Skip Navigation

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2024

Voters in almost half the country will face new voting restrictions in the upcoming general election.

Published: May 17, 2024

About half of the states’ 2024 legislative sessions have concluded, and the general election is six months away. So far, the new voting laws enacted in 2024 are following the trends set in 2021. Some states have put new voting restrictions in place while others have enacted new laws that make voting easier.

Between January 1 and May 3, 2024:

  • At least six states enacted seven restrictive laws.footnote1_kMK7yxsRNZPx1AL S.B. 1, AZ H.B. 2785, ID H.B. 599, IN H.B. 1264, TN S.B. 1967, TN S.B. 2586, WV S.B. 624. 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 as compared to existing state law. Most notably, Alabama and Idaho each passed significant new restrictions. Five of the seven new lawsfootnote2_s8gxPhnWtDYT2TN S.B. 1967 takes effect the day after the November election, while WV S.B. 624 will not be in place until January 1, 2025. in five states (Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and Tennessee) will be in place for the 2024 general election.
  • At least one state, South Dakota, passed an election interference law, which goes into effect on July 1.footnote3_vB8x6UQt7h3Z3SD H.B. 1182. 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.
  • At least 11 states enacted 14 expansive laws, the most notable being one in Kentucky that widely expands absentee voting access.footnote4_iJ26an9zWqxV4AZ H.B. 2785, ID H.B. 532, IN H.B. 1265, KY H.B. 580, MS S.B. 2576, NE L.B. 20, OR S.B. 1533, OR S.B. 1538, TN S.B. 2118, VA H.B. 441/VA S.B. 605, VA H.B. 1330, WA H.B. 1962, WA S.B. 5890, WI A.B. 298. 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. Twelve of these laws, including Kentucky’s, will be in effect for this year’s general election.footnote5_kBDfyuEgaSIF5OR S.B. 1533 takes effect on January 1, 2025, while WA H.B. 1962 will not be in place until June 1, 2025.

The most restrictive of the new laws prohibit certain forms of assistance with absentee voting.footnote6_ocV2tvlJvREo6AL S.B. 1, ID H.B. 599. This is consistent with the trend of some state legislatures making it a priority to curtail access to voting by mail, which we’ve tracked since the expansion and record use of mail voting at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

Many states continue to improve the voting process rather than create restrictions, with mail voting once again the focal point.

A significant trend this year is the introduction of bills that would regulate the use of deepfakes and AI-generated content in elections, as emerging technology heightens concerns about the spread of disinformation. AI-generated content has now reached a point where it can produce close-to-perfect picture, video, and audio imitations of people. With little effort or time, hoaxers can now create phony election materials that appear authentic — such as the flood of robocalls imitating President Biden that encouraged voters to skip the presidential primary earlier this year.

Another trend in 2024 is lawmakers considering bills related to noncitizen voting. While some of these would not create new restrictions (noncitizen voting is illegal under federal law and the law in every state, outside of a small handful of local elections), others risk disenfranchising eligible voters, and all of them may scare or confuse immigrants who have become citizens and are eligible to vote. There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens occurs in more than minuscule numbers.

New Laws on the Books for the 2024 Election

Ahead of the general election, a complete picture is developing of where casting a ballot will be harder than it was four years ago. Some states have spent the past few years piling on restrictions. In at least 21 states,footnote7_esbydzpCu4wH7Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. While West Virginia passed a restrictive voting law this year, the law will not take effect until after the general election. voters in the 2024 election will face restrictions they’ve never encountered before in a presidential or midterm election. Voters in 28 statesfootnote8_re7W3PYZp1rL8Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. will face restrictions that weren’t in place in the last presidential election.

Since 2020, many of the same state legislatures that added new voting restrictions have also passed laws that open the door to election interference. At least 13 statesfootnote9_yTNjrzw8U3xB9Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. North Carolina would have been one of these states, but its new interference law, S.B. 749, was struck down by a state court. The case is now on appeal. will have an election interference law in place this year that was not in place for the 2020 election.  Six statesfootnote10_uW4lRHboWofO10Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, and Texas. will have at least one interference law in effect that was not in effect for the 2022 midterms.

