Voting Laws Roundup: 2023 in Review

Click here for the most recent Voting Laws Roundup.

This roundup looks back on voting laws enacted in 2023 and looks forward to the voting landscape in 2024 based on legislation already pending. In 2023, we once again saw an unprecedented volume of state legislation changing the rules governing voting. There remains a stark divide: 14 states passed restrictive voting laws while others moved to implement changes to make voting more accessible. All told, states enacted more restrictive laws and more expansive laws in 2023 than in any year in the last decade except for 2021, which was itself an unprecedented year. Early indicators for 2024 suggest more of the same.

Looking Back at 2023

Between January 1 and December 31, 2023, at least 14 states enacted 17 restrictive voting laws,footnote1_ABkcRRn7k2AXftRtKjHE2MgtYPzvcsZu0HHJ282hTA_spj2lq8u6ZiU1 AR H.B. 1411, FL S.B. 7050, ID H.B. 124, ID H.B. 340, IN H.B. 1334, KS S.B. 106, MS H.B. 1310, MS S.B. 2358, NC S.B. 747, ND H.B. 1431, NE L.B. 514, NM S.B. 180, SD H.B. 1165, TX S.B. 924, UT S.B. 17, WY H.B. 279, WY S.F. 153. 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.  all of which will be in effect for the 2024 general election.footnote2_fP5et7iOrBaU7lxENYkvSwNkoVcmgp6oa3hbHCCwjFU_i6cseJrYP1Ul2 MS S.B. 2358 has been partially blocked by a federal court as it applies to voters with disabilities, but the state has appealed. Portions of FL S.B. 7050 were temporarily blocked by a federal court, but some restrictive provisions remain in effect. The state has appealed.  At least one of these laws made it harder to vote in several different ways.

Voters in these states now face additional hurdles to reach the ballot box. Most of the restrictions limit mail voting, such as requiring additional information on a mail ballot application, shortening the window to request a mail ballot, or banning drop boxes.

At least 6 states enacted 7 election interference laws,footnote3_SbALRj0YwSidw52KezD4NpmoWldgRvv5UNmIwdumXc_mRr4B9PQaT9g3 AR H.B. 1411, AR S.B. 272, FL S.B. 4-B, GA S.B. 222, NC S.B. 749, SD H.B. 1165, TX S.B. 1933. 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.  with at least 6 laws in effect for the 2024 elections.footnote4_B6lh4nEfMZYiIxXDrdu1eZSOF0TJT6vnL5ef1EHB5AA_rK3tM4fgDCvz4 NC S.B. 749 has been temporarily blocked by a state court, but the state has appealed.  Many create criminal penalties for election workers for minor mistakes such as not allowing a poll watcher to stand close enough to voters.

At the same time, at least 23 states enacted 53 expansive voting laws,footnote5_jLFDO2WGjZ6PxPoP1TCpRY7FN1suJw-tTPNxknGfPHY_sIWjlhunR52V5 AR H.B. 1512, AR S.B. 247, CA A.B. 292, CA A.B. 545, CA A.B. 626, CO S.B. 276, CT H.B. 5004, CT H.B. 6941, GA S.B. 129, IL S.B. 2123, KS S.B. 221, LA H.B. 449, ME L.D. 886, MD H.B. 410, MI H.B. 4567, MI H.B. 4568, MI H.B. 4569, MI H.B. 4570, MI H.B. 4697, MI H.B. 4699, MI H.B. 4983, MI S.B. 259, MI S.B. 367, MI S.B. 370, MI S.B. 373, MI S.B. 594, MN H.F. 3, MN H.F. 28, NV A.B. 286, NV S.B. 216, NV S.B. 327, NJ A.B. 5175, NM H.B. 4, NM S.B. 180, NY A.B. 4009, NY A.B. 7690, NY S.B. 1733, NY S.B. 1327, NY S.B. 5984, NY S.B. 7394, OR H.B. 2107, OR S.B. 166, TX H.B. 1217, TX S.B. 477, TX S.B. 1599, UT H.B. 37, UT S.B. 17, VA H.B. 1948, WA H.B. 1048, WA S.B. 5112, WA S.B. 5208, WV S.B. 631, WY H.B. 79. 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.  all but two of which will be in effect for the 2024 general election.footnote6_1yIT5fxPJIbBGXodxbzS5ukIuPky29f7DPTNsS8uSJI_ttX95HKv1AP66 MI H.B. 4983 and MI S.B. 594 do not take effect until June 30, 2025. The provisions of NM H.B. 4 that expand automatic voter registration do not take effect until July 1, 2025.  Many voters will now have access to a simpler process for registering to vote, greater access to absentee ballots, a simpler process for reclaiming their right to vote after a conviction, and/or increased access to assistance for voters who need it.

