State Voting Laws Roundup: October 2025

State governments in 2025 are nearly on pace to match the number of restrictive voting laws enacted in 2021, when states enacted more restrictive legislation than at any other point so far in the 14 years the Brennan Center has tracked state voting legislation. That year, driven in large part by lies about the 2020 election being stolen, state legislatures passed an unprecedented number of laws that limited access to voting. Through 2024, that number declined but never returned to pre-2021 levels.

The 2024 election results were not subject to the same level of skepticism or conspiracy theories as the 2020 election. Nonetheless, despite the absence of a losing presidential candidate pushing myths that the most recent national election was incorrectly decided, state legislatures continue to enact restrictive voting laws at a significant pace. The push to tighten voting access appears to be not just a one-time spike resulting from a hotly contested election but an agenda that persists across election cycles regardless of recent outcomes. As of early October 2025, the number of states (16) that have enacted restrictive laws and the total number of restrictive laws (29) are just about on par with the year-end total from the record-setting 2021 (32 laws in 17 states), and more than 2023, when at least 14 states passed 17 restrictive laws.footnote1_2M6E7IiIc-Q3nVKUtSooak63d9Ll9iIvWwv4JdFsc_dhOizqEQNoMU1 Legislatures vary in the frequency and length of their sessions. Forty-six meet every year, four meet in only odd-numbered years, and some hold shorter sessions in even-numbered years than in odd-numbered years, although the exact count varies from cycle to cycle. With more than two months left in the year, more laws could pass, including in North Carolina, where a broad election bill is progressing.

However, one significant difference from 2021 is the lack of “omnibus” restrictive laws that make voting harder in multiple ways. Each restrictive law counts only once, but some of them create a single narrow burden while others contain several provisions that may adversely affect a relatively large percentage of voters in the state. No single new law this year has as sweeping a slate of restrictions as individual laws passed in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and Texas in 2021. Nonetheless, each of these 29 laws establishes new hurdles for some or all people to vote (many voting laws pass each year that do not meet our criteria for restrictive, interference, or expansive, and we generally do not report on those).

Another substantial change from recent years is that state legislatures have not enacted significantly more expansive voting legislation than restrictive laws, with only 30 expansive laws enacted as of October 6. In each year from 2021 through 2024, expansive voting laws outnumbered restrictive ones by at least 1.5 times (in 2023, the ratio of expansive to restrictive laws was more than 3 to 1). While there are a handful of legislatures still in session, the 30 expansive laws enacted this year are far fewer than the 53 enacted in 2023 and 62 in 2021. The pace of democratic progress in many states has slowed just as democratic backsliding has accelerated in others.

Key takeaways from our analysis of state voting legislation between January 1, 2025, and October 6, 2025, include:

• At least 16 statesfootnote2_NKdrUQubC2OcgTN9HuHXDP3b529rEFSUtHQvrxTUc8_izDqOYMA0blZ2 Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. have enacted 29 restrictive voting laws so far this year.footnote3_X1cqtLMoAl3sXKXtjDYGJ2J6iQnHikzF3Pc2lDs7KYQ_ytFHhndHuNrk3 Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it contains one or more provisions that would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote compared to existing state law. That’s 1 state and 3 laws short of the 2021 record. That year, 17 states passed 32 restrictive laws, marking the highest total in the 14 years the Brennan Center has been tracking such legislation. Eleven of the states that enacted restrictive voting laws in 2021 also enacted restrictive voting laws this year.footnote4_WgQ84HmxZsThLHSX90xNuGgBwM7CZAD97FyrIzLpOoo_bTIkmM9bcRAr4 Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
• All 29 restrictive laws are set to be in effect for the 2026 midterms, except for some parts of Utah’s omnibus law.footnote5_3zcSs6HqGNVhnOhC373M3kDklRxzMR9DSQFbohUKM_vLpNNJsB4J8n5 Additionally, some laws already face lawsuits and may be blocked by court orders.
• So far in 2025, 47 state legislatures have considered at least 469 restrictive bills,footnote6_cBl98fcj8kdZQVyYCoe-Wo4z9xWzigwQj9u3q3s7A_jV4KM2R7DqA46 Hawaii, Louisiana, and Vermont are the exceptions. Vermont was also the only state not to introduce a restrictive bill in 2021, and Vermont, Delaware, and Kentucky were the 3 not to do so in 2023. Louisiana is, however, one of 7 states that have enacted election interference legislation so far this year (LA H.B. 502). and 20 of those bills are still moving through legislatures whose 2025 sessions remain open. Around this time in 2021, 49 states had introduced at least 425 restrictive bills.
• At least 7 statesfootnote7_fhBvp9kt94pv8t-6Bl2heWoZyBRz-GQrutyn8qPCmDY_ytc2uU4Ni1WD7 Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Texas, and Utah. enacted 8 election interference laws, all of which are set to be in effect before the 2026 midterms.footnote8_g8DMNI0SF8Q8t837keWq6EHFNSMTjJtj7r7CtW8K78o_irOfgqSGRuOr8 Legislation is categorized as interference if it either threatens the people and processes that make elections work or increases opportunities for partisan interference in election results or administration. Many of the laws give partisan state-level actors unprecedented authority over voting and election processes.
• At least 25 statesfootnote9_KBqMxCFmNBFQzHS2VCl93bZgOjSe343fLEsCkusFts_sPvVnFOBUEgr9 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. enacted 30 expansive voting laws, all of which are set to be in effect before the 2026 midterms.footnote10_D0aDTalSqF2dDbzmHDm6e9Dqc4Q2GE-zh5BlqD5zwI_bBi7779LLAav10 Legislation is categorized as expansive if it contains one or more provisions that would make it easier for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote as compared to existing state law. At least 14 of those states also passed at least 1 restrictive or interference law. This means 11 states enacted expansive voting legislation alone, accounting for at least 19 expansive laws.