New Laws on the Books Since the Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act

Counting the latest additions from this year, at least 31 states have passed 103 restrictive voting laws since the Supreme Court gutted a key portion of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.

End Notes

Restrictive Legislation

Between January 1 and May 3, Alabama, Idaho, and Indiana enacted extensive restrictions on voting access, and three other states added restrictions that are likely to have less wide-ranging effects. Overall, lawmakers in 40 states have considered at least 291 restrictive bills for the 2024 legislative session.

Alabama and Idaho passed laws that broadly criminalize certain forms of assistance with absentee voting, the former relating to mail ballot applications and the latter to completed mail ballots. Constraints on mail voting assistance fall hardest on elderly voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited access to transportation.

Alabama’s new lawfootnote1_qrD46SH3AbRt1AL S.B. 1. imposes criminal penalties on any person who submits another voter’s mail ballot application. It also makes it a crime to distribute a pre-filled absentee ballot application or to receive or provide payment or a gift for distributing, collecting, or submitting a mail ballot application. Interpreted broadly, the latter provision could impose criminal penalties for providing postage stamps or gas money to a neighbor who distributes absentee ballot applications. It could also be read to prohibit civic engagement groups — which often pay their staff or give their volunteers token gifts such as stickers — from assisting absentee voters. The law makes limited exceptions for voters undergoing medical treatment or during declared states of emergency. It also makes a vague exception for voters who require assistance due to a disability or the inability to read or write, but it doesn’t make clear what kind of assistance is permissible for such voters. Voting rights advocates have challenged the Alabama law in court.

Idaho’s new lawfootnote2_hntdzeYwVeZI2ID H.B. 599. makes it a crime for any person to collect or deliver another voter’s mail ballot, except for election officials, postal workers, those who receive compensation, relatives, household members, and caregivers. Again, elderly voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited transportation are most likely to feel the effects of this change.

Indiana enacted a lawfootnote3_vzfwtjiKtVHj3IN H.B. 1264. that heightens the chances that naturalized citizens will be wrongly removed from the voting rolls. The law requires election officials to compare voter registration information with Bureau of Motor Vehicles records to identify purported noncitizens. People they flag have 30 days to provide proof of citizenship or their registrations will be canceled. Hearings on the legislation included testimony that motor vehicle data is often outdated; indeed, more than 8,000 Indiana residents are naturalized each year, and those who take the oath of citizenship may still be marked as noncitizens in the database until they renew their licenses.

Indiana’s new law echoes a 2019 Texas policy that the state had to promptly rescind. Texas’s secretary of state had announced that the state would require proof of citizenship from tens of thousands of registered voters who were allegedly noncitizens, but after multiple lawsuits pointed out that purging voters who are flagged as noncitizens using outdated motor vehicle data discriminated against naturalized citizens, the state revised the policy. Indiana’s similar policy this year is part of a larger trend targeting noncitizen voting, which is a nonproblem, as we discuss below. 

Additionally, three more states passed laws that increase barriers to voting — including two in Tennessee. The first new law in Tennessee shortens the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot by three days.footnote4_sdwvwlIix9rn4TN S.B. 1967. The second imposes new requirements on voter registration organizations. Among other things, it limits who can assist others with registering to vote and establishes a fine of up to $5,000 for any organization or individual who violates the law, even inadvertently.footnote5_wK9jIDFhs3xp5TN S.B. 2586.

An Arizona law,footnote6_yCwLrMbTZnTV6AZ H.B. 2785. which also has expansive provisions, shortens the period during which voters may fix issues with their signatures on mail ballots from five business days to five calendar days for federal elections. And West Virginia now requires county clerks to cancel the registrations of voters who get out-of-state driver’s licensesfootnote7_qFLn6rL6YGdc7WV S.B. 624. — a burden on students, military members, and others who temporarily reside outside the state but intend to return and therefore remain eligible to vote in West Virginia.

