Voting Laws Roundup: 2024 in Review

In 2024, legislatures across the country once again pushed a significant number of laws to change the rules governing voting. In fact, states enacted more restrictive voting laws in 2024 than in any year in the last decade except for 2021.

Last year again saw a mix of many attacks on and expansions of mail voting. Additionally, there were numerous bills that would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote — often a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Early indicators for 2025 show that the focus on proof of citizenship is far from dimming, despite voting by noncitizens already being against the law and extremely rare. In fact, legislators in the U.S. House have already reintroduced a bill that would require proof of citizenship in order to register or re-register to vote.

Between January 1 and December 31, 2024:

• At least 10 states enacted 19 restrictive voting laws, including one in North Carolina after the election.footnote1_X1cqtLMoAl3sXKXtjDYGJ2J6iQnHikzF3Pc2lDs7KYQ_iuASb0FacCPN1Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it contains one or more provisions that would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the voter rolls, or vote compared to existing state law.Louisiana alone passed 8 such laws. Overall, lawmakers in at least 40 states considered at least 317 restrictive bills last year.
• At least 3 states enacted 3 election interference laws.footnote2_oWG5QA3GjpYnpyThtcJWCkdnxQueBR0dInjTy0EnK8_oX7nJlo0BIfc2Legislation is categorized as election interference if it either threatens the people and processes that make elections work or increases opportunities for partisan interference in election results or administration.Two passed before the election and North Carolina passed one law after the election in what appeared to be an exceptional partisan maneuver by the legislature. Overall, lawmakers in at least 21 states considered 63 election interference bills last year.
• At least 21 states enacted 32 expansive voting laws,footnote3_wq9vdXNsmEPZsNYdGT5XHBIweUN3YhdP40GlXVd8nCI_xGgD14NvtzvJ3Legislation 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 compared to existing state law.4 of which were enacted after our September 2024 roundup. Overall, lawmakers in at least 44 states and Washington, DC, considered at least 648 expansive voting bills last year.footnote4_FFjz5UXO8OD7EYQCpoxkkP2UlpwoQlG56tAHGdzRKUE_sev35QmACYJF4Only 46 states and Washington, DC, had legislative sessions this year, meaning the only 2 states not to introduce an expansive voting bill that were able to were Arkansas and Maine.

Between 2021 and 2024, states passed a total of 79 restrictive voting laws, a significantly higher total compared with similar stretches over the previous decade. This represents nearly three times the number of restrictive laws passed between 2017 and 2020 (27), and more than four times the total between 2013 and 2016 (17).

Between January 1 and December 31, 2024, at least 10 states enacted 19 restrictive voting laws.footnote1_b6vuDqWsxQS61IXGir6wUuuXFfyGaBux0jiRa184R0_kKTt6Jvdyd751AL H.B. 100, AL S.B. 1, AZ H.B. 2785, GA S.B. 189, ID H.B. 599, IN H.B. 1264, LA H.B. 114, LA H.B. 476, LA H.B. 506, LA H.B. 581, LA S.B. 155, LA S.B. 218, LA S.B. 226, LA S.B. 436, NC S.B. 382, NH H.B. 1569, TN S.B. 1967, TN S.B. 2586, WV S.B. 624.This count is one greater than our September roundup total since North Carolina passed a new restrictive law in December.

In 2024, a significant trend was the introduction of bills that would require people registering to vote to provide documentary proof of citizenship while often allowing for only a small number of documents to satisfy the requirement. These efforts seem to be motivated by conspiracy theories about significant numbers of noncitizens voting in our elections. It is already a federal crime for noncitizens to register and vote in federal elections. Further, voting by noncitizens is an extraordinarily rare occurrence and usually a mistake.

Louisiana passed one such law in 2024 that took effect on January 1, 2025. It requires people who register using a form created by the secretary of state to provide documentary proof of citizenship, although the law leaves it to the secretary of state to decide which documentation will suffice.footnote2_yYZbXOePhx6r40LAwm5Pn1PNwKIyfk33ripNX1RVM_jXnMjLPn2J1g2LA S.B. 436. At the cutoff date, the secretary of state had yet to announce which documents it will accept, propose rules implementing the law, or change the online registration portal to require proof of citizenship. Citizens may also register to vote using the “federal form,” which does not require documentary proof of citizenship, so Louisianans who lack sufficient documentation will still have an avenue to register.Indiana and New Hampshire also passed laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote in 2024. New Hampshire’sfootnote3_VZ-NrvBI6vUiV7SihZI1CEXLQxKOumgOWndgWlz90zk_vK5FbRStD00O3NH H.B. 1569.and Indiana’sfootnote4_Ri2mXD-ljHGyqRCDnaiMd9pJOkGRmxepytOngsZj1BE_v3QK5f7iTR8A4IN H.B. 1264.laws require registrants to provide a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization documentation.