Notable Trends

Six legislatures enacted laws requiring or allowing election officials to remove people from the voter rolls for additional reasons.footnote11_Pld9EyL4HGay4dQRxGIRy9Cp49BHaVUKPfwx3gAD2Qs_glZHcLjSIZfA11 Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. Keeping the voter rolls up to date — a process known as voter list maintenance — is an essential function of election officials, but some of these new laws fail to incorporate safeguards to prevent eligible, properly registered citizens from being wrongly removed. State officials are already required to conduct voter list maintenance by federal law, and there is no evidence of widespread registration or voting by ineligible people.

Another key trend is the dearth of new restrictive laws related to citizenship and voting. As we reported in June, although dozens of states are considering laws that would require some or all voters to present a birth certificate or passport to vote, only Indiana and Wyoming have passed such laws. The national version of this policy, known as the SAVE Act, has stalled in the Senate and an effort by President Trump to impose this policy through executive order has been blocked in the courts. Brennan Center research on show-your-papers policies finds that they would block millions of American citizens from voting, upend existing voter registration systems, and create major challenges for local election officials.

Additionally, several states will ask voters to consider election-related ballot questions in 2025 or 2026. Ballot initiatives aren’t included in our count of state voting laws, although some ballot initiatives originate from legislative resolutions that we do include in the count.

Through October 6, at least 16 statesfootnote1_NKdrUQubC2OcgTN9HuHXDP3b529rEFSUtHQvrxTUc8_uTdtAhoZ5blm1 Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. have enacted 29 restrictive laws.footnote2_CMyUqlIMXz2toqyVBI3lw3PXExp4kzuCK-kJwqz71ck_dfBcZcw0l2mQ2 AR H.B. 1925, AR S.B. 299, AR S.B. 479, FL S.B. 2, ID H.B. 278, IN H.B. 1679, IN H.B. 1680, IN S.B. 10, KS H.B. 2020, KS S.B. 4, KY H.B. 684, MT H.B. 248, MT H.B. 413, MT S.B. 276, MT S.B. 490, MT H.B. 719, ND H.B. 1165, OH H.B. 74, OK H.B. 1865, SD S.B. 185, TN H.B. 69, TN S.B. 407, TN S.B. 626, TX H.B. 521, UT H.B. 300, WV H.B. 3016, WV S.B. 487, WY H.B. 156, WY S.F. 78. This is just short of the 32 restrictive laws passed in 2021,footnote3_IX57ATZay5XESbIhsu0WUTHwaprJ6sI3zTxt4q7d6k_l7M0kb0QXTjZ3 Although the cited roundup says 34 restrictive laws were passed, we subsequently removed that designation from 2 laws — 1 in Louisiana and 1 in Nevada — after acquiring new information. which was the greatest number of restrictive laws passed in any year since the Brennan Center started tracking restrictive legislation in 2011, and there are a handful of legislatures still in session. These restrictive laws negatively impact many important areas of voter access, and some have multiple provisions that hinder various components of voter registration or voting processes. The most common restrictions enacted so far this year affect voter list maintenance, mail voting, and voter ID.

During the 2025 legislative sessions, at least 47 states have considered at least 469 bills with restrictive provisions.footnote4_V9aA3wT50K1LuTKFYnFGMjaQW2VcmTzUaLYj2qiiCAs_fatrvFyFRAVg4 Hawaii, Louisiana, and Vermont are the exceptions. Vermont was also the lone state not to introduce a restrictive bill in 2021, and Vermont, Delaware, and Kentucky were the 3 not to do so in 2023. Louisiana is, however, one of 7 states that have enacted election interference legislation so far this year (LA H.B. 502). With several sessions yet to adjourn, there are still 20 restrictive bills moving through legislatures.

Of the 16 states that enacted restrictive voting laws, Utah’s is the most wide-ranging.footnote5_fB1AM82PgFiq8QUU0JlAqCXOocpTocWYdPjhIuy2kKw_nlcCNdnIJa7T5 UT H.B. 300. Notably, it eliminates universal mail voting starting in 2029. Utah is one of 8 states that mails ballots to every registered voter for each election, but in a few years, Utah voters will have to opt in to mail voting.footnote6_UBp0C-rLrZiULePv1-EM62DBZn8MxM2cwhgM7vgdFU_dmQlCPnaGe0d6 Transitioning back to primarily in-person voting will be an expensive process that may be confusing for voters. Election clerks in the state explained that the law lacks sufficient funding to smoothly accomplish this transition, meaning voters may experience difficult in-person voting experiences.