Governors in two states used their veto power to prevent additional voting restrictions from becoming law. Lawmakers in Wisconsin passed a bill,footnote8_tu48RvA2BuWr8WI A.B. 570. discussed in our last roundup, that would have added several new grounds for not counting mail ballots, including minor technical errors such as a missing zip code. In his veto message, the governor observed that the bill would have required “all ballots with even the most inconsequential mistakes to be discarded.” The Arizona legislature took aim at student voters by passing a bill,footnote9_pUzl0sI8IoyQ9AZ H.B. 2404. which the governor vetoed, that would have barred election officials from issuing voter registration cards to addresses outside the state.

As of May 3, 28 bills are still moving through 12 state legislatures. Among these, a proposal in Georgia has passed both chambers of the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature or veto.footnote10_muUL2nDFuIYK10The governor signed the bill into law on May 6, after the cutoff date for this roundup. The Georgia billfootnote11_zJeVDAFtZXU411GA S.B. 189. would make it easier for private citizens to challenge someone’s eligibility to vote based on unreliable data, increasing the chances that eligible voters would have their registrations canceled.

End Notes

Election Interference Legislation

Between January 1 and May 3, only one state — South Dakota — has enacted an election interference law. So far this year, at least 21 states have considered 56 bills that would allow for election interference. As of May 3, at least seven were still moving through seven state legislatures.

South Dakota’s new lawfootnote1_sJD1NqZXvHZZ1SD H.B. 1182. subjects election workers to criminal penalties for not allowing poll watchers increased latitude to observe voting activity. Specifically, the law requires election workers to ensure that every poll watcher is positioned in a location from which they can “plainly see and hear what is done within the polling place.” The law criminalizes routine election administration activity based on real-time judgment calls regarding where watchers can observe the election process. An election worker who violates this provision faces a misdemeanor offense.

The new South Dakota law expands on a similar interference lawfootnote2_fKTKiiNdneMX2SD H.B. 1165. the state enacted last year imposing criminal penalties on poll workers for not keeping the process of canvassing mail ballots sufficiently open to poll watcher observance. The criminalization of poll worker conduct deters people from serving as poll workers and makes those who continue to serve hesitant to enforce the rules necessary to keep order at the polls. In turn, it raises the risk that disruptive and intimidating poll watcher behavior will be left unchecked.

South Dakota is not alone in considering legislation to criminalize standard poll worker actions. Lawmakers in three other states have considered four billsfootnote3_iTkqoAyh7x3E3NC H.B. 772, OK S.B. 995, WI S.B. 560, WI A.B. 543. this year that expand the power of poll watchers to observe stages of the election process and create criminal offenses for election workers who violate such provisions. Of these, one was nearly enacted: the Wisconsin legislature passed a bill,footnote4_e61xahBVfOrI4WI A.B. 543. discussed in our last roundup, that would have subjected election workers to criminal penalties for not allowing poll watchers increased proximity to observe voters announce their name and address at a polling place. The governor vetoed the bill.

End Notes

Expansive Legislation

Between January 1 and May 3, at least 11 states enacted 14 laws that make it easier to vote. Overall, at least 44 states have considered 631 bills this year that would expand voting access.

Virginia, Washington, and Oregon each passed two new expansive laws during their legislative sessions. In our last roundup, we identified Virginia as a state to watch because it had seesawed between expanding and restricting voting access in recent years, noting that Virginia legislators pre-filed both expansive and restrictive bills for the 2024 legislative session. Four months later, lawmakers have enacted two expansive reforms, and the governor vetoed two other pieces of expansive legislation.

