Legislative sessions began just a few weeks ago, and more than 2,000 election administration bills have been introduced so far. Historically, lawmakers tend to introduce more election bills in odd years, though only about 10% are enacted.
Hot legislative topics in the states include requiring citizenship verification when registering to vote, speeding up election results, filling vacancies with special elections and requiring voter ID. NCSL’s State Elections Legislation Database tracks these topics and many more.
Ensuring Only Citizens Vote
By far the hottest topic out of the gate is ensuring only citizens vote in state and federal elections, with 127 bills introduced across 34 states. These come in several flavors:
- Requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.
- Requiring list maintenance procedures to identify potential noncitizens on registration lists.
- Amending state constitutions to be clear.
- Indicating citizenship status on state-issued IDs.
- Increasing penalties for noncitizen voting.
Requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote: Requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote: In the last 20 years at least eight states have passed laws that require documentary proof of citizenship—a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers—to register to vote. Some of these laws continue to face litigation and may not be enforced. So far, 17 other states have introduced legislation to require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Requiring list maintenance procedures to identify potential noncitizens on registration lists: States are introducing bills to use voter registration list maintenance processes to ensure only eligible voters remain on voter rolls. In addition to comparing voter lists with data from divisions of motor vehicles, the National Change of Address program and the Social Security Administration, states are comparing registration lists with information from the federal SAVE program and the Department of Homeland Security, which allows states to verify citizenship status of individuals using a DHS-issued verification number. Bills in Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming would require states to compare lists with DHS data to identify potential noncitizens. Bills in Oregon and Virginia would add to the nine states that currently have statutory provisions permitting the sharing of jury list recusal due to noncitizen status for list maintenance purposes.
Amending constitutions: All states require voters to be U.S. citizens to vote in state and federal elections. Many state constitutions include language such as, “All citizens over the age of 18 may vote.” Thirteen states are explicit that only U.S. citizens may vote; eight of those states amended their constitutions in 2024 to clarify that. Bills on the issue are pending in 12 states this year.
Indicating citizenship status on state-issued IDs: Some states are exploring options to denote citizenship status on state IDs and driver’s licenses or to alter issuing procedures for noncitizens. North Dakota currently specifies that IDs labeled “temporary” or “permanent” are not valid for voting. A Tennessee bill would issue temporary ID cards for noncitizens in a different color than IDs issued to those who have shown documentary proof of citizenship. An Arkansas bill would require “noncitizen” to be printed on state IDs for those with non-immigrant visa status. Montana’s bill would require an eagle to appear on IDs of U.S. citizens, and a Texas bill would require the designation of “certified Texan” on IDs for U.S. citizens.
Increasing penalties for noncitizen voting: Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already a crime, but six states have introduced legislation to further specify criminal offenses and charges for noncitizen voting in state and local elections. In February, Florida (SB 2) specified that noncitizen voting is a third-degree felony.
Speeding Up Election Results
Every presidential election finds the media and the public constantly hitting refresh as election night results come in. So why are results issued so quickly in some states, such as Colorado and Florida, and so slowly in others? Each state has its own procedures for releasing unofficial results on election night and the official results that come after certification. The timing can be influenced by policies including when absentee ballots can be processed, the absentee ballot receipt deadline, counting and canvassing procedures, tabulation technology and requirements for when results must be reported.
Processing ballots (also known as pre-processing or pre-canvassing) may include verifying voter signatures, removing ballots from secrecy envelopes and scanning to allow the votes to be captured, but holding results until the polls close. If these tasks are completed before polls close, ballot results are ready to be uploaded to the reporting website right away.
Several states have bills that address ballot processing. An Indiana bill would allow absentee ballots to be scanned 28 days—rather than seven days—before Election Day, and a Mississippi bill would allow absentee ballots to be processed on the Monday before Election Day. A California bill expresses the intent to assist counties in prompt tallying of votes. Bills in Alaska and Utah would require early ballots to be tabulated before the end of Election Day, and a Pennsylvania bill would allow county election boards to meet seven days before Election Day to process ballots.
Some states allow absentee ballots to be counted if they are received by a certain time after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. This year, a handful of states have introduced legislation to eliminate the postmark deadline and require all absentee ballots to be received by Election Day. By requiring ballots to be received by Election Day, officials can complete counts without having to wait for the postmarked ballots to come in. Bills in Alaska, Illinois, Nevada and Utah would require earlier receipt of absentee ballots, eliminating postmark deadlines for some. An Arizona bill would require absentee ballots to be received the Friday before Election Day.
Bills in Illinois and Texas would set the frequency of results updates to election reporting websites.
Filling Vacancies With Special Elections
What happens if incumbents die, resign, are disqualified or leave office before their terms end? About half the states require legislative vacancies to be filled by special elections, though timelines and procedures vary. This year, a few states have introduced legislation to change how vacancies are filled.
Maryland’s constitution does not require a special election to fill vacancies. Instead, the governor makes an appointment from a list of names provided by the political party committee of the candidate who is being replaced (Md. Const. Art. 3, Sec. 13). This year, two Maryland bills (SB 2 and HB 174) would change the state’s vacancy procedures, both requiring special elections to be held.
Missouri currently allows the governor to fill vacancies in the statewide elected offices of lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer and attorney general. An introduced bill would require a special election for such offices. Vacancies in state legislative offices are currently filled by special elections (Mo. Cons. Art. III, §14).
Alaska introduced a bill stating that if a vacancy occurs in the office of a U.S. senator or representative fewer than 60 days before the primary election in the general election year, the governor cannot call a special election.
Other introduced legislation addresses when special elections can be held. For example, a Minnesota bill would extend the time frame for when a special election is held from 35 to 45 days after the issuance of a writ from the governor.
Voter ID
State legislatures continue to show interest in voter ID requirements this year, with bills touching on requiring IDs for in-person and absentee voting and on what types of identification are acceptable.
Already this year, Wisconsin lawmakers passed legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to require a photo ID to vote. State statute already requires photo voter ID, but if voters approve the ballot measure in April this year, the ID requirement would be in the state constitution as well.
A handful of the 14 states that do not currently require identification or documentation for in-person voting have bills to add voter ID requirements, including Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada and New Mexico.
For states with existing voter ID laws, legislation focuses on what types of IDs are acceptable. States are taking different approaches to documents such as student IDs and tribal ID cards, with some bills seeking to allow these IDs for voting and others prohibiting them.
As digital IDs become more common, a few bills directly address their place in voting. Tennessee introduced a bill that prohibits the use of digital driver’s licenses for voting purposes, while North Carolina has gone the other direction with proposed legislation that would allow the state’s mobile driver’s licenses to be used when voting in person.
Grab Bag
Other legislative topics to watch include election technology and consolidation of election dates. States have introduced bills on video surveillance of electronic voting systems (Florida), maintaining election data for a specific time (Arizona), watermarks on ballots (Arizona, Connecticut, Tennessee) and more.
Some states are looking at election dates as well, most commonly introducing legislation to move local and special elections to general election dates (Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and West Virginia), allowing localities to choose to hold their smaller elections in even-numbered years (Oklahoma and Oregon), and providing a limited number of permissible dates for municipal and school district elections (South Carolina and South Dakota).
See all introduced election-related legislation at NCSL’s State Elections Legislation Database and view introductions from previous years in the State Elections Legislation Archived Database. To view monthly updates on legislative action on election administration related bills, visit the Legislative Action Bulletin.
Katie King, Brenna Nelson and Camilla Rodriguez Guzman are policy analysts in NCSL’s Elections and Redistricting Program.