In addition, the omnibus law shortens the deadline for returning a ballot by mail to 8 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, Utah counted ballots postmarked by Election Day that were received by the beginning of the canvass (the postelection process of validating election results that begins 7 to 14 days after Election Day, depending on the county). This provision is already in effect.

Compounding these new hurdles in mail voting, the law requires voters to provide either the last four digits of their state ID or Social Security number in a sealed location on the return envelope, or, starting in 2029, a photocopy of certain federal or tribal ID for their mail ballot to be valid. The law contains further restrictions, including new limits on in-person voter ID options and tighter list maintenance procedures that increase the risk of eligible voters being removed from the rolls.

Including Utah, 6 states have passed 7 laws restricting mail voting.footnote7_v5fGvK8oZYHA0s1dacFPVX-iwCt5ktT7exrUJlwfY_vr5zDxiZ5A2J7 AR H.B. 1925, AR S.B. 299, IN H.B. 1680, KS S.B. 4, UT H.B. 300, MT H.B. 719, ND H.B. 1165. Notable among these are an Arkansas law that requires mail voters to complete an additional affidavit in front of a witness.footnote8_1MzwISYMM4k7MsUaMeB2xPm7GpLF36Xq0e2zrCbSSlE_ob4jOpeEValP8 AR H.B. 1925. Kansas and North Dakota instituted Election Day deadlines for mail ballots to arrive, eliminating grace periods for ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived later.footnote9_2nSV66FtlVwPNQ3EAQhvlu1K-CMV8CHixijm8gtjfA_hC9OgN2nHnTk9 KS S.B. 4, ND H.B. 1165. North Dakota’s law also eliminates the option for voters to return mail ballots to a polling place on Election Day.

Six states enacted laws tightening existing ID requirements for voting and registration by limiting the acceptable forms of ID.footnote10_52Urp7PKoy0A3cpzTJG1MUZzOqK8FEQCjSjgIwB5Rh8_nOkyLGMvXGCH10 IN S.B. 10, KY H.B. 684, MT S.B. 276, TN S.B. 626, UT H.B. 300, WV H.B. 3016. Indiana eliminated student IDs as an option to vote, Montana restricted the types of accepted student IDs, and West Virginia now only accepts photo IDs.footnote11_oPQZB8DjsXWJszLl5m-q1V8woF1k264TSLLrXiG6QzM_eid01lUfIlz111 IN S.B. 10, MT S.B. 276, WV H.B. 3016.

At least 6 states enacted 7 laws that risk wrongly removing eligible voters from the voter rolls by increasing the use of unreliable data sources for voter list maintenance, lowering the standards required for removing voters from the voter rolls, or making removals more frequent.footnote12_y8yaBKOnefAVyQiYBUtmhRxxAAFMO1mEsB5C9kaQKw0_mOogwre9swOJ12 IN H.B. 1679, IN S.B. 10, KS H.B. 2020, MT H.B. 248, TN S.B. 626, UT H.B. 300, WV S.B. 487. Some of these laws contain multiple restrictive provisions that may be discussed elsewhere in this roundup. This trend is discussed in greater detail below.

There is no evidence of widespread registration or voting by non-U.S. citizens, but some states enacted laws premised on this myth. Indiana and Wyoming enacted laws requiring at least some voters to present a passport or birth certificate to register to vote, while Tennessee enacted a law requiring election officials to consult a state-run citizenship database before accepting voter registration applications.footnote13_cmh0BY5y7f7Hjvkch1IYQAlCSvetwKTg1wavn9fsI_dGTxp2mToDfQ13 IN H.B. 1680, TN H.B. 69, WY H.B. 156. We don’t count this provision of the Indiana law as restrictive due to its narrowness, but other provisions make the law restrictive. Florida instituted a new felony for voting by a noncitizen, even if the person believed they were eligible.footnote14_5WsWWCxBFVrwxOYozn9XIyHxx6Arcu823qIpO3sugQ_wdkVPUiAS6bo14 FL S.B. 2.

Laws like these prevent eligible American citizens from voting. A Brennan Center study found that 21.3 million Americans — more than 9 percent of all voting-age citizens — lack ready access to documents such as a passport or birth certificate. Separately, creating criminal penalties for improper voting that apply regardless of intent may discourage eligible American citizens from registering or voting due to fear of prosecution in the event of an error. The Brennan Center reported on citizenship-related state voting legislation earlier this year.