Last year, at least 26 states introduced 65 bills that would require people to provide proof of citizenship (in many cases, specifically requiring either a passport or birth certificate) at registration, replicate federal law in stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, or direct election officials to find and deregister alleged noncitizens on the voting rolls.footnote5_Z2NvMcaTOsrM5Z9zZIoEIPdphPQjsjRMsYY8cWNrd2Y_r0HOf7Cc2JzM5AZ H.B. 2801, AZ H.C.R. 2001, 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.B. 628, ID H.J.R. 5, IL H.B. 3117,  IL H.B. 5875, IL H.B. 5887, 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.J.R. 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 S.C.R. 513, NE L.B. 1152, NH H.B. 1569, NJ A.B. 387, NJ A.B. 1554, NJ A.B. 5144, NJ S.B. 413, NJ S.B. 1636, NJ S.B. 3925, NY A.B. 6038, NY A.B. 9193, NC H.B. 1073, NC H.B. 1074, OH H.B. 319, OH H.B. 472, OH S.B. 274, OH H.C.R. 18, OH H.B. 324, OK H.B. 3325, OK S.B. 1659, OK H.R. 1047, PA H.B. 2629, PA S.J.R. 1205, 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.

Not all these bills would place new burdens on voting, as some would have no practical effect,footnote6_9XkkU0kbl3364st9BAeCi4iEX85seUTrX9QEUT3a-4_qj2UbcolziHo6For example, SD S.J.R. 511 would amend the state constitution from allowing “Every United States citizen” 18 or older who lives in the state to vote to allowing “Only a United States citizen” who is 18 or older who lives in the state to vote.but at least 21 bills in 15 states would make it harder for U.S. citizens to vote.footnote7_NcuJp84jUxkaXEKGKfZ2kY0e0i33P85xiaVaXdyxko_yPayQTC0toIG7FL S.B. 1602, HI H.B. 1704, IA S.F. 2078, IL H.B. 5875, IL H.B. 5887, IN H.B. 1264, IN H.B. 1286, LA S.B. 436, MD S.B. 605, NH H.B. 1569, NJ A.B. 1554, NY A.B. 6038, OH H.B. 319, OH H.B. 324, OH H.B. 472, OH S.B. 274, OK H.R. 1047, OK S.B. 1659, PA H.B. 2629, RI H.B. 7393, VA H.B. 1441.At least 19 bills in 14 states would specifically require documentary proof of citizenship to vote.footnote8_hXVcO2P1Ps65gjnnR-iQCW5sTnQ5bl2ZlIFSzHlULQ_xQtNslCqmkz38FL S.B. 1602, HI H.B. 1704, IA S.F. 2078, IL H.B. 5887, IN H.B. 1264, IN H.B. 1286, LA S.B. 436, NH H.B. 1569, NJ A.B. 1554, NY A.B. 6038, OH H.B. 319, OH H.B. 324, OH H.B. 472, OH S.B. 274, OK H.R. 1047, OK S.B. 1659, PA H.B. 2629, RI H.B. 7393, VA H.B. 1441.At least 25 bills in 12 states seek to amend or begin the process of amending state constitutions to emphasize that only U.S. citizens can vote in state and local elections.footnote9_sPS8-Y7o6C6R1yOdqGuPVLew3pkxT5XmEaF6YTH7c_p6XxSIqHI18u9AZ H.C.R. 2001, AZ S.C.R. 1011, ID H.J.R. 5, KY H.B. 341, KY S.B. 143, KY S.B. 323, MO H.J.R. 100, MO H.J.R. 101, MO H.J.R. 104, MO H.J.R. 182, MO S.J.R. 91, MS H.C.R. 34, MS H.C.R. 36, MS H.C.R. 38, MS S.C.R. 513, NC H.B. 1073, NC H.B. 1074, OK H.R. 1047, PA S.J.R. 1205, RI H.J.R. 8017, SC H.J.R. 5081, SC S.J.R. 1126, SD S.J.R. 511, WV H.J.R. 21, WV S.J.R. 7.In many cases, this change would have no practical effect, as only U.S. citizens can vote in those states already, but they signal a broader messaging effort to stoke fear and false claims about noncitizen voting. At the federal level, House members in the new Congress already introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register or re-register to vote in federal elections.