This year brings the first presidential election since lies about the 2020 election initiated a wave of restrictive voting laws and election interference laws. Voters in 18 statesfootnote7_k5pe9m7Npq56lwBvcDL2ssdNPmzzQ3aAKqfx1FiPfw_kJ4QGgPRcz7C7 Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.  face for the first-time restrictions that have been enacted since 2020. Because some laws passed in 2021 or 2022 either did not go into effect before the 2022 midterms or were temporarily blocked by a court but are now in effect, the number of states in which voters will face restrictions for the first time is higher than the 14 restrictive laws enacted in 2023. Voters in 27 statesfootnote8_g8jaZQ8oXiMLOP69pVgHw5CMXuTa1Pud2sy8COLh2lE_jCtlfxxhfJP78 Alabama, 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, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.  will face restrictions in the 2024 election that they’ve never experienced in a presidential election before (some of these laws were in effect in the 2022 midterms). Also in 2024, 5 statesfootnote9_sTen-AjKF9G3QIkPb9JDYwHY2XDovGZ1q2ESLm5PwM_qVCtnFtVRW0L9 Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, and Texas. North Carolina would be one of these states, but its new interference law, S.B. 749, has been temporarily blocked by a state court. will have new election interference laws in place. For 13 states,footnote10_Hnwc236ZK-vYK6A2-xsULcIohz0ANOuP29i5iX2imCo_p5CsuXsDToCV10 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.  this will be the first presidential election year in which such laws are in effect (some of these laws were in effect in 2022).

Looking Ahead to 2024

In some states, legislators were able to begin filing bills last December for consideration in this year’s session, which is called “pre-filing.” Additionally, many bills that were introduced but not passed last year are still before the legislature for consideration this year, or “carry over.” Some of the pre-filed bills and carryovers may become law this year and impact voters; pre-filed bills in particular tend to be among legislators’ top priorities for the year. As of December 31, 2023, 25 states had a pre-filed bill or a carryover that would make it harder to vote. The same number of states have expansive legislation, although the number of expansive bills is about twice as large. While the number of pre-filed and carryover expansive bills outpaces that of restrictive bills, voters in states passing restrictive laws will face new hurdles to vote regardless of what happens elsewhere in the country.

In 2023, we once again saw significant numbers of laws passed in states that changed the rules governing voting.

Overall, at least 14 states enacted 17 restrictive voting laws in 2023. Since our last roundup in October 2023, only seven state legislatures have had regular session and no restrictive laws have been enacted. Over the course of the year, at least 356 restrictive bills were considered by lawmakers in 47 states.

Eleven of these laws make it harder to vote by mail.footnote1_SuGfCoUcHjDF7lOmP1cyIers0Q6HL2qbkGn9TZn7ImU_k4jPrFCfiPVc1 AR H.B. 1411, FL S.B. 7050, IN H.B. 1334, KS S.B. 106, MS S.B. 2358, NE L.B. 514, NM S.B. 180, NC S.B. 747, SD H.B. 1165, WY H.B. 279, WY S.F. 153.  Among the most restrictive, an omnibus voting law in North Carolinafootnote2_3EdolMlpqbw1o-W2oxl7UllHgENdYmmAyhpLPO8U48_yEh2UG0FF2AO2 NC S.B. 747.  shortens the period for returning mail ballots, eliminates ballot drop boxes, and makes it more likely that voters using same-day registration do not have their ballots counted.footnote3_MpRXgFfUcMRtoC6VirgWWKKkqAUaEaT1yaQvM5CfD4M_kOF05Eg0g8r53 This provision requires election officials to send an address verification notice to voters who register to vote the same day that they cast their ballots (even though such voters already presented photo ID and proof of residence). If the Postal Service returns the notice as “undeliverable” within ten days of the election, a voter’s registration must be cancelled and their ballot rejected. This notice may be returned as undeliverable for eligible voters such as college students who must list a central university address on the registration form but can only receive mail that is sent to a more specific address such as a dorm room on that campus. When this occurs the voter is not notified or given the chance to contest it. Previously, a voter using same-day registration could only have their registration denied after two failed attempts to deliver an address verification notice and they’d have the opportunity to contest the rejection of their ballot at a hearing. North Carolina’s new law could result in eligible voters being disenfranchised for reasons entirely beyond their control.  This law has twice been challenged in court since it was enacted three months ago. Also of note is a Mississippi lawfootnote4_-GwLreDdXXcQrOYzcowpnWI4d4a9froWHefEz8zbJs_gVmSHXeMazH54 MS S.B. 2358.  that makes it a crime for anyone but election officials, postal workers, family members, household members, and caregivers to help a voter return their mail ballot – a policy that can harm all voters but particularly those with disabilities or a limited ability to read or write. A federal judge blocked enforcement of this law as to voters with those conditions, but the state has appealed the decision. Depending on what happens on appeal, the law could be back in full effect by the 2024 elections.

