Voting Laws Roundup: September 2024

Click here for the most recent Voting Laws Roundup >>

This edition of the Voting Laws Roundup looks at state-level voting and election legislation enacted since both the last roundup in May 2024 and the last presidential election in 2020.

This year, legislatures across the country have continued to introduce and pass voting legislation far above pre-2021 rates. Regular legislative sessions for this year have ended in almost all states. Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania continue to move bills through their legislature. Between January 1, 2024, and September 16, 2024:

• At least 9 states enacted 18 restrictive voting laws,¹the second-highest level of output in any year since the Brennan Center began tracking such legislation over a decade ago (the highest number was in 2021). Louisiana is responsible for 8 of these laws. At least 4 states enacted 11 restrictive laws since the May roundup.
• At least 2 states enacted 2 election interference laws,²with 1 new law enacted in Louisiana since the May roundup.
• At least 19 states enacted 28 expansive laws.³At least 9 states enacted 14 of these laws since the May roundup.

State legislatures have kept themselves incredibly busy over the past four years introducing and passing laws related to voting and elections. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, from January 1, 2021, to September 16, 2024:

• At least 30 states enacted 78 restrictive laws, at least 63 of which are set to be in effect in 29 states this fall.⁴
• At least 15 states passed 33 election interference laws, with at least 31 interference laws in 14 states set to be in effect for a presidential election for the first time.
• At least 41 states plus Washington, DC, have enacted 168 expansive laws since January 2021. At least 156 of these laws across all 41 of those states and DC are set to be in effect this fall.⁵

Those 78 restrictive voting laws account for over two-thirds of all restrictive laws enacted since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013. In the 11 years since the Shelby County v. Holder decision removed a key check against voting restrictions, at least 31 states have enacted 114 restrictive voting laws.

After historic voter turnout in the 2020 election, baseless allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities sparked an unprecedented wave of legislation that made voting harder in early 2021. While the wave crested that year, it never fully receded; 2024 has been the second most active year for restrictive voting legislation in at least a decade. This fall, in more than half the states, millions of voters will face hurdles to vote that they have never before encountered in a presidential election. As discussed in a recent Brennan Center analysis, some of these laws contain multiple restrictive provisions.

This period since the 2020 election contains by far the most activity for passing restrictive legislation compared to the four-year spans between the last few presidential elections. The number of new restrictive laws enacted between 2021 and 2024 almost doubled the number of restrictive laws enacted in the past two presidential election cycles combined. Between 2017 and 2020, states enacted at least 27 restrictive voting laws, and between 2013 and 2016, states enacted at least 17 restrictive voting laws.

Limits on mail and absentee voting have been the most prevalent restrictions implemented in the last four years. Voters in at least 22 states will face 38 new restrictions on their ability to vote absentee that were not in place in 2020.¹These new laws curtail access to absentee ballots in several ways, including by shortening the window to apply for or return a mail ballot, restricting assistance in returning a mail ballot or mail ballot application, reducing the availability of mail ballot drop boxes, barring election officials from sending mail ballot applications or ballots to voters who did not specifically request them, imposing stricter signature requirements for mail ballots, and shortening the period during which voters can fix signature issues.

Additionally, legislatures nationwide have passed several dozen election interference laws during this cycle. At least 14 states will have in effect 31 new laws that impose criminal or civil penalties on election workers for routine election administration, levy state authority over local election administration, enable partisan prosecution of election crimes, or make it a crime for election officials to accept third-party funding.

On the other hand, many states are making voting more accessible. Throughout the last four years, states consistently enacted more expansive voting laws than restrictive ones. In more than three-quarters of the country, at least 156 laws making it easier to vote are set to be in effect this fall. In stark contrast to states enacting voting restrictions, many states enacted laws that expanded access to mail voting. States enacted universal or no-excuse mail voting, expanded ballot request and return windows, simplified signature verification requirements, created additional ballot return options, or expanded mail voting opportunities for voters on tribal lands. States also expanded in-person early voting, made it easier to register to vote, and restored voting rights to people returning from incarceration, among other things.