The first new expansive law in Virginia allows eligible voters who are in jail awaiting trial or following a misdemeanor conviction to vote by absentee ballot and requires the holding institution to provide the means for the voter to do so.footnote1_wGdOnAaBVPcS1VA H.B. 1330. While we categorize this law as expansive, the Constitution may require states to allow people detained awaiting trial or convicted of a misdemeanor to vote. See O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974). The second removes the requirement that a disability be “physical” for a voter to be able to vote and receive assistance outside a polling place.footnote2_vVajCAUbyz3j2VA H.B. 441/VA S.B. 605. We count these two laws as one because they are identical. Moreover, we again count this as an expansive law even though federal law requires any voter who needs assistance because of “blindness, disability, or inability to read or write” to be able to receive that assistance. 52 U.S.C. § 10508. The governor vetoed a bill to expand the list of acceptable voter IDs to include those issued by private entities licensed by state medical agencies. The other bill the governor vetoed would have permitted private citizens and private groups to sue the state or localities for restricting voting access or diluting the voting power of racial or language groups.footnote3_mXdqfTmQIHKF3VA H.B. 26, VA H.B. 623.

Elsewhere, the first of Washington’s two expansive laws requires county officials to proactively update the voter registration information of people who move to a new county in the state. This change removes a hurdle to voting for those people, who previously had to re-register to vote in their new counties.footnote4_mlDKAgU57siG4WA H.B. 1962. The second law requires officials to take affirmative steps to help absentee voters fulfill signature-matching requirements and correct signature defects.footnote5_nRWtAOVaRatZ5WA S.B. 5890.

Oregon’s two laws expand requirements for translating voting materials into additional languages.footnote6_m1TgPQ3lS3Li6OR S.B. 1533, OR S.B. 1538.

Kentucky passed a law with several expansive provisions regarding absentee voting.footnote7_nXiFVniLwy9H7KY H.B. 580. Under the new law, Kentuckians can now vote an absentee ballot if they will be out of town during the early voting period even if they will be present on Election Day. The law also permits eligible voters in jail to call election clerks for voting purposes, allows mail ballots to be sent to addresses other than the ones in the registration files in certain circumstances (such as for students living at school), and allows health care workers to return absentee ballots on behalf of voters.

Nebraska amended its laws so that voting rights are restored immediately upon the completion of the terms of a felony sentence, including probation.footnote8_tA30RsLV80Hj8NE L.B. 20. Previously, people who completed the terms of a felony sentence had to wait two years before they were eligible to vote. This makes Nebraska the latest of 15 statesfootnote9_iDZfzuWgs0qW9Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Washington. and DC that have changed their voting laws in the last six years to allow more people with felony convictions to vote.

Tennessee now requires election officials to provide accessible absentee ballots for voters with disabilities that make it hard for them to read or write printed materials.footnote10_rvgqfQ5beztw10TN S.B. 2118. Indiana has a new law allowing election officials to hand-deliver notices of signature mismatches on absentee ballots to voters and permits those voters to return signature-verification affidavits to early voting sites.footnote11_qvrGVtzKfO4P11IN H.B. 1265. Mississippi tweaked its voter ID laws to allow voters to use an outdated or undated ID.footnote12_hvcgxUSZAUv112MS S.B. 2576. The state still requires a person to present a driver’s license, state ID card, U.S. passport, firearm carry license, tribal ID card, military ID card, college student ID, employment ID issued by a government agency, or a Mississippi voter ID card to vote, but that ID may have been issued within the prior 10 years or have no expiration date.

Idaho now mandates that motor vehicle bureaus issue a free ID card that can be used for voting to any applicant who is at least 18 years of age and states that they need the card to vote, whereas before, only individuals who had not had a driver’s license for at least six months could receive the free ID card.footnote13_vC6N06lmlLT013ID H.B. 532. Wisconsin limited situations in which polling places can be closed within 30 days of an election.footnote14_qiGbXx9UWMh614WI A.B. 298.

Finally, the new law in Arizona that has a restrictive provision also has two expansive parts. This law extends early in-person voting hours to 7 p.m. from 5 p.m. on the final day of early in-person voting before Election Day. The law also adds identity verification options for voters returning mail ballots to polling places starting in 2026.footnote15_uan2ZMiRkfDE15AZ H.B. 2785.