Other notable restrictions include laws in Texas, Arkansas, and Ohio placing additional limits on people assisting voters with disabilities.footnote15_fniu8VBmGGI14mNdAlcO6F8oakZySIcKxhpPWnjkoA_cooR4s5ojXNJ15 AR S.B. 299, AR S.B. 479, OH S.B. 74, TX H.B. 521. A Montana law shortens registration hours during the month before and on Election Day.footnote16_wWkYHuI1wEv3iMt2ysh1F08vKH78-L-M5Svsdc5Gak0_bEOUMMoQTjBu16 MT S.B. 490.

Not all these laws are entirely restrictive, however. At least 6 also contain one or more expansive provisions, and these laws are included in both the expansive and restrictive counts of this roundup.footnote17_ttCGlgINLite9ubX740VgM61uOSIZ6nzzFjVEi3m-s_fK2fmVs49Wcx17 ID H.B. 278, KY H.B. 684, ND H.B. 1165, OH H.B. 74, SD S.B. 185, TN S.B. 407.

Several governors have vetoed restrictive voting legislation this year. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed 7 pieces of legislation that, among other restrictions, would have shortened mail ballot receipt deadlines and eliminated in-person early voting.footnote18_uOXLHw0gKkic6X-phQ19nVU4hoo1lw7ZlLapcc-rrxM_n3YgLg9SNbYU18 AZ H.B. 1052, AZ H.B. 1098, AZ H.B. 2004, AZ H.B. 2017, AZ H.B. 2060, AZ H.B. 2154, AZ H.B. 2703. Governors killed at least 6 other proposed laws with restrictive provisions in 3 other states,footnote19_DL7c3a-88iy-L00AW7GdCLN2GGKeAhcsnUyYvaFu4_gThCjPqmGomh19 NH H.B. 613, NH S.B. 213, NV A.B. 499, NV A.B. 534, NV S.B. 422, WI A.B. 87. while legislatures in Kansas and Kentucky overrode vetoes to enact legislation with restrictive provisions.footnote20_5WAMO6391z1GEq2vdEUPWNMMjBF7V84Wqj2E9rXfaJg_cVOjNDm90jz120 KS S.B. 4, KY H.B. 684.

Between January 1 and October 6, 2025, at least 7 statesfootnote1_fhBvp9kt94pv8t-6Bl2heWoZyBRz-GQrutyn8qPCmDY_wEp2ax0pKcnO1 Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Texas, and Utah. passed 8 election interference laws.footnote2_SiEPEs0ZFwpJUuia3iYfy-i2D568H7W0f7KP-fJfQQ_irRkCU4pocb82 IA H.F. 928, IN S.B. 526, NH H.B. 154, KS S.B. 5, LA H.B. 502, TX S.B. 12, TX S.B. 510, UT H.B. 300. During that period, at least 31 states considered 129 bills with election interference provisions, and 8 interference bills are still moving through legislatures. Many of the laws grant state officials power over local election processes in ways that could enable them to affect the outcome or pressure local officials to favor the state officials’ preferred candidates.

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Utah enacted such laws granting state political officials increased authority over elections.footnote3_VvMrInS7AHUNkB22n3wjHtKiV5dKJ9OX0BT-ErgI-Q_gb5jahIDGNWa3 IA H.F. 928, KS S.B. 5, LA H.B. 502, TX S.B. 12, UT H.B. 300. Iowa now permits its secretary of state wide discretion to take over county-level recounts, while Texas authorized its attorney general to prosecute election crimes, despite the state high criminal court ruling in 2021 that the state constitution bars the attorney general from having such power.

On the ballot-counting front, Indiana now requires, rather than allows, vote-counting software that can retract mail ballots from the total vote tally.footnote4_ZvEQBgpW4Sm4UDyO9gKgaNjOWumnzBKr68D6jjL6Zg_zm6bFb3VEDRU4 IN S.B. 526. Although the law ostensibly requires ballots to remain anonymous, unique identifiers on ballots generated by the software may be traceable to the people who voted them. And a New Hampshire law allows any voter to request a hand-count of their ballot.footnote5_03d37RreikR34ymF4qaJF57AsRa33Fp4bTFTKKebS8_nCSg3tPGI0UX5 NH H.B. 154. While hand-counts are important parts of election audits, machine tabulation is far more reliable and efficient. It will be difficult to implement procedures to hand-count only certain ballots.

Between January 1 and October 6, 2025, at least 25 statesfootnote1_KBqMxCFmNBFQzHS2VCl93bZgOjSe343fLEsCkusFts_epW89q0n8ZRl1 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. enacted 30 laws that make it easier to vote,footnote2_0E5UIvLfCKMY5DnX2Fqh-xd4cU-QfjViv0D-hinRx1A_mV6O0sRTPM7v2 AR H.B. 1878, AR S.B. 296, AR S.B. 304, CA A.B. 930, CA A.B. 1249, CO S.B. 1, CT H.B. 7287, HI H.B. 408, IA H.F. 397, ID H.B. 278, KY H.B. 684, ME L.D. 1977, MD H.B. 983/MD S.B. 685, ND H.B. 1165, NH H.B. 67, NJ S.B. 3990, NV A.B. 367, OH H.B. 74, OK S.B. 814, RI H.B. 5709/RI S.B. 520, SD S.B. 185, TN S.B. 407, TX H.B. 2259, TX S.B. 2753, TX S.B. 2964, UT S.B. 164, VA H.B. 1735/VA S.B. 991, WA S.B. 5077, WV H.B. 2709, WY S.F. 9. Because the Maryland, Rhode Island, and Virginia bills are identical to each other, we count them as one. the lowest total of the last 5 years, except for 2022, when at least 12 states passed 23 expansive laws. Legislative volume was far lower overall that year, however, and the smaller number of expansive laws was accompanied by only 8 states enacting 11 restrictive laws. All 50 states considered a total of 611 bills this year that would expand voting access, and at least 26 bills are still under consideration.