Provisions of a Florida law that makes it more difficult for get-out-the-vote groups to register voters have been temporarily blocked by a federal court.footnote5_vW6wGhWR9b7QKq92Ayc9drmYXSdm6WuEfdJCjjiXG4_kQUVDBMVJ0qZ5 FL S.B. 7050.  Two laws out of Idaho aimed at student voters are currently undergoing legal challenges. The first removes student IDs as permissible IDs for voting,footnote6_uJyPVCmtGs8f2PJ36lFal7Att6wMBk-AvhmJlANhXNw_pKQC3GWZ37Ks6 ID H.B. 124.  and the second tightens ID requirements for registering to vote and excludes student IDs from the list of allowable IDs.footnote7_FLowuUHb0aq-pJalJZ7cijAxqn5Rmp5Pvhu6ULHjrM_pqIg2BqgavQ77 ID H.B. 340.

At least 6 states enacted 7 election interference laws in 2023. All 7 passed prior to our October roundup – when most state legislatures were still in session. Overall, at least 86 interference bills were considered in 23 states last year.

Interference laws in Arkansas, Georgia, and South Dakota impose criminal penalties on election workers for routine election administration or inadvertent errors. The Arkansas lawfootnote1_QBKhrCKAGxpR7f1xMIJfTek5hTxvUwjrm29LrlDIKVk_s7zpzGPa9S1B1 AR H.B. 1411.  makes it a misdemeanor for election officials to give a mail ballot or a mail ballot application to a voter who hasn’t requested it, while the Georgia lawfootnote2_x1WNlCO0WtmoPqjAceRjH702C3fvD1mmqXNCeXVHtNM_x5E667icXcGw2 GA S.B. 222.  expands the state’s criminal ban on election officials accepting private funds for election administration. South Dakota’s new lawfootnote3_VSkkgThjoQc2mKqIi9ktTVT5EpZryObH6gCgzx5sUvI_juoTbldcNW0H3 SD H.B. 1165.  imposes criminal penalties on poll workers for not making the process of canvassing mail ballots – election officials determining the official count – sufficiently open to poll watcher observance. The law does not define “open” (meaning election workers could be charged with a crime over differences of opinion regarding where watchers can stand). One interference law in Florida facilitates the state’s efforts to prosecute people with past convictions who were misled by the state or confused about their eligibility to vote.footnote4_QdZfn0PBaKEa3HlWr7OZBTzhEo9492e7tI36UyrN9gE_ttO0J2ldwX7G4 FL S.B. 4-B.  These laws reflect state legislatures’ increased focus on criminalizing ordinary election-related activities.

North Carolina’s interference law,footnote5_NiMwHy-FL6wuNg79FtfDAvo2bvu7snQLJJRxWWuh250_cfto3oQhFor65 NC S.B. 749.  which threatens the certification process by restructuring boards of elections to increase the chances of deadlock, was temporarily blocked by a federal court in November.

Last year, at least 23 states enacted 53 expansive laws. This is an increase of six laws since our October roundup, although the number of states stayed the same as all the new laws came from Michigan. Lawmakers across all 50 states considered a total of 664 expansive voting laws in 2023.