States, buoyed by existing federal law, already have multiple systems in place to ensure that only eligible U.S. citizens register and vote. The Brennan Center found that requiring documentary proof of citizenship could block millions of eligible Americans from voting. This requirement also does little to bolster election security.

Of the 19 restrictive laws, 8 came from Louisiana. In addition to the law described above, notable among the 8 laws from the Pelican State: restricting assistance for voters who need help filling out or returning an absentee ballot,footnote10_0WAUuDTsoGf8afRMc6jur1r5ERXmXabzTluTpFhuq8_uZEaF40mjKYN10LA H.B. 476 and LA S.B. 218.making it a crime for a person to witness more than one absentee ballot certificate of a voter who is not an immediate family member,footnote11_x5HXtcap83zbe90FKksSgzd1WWK9td-Ok7LIFEa0w0I_imMXAE613JFJ11LA S.B. 155.and creating more opportunities for absentee ballots to be rejected due to missing information on the ballot certificates.footnote12_mQpVVUfHPMXZsQPGYcHA3SXjSi-KOQvXuX8xZCuAgI_bbZpBmk9lKAi12LA S.B. 226.

The only new restrictive law passed since the September roundup comes from North Carolina, which now requires voters to cure mail ballot deficiencies within 3 days of the election instead of 9.footnote13_XYKgZ1DwSMutJBA1MvVNZ88PoSZqO4vqQ43wXdgBM_vcKnDmS6PUpL13NC S.B. 382.

At least 3 states enacted 3 election interference laws in 2024.footnote1_M-HI77YMnQGUX8UgfI6yVTN3PH5d46gHOWk9NmOXtFs_kMSgyXipE3YJ1LA H.B. 763, NC S.B. 382, SD H.B. 1182.Two passed prior to the September roundup.

The newest election interference law came from North Carolina and was passed in December over a veto by the governor.footnote2_XYKgZ1DwSMutJBA1MvVNZ88PoSZqO4vqQ43wXdgBM_wzc2uDlxNmxa2NC S.B. 382.The law shifts the power to appoint members of the state board of elections from the Democratic governor to the Republican state auditor. State law had long given the governor (regardless of party) the power to appoint board members. This change, made a few weeks after the 2024 election in which a Democrat won the governorship and a Republican defeated the Democratic incumbent for auditor, assigned the power to an office held by a member of the same party as the legislative majority.

North Carolina passed another election interference law over gubernatorial veto in 2023. It restructured the state board of elections and county election boards to have even partisan splits, which could lead to tied votes and throw routine election processes into chaos. A court blocked the 2023 law, and the defendants dropped their appeal after the passage of the new law in late 2024, as they considered it a replacement for the 2023 law. The case is not over, however, as the plaintiffs have asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint that challenges the new law.

At least 21 states enacted 32 expansive voting laws last year.footnote1_40aU0R8Dr3bfWXNUz-j9wdLMpWDUfpASx-jLup3U1uo_xGrdEvbw468X1AZ H.B. 2785, CO S.B. 72, CO S.B. 210, CT H.B. 5308, CT H.B. 5498, DE H.B. 293, ID H.B. 532, IN H.B. 1265, KY H.B. 580, LA S.B. 155, MN H.F. 4772, MS H.B. 1406, MS S.B. 2576, NC H.B. 149, NC S.B. 132, NE L.B. 20, NH H.B. 1098, NH H.B. 1264, NY A.B. 3250, NY S.B. 610, NY S.B. 9837, OK H.B. 1629, OR S.B. 1533, OR S.B. 1538, RI H.B. 7756/RI S.B. 2778, RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780, 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.All but 4 of the new expansive laws in 2024 were discussed in our prior roundups. They focus on expanding absentee voting, increasing voter registration opportunities, and re-enfranchising people returning from incarceration. At least two-thirds of the expansive voting laws enacted in 2024 make it easier to vote by mail.

The 4 expansive laws enacted since September 16, 2024, are reported here.