As of May 3, 60 bills are still moving through 16 state legislatures. Notably, an expansive bill that has passed both chambers of the Mississippi legislature will become law automatically unless the governor vetoes it.footnote16_n939JBkR4R6p16MS H.B. 1406. The bill became law without action by the governor on May 14. This bill would remove a requirement that absentee voters sign a form under oath and would require election officials to notify absentee voters within one day of the election if their ballot was rejected due to a signature mismatch and provide information on how to fix it.footnote17_gBhRHjmYL86H17Additionally, Oklahoma’s governor signed into law on May 13 an expansive bill that would allow people whose felony convictions have been discharged, commuted, pardoned, or downgraded to a misdemeanor to register to vote. Current law only allows people convicted of felonies to register after serving the full number of days in their sentence. OK H.B. 1629.

End Notes

Other Noteworthy Developments

In addition to the categories above, we are closely watching two trends this year.

States Introduce Bills to Protect Elections from Deepfakes

By increasing the sophistication of traditional deceptive practices, generative AI can make it easier for bad actors to spread disinformation that undermines trust in elections and suppresses votes. As the use of deepfakes and other AI-generated election content increases, state legislators across the nation have taken steps toward regulating it.

As of May 3, at least 39 states have introduced 79 bills to build safeguards against AI-generated material in our elections.footnote1_vNW0PLsXh45E1AK H.B. 358, AK S.B. 177, AL H.B. 172, AZ H.B. 2394, AZ S.B. 1359, AZ S.B. 1515, AZ S.B. 1360, CA A.B. 2355, CA A.B. 2655, CA A.B. 2839, CO H.B. 1147, CT H.B. 5450, CT S.B. 2, DE H.B. 316, FL H.B. 919, FL S.B. 850, GA H.B. 986, HI H.B. 1766, HI S.B. 1734, HI S.B. 2396, HI S.B. 2687, IA H.S.B. 599, IA H.F. 2499, IA H.F. 2549, IA S.F. 2318, ID H.B. 426, ID H.B. 565, ID S.B. 664, IL H.B. 4624, IL H.B. 4644, IL H.B. 4933, IN H.B. 1133, IN H.B. 1225, IN H.B. 1228, IN S.B. 7, KS H.B. 2559, KS H.B. 2576, KY H.B. 45, KY S.B. 131, LA H.B. 154, LA S.B. 217, LA S.B. 97, MA S.B. 2730, MD H.B. 872, MN H.F. 3625, MN H.F. 4772, MN S.F. 3550, MN S.F. 4029, MO H.B. 2628, MS H.B. 1689, MS S.B. 2577, NC S.B. 880, NE L.B. 1203, NH H.B. 1432, NH H.B. 1500, NH H.B. 1596, NH H.B. 1710, NJ A.B. 2818, NJ S.B. 2543, NM H.B. 182, NY A.B. 6790, NY A.B. 8808, NY A.B. 9028, NY S.B. 8400, OH H.B. 410, OK H.B. 3825, OK S.B. 1655, OR S.B. 1571, PA H.B. 2079, PA H.B. 2144, RI H.B. 7387, SD S.B. 96, TN H.B. 2185, TN S.B. 2057, TN S.B. 2386, UT S.B. 131, WI A.B. 664, WV H.B. 4963, WY S.B. 51. At least nine states have enacted laws to address generative AI so far this year.footnote2_kNnRun8INp8Q2FL H.B. 919, ID S.B. 664, IN H.B. 1133, MS S.B. 2577, NM H.B. 182, NY A.B. 8808, OR S.B. 1571, UT S.B. 131, WI A.B. 664. All nine add a requirement that some synthetic media related to elections include a visible or audible disclaimer that the message was manipulated. Two more bills addressing AI-generated material were passed by the legislatures in two states and are awaiting the governors’ approval.footnote3_rMhspN6jUzbM3CO H.B. 1147, HI S.B. 2687.

Across the universe of the 79 bills, most require disclosure statements on some media that has been digitally generated or manipulated. Some of the bills prohibit certain artificial election media within 90 days of an election or entirely. Numerous states introduced, in whole or in part, model legislation that includes the 90-day ban and disclosure requirements. In addition, many of the bills create civil or criminal penalties for violations.