Michigan enacted 12 expansive voting laws in 2023, the most of any state. While the number of laws doesn’t always indicate the breadth of the voting-access reforms, Michigan’s new laws put in place a wide range of major expansions. Of the six laws passed in Michigan since our last roundup, four expand access to voter registration. These laws extend automatic voter registration to new government agencies,footnote1_FSdj8lW2DhSNeSdSTXm7PepEen81iUAALEYV6r-SHwM_doYQunq6eQJQ1 MI H.B. 4938.  open up pre-registration to those as young as 16,footnote2_rwYDbDyHDLQkHRrrQhFhY-5tYEC492ox3EDoxgC06PM_p9Mms2fSXhkg2 MI H.B. 4569.  and widen access to onlinefootnote3_v84Kp5V6K—QDRVGkDURxeIkqIi97hAQQZE7yJjQikc_zSqStVobKTcu3 MI S.B. 594.  voter registration and same-dayfootnote4_DoOIjE18kK3r6mVslte7iMR8wXNpKIaNk8NDBhn1jwk_aaMpvDiLrpkv4 MI H.B. 4567.  voter registration. The other two laws allow voters to apply online for a mail ballotfootnote5_JoVqLj0ATcihmjnmrdQsjngO2YHBCBL5As782aPTGs_eU9oqRxfDl6G5 MI H.B. 4570.  and repeal a prohibition on hiring transportation for taking voters to the polls.footnote6_UVppabt4iMDkjVuutQzKMk8hKWsZARh44Y77Vx1c8_p22HwFr8WX5E6 MI H.B. 4568.

California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington were among the other states that passed multiple or significant pro-voter laws. Connecticut also passed a resolution to allow no-excuse mail voting,footnote7_IhjOv89BSqCV-8y37BFiXklNr4I4gmGYYDpcn2alxM_oCzz9iSAzFuK7 CT H.J.R. 1.  which will appear on the general ballot for voter approval in November.

New York enacted six expansive laws.footnote8_AirFR6K9omF-peWtVNF6nD-w7ReGX7bvQuF-ZfmozY_j3wPuraZlAz38 NY A.B. 4009, NY A.B. 7690, NY S.B. 1327, NY S.B. 1733, NY S.B. 5984, NY S.B. 7394.  Most notably, the state now permits any registered voter to vote by mail as opposed to only voters who meet certain criteria, such as having an illness or disability or being absent from their county on Election Day.footnote9_nCUVQpDpCvDJ9YTZLIiPg4mWHTKWujoiJBE1wPVwzuo_z3Q6ZYmO53uW9 NY S.B. 7394.  A group of elected officials, political parties, and voters challenged this new law as violating the state constitution. On December 26, 2023, a state judge denied their motion to temporarily prohibit the law’s implementation. The case remains ongoing.

Like in 2021, in addition to a high volume of legislation, 2023 also saw a large amount of gubernatorial action on election-related legislation. In 2023, eight restrictive voting bills and three election interference bills were vetoed by governors in five states.footnote1_mOoLC31ir0GNMz2MUy-Fz8nAeDdQXrHf3oDume99g_fl9UKR2yZIKM1 Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  One of the restrictive bills and one of the interference bills each became law due to legislative overrides (both in North Carolina), while the remaining instances reveal how close additional restrictive and interference bills were to becoming law. In four of the five states — Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — Republicans control both legislative chambers while a Democrat holds the governorship.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed three restrictive voting bills and two election interference bills. One of the restrictive billsfootnote2_TK3rRH3yqUOJwVzauygbrebeyTldXyCsNnVEuruLFPw_f6mKxhOOfIFN2 AZ S.B. 1595.  would have required voters to either drop off mail ballots by 7 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day or, if they drop them off after that, to present ID for in-person voting and sign the electronic pollbook. A voter who lacks an acceptable ID would have to surrender their mail ballot and cast a provisional ballot. Under existing law, Arizonans can drop off mail ballots until 7 p.m. on Election Day without additional hurdles. Another vetoed Arizona bill would have made it a felony for poll workers not to allow partisan observers to “reasonably, comfortably, and clearly” view the signature verification process.footnote3_Da6wImiCan3zr22gGMWJnUXDY2VdUqEVhZ4nAjj2ZR4_jJ7ypIGrORz03 AZ H.B. 2305.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) vetoed two restrictive voting bills.footnote4_4jiPX2eReuSw-7iiqB7jteocwM0SjU47c8qMZM3Q2Y_zKRUQQFpQBrU4 WI A.B. 494, WI S.B. 98.  One of the bills would have narrowed the definition for “indefinitely confined” to require that the voter needs help to travel and removed age as a qualifier.footnote5_8Gh0aFXMHEnus-4UM2plvMhzcqk9jMUUeJNo2XUmO7A_vogftCZSliYl5 WI A.B. 494.  The indefinitely confined status allows voters to be on a permanent mail voting list. The bill also would have added a separate application and photo ID requirement for voters seeking such designation and it would have removed every voter from “indefinitely confined” status who was added between March 12, 2020, and November 3, 2020.  