A key trend this cycle is that many states have gone sharply in one direction or the other on voting accessibility. While some states enacted both restrictive and expansive laws, in many states, it is clearly harder or easier to vote than it was four years ago. Florida and Texas, for instance, curbed several forms of voting access, whereas extensive voting expansions enacted in New York (18 laws), Michigan (12 laws), and Virginia (12 laws) have made it easier to vote compared to four years ago.²

In this presidential election, voters in 29 states¹will face at least 63 new restrictive laws²that weren’t in place for the last presidential election.³But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Since 2020, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas have used single bills to enact an array of restrictions, imposing limits across the entire voting process.⁴This will be the first presidential election in which voters in these states will navigate these wide-ranging barriers.

In a backlash to the expansion of voting by mail in 2020, more than half of the 63 new restrictive laws in effect for the 2024 election curtail access to mail voting. Notable among these are 11 that shorten the period to request a mail ballot⁵and 5 that either tighten the deadline for returning one or remove leeway for officials to accept late-arriving mail ballots.⁶Not all those laws will affect voters equally, however. For example, Georgia reduced the timeframe for requesting a mail ballot by more than half,⁷and North Carolina and Iowa will no longer count mail ballots that arrive in election offices within a few days after Election Day even if postmarked by Election Day.⁸These changes could disenfranchise thousands of voters who relied on the prior deadlines. In contrast, Florida reduced the mail ballot application window by 2 days, which will likely lead to a more modest effect.⁹Restrictions on mail voting harm voters across the political and demographic spectrums, although many of these are likely to most affect or already have disproportionately affected voters of color.

In addition to restricting mail voting, state legislatures also curbed voters’ ability to receive assistance with absentee voting. Though these constraints apply to all voters, the heaviest burdens are likely to fall on those with disabilities and limited English proficiency. Twelve states have enacted new laws that restrict assisting a voter in returning their mail ballot application or ballot,¹⁰with 10 laws threatening criminal penalties.¹¹Imposing criminal penalties for ordinary voting behavior is a growing trend. Such laws create a sense of fear around voting that can discourage eligible voters from participating.

Ten states have gone after mail voting by curbing the availability of ballot drop boxes.¹²Ohio and Iowa, for example, now allow only 1 drop box per county.¹³Georgia barred counties from having more than 1 drop box per 100,000 voters and limited their locations and hours, causing the number of drop boxes in four metro Atlanta counties to fall from 107 to 25.¹⁴These restrictions are fueled by conspiracy theories that drop box use increases voter fraud, even though all evidence indicates that drop boxes are a safe and secure voting method. These restrictions, too, are most likely to affect voters of color and young voters.

Aside from mail ballot restrictions, 15 states enacted laws creating harsher ID requirements for in-person or mail-in voting.¹⁵Ohio restricted in-person voters to just 4 forms of ID, which must be unexpired: an Ohio driver’s license, Ohio-issued state ID card, U.S. or state military ID, or U.S. passport.¹⁶Idaho eliminated student IDs as an acceptable form of voter ID, adding to the distinct challenges student voters face in casting their ballots.¹⁷Arkansas removed the option for voters to issue a sworn statement in lieu of presenting ID¹⁸and imposed new ID requirements on individuals picking up mail ballots on a voter’s behalf.¹⁹These laws will likely fall hardest on voters of color, voters with disabilities, and low-income voters, as people in these groups often face higher hurdles to obtaining acceptable ID.

Further, legislatures in 11 states have made it harder to register to vote or restricted voter registration drives.²⁰For example, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee have imposed new restrictions on voter registration assistance offered by civic engagement groups,²¹while people in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and New Hampshire will have to meet stricter identification or proof-of-residence requirements to register.²²Arizona also expanded an existing law requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register,²³ and Mississippi imposed a new proof-of-citizenship requirement that is more limited in scope.²⁴States already have multiple systems in place to ensure that only eligible citizens vote. Requiring documentary proof of citizenship could block millions of American citizens who are eligible to vote from doing so.