Lawmakers Target Noncitizen Voting Despite It Already Being Illegal

In recent months, some politicians have claimed that people who aren’t U.S. citizens are voting in significant numbers. In reality, noncitizen voting is extremely rare. It is already a federal crime and a crime in every state for noncitizens to register and/or vote. Only a small handful of local jurisdictions allow noncitizens to vote in local elections only. States have multiple systems in place to deter noncitizen voting.

At least 24 states have introduced 54 bills that reiterate that only U.S. citizens can vote, require people to provide proof of citizenship at registration, or direct election officials to find and cancel noncitizen voter registrations.footnote4_q5y7PBIMhUGK4AZ H.C.R. 2001, AZ H.B. 2351, AZ H.B. 2801, AZ S.C.R. 1011, FL H.B. 1101, FL S.B. 1168, FL S.B. 1602, HI H.B. 1704, IA S.F. 2078, ID H.J.R. 5, ID H.B. 628, IL H.B. 3117, IL S.B. 3736, IN H.B. 1264, IN H.B. 1286, KY H.B. 44, KY H.B. 341, KY S.B. 143, KY S.B. 323, LA S.B. 436, MD S.B. 605, MO H.J.R. 100, MO H.R.J. 101, MO H.J.R. 104, MO H.J.R. 182, MO H.B. 1413, MO S.J.R. 91, MS H.C.R. 34, MS H.C.R. 36, MS H.C.R. 38, MS H.B. 170, MS S.C.R. 513, NE L.B. 1152, NH H.B. 1569, NJ A.B. 387, NJ A.B. 1554, NJ S.B. 413, NJ S.B. 1636, NY A.B. 6038, NY A.B. 9193, OH H.B. 472, OK H.B. 3325, OK S.B. 1659, RI H.B. 7393, RI H.J.R. 8017, RI S.B. 2654, SC H.J.R. 5081, SC S.J.R. 1126, SD S.J.R. 511, TN H.B. 835, TN S.B. 137, VA H.B. 1441, WV H.J.R. 21, WV S.J.R. 7.

We do not classify all these bills as restrictive, either because the legislation would not effect a practical change in law or because it would not prevent eligible citizens from registering or voting. For example, legislatures in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Idaho passed measures on noncitizen voting that will be placed on the ballot for voters in the 2024 general election.footnote5_eBmMsvNcS2az5ID H.J.R. 5, KY S.B. 143, SC S.J.R. 1126. If approved, the proposals would amend the states’ constitutions to expressly prohibit noncitizens from voting, yet noncitizens are already barred from voting in any election in these three states.footnote6_tbMrZovaGH1I6Ky. Rev. Stat. § 116.025(1), Idaho Code § 34–104, S.C. Code § 7–5–120. Moreover, Kentucky enacted a noncitizen voting measure providing that individuals excused from jury duty for lacking U.S. citizenship must be removed from the voter rolls within five days.footnote7_tDeqMXo44B3m7KY H.B. 44. We don’t consider this law to be restrictive because it requires action to be taken right after a person claims not to be a citizen. This process therefore entails individualized removals based on information provided by that person to a court, which minimizes the chances that eligible voters will be removed from the rolls because of outdated information or as part of a faulty mass purge.

Some efforts to further ban noncitizen voting, however, are restrictive because they risk disenfranchising eligible voters, such as bills that create documentary proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration or that impose list-maintenance activities that will likely remove eligible citizens from the rolls. For example, in the case of Indiana’s new restrictive voting law discussed in the restrictive legislation section above, officials are required to cross-check voter registration information with motor vehicle records to find potential noncitizens; anyone flagged has 30 days to provide proof of citizenship or their registration will be canceled. As we’ve previously mentioned, motor vehicle data is often outdated, meaning people who have become naturalized citizens — thus eligible to register and vote — may be wrongly removed from the rolls. And any law that requires documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration risks disenfranchising eligible citizens who lack one of the acceptable forms of proof, in addition to existing forms of ID (e.g., a driver’s license).

End Notes