As mentioned, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed one restrictive voting billfootnote6_3EdolMlpqbw1o-W2oxl7UllHgENdYmmAyhpLPO8U48_sB4lbz04ZhoY6 NC S.B. 747.  and one election interference bill,footnote7_NiMwHy-FL6wuNg79FtfDAvo2bvu7snQLJJRxWWuh250_j8xHz4DQzn3Q7 NC S.B. 749.  but the state legislature overrode the governor’s vetoes for both bills. These bills and the circumstances of their passage are detailed in our last roundup. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed a restrictive voting billfootnote8_ltaoLfMR5YRsskpLQ8VysUvOEuVvfzrEpDFn2cclEw_uamhMn7rJOX18 KS S.B. 209.  that would have cut the mail ballot return window by three days.

In Wyoming, where Republicans have control of the legislature and the governor’s seat, Gov. Mark Gordon (R) vetoed a restrictive billfootnote9_SUtgOuFv8G0x7c-M11tHmJNgJbyLgJRGBRjZTYWYGw_pLU6KdaolPF89 WY S.F. 131.  that would have barred the distribution of absentee ballot request forms except when requested by a voter.

Meanwhile, governors in two states vetoed four expansive bills. Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) vetoed three pieces of legislation. These bills would have provided for more voting materials in non-English languages,footnote10_j6whTX6c7SjZm76lWJeKptxN1Qt7MBkLyUi7EPhzhEI_tw1sUn482Kxe10 NV A.B. 246.  required at least two accessible voting machines in each polling place instead of one,footnote11_3BMqGyfifpy-q1BopwdBig22cXUAqNTuvu8WFlYL3I_aSZfoglP1zfj11 NV A.B. 242.  and expanded the categories of acceptable ID.footnote12_wlzxStvfnuRR6JBYOuLrMNsQ9n7b219kKTF6h0I7v4_aiTxLKbw5Fam12 NV A.B. 443.  A vetoed Arizona bill,footnote13_TK3rRH3yqUOJwVzauygbrebeyTldXyCsNnVEuruLFPw_wL8mBUcw2csM13 AZ S.B. 1595.  which contained restrictive provisions as well, would have removed the requirement that early voting must end the Friday before Election Day.

Notable too is the prohibition on guns near polling places and drop boxes that Nevada Gov. Lombardo vetoed.footnote14_XDbT8H7sXAiDQL-JL0sduEGY6zOhMWSN6sh0AmFxAA_teM8GeWOgLIy14 NV A.B. 354.  It’s not included in our tally of expansive laws.

Some states permit legislators to “pre-file” bills at the end of one year for consideration in the next. The pre-filed bills are not yet moving, but they are often among state lawmakers’ top priorities for the next legislative session. Likewise, many states permit legislatures to “carry over” bills introduced but not passed in the first year of a session to the next, although these are not necessarily more likely to pass than other bills. At the start of this year’s session, both the pre-filed bills and the carryovers are pending in their respective legislatures.

Lawmakers in 12 states have pre-filed a total of at least 85 voting-related bills for this year’s sessions. Of the 25 states that carry over legislation into even-numbered years, each one carried over a voting-related bill into 2024.

As of December 31, 2023, at least 140 restrictive voting bills that were either pre-filed or carried over are pending in 25 states for consideration in 2024. Seven are pre-filed bills and the rest are carryovers. The number of carryovers being far greater than the number of pre-filings is consistent with past years. Compared to 2022 — the last even-numbered year — fewer restrictive bills were pre-filed or carried over this year. That year, at least 22 states pre-filed or carried over 165 restrictive bills as of December 7, 2021.footnote1_g4vd4oC0FHdbNDBLxogQwfwKyGqJ62sqh0OlIFpC6Hs_f6tcUVUCVqDZ1 No additional bills would have carried over, but we did not track whether any more bills were pre-filed for 2022 after our cutoff date of December 7, 2021.