At least 14 states¹will have at least 31 new interference laws²in place this fall that were not in place for the 2020 presidential election.³The Brennan Center only began comprehensively tracking interference legislation as its own category in January 2022. For this roundup, some laws that qualify as interference legislation when they were enacted in 2021 were added to our existing tally.

Nearly half of the election interference laws impose criminal or civil penalties on election workers for ordinary election administration activities or human error.⁴In recent years, election officials have been plagued by threats and harassment, driving them to leave office at extremely high rates. Interference laws can worsen their safety concerns and contribute to the surge in turnover.

These new laws also tend to criminalize official election worker conduct that helps expand access to voting. For example, it is now a crime in several states for election officials to send mail ballots or mail ballot applications to voters who did not request them,⁵establish mail ballot drop boxes,⁶and register new voters on Election Day and allow them to vote in that election.⁷An Alabama law bans curbside voting and makes it a crime for an election worker to take a ballot inside or outside of a polling place to help a voter who has trouble entering or moving about the space.⁸This law places poll workers at risk of prosecution for trying to facilitate voting for elderly voters and individuals with disabilities.

Additionally, 6 states have imposed criminal bans on election officials accepting private funds for election administration.⁹In 2020, third-party donations helped offset election funding shortfalls in jurisdictions across the country. Now, many election officials risk prosecution for accepting much-needed supplements to public funding.

Iowa, South Dakota, and Texas made it a crime for election workers to deny partisan poll watchers sufficient latitude to observe voters and election processes, without clearly outlining what is sufficient.¹⁰For example, Texas’s law requires that poll watchers be granted “reasonably effective” observation, exposing election workers to possible criminal prosecution based on differences of opinion on where observers can stand or what information they can hear. At a trial on the law, election workers testified that they had “no idea what it means to be not reasonably effective” and that they have “fear . . . over the legal consequence of what occurs with the poll watcher.”

Other kinds of interference laws give partisan actors unprecedented authority over elections. For example, new laws in Florida and Georgia give political appointees more control over the enforcement of election crimes.¹¹Some voters in Florida have already faced the fallout: the state’s new “election police” unit has instigated prosecutions that seem intended to intimidate eligible voters.

Finally, at least 3 states empower statewide actors to seize control of local election administration. Arkansas now allows the partisan state board of election commissioners to remove local election officials and take over the administration of local elections based on any violation of election law they deem “severe,” even if inadvertent.¹²Georgia, similarly, has increased the partisanship of the state elections board and given it the power to meddle with local election boards.¹³Texas has authorized the politically appointed secretary of state to exercise intense control over the day-to-day election administration of Harris County, the state’s largest county and home to Houston.¹⁴

At least 41¹states and Washington, DC, will have at least 1 expansive law²in effect for the first time in a presidential election this fall, with 156 total new laws in effect.³

While the number of laws doesn’t always indicate the breadth of the voting-access reforms, several states stand out for implementing extensive voting improvements over the last four years. New York has enacted 18 expansive laws since the 2020 election. One enactment is a state Voting Rights Act designed to protect people of color against voter suppression.⁴Three new laws allow more people to vote absentee: after twice expanding the list of reasons a voter can request an absentee ballot,⁵the state enacted no-excuse absentee voting last year.⁶Six additional laws help people vote absentee by allowing voters to request a ballot by letter,⁷clarifying that technical errors such as stray marks on a ballot⁸or lack of a postmark on the envelope⁹are not automatic grounds to discount a ballot, allowing pre-registered voters to request an absentee ballot,¹⁰including paid postage for ballot curing and extending the deadline for ballot curing by a week,¹¹and allowing for online mail ballot requests.¹²

Five new laws make voter registration in New York easier by expanding the list of agencies that offer automatic voter registration,¹³extending the deadline to return registration forms,¹⁴requiring high schools to provide students with voter registration forms,¹⁵and allowing voters to register and cast provisional ballots during the early voting period.¹⁶The remaining 3 new laws restore voting rights immediately upon release from incarceration,¹⁷require jails to provide people leaving custody with information on their voting rights,¹⁸and require the counting of ballots cast in the right county but the wrong precinct for races in which the person is eligible to vote.¹⁹

