards, and several other forms of ID from the list of acceptable documents, but it will not take effect until after the midterm elections.

Existing state systems ensuring only eligible U.S. citizens vote are already robust. Requiring documents like a passport or birth certificate to register could block millions of American citizens from voting. All available evidence shows that, with vanishingly rare exceptions, only American citizens vote in our elections.

Of the 47 restrictive voting laws enacted between the 2024 election and September 1, 2026, almost half have created or tightened documentary requirements for at least some prospective voters to register to vote or cast a ballot.¹² New laws in Florida, Indiana, Montana, and New Hampshire have eliminated or restricted the use of student IDs on Election Day.¹³ The same Montana law also removes a process by which voters who cast a provisional ballot can establish their eligibility to vote the day after the election.¹⁴ States including Florida, Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia now prohibit voters from using financial documents, such as credit cards, bank statements, or utility bills, to verify their identity.¹⁵ New photo identification requirements have been established in Tennessee and West Virginia, while voters in Louisiana will no longer be allowed to use non-governmental photo ID at the polls.¹⁶ Additionally, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming enacted laws requiring some or all voters to provide a document proving citizenship when registering to vote, even though millions of Americans nationwide lack ready access to these documents.¹⁷ The Wyoming law requires voters to provide proof of citizenship even when updating their registration.¹⁸ Despite the failure of recent efforts to impose such restrictive “show your papers” policies nationally through the SAVE Act, voters in these states will now face some of the same requirements that this legislation would have imposed. 

A number of the more burdensome laws in effect this fall restrict other aspects of voting or registration. A 2025 Utah law requires voter roll purges that are likely to result in the removal of eligible voters from the rolls and restricts mail voting in numerous ways — including ending universal mail voting starting in 2029.¹⁹ Ohio and Wyoming now restrict groups from distributing or filling out applications to vote by mail.²⁰ In Ohio and North Dakota, mail ballots must now be received by election day to be counted, and the option to return mail ballots to polling places has been eliminated in North Dakota.²¹ In Arkansas, voters now need to include a witness signature with their ballots when they vote by mail.²² Oklahoma has banned the use of vote centers, requiring all voters to vote at their assigned precincts.²³ Infrequent voters now face greater risk of cancellation of their voter registration in Indiana and West Virginia.²⁴ Voters in South Dakota can now have their registration challenged on the basis of citizenship or residency, and voters in Indiana can now be challenged by any other voters, rather than just voters in the same precinct.²⁵ 

No state has enacted a new election interference law that either threatens the people and processes that make elections work or increases opportunities for partisan interference in election results or administration in 2026. Lawmakers in at least 25 states have considered no fewer than 65 interference bills so far this year. Among those bills were proposals to hand-count all ballots and transfer authority over election outcomes to partisan actors.¹

However, since the 2024 elections, lawmakers in at least 8 states² enacted 9 election interference laws.³ These include laws in Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, and Utah that risk allowing partisan state officials to influence election outcomes by granting them power over local election administration, as well as a North Carolina law that stripped the governor of power over the state board of elections.

Between January 1 and September 1, 2026, at least 15 states¹ have enacted 31 expansive laws.² Twenty of those laws are slated to be fully in effect for the 2026 midterm elections, and 4 are slated to be partially in effect.³ In total, legislators from at least 42 states have considered no fewer than 581 expansive voting bills this year. This section covers the 15 new expansive voting laws enacted since our May roundup⁴ and reviews notable expansive laws enacted since the 2024 election that are slated to be in effect for the 2026 midterms.

Expansive Laws Enacted Since May

Highlights from 2026 so far include a wide-ranging voting rights bill passed in Colorado, newly enacted State Voting Rights Acts in two states, and bills restoring voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals, along with several other laws that make it easier to remain registered to vote.

The Colorado legislature recently enacted an omnibus election reform bill with numerous expansive provisions.⁵ Among the most notable provisions, this law provides for drop boxes and polling centers across additional university campuses, requires universities to send students information related to registration and voting 15 days before an election, expands mail ballot voting windows, expands identification options for people voting from county jails and detention centers, and entitles workers to two hours of paid time off to vote.

This summer, Delaware and New Jersey enacted State Voting Rights Acts that protect against racial discrimination in voting and expand language access at the polls.⁶ A new Vermont law institutes similar protections for voters.⁷ In California, an expanded State Voting Rights Act was enacted after our September 1 cutoff and is not included in the counts for this Roundup.⁸ 

Legislators in two states have passed bills that provide for voter registration or restore voting rights for people with past felony convictions. Maryland lawmakers enacted legislation that automatically restores people’s voter registration upon release from a correctional facility, instead of requiring each individual to re-register.⁹ In Missouri, the list of felony convictions that lead to disenfranchisement has been significantly reduced.¹⁰ By limiting the crimes for which the state revokes the right to vote during parole and probation, Missouri will restore suffrage to approximately 41,000 people — nearly 80 percent of those in the state who are currently disenfranchised while on parole or probation.