Further, at least 20 election interference bills that were pre-filed or carried over are pending in 12 states. Of these, six bills were pre-filed and the remainder carried over from 2023. The Brennan Center started tracking interference legislation on January 1, 2022, so we can’t compare this count with the number of pre-filed bills or carryovers that were before state legislatures at the beginning of 2022.

On the expansive front, as of the end of 2023, at least 295 bills that were pre-filed or carried over are pending in 25 states. Fourteen of these were pre-filed bills and the rest are carryovers. In 2022, the carryover numbers were slightly higher: at least 21 states plus Washington, DC, carried over 303 expansive bills. We did not track the number of pre-filed expansive bills that year.

At the conclusion of 2023, at least 82 voting bills were pre-filed in 12 states for the 2024 session.

Of the pre-filed bills:

• At least 7 bills in 5 statesfootnote1_3P7Vc9XPZSZA5Fvg5W5Qm3SQCsBgZqCJqZEEfuRxjY_ahLzvkhtLPIy1 Alabama, Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Virginia.  would make it harder for voters to cast a ballot
• At least 6 bills in 3 statesfootnote2_KtV82nnIkxIHIHLKKHkKRsu7vt58uvhDXEjoBOqaoc_brtidQ7ppWdN2 Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire.  would allow for election interference
• At least 14 bills in 6 statesfootnote3_Y9yE9ySGV-6M75C5nFrlLEo-KdSfhGZw-nAtXD-shw_qX8aWukgMguu3 Florida, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington.  would expand voting access.

Five of the eight restrictive pre-filed bills would make it harder to vote absentee. Virginia has two restrictive mail voting proposals, one to shorten the absentee voting period from 42 days to 27 daysfootnote4_V0Ons8jZJ-8vjBY8UQm-WUy9GKWv0iZ3i-LktOPPiBI_fggRPB8qqQso4 VA H.B. 44.  and another to shrink the window to 18 days.footnote5_32U-CMDAN0OQCxdFlbnPzhgfxIddTTxEcU4fMNuHvNg_goZtX7w6BMcw5 VA S.B. 42. A New Hampshire bill would eliminate religious, employment, or weather-related reasons for voting absentee, require all absentee voters to mark their ballot in front of an official, and require absentee voters to fill out an affidavit in the official’s presence.footnote6_C2-eQeza4efZVABDVV-750nuguAyAizcmW5wEY-R0_uiuzTiALrAyG6 NH H.R. 25.

On the other hand, pre-filed bills that would expand voting access cover several subjects. Two Florida bills would allow for more early in-person voting sites.footnote7_J8fpK5BXp5BbmiaDWGPLpI4Y9n1xXQuNLYB2jmR0g_fY7gjdi0Q7wO7 FL H.B. 963, FL S.B. 780.  Missouri would allow more voters to participate in Election Day registration,footnote8_-dsW-GkzIKlXsASaYtUe1HFTmTWGpHHX6HcUSbgJyko_mCPYu2JWE7Tl8 MO S.B. 926.  while South Carolina would increase early in-person voting hoursfootnote9_hFn3tlqOHE3DOB4NXntZ7B96NY3YVMtWhjyGXNuoec_wJc0jb2fse3v9 SC H.B. 4590.  and registration opportunities while at the DMV (including for people pre-registering before their 18th birthday).footnote10_oFpl4LKULDvc9epndfUsW14jgLjY5PmBpsiXzWqpLE_sH7nC9ihSQr210  SC S.B. 886.

Four of the six election interference bills would prohibit vote-tabulation machines and instead require hand-counts of ballots, which is proven to be error-prone and to cause certification delays.footnote11_nEsQUanVhaAiod-GBJq87CYiHqgNgh2uSIZ81EdZOs_m6VFysJVTdVd11 MO S.B. 832, MO S.B. 917, NH H.R. 25, NH C.A.C.R. 26.  A fifth would allow counties to do full hand-counts.footnote12_UWGJ3AgCWhwQVFjBRGc1D9liz7HsXGjWO0uFtMqnx4_bzuDT0XkVh7D12 FL H.B. 359.