In past years, the number of expansive laws enacted far surpassed the number of restrictive ones. Some years, the ratio of expansive to restrictive laws has been 2 to 1 or greater. In 2025, that is no longer the case, with the number of expansive laws being virtually on par with the number of restrictive ones. Moreover, there are relatively few states where the law is moving only in the expansive direction. This year, only 11 states passed an expansive law without passing at least one restrictive or interference law.

Arkansas passed 3 expansive and 3 restrictive laws. Similarly, Texas complemented its passage of 1 restrictive and 2 interference laws with 3 expansive ones.

Two of Arkansas’s new expansive laws increase access to early voting. The first requires the establishment of additional voting sites in certain cities, and the second allows an additional early voting location in each county.footnote3_RHTWLKpIGTFY8pnPWyEcGfYOMYr-sF5Rhuq1mwfNSg_k8dk2h6aa3At3 AR H.B. 1878, AR S.B. 296. The third law gives voters until the close of polls to update their registration after a change of address or name rather than by four days before Election Day.footnote4_fnzhKoS6bbnS69j8OkxQAQhPFo1GBQJOHbul77KlaSQ_sgXFCbSep6xK4 AR S.B. 304.

Texas added additional early voting time over the weekend and the Monday before Election Day,footnote5_MJCP-TZnjfylcH-A-JvLVfH5T5D1bftUsh4QfVEBdFY_rrDs1Glyzpa35 TX S.B. 2753. The law reduces the early voting period by one day in total, but we consider this an expansive law because it added early voting hours just before election day while removing days further out.  established a required process that was previously optional for voters to fix issues with their mail ballots,footnote6_uAloUiWt05rtsRGphrqpfI6uoraUREvLCkT3hhf3BQo_gcnMpUVTUENZ6 TX S.B. 2964. and mandated that instructions for mail voting applications be provided in additional languages.footnote7_QZ69cm3W4SZXSU8Mp6PRRveYkEKz4TLPgy7Ub2NkA_fqxzfQz95EBM7 TX H.B. 2259.

At least 8 states enacted 9 lawsfootnote8_yZrY1iNmy-ZhXAMbTBw9tfp-nOYWMwKQnvN430wVyo_mh0adkWiNHw58 CA A.B. 930, CA A.B. 1249, HI H.B. 408, IA H.F. 397, ME L.D. 1977, ND H.B. 1165, RI H.B. 5709/RI S.B. 520, TX S.B. 2964, UT S.B. 164. California, Hawaii, Maine, and Rhode Island haven’t passed restrictive or interference laws, but as discussed later, Maine may pass an omnibus restrictive law by ballot initiative in November. that expand access to mail voting, 5 of which passed in states that didn’t also enact restrictive or interference laws. Laws of note include a North Dakota law that extends the deadline for voters to return their mail ballots in person up to the close of polls and allows election officials to count overseas voters’ ballots that arrive on Election Day. Previously, both had to arrive the day before Election Day.footnote9_rUQzd5nmBTKby86zzfB82NSVyq5Gpt1odixZbTb9zbo_b5gjdJWsA72U9 ND H.B. 1165.  Rhode Islanders can now apply to be on a no-excuse permanent mail voting list.footnote10_CqbOt912TjSJstetzQfz5POItKl4yt04iNRacMOtaWQ_oo84mIjS1svx10 RI H.B. 5709/RI S.B. 520.

At least 8 laws in 8 states increased voter registration opportunities, although only 3 of those states did not also pass a restrictive law.footnote11_DOmrIdwhyDomlG9V4XXmP5gdr5JCo-obU7HJKe03lM_vVZWcJYrVm1711 AR S.B. 304, CT H.B. 7287, HI H.B. 408, ID H.B. 278, OH H.B. 74, VA H.B. 1735/VA S.B. 991, WA S.B. 5077, WV H.B. 2709. Hawaii, Virginia, and Washington have not passed restrictive laws this year. Hawaii and Idaho extended their deadlines to register to vote by mail,footnote12_-iwUbPrl3g7FycfUIh93E1hp3ZEIw-K8zn-b38g-quo_jrvCJ3MH5dy412 HI H.B. 408, ID H.B. 278. and Idaho’s law also extended the deadline to register to vote generally.