Michigan enacted 12 expansive voting laws, all in 2023 — the result of a years-long process of citizen-led democracy reform. Four of the new laws make the registration process easier or more accessible. These laws open up pre-registration to those as young as 16,²⁰widen access to same-day²¹voter registration and online²²voter registration, and extend automatic voter registration to new government agencies.²³Five laws assist people who want to vote absentee. They allow for online absentee ballot applications,²⁴create a permanent mail voting list,²⁵simplify absentee ballot applications and make clerical errors easier for voters to fix,²⁶extend absentee ballot receipt deadlines for uniformed and overseas voters,²⁷and require at least 1 absentee ballot drop box per municipality.²⁸The remaining 3 laws establish 9 days of in-person early voting,²⁹expand the list of acceptable voter IDs,³⁰ and allow for the hiring of transportation to take voters to the polls.³¹

Also of note is Virginia, which enacted 12 expansive laws. Five of these laws continued the trend of expanding absentee voting. Virginians now have expanded drop box access,³²no witness requirement when filling out absentee ballots,³³accessible absentee ballots for people with visual impairments,³⁴and absentee voting for eligible citizens in jail.³⁵Other laws permit people with disabilities to vote outside polling places³⁶and expand the definition of disability to make more people eligible for the privilege.³⁷The remaining few require early voting on the 2 Saturdays before an election,³⁸allow 16-year-olds to preregister,³⁹and create a state Voting Rights Act to eliminate barriers to the ballot for voters of color.⁴⁰

At least 30 states plus Washington, DC, enacted 76 laws that expand absentee and mail voting, representing well over one-third of all expansive laws.⁴¹All except 3 will be in effect this November.⁴²In addition to the policies described above, key reforms include California and Vermont adopting universal vote by mail,⁴³under which the state automatically sends a mail ballot to all eligible voters before an election. Eight states plus Washington, DC, now have universal vote by mail.⁴⁴Elsewhere, Maryland and Rhode Island (in addition to New York) enacted no-excuse mail voting.⁴⁵

Although many state legislatures either did not meet this year, went out of session before or since the last Voting Laws Roundup in May, or had less active legislative sessions this year, legislators in many states continued to introduce and advance voting and election legislation in 2024.

Between January 1 and September 16, at least 9 states enacted 18 restrictive laws, 10 of which will be in place this fall. The total so far this year is the second-highest number of restrictive laws enacted in the last four years, surpassing the figure from 2023, when more state legislatures were in session. Four states enacted 11 restrictive laws since May 3.

Between May 3 and September 16, at least 1 state enacted 1 election interference law, taking the yearly total to 2. Both laws will be in effect for the 2024 election.

Between May 3 and September 16, at least 9 states enacted 14 expansive laws. Overall, this year at least 19 states enacted 28 expansive laws, a majority of which expanded opportunities for absentee voting. All but 4 of the laws enacted this year will be in effect for the 2024 election.

Restrictive Laws

Between January 1 and September 16, at least 9 states enacted 18 restrictive laws.¹This surpasses the number of restrictive voting laws enacted in every year for the past decade except 2021, when 31 restrictive laws had been enacted by early fall,²and narrowly exceeds last year’s final count of 17. Ten will be in place for the upcoming election.³

Eleven of these restrictive laws have been enacted since our last roundup in May, headlined by Louisiana, which is responsible for 8 of them (4 of which are set to be in effect this fall). Five of these limit absentee voting. Of these 5, 3 restrict assistance with filling out or returning ballots, which will disproportionately affect voters with disabilities and people who require language assistance.⁴One imposes criminal penalties on voters for witnessing more than one absentee ballot certificate of a voter who is not an immediate family member.⁵And the remaining law will result in more people not having their ballots counted because they missed some required information on their mail ballot certificate.⁶