Other bills across the country would better secure our elections. Eight bills increase protections for election officials. These are in Florida,footnote13_ZMwfoR8j28oj-YuZDYesLlYzW9wBAm2-sotf2GWw88_qgtpnmhyzOSB13 FL H.B. 721, FL S.B. 562.  Missouri,footnote14_ermz36Ltb7-LVLbbKFt-HiyDvN-wGJiavu7Ff2Fmwk_yMteloBOrQ5s14 MO S.B. 926, MO S.B. 1235.  New York,footnote15_ru4oV-K6ROsJpFLceYHnq1XEh4474OYMytmGhNG3jLw_qUUI6fYN0Iiy15 NY A.B. 8095, NY S.B. 7661, NY S.B. 7725.  and South Dakota.footnote16_76BtpnKPJQUlJ60ojPoPPBX6kI5OPq3bnIJcNYrfkE_kTDi34sn8EL516 SD S.B. 20.  Election workers have been leaving their jobs in large numbers due to threats and harassment. Such protections can ensure that experienced individuals remain on the job and help our elections run smoothly.

Of the legislation that will carry over into the 2024 state legislative sessions:

• At least 133 bills in 22 statesfootnote1_f7A9-gLBp3A4txCGM1bAqg1sivzDEJzpg7LjF7q-fo_eWZgwc8KvS3p1 Alaska, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  restrict access to voting
• At least 14 bills in 9 statesfootnote2_IhEA8kOZINCGHaG3m08A1FEvTJC2MIEEo978qNr31iw_zKwjTphXPy1L2 Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  open the door to election interference
• At least 281 bills in 22 statesfootnote3_RpRwar5AQAEcfdm8rKd4uWWG2yd67KXb07gmizLHye4_zm15EHUskbWl3 Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.  expand voting access.

Of the 133 restrictive bills, 70 would curb access to mail voting, while 42 would impose stricter ID requirements for in-person voting or registering to vote. Kansas has one carryover billfootnote4_Imgiiq1xLc8H7Yv1UdH9ZuaxtrxqenE7KvHnyeXs-k_kwRqG6exiVwF4 KS H.B. 2043.  that would require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register — a policy that was struck down by a federal court when the state enacted it beforefootnote5_TTXfvUr1El3JVnW2o2YyNHgzK9d7CrCzk85JNS3WXM_gUTn1O67s93p5Fish v. Kobach, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).  — and anotherfootnote6_TR8vM92K6lik8g9jMTgwhwFlNSE7d5Of0PIlqXV5g_ekJLmIUaLWLy6 KS S.B. 260.  that would eliminate no-excuse mail voting and require mail ballot applications and mail ballots to be notarized.

Ten of the states that will carry over a restrictive voting bill will also carry over at least one election interference bill. Of the 18 interference bills, 11 would create new criminal or civil penalties for election workers for mistakes such as not asking for or verifying a voter’s photo identification. Notably, proposals in North Carolina,footnote7_wSUcL-ocP5ALVIT6XYAafNLNSeFDQ5PbDhRrpSgsE_hrRHyASrCN637 NC H.B. 772.  Oklahoma,footnote8_-v9IaBnh-YP8kY6lTXbQUdKKEYfSz4YO-ublG1zRtVY_f4AtRzM6spdC8 OK S.B. 995.  West Virginia,footnote9_gUbOmWLIKiaKsvC4su7A5mnb3U5QhEMwLLx2IyTAY_vG7amUhY4sGR9 WV H.B. 2866.  and Wisconsinfootnote10_eprJ3SKPL2Yl8QelWx744WXhJ0Th4YTtd8Q2EjovD7A_naxyMck4AneR10 WI A.B. 543, WI S.B. 560.  would impose civil or criminal penalties on poll workers for failing to allow partisan poll watchers increased latitude to observe election processes.