Colorado established a state Voting Rights Act to eliminate barriers to the ballot box for voters of color, including the expansion of multilingual ballot access.footnote13_IRG0FGyGO1No5ogWnt3psoM0pWgYPxUT-ThYWFi40AE_p4vPD45uGXwq13 CO S.B. 1. Colorado is the eighth state to pass a state Voting Rights Act. Nevada and Maryland both expanded language accessibility requirements for voting and election materials and expanded translation services.footnote14_feCU19WoTHVBoK37U89zj6jaL-DKPoV2MD7sxvVIXU_vEqLzMvaDJja14 MD H.B. 983/MD S.B. 685, NV A.B. 367. The new Nevada law also allows the use of mobile devices for language interpretation for voters with disabilities.

Connecticut’s lone expansive voting law has multiple expansive provisions.footnote15_3a4dz3xLempCpqdnet693SsE6gGNI5d1rHbFsxNIlw_bbb7QFuCElvB15 CT H.B. 7287. It requires polling places to provide curbside voting, expands protocols to translate election materials, loosens the proof-of-residency requirement for same-day registration, ensures that eligible incarcerated individuals can apply for a mail ballot, and requires additional early voting locations on college campuses.

In addition to North Dakota’s, several restrictive laws enacted this year also contain expansive provisions. Kentucky will tighten ID requirements but expand eligibility for early in-person voting.footnote16_Se4so-eEtVtUxaAM0qU44TlHRxeBJ35fXsr99g56Fo_fOwQzRYoKS7k16 KY H.B. 684. The Ohio law that makes it harder to receive voting assistance also allows voters to register or update their registration electronically at the Department of Motor Vehicles.footnote17_72tTHoa1idT2PPTo5obhF5Cy0bZ76ub8g1l6P6MqPtY_xnilDsGelIfI17 OH H.B. 74. South Dakota expanded the list of reasons a voter’s registration can be challenged but simultaneously created stricter standards for winning those challenges, requiring personal knowledge backed by evidence.footnote18_xpiZXqSJqILcptvsQhhCqpU4jdsAs82rIweAIZ-goj0_gysW9ZrYegMj18 SD S.B. 185. The Tennessee law that creates additional hurdles for petitioning to have one’s voting rights restored after a felony conviction also streamlines other parts of the process and expands who may be eligible for re-enfranchisement.footnote19_UeDHnQR3O4VOhiU9sIRGve5Ug6DOLH5mmw8coLYkH-w_y0NMJRyrj7h919 TN S.B. 407.

Finally, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) vetoed at least 4 bills with expansive voting provisions this year. If not for the vetoes, Nevadans would have longer registration periods,footnote20_yNZLMINovkQzJNJj0ho0YuzGsRu7WZC3Y4JedUgffFo_eEQF06LMq9zS20 NV A.B. 534. greater access to ballot drop boxes,footnote21_j58qGA—q29Xm68OPBPiNG23xiwulBwJ-FUvFdASMco_xtt2aW7V3c8b21 NV A.B. 306. simpler processes to correct mistakes on their mail ballots,footnote22_TeLbe2pF5apAUphuQolQTFwEn3cbcAxjZxgAS8SQz2g_qDcFDclJw5K122 NV A.B. 499. and more voter ID options,footnote23_9G0Hd7-GMgHyBZETA98UVPvm0PfjzCJoww8wpzikwf8_oEz23Z9X823h23 NV S.B. 422. among other expansive provisions.

One of the bills that Lombardo vetoed had both expansive and restrictive provisions.footnote24_TeLbe2pF5apAUphuQolQTFwEn3cbcAxjZxgAS8SQz2g_qUH2OUGbjVeb24 NV A.B. 499. Described as a compromise between the Republican governor and the Democratic legislative majority, the bill would have required voter ID and expanded ballot drop box capacity. Another veto blocked a bill that would have prohibited guns within 100 feet of a polling place.footnote25_EOIqWi6gOIqS7FWIK2OxLFIeNvcGaleb3WUjnXxAfUA_j3Wc5e1DHDsZ25 NV A.B. 105. Although we do not categorize this bill as expansive, it reflects a recent trend of legislation banning the open carry of firearms at polling places.

Legislators Focus on Removing Voters from the Rolls

When performed with sufficient safeguards to ensure accuracy, removing people who are no longer eligible from the voter rolls as part of routine list maintenance ensures that the voter rolls are up to date. But at least 6 states passed 7 restrictive laws in 2025 that use flawed or misleading data for voter list maintenance, which could lead to the removal of eligible American citizens from the rolls. Another 4 states passed similar laws that could enable the use of data to bolster false assertions about widespread voter fraud, although these are not included in our count of restrictive laws.footnote1_O66fy7GOiSTYeE8aoEaSnurkRMsZ9mkr4ajTT30uSE_fCTNHTqIDEb81 Restrictive: IN H.B. 1679, IN S.B. 10, KS H.B. 2020, MT H.B. 248, TN S.B. 626, UT H.B. 300, WV S.B. 487. Not restrictive: IA H.F. 954, ID H.B. 339, LA H.B. 592, WY H.B. 318. Some of these laws contain multiple restrictive provisions that may be discussed elsewhere in this roundup.