Two new laws offer voters additional avenues to correct mistakes on their ballots or registration forms. Delaware now provides additional opportunities to fix absentee ballots that have not been properly signed or sealed and requires voters to receive notice of any such errors.¹¹ In North Carolina, the period to correct errors on registration forms, absentee ballots, and provisional ballots has been extended from the third to the fifth business day after an election.¹²

Connecticut now allows all voters to cast an absentee ballot, with no excuse required.¹³ Additionally, a Louisiana law extends the validity of absentee ballot applications from military and overseas voters from one to two years.¹⁴

Several states passed laws to improve the registration process and enhance protections against the cancellation of a voter’s registration. Hawaii has adopted automatic voter registration, set to commence at the start of 2027. Under this system, eligible residents will be automatically registered to vote when they apply for or renew an identification card or driver’s license, unless they opt out and elect not to register.¹⁵ After New Hampshire enacted a restrictive law in 2024 requiring people to provide citizenship documents when registering to vote that led to significant issues for eligible voters in 2025 local elections, the legislature passed a new law this year that offers voters additional ways to prove their citizenship.¹⁶ Election officials now have more ways to verify the citizenship of people registering to vote who lack the proper documents, and low-income individuals can receive a voucher to obtain a copy of their birth certificate.¹⁷

In Virginia, voters have additional protections against their registration being erroneously canceled, and the state is required to notify voters prior to canceling their registration for any reason.¹⁸ Louisiana has additionally made it easier to update voter registration when moving to a new parish within the state and has added three days to the early voting period in nursing homes. The same Louisiana law allows 17-year-olds to be listed in a precinct register if they will turn 18 at least a week before Election Day.¹⁹ Similarly, school districts in Illinois are now required to provide eligible students with the opportunity to register to vote.²⁰

Expansive Laws Since 2024

Since the 2024 election, 32 states²¹ have enacted 61 expansive laws.²² Fifty of these laws and parts of 4 more are slated to be in effect for the midterms.²³ Colorado’s omnibus law and Missouri’s voting rights restoration law are among the most wide-ranging expansive laws enacted since the 2024 election.²⁴ Additionally, a New Jersey law introduced in the 2024 legislative session and enacted in 2026²⁵ expands automatic voter registration to additional state agencies and makes it easier for individuals scheduled for release from incarceration to register to vote. 

Finally, the enactments and expansions of State Voting Rights Acts in at least six states over the last two years reflect an important shift from federal- to state-level voting rights protections.²⁶ Such state laws, which are often modeled on provisions established in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, are filling gaps left by the Supreme Court gutting the federal law, including in its April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais.

Federal Interference

Seven states¹ have enacted laws providing additional protections against federal interference in elections this year, three of which were covered in our last roundup, and all of which are slated to be in effect for the midterms.² These laws are clearly responding to the executive branch’s unprecedented and unconstitutional push to regulate elections, create a national voter database through demands for state voter files, and rewrite mail voting laws by executive order.

One California law enacted since our May roundup prohibits law enforcement officers from accessing voter lists, ballots, or election equipment without court authorization. It also enables the state attorney general and secretary of state to object if local officials attempt to authorize armed individuals around a polling location.³ Another law in Rhode Island explicitly bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from operating within 200 feet of a polling place on Election Day or during early voting.⁴ Voters in Maryland may now bring a civil lawsuit against federal officials who violate their constitutional rights.⁵

Virginia now prohibits federal agents from conducting immigration enforcement activities within 500 yards of a polling place during election hours.⁶ A new Connecticut law prohibits state and federal agents from being within 250 feet of an election site (except when they’re voting) and provides a number of additional protections against federal interference, including new prohibitions on sharing election equipment or voting records without proper authorization, enhanced penalties for harassment of election officials, and new ways for the state’s attorney general to prevent federal election interference in court.⁷

At least nine states have considered other legislation aimed at preventing federal interference in elections this year.⁸

Using Federal SAVE Program Data

In contrast to states that have enacted laws to safeguard against federal interference in elections, others have continued to pursue laws based on the same conspiracy theories motivating that federal interference. While we do not include states expanding their use of the federal Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify voter citizenship in our count of restrictive laws, misleading uses of SAVE program data can lead to improper removals of voters from the rolls. 

So far this year, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have enacted laws that establish or extend the use of SAVE program data.⁹ In total, seven states¹⁰ have enacted such laws since the November 2024 election.¹¹

Election Security

Legislators across the country have continued to shore up elections from misinformation and other forms of interference via a variety of election security measures, all but one of which is slated to be in effect for the midterms. Hawaii, Louisiana, and Maryland each passed laws to regulate deepfakes and AI in political advertisements,¹² joining Tennessee, Vermont, and Maine’s efforts from earlier this year.¹³ New laws in Iowa and New Hampshire enhance the security of election equipment and ballots with new requirements for secure storage, although the New Hampshire law is slated to take effect after the midterms.¹⁴ In addition, New Hampshire and Missouri both enacted legislation to curb electioneering activity at the polls.¹⁵ Voters in Vermont and Colorado will be better protected from harassment and intimidation on Election Day, and election officials in Maryland will have more power to eject people who disrupt or interfere with the election process.¹⁶ Finally, Colorado and Maryland bolstered protections ensuring that electors in the Electoral College vote for the candidates they are pledged to,¹⁷ similar to the laws enacted by Oregon and South Dakota covered in our May roundup.