Of the 281 expansive carryover bills, 98 would make it simpler to register to vote, 71 would make it simpler to vote by mail, and 37 would restore voting rights to some people with past criminal convictions. While 25 states allow for carryover bills, New York alone has about one-third (92) of this year’s expansive carryovers. Many of the New York bills would expand access to voting for members of language minority groups.footnote11_k82x7yMAyc89Zw2qWrD3pSLWJfYtEhmBHYf5TbiQi7s_aHp06kK0yUKd11 NY A.B. 90, NY A.B. 642, NY A.B. 1902, NY A.B. 3878, NY A.B. 3918, NY A.B. 3919, NY A.B. 3973, NY A.B. 6355, NY A.B. 7469, NY S.B. 4033, NY S.B. 6319, NY S.B. 6382, NY S.B. 6782.  Several would establish Election Day voter registration.footnote12_jexboN2OOfmzQrf0Mz07BvaW0Xi-6sPTm9TLDC2FfF4_lX0BQ7rtZEI312 NY A.B. 3512, NY A.B. 3921, NY A.B. 5007, NY S.B. 170, NY S.B. 2381, NY S.B. 6008.

When it comes to pre-filed and carryover legislation for 2024, legislators in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Missouri have been among the most active.

Wisconsin has 15 restrictive and three interference bills carrying over into 2024, among the most of any state. While vetoes twice thwarted Wisconsin lawmakers’ efforts to restrict voting last year, nine restrictive and three interference bills were actively moving through the Wisconsin legislature in the final months of 2023, which will all carry over into the new session.

A pair of bills — one restrictive and one interference — passed the Wisconsin State Assembly in November. The restrictive billfootnote1_gUEbO5pOCibC99AGundMSPSERKBiVCV6L0mh8xVYCCU_d1K7jc0ft8pt1 WI A.B. 570.  would add new grounds for not counting mail ballots. The interference billfootnote2_k1LhgeuvtKIzYA3oQehtB4JVaaxFsNT7koDBNFgH48_n4EtjekPxE2b2 WI A.B. 543.  would subject election workers to criminal penalties for not allowing poll watchers increased proximity to voters. Such legislation makes it challenging for election officials to remove or contain disruptive poll watchers and increases the risk of voter intimidation and harassment. Also of note, an interference billfootnote3_cYZ6yuqaqoHCLwx2R3nHtpDERSBnDkeMHskQlLtPREg_ymcawWjePWV73 WI S.B. 834.  introduced in late December would dissolve the Wisconsin Elections Commission and give the state legislature — a political branch of government charged with policymaking — unprecedented control over routine election administration activities.

Lawmakers in Virginia pre-filed three restrictive voting bills. As discussed, two would shrink the period to participate in mail voting.footnote4_mzsislednDt3SVTcNIxmytWpZ-QXrlWscg4K5jRj3RU_mFy8VhS6lJfx4 VA H.B. 44, VA S.B. 42.  The third would remove forms of acceptable ID to vote, burdening voters who relied on those options to verify their identities.footnote5_0hzHqYftx9XmHzdIjqJOIjKOync-8FEfj8SpClrsYiE_sPMuWLh7s1Ci5 VA S.B. 45.

But other Virginia legislators are focused on making voting more accessible. A bill introduced in both chambers of the legislature would automatically restore voting rights to incarcerated people upon their release.footnote6_azT9oHNFCC3KTA6xDNxU4aM-hYxEvqpTNCFguUij7po_nJrhuNnODAXf6 VA H.J.R. 2, VA S.J.R. 2.  In contrast with the restrictive ID bill discussed above, a separate bill would add to the list of acceptable voter IDs.footnote7_tMwzvUFCgv5w1WmwRDwq-u4mHRkSI72iduO46QT4pA_k8B8AWjcUXs97 VA H.B. 26.  Virginia has recently fluctuated between enacting restrictive and expansive policies depending on which party has been in power. When Democrats held both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s mansion from 2020 to 2022, they passed several expansive laws. When Republicans took back one house and the governorship from 2022 to 2024, they sought to roll back some of these reforms. Now, the legislature is Democrat-controlled while the governor is a Republican. Whether Virginia’s divided government moves in a restrictive or an expansive direction is a development to monitor this year.

In Missouri, lawmakers have pre-filed three election interference bills. One of the measures would mandate complete hand-counts and allow any voter to contest election results.footnote8_TMF5evsJ4k69UZzS3yq4HCUXjx3RyRKD62UWRwXfOo0_j1CfLepebpds8 MO S.B. 832.  Another would likewise require full hand-counts of all ballots.footnote9_pImKQFtcfQq-q1MljzsnaGmzy0piG9B1YCrQvBINUck_mvBBnUsnvYVP9 MO S.B. 917.