Some of the voter removal laws considered in 2025 stem from claims that noncitizens vote in large numbers. In reality, only citizens vote, with vanishingly rare exceptions. Federal law and the laws of every state prohibit noncitizens from registering to vote. And states already have multiple systems in place to ensure that only eligible American citizens vote. Policies inspired by these false claims often block eligible citizens from voting. Ohio, Texas, and Virginia, for example, claimed to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls, but in each case, they wrongly removed thousands of eligible American citizens and did not publicly identify any noncitizens removed from the rolls.

The voter purge laws passed so far this year reflect four themes.

Targeting nonresidential addresses: At least 2 states enacted laws targeting voters based on the address they provide when registering to vote. Indiana now forbids counties from registering voters who use nonresidential addresses, such as P.O. boxes.footnote2_pGUZ0MDzmC7gqtH9JLKTeoPUJrXsajT1Ujjws5U-Eg_zGFYkg87aJWV2 IN H.B. 1679.  Utah will now evaluate voter registration addresses to “identify potential anomalies,” including eight or more voters registered at a single-family home address.footnote3_fB1AM82PgFiq8QUU0JlAqCXOocpTocWYdPjhIuy2kKw_q7J75IckoPYz3 UT H.B. 300. Laws like these can raise hurdles for eligible voters who live with large families or may not be registered at a residential address, which may be necessary for people who are experiencing homelessness, traveling, or protecting their identity due to stalking, domestic violence, or other threats to their personal safety.

Shortening periods for inactive voters: At least 3 states enacted laws that make it easier to remove voters who have not recently voted, or “inactive” voters, even though these voters are otherwise still eligible to vote. Such voters must respond to a written notice or, after a certain period (at least two election cycles, under federal law), the state will remove them. West Virginia used to designate voters as inactive when they had not voted in four years; now it does so in two.footnote4_xhvAkfB6mcwuxZWJhOHm3GO6aKKRleLI8vgOohXe1n8_fxYkpwgZvcHN4 WV S.B. 487. Tennessee and Indiana, which previously did not have inactivity periods, now require counties to contact voters who did not vote in the two most recent general elections.footnote5_UGpwE6pDlfjFnkmAjxqc7pSWmXxTA60lQlsPGZjzb9A_yuIemRMFr59l5 IN S.B. 10, TN S.B. 626. Voters designated as inactive may have to take additional steps to vote, like responding to notices more frequently or reaffirming their addresses.footnote6_1hNrixNYOy9gGUYfgV-nKoynhjPUuuOgoAIkUc1AEI_bHmIk3EbdJOR6See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 2–7–140(c)(1) (requiring inactive voters to make a written affirmation of their address and entitlement to vote); W.V. Code § 3–2–25 (requiring inactive voters to affirm their current residence address on a form before voting). Shorter inactivity periods punish voters who sit out elections, inevitably leading to some eligible people being removed from the rolls.footnote7_UGpwE6pDlfjFnkmAjxqc7pSWmXxTA60lQlsPGZjzb9A_vQsmqXBrxuHG7 IN S.B. 10, TN S.B. 626.

Using federal SAVE program data: While we do not include states that have expanded their use of the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program in our count of restrictive laws, misleading uses of SAVE program data can support false narratives about noncitizen voting or lead to improper removals of voters from the rolls. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and DOGE recently expanded the personal data that can be accessed through the SAVE program, citing false claims of noncitizen voting. At the same time, at least 3 states enacted laws — and 8 states introduced bills — that would require or allow election officials to use data from the SAVE program for list maintenance; as noted, these are not included in our restrictive counts.footnote8_uYsYV07tE3uHPJbzTp2DEwZ5BzxRxxNrX9zIFqlz6Ko_hVrTocMn2Kms8 Enacted: ID H.B. 339, UT H.B. 300, WY H.B. 318. Introduced: AK S.B. 64, IA S.F. 550, MI H.B. 4461, NY A.B. 6454, NY S.B. 2345, OH S.B. 153, SC H.B. 4295, TN H.B. 458, TX H.B. 2245, TX H.B. 5337, TX S.B. 16.

Election officials regularly consult both state and federal data to help verify a prospective voter’s citizenship. When used responsibly and with proper safeguards, the SAVE program may help officials do this. In fact, based on SAVE program data, the Louisiana secretary of state recently announced that “non-citizens illegally registering or voting is not a systemic problem” in that state. But, like all databases, the SAVE program is imperfect and incomplete, so irresponsible or misleading accounts of the results of a SAVE program search could be used to bolster false assertions about widespread voter fraud, improper voter purges, or improper investigations into election officials.