Louisiana’s 3 other new restrictive laws create a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement for people who register using a form created by the secretary of state,⁷require third-party organizations to register their voter registration drives,⁸and risk faulty voter purges by requiring an annual canvas of voters who have not updated their addresses and have not voted, changed their registration, signed a ballot petition, or participated in a nursing home program in the last 10 years, which is likely to include eligible voters who remain registered at the correct address.⁹

In Alabama, a new law expands the list of crimes that result in voter disenfranchisement.¹⁰Georgia enacted a law that makes it easier to challenge a voter’s eligibility based on unreliable data, which may result in the removal of eligible voters from the rolls.¹¹

A New Hampshire law creates stricter requirements for providing voter identification, eliminating options for registration and in-person voting.¹²The law, which goes into effect after this year’s election, will require all registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, age, domicile, and identity. Previously, an affidavit attesting to these qualifications was sufficient. It also requires all in-person voters to present photo ID to cast a ballot, repealing provisions that allow for provisional ballots to be cast without identification.

Overall, at least 301 restrictive voting bills have been considered in 40 states this year. As of September 16, at least 5 bills are still moving through 4 state legislatures.

Interference Laws

Since January 1, at least 2 states have enacted 2 election interference laws.¹³As of September 16, only 1 election interference bill remains under consideration, in Ohio. Overall, at least 60 election interference laws have been considered in 21 states this year.

Louisiana enacted the only interference law passed since the May roundup. It imposes new restrictions on election officials, prohibiting them from implementing any federal election guidance or directives unless explicitly required by law or approved by state legislative committees. This could cause delays in executing routine election processes while officials wait for state approval.

Expansive Laws

So far this year, 19 states have enacted at least 28 laws that expand voting access.¹⁴All but 4 of these laws will be in effect for the 2024 election.¹⁵Fourteen of these laws were enacted since the last roundup. Overall, at least 44 states have considered 641 bills that expand voting access this year. As of September 16, at least 8 bills are still moving through 4 state legislatures.

Of the 14 expansive voting laws enacted since May, over two-thirds follow the trend of expanding absentee voting.¹⁶Mississippi¹⁷and New York¹⁸enacted laws to make it easier for voters to fix minor mistakes on their absentee ballots that could otherwise prevent them from being counted. Colorado¹⁹and Rhode Island²⁰increased drop box availability. Connecticut²¹and Louisiana²²both expanded rights for absentee voters living in nursing homes. Connecticut now allows those voters to designate someone to deliver their ballot, and Louisiana extended the early voting period for them from one week to two. Connecticut also eliminated the requirement that voters on the permanent absentee list annually reaffirm their presence.²³

In May, Colorado became the first state to require in-person voting opportunities for eligible voters in county jails or detention centers.²⁴The law also requires that voters in jails have access to drop boxes.

Minnesota enacted a state Voting Rights Act.²⁵It follows similar laws enacted in other states, such as Connecticut, designed to secure equal access to the ballot following numerous Supreme Court decisions that gutted the federal Voting Rights Act. Minnesota’s expands and protects voting rights by, among other things, increasing the number of polling places on college campuses, requiring election materials to be available in languages other than English, and allowing eligible unhoused people to vote by accepting unmarked areas as valid addresses for voting purposes.

Oklahoma became the most recent state to restore voting rights to individuals with felony convictions returning to the community.²⁶Under the new law, voting rights will be automatically restored upon completion, discharge, or commutation of an otherwise eligible person’s sentence or upon receiving a pardon. This takes effect on January 1, 2025.

Finally, Nebraska’s attorney general and secretary of state are refusing to implement a law explained in the May roundup that restores voting rights to eligible citizens immediately upon release from incarceration.²⁷The attorney general’s view is that the law — which is the only expansive one enacted by Nebraska in the last four years — violates the state constitution. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard argument about the law on August 28. Pending its decision, the actions by state leaders mean that eligible people are unable to have their voting rights immediately restored, causing widespread confusion. Still, the roundup counts this legislation as an expansive law that is in effect.