Two of the new expansive laws passed in North Carolina. Following the catastrophic damage that Hurricane Helene caused weeks before Election Day, the state enacted emergency measures to ensure those in affected counties were able to vote safely and securely. The first law authorized county boards of elections to make a variety of election changes to suit their residents’ needs, including extending polling place hours or establishing more than one polling place for voters in a single precinct.footnote2_9VNGrr8T9yOV-cCsdtJ8Iw9V7NddqSSSaA3TzEsuKs_qMN4l5Cvk3Of2NC H.B. 149.It also expanded the window to request an absentee ballot and increased options for returning absentee ballots. The second law required more temporary early voting locations to be opened in affected counties.footnote3_3hzae0RaY7GvHAGP1iFb3HsJJwHK8FqbnTE7DNgBeBM_qRuNAoCPe0YA3NC S.B. 132.Both laws applied only to the 2024 election.

New York authorized the use of drop boxes for voters to return absentee ballotsfootnote4_iZjIlb6Sv59ea5AvcH-21bBQNLcuFkX3sv2TUN4Xu8_qIXTXPagclWk4NY S.B. 610.and Delaware increased polling place accessibility for individuals with disabilities and elderly voters.footnote5_oW4Xhj4iF4E4IACFbV8BNDz7E-GxKPDkJsw2kflw_vLZgrzM5RzZU5DE H.B. 293.

In the postelection lame-duck period, the Michigan House of Representatives failed to pass the state’s proposed Voting Rights Act after the legislation passed the state senate in September 2024. The change in party makeup of Michigan’s house in the most recent election means that a state-level Voting Rights Act is unlikely to pass in the next two years.

Guns and Voting Legislation

Last month, the Michigan legislature enacted a prohibition on the open carry of guns at polling places and drop boxes,footnote6_aKnhRXNTlBAvUpP0Ua77gcdbbT02NFCtJ9vUyrhsXM_nuLxfiy0UBPJ6MI H.B. 4127.as well as a complete prohibition on guns at ballot-counting facilities.footnote7_iiB7b-tyMddGp-KKUnUNPi0K34Fel-lTUU-crGoukw_zJUqaOZcZAaf7MI H.B. 4128.We do not categorize those laws as restrictive or expansive, but their passage capped off a trend of such legislation succeeding in 2024. Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Vermont enacted similar policies last year.

Pre-Filed Legislation

Some states permit legislators to “pre-file” bills at the end of one year for consideration in the next.footnote1_r2vFr3-qgNCAk-CQrxeUurXxR405Ab4bOfrsrap4yIo_hgZZC2an6ceB1As of December 31, 2024, pre-filing periods had begun in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Not all state legislatures allow for pre-filing bills.These bills do not move before the end of the year, 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 sessions, both the pre-filed bills and the carryovers are pending in the legislatures.

At the conclusion of 2024, legislators in at least 11 of the 34 states that allow pre-filing had pre-filed 193 voting bills.

Texas was, as usual, by far the most active pre-filing state, with a record number of bills filed on the first day of the pre-filing period. Overall, lawmakers there pre-filed at least 112 voting bills, continuing the Texas legislature’s yearslong trend of pushing restrictive voting legislation. There are 8 bills requiring Texans to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote,footnote2_JQwsz0nUZJs3VUodWVAueBuLwqFsgHShzY4qukjPV0_woJOdSiLMBPu2TX H.B. 219, TX H.B. 304, TX H.B. 892, TX H.B. 1263, TX H.B. 1312, TX H.B. 1670, TX H.J.R. 49, TX S.B. 309.which would potentially disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters without offering additional election security. Other restrictive measures would curtail absentee voting and add barriers for voters with disabilities. The other most active states in the pre-filing period include Missouri (34 bills), Washington (9 bills), Virginia (8 bills), Arizona, (6 bills) and Alabama (5 bills).

The substantive trends in the pre-filed legislation resemble those seen in recent years. On the restrictive side, these include efforts to restrict mail voting (5 bills in 3 states) and imposing documentary proof of citizenship requirements to register or vote (10 bills in 3 states).

As for expansive legislation, state lawmakers are looking to expand access to mail voting (14 bills in 5 states) and increase registration opportunities (16 bills in 5 states).

Carryover Bills

While most states are beginning new legislative cycles this year, New Jersey’s and Virginia’s current cycles will continue through 2025 as a result of those states having odd-year elections. Legislators in those two states carried over 67 and 13 bills that are restrictive, expansive, or election interference from 2024 to 2025, respectively.footnote3_JCRwA7vzrgKmk6Zwqlkofarlo2Mh5IVqkLEB1gmU_zj5czQpuiy5P3Virginia has both carried over and pre-filed bills this year.No other states permit carryovers this year.

Finally, while the roundup analyzes only state laws, there is a high probability that Congress will attempt to advance voting-related bills that would limit the freedom to vote in 2025.