Sharing voters’ data with the Justice Department: Our count of restrictive laws does not include states that have enacted legislation to share voters’ data with the Department of Justice, but sharing such data could enable the federal government to attempt to force states to remove voters from the rolls based on incomplete information. In May 2025, the Department of Justice began demanding copies of states’ voter registration databases, which include sensitive information like driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers. These requests not only raise the risk of erroneous removals but also exceed the department’s authority and violate federal and state privacy laws. Most states have either not responded or provided only the publicly available versions of their voter files. But Louisiana now allows state officials to transmit a voter’s Social Security number, driver’s license number, day and month of birth, mother’s maiden name, email address, cell phone number, need for assistance in voting, and active-duty status — all of which are confidential under state lawfootnote9_Jl6J4FxOFfKdRsBT1EjiN-JhMP9ncL8r7I1g6jeWc_vhEfyMiBygWe9 La. Rev. Stat. § 18:154(C)(1). — to a federal agency or private vendor.footnote10_fGTQ4eIS5npLn4n45EYwAYQ7YkXV303bHpqb4uM2IA_rU1Dz4XUY2js10 LA H.B. 592.

Ballot Initiatives

Ballot initiatives give citizens the opportunity to have direct input into the rules of their elections. Some states’ ballot questions are raised through the legislature, while others are led by citizens. Although we don’t count ballot initiatives as restrictive or interference legislation, voting-related initiatives can still affect voters and access to the ballot box.

Voters in Maine will vote on whether to approve a proposal that includes a litany of provisions that would restrict voting access.footnote11_TMhute29msmLh3SQFR-KBVCtyb6eW5KI49de79jV8eo_rTsShViyLDiB11 ME I.B. 1. The proposal, which originated as a citizen-led initiative, was not subsequently approved by the legislature, meaning it will appear on voters’ ballots this November. It would eliminate two days of mail voting, prohibit mail ballot requests made by phone or by family members, remove automatic mail voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage for mail ballot return envelopes, reduce the number of drop boxes, expand opportunities for frivolous challenges to voter eligibility, and require voters to show photo ID to vote in person or by mail. If approved, it would be perhaps the most restrictive law enacted this year, alongside Utah’s recently enacted law.footnote12_fB1AM82PgFiq8QUU0JlAqCXOocpTocWYdPjhIuy2kKw_bDQ4KJFM9Hj012 UT H.B. 300.

Wisconsinites voted in April to enshrine in the state constitution a requirement to present a photo ID to vote, which had already been required by statute since 2011.

In some states, ballot initiatives are the vehicle to attempt to toughen the language in their constitutions around citizenship and voting. Arkansas, Kansas, and South Dakota voters will consider in 2026 whether to revise constitutional language to say that “only” U.S. citizens can vote in those states or to restate the prohibition on noncitizen voting, while Texas voters will do so this November.footnote13_MJKNITvfypET8Q62L8xzhM42t6vMTGHPFTfFuy0FV4_rsigxzAR5U9I13 AR H.J.R. 1018, KS H.C.R. 5004, SD S.J.R. 503, TX S.J.R. 37. If they succeed, these initiatives will have no practical effect, as it is already a federal crime and a crime in all 4 of these states for noncitizens to vote.

Additionally, some states are using legislation — or the ballot initiative process itself — to limit their citizens’ ability to propose and pass ballot measures.

A new law in Florida places significant restrictions on citizen-led lawmaking through ballot initiatives,footnote14_jbxqjSuTbfSNyRVFAyNhRorsXOazs6Xipcb33EVXJ8_snhK2X25CaKB14 FL H.B. 1205. even though the state already makes this process harder than many others. Ballot initiatives must get 60 percent of the vote to pass (in 2023, the legislature tried to amend the constitution to make it 66.67 percent, but voters rejected the change), and the state has passed other laws in recent years to make signature gathering more difficult. The new law also creates stricter requirements for petition circulators, requires more information from voters when signing petitions, and creates potentially onerous civil penalties for certain violations, among other provisions. There is at least one lawsuit challenging it.

Missouri’s legislature approved a ballot measure for 2026footnote15_8CZJqsvkhYg0IbZQDyG8q0lqDs0E8692fGiqaXV1aD0_l8kvSHeRWAfo15 MO H.J.R. 3. that would change how constitutional amendments are passed, possibly in response to several recent successful ballot measures, including ones that enshrined paid sick leave and abortion rights in the state constitution. If approved, the passage of citizen-led amendments would require a majority in each congressional district, rather than 50 percent of the total state vote. It would also create criminal penalties for signing someone else’s name on a petition or signing more than once.

Arkansas passed 5 laws targeting the ballot initiative process.footnote16_aS1cOYuAdA6L4dOeBy3a8fcaQj4dXvU5g8OPpCBSm-o_pjF3yQAzZ6QF16 AR S.B. 207, AR S.B. 208, AR S.B. 209, AR S.B. 210, AR S.B. 211. The harshest provisions mandate that canvassers review a signer’s photo ID and warn potential signers about “petition fraud” being a criminal offense, as well as require canvassers to fill out an affidavit about their signature-gathering practices under threat of multiple criminal penalties.

Other state legislatures have also considered bills to restrict or undermine direct democracy, including efforts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah to raise the approval threshold to 60 percent.

This analysis was produced by the Brennan Center and the Democracy Policy Lab at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy.