Voting Laws Roundup: September 2024

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,footnote1_X1cqtLMoAl3sXKXtjDYGJ2J6iQnHikzF3Pc2lDs7KYQ_nd3mDmaj6c0s1Legislation 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.the 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,footnote2_ai7HvCAeBx1RoYmHNvgLCiw9kLpkr3cItu1QQjaZck_bfI5b5w1Hoyq2Legislation 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. The Brennan Center began tracking election interference legislation in January 2022. Some laws passed in 2021 were subsequently deemed election interference and included in this count, but there may be additional laws passed in 2021 that are not.with 1 new law enacted in Louisiana since the May roundup.
• At least 19 states enacted 28 expansive laws.footnote3_wq9vdXNsmEPZsNYdGT5XHBIweUN3YhdP40GlXVd8nCI_mgXtisozFoLD3Legislation 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.At 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.footnote4_c3PKeCdioO7A3ghga6PKBDSOt-3S8cqw99C5yG00Rk_uTnlSR7DeYt34Some laws will not be in effect for the general election either because the legislation contains an effective date after November 5, 2024, or because courts have blocked its enforcement. Moreover, some laws currently slated to be in effect could be blocked by courts before the election, and some court blockages could be overturned in the remaining weeks.
• 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.footnote5_x3h8cK5tq5JhSrc9kfsi8-xnGX1okwhdEskL8sMrLzY_nAbG0oPmY2VU5Seven expansive laws have effective dates after the 2024 election, two 2021 New York laws had expiration dates before this November, an Oregon law is only required to be implemented sometime before the new year, and courts struck down two Delaware laws.

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.footnote1_9aluTBc8DqZQY5HbAme7ePixGm10mD7n80GX9m5i9o_nzbJIXI8NePV1At least 25 states enacted 43 mail voting restrictions in the last four years, but courts blocked 3 of these policies, a fourth only takes effect the day after the election (TN S.B. 1967 (2024)), and a fifth is technically in effect but no voters will feel its effects until after the November election as it requires the removal of voters from the permanent mail voting list if they don’t vote by mail for 2 consecutive election cycles (AZ S.B. 1485 (2021)).These 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.footnote2_pFIljbmIsB4dFYZPb41TxqHcWDtrvLp3-eOKKPGKM_wNLnAYPBTMfR2In New York, 16 of these laws are set to be in effect this fall. The 2 that won’t be in effect each had expiration dates that have lapsed (NY A.B. 6046 (2021) and NY S.B. 7565 (2022)). In Michigan, 10 are slated to be effective (MI H.B. 4983 (2023) and MI S.B. 594 (2023) have effective dates in 2025). All 12 Virginia laws are on track to be in effect.

In this presidential election, voters in 29 statesfootnote1_h3fVOZWX8NPa1xFitHyJE5H-4zD9pWMkW57vfhxyhs0_mUctbiIdUkxo1Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 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 at least 63 new restrictive lawsfootnote2_9XgDB1f-iyu-L3F9XGm7ZCDLJo3KgKS2lRpQ8cKaKU_yTvnUyPDDZFN2AL H.B. 538 (2021), AL H.B. 285 (2021), AL S.B. 1 (2024), AZ S.B. 1003 (2021), AZ H.B. 2492 (2022), AZ H.B. 2243 (2022), AZ H.B. 2785 (2024), AR H.B. 1715 (2021), AR S.B. 643 (2021), AR H.B. 1112 (2021), AR H.B. 1244 (2021), AR H.B. 1411 (2023), FL S.B. 90 (2021), FL S.B. 7050 (2023), GA S.B. 202 (2021), GA S.B. 189 (2024), ID H.B. 290 (2021), ID H.B. 124 (2023), ID H.B. 340 (2023), ID H.B. 599 (2024), IN S.B. 398 (2021), IN H.B. 1334 (2023), IN H.B. 1264 (2024), IA S.F. 568 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KS H.B. 2183 (2021), KS H.B. 2332 (2021). KS S.B. 106 (2023), KY H.B. 574 (2021), LA H.B. 506 (2024), LA H.B. 476 (2024), LA S.B. 155 (2024), LA S.B. 226 (2024), MS H.B. 1510 (2022), MS H.B. 1310 (2023), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), MT S.B. 196 (2021), NE LB 514 (2023), NH H.B. 523 (2021), NH S.B. 31 (2021), NH S.B. 418 (2022), NJ A.B. 3819 (2022), NJ A.B. 3820 (2022), NM S.B. 180 (2023), NY S.B. 264 (2021), NC S.B. 747 (2023), ND H.B. 1431 (2023), OH H.B. 458 (2022), OK H.B. 2663 (2021), OK H.B. 3364 (2022), OK H.B. 3365 (2022), SC S.B. 108 (2022), SD H.B. 1165 (2023), TN S.B. 2586 (2024), TX H.B. 3920 (2021), TX S.B. 1 (2021), TX S.B. 1111 (2021), TX S.B. 924 (2023), UT H.B. 12 (2021), UT S.B. 17 (2023), WY H.B. 75 (2021), WY S.F. 153 (2023), and WY H.B. 279 (2023).that weren’t in place for the last presidential election.footnote3_Fq3fUi9LSVucYvnTyem1KrB9bBXlEXYoLiFg58jxMs_jGsmyEebYMGc3States have enacted 15 additional restrictive laws, but these laws were blocked by courts, have delayed effective dates, or won’t impact voters yet. AL H.B. 100 (2024), AZ S.B. 1485 (2021), AZ S.B. 1819 (2021), LA H.B. 114 (2024), LA H.B. 581 (2024), LA S.B. 218 (2024), LA S.B. 436 (2024), MS S.B. 2358 (2023), MT H.B. 530 (2021), MT S.B. 319 (2021), MT S.B. 169 (2021), MT H.B. 176 (2021), NH H.B. 1569 (2024), TN S.B. 1967 (2024), and WV S.B. 624 (2024).But 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.footnote4_2Q7OKYPDrYwUVRhiFb7ft-gHn019bSwht3nU8bE0RY_sl3EQOmK0UDs4FL S.B. 90 (2021), GA S.B. 202 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), OH H.B. 458 (2022), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).This 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 ballotfootnote5_uWqMObD7wXIbMl8veygwV16ov6VLsT3LYkwv1GQ-I_wZ4szWL6rnIZ5AL H.B. 538 (2021), AR S.B. 643 (2021), FL S.B. 7050 (2023), GA S.B. 202 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KY H.B. 574 (2021), NM S.B. 180 (2023), NY S.B. 264 (2021), OH H.B. 458 (2022), OK H.B. 2663 (2021), and SC S.B. 108 (2022).and 5 that either tighten the deadline for returning one or remove leeway for officials to accept late-arriving mail ballots.footnote6_Gcpdm6D3-l3mOCpfEk-OKxYDvMGCI6cXevZ75JXy0NM_sPq4fXkcY8VI6AR S.B. 643 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KS H.B. 2183 (2021), NC S.B. 747 (2023), and OH H.B. 458 (2022).Not all those laws will affect voters equally, however. For example, Georgia reduced the timeframe for requesting a mail ballot by more than half,footnote7_-F39BV5FffirfVoDuE2fB16OsVY55xo2pV7L-iuRppo_mKuZhUxLONm67Previously, Georgia voters could request a mail ballot between 180 days and 11 days before the election. Now, the request period is from 78 days to 11 days before the election under GA S.B. 202.and 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.footnote8_y08pxnpPPKcJf0WGfl3NfclWSWVKn1xtFmY2V1j5F-Y_jfKq4opADvR68IA S.F. 413 (2021) and NC S.B. 747 (2023).These 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.footnote9_8sDEKvuczvg8KHd10YtZABowO8t56bI9zDPrT1bw7Lc_wVmoz95bpafO9FL S.B. 7050 (2023).Restrictions 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,footnote10_CEuQZ6fHXk2lv9bNs2srF6YRIEqA0i8IO0FCtbajpg_iTpLE212DEwr10AL S.B.1 (2021), AR H.B. 1715 (2021), FL S.B. 90 (2021), FL S.B. 7050 (2023), IA S.F. 413 (2021), IA S.F. 568 (2021), ID H.B. 599 (2024), KS H.B. 2183 (2021), KY H.B. 574 (2021), LA S.B. 155 (2024), LA H.B. 476 (2024),NC S.B. 747 (2023), OH H.B. 458 (2022), SC S.B. 108 (2022), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).with 10 laws threatening criminal penalties.footnote11_e-P9OawGN7370uy1v9JcJ3xrCrHPifPBAJadDQrJC4_bDifoVt07T4y11AL S.B. 1 (2024), AR H.B. 1715 (2021), FL S.B. 90 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), IA S.F. 568 (2021), ID H.B. 599 (2024), KS H.B. 2183 (2021), LA S.B. 155 (2024), OH H.B. 458 (2022), and SC S.B. 108 (2022).Imposing 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.footnote12_tWhARJkcxgXw8LUqHynd9AyOd9DIuaaFAW7f9EuTis_sPQVdzll0mQG12FL S.B. 90 (2021), GA S.B. 202 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), IA S.F. 568 (2021), IN S.B. 398 (2021), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), NC S.B. 747 (2023), OH H.B. 458 (2022), SC S.B. 108 (2022), SD H.B. 1165 (2023), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).Ohio and Iowa, for example, now allow only 1 drop box per county.footnote13_wYQwjOlVsm—5OKTtxDnW99J08nqrxRpapWERdEuw50_xTU3mc4h1s6613IA S.F. 413 (2021) and OH H.B. 458 (2022).Georgia 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.footnote14_IXhHKOy11D55GEVnsVsXLyOq2-yF3KtEZZLXx6WPZMg_s8LmNPOk0uZA14GA S.B. 202 (2021).These 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.footnote15_tnsIqoM9g5c8LNfvVSaCsudk1k2l5z0sHZUp1aWFKKc_a5KXzVjZqnrt15AR H.B. 1112 (2021), AR H.B. 1244 (2021), AR H.B. 1411 (2023), FL S.B. 90 (2021), GA S.B. 202 (2021), ID H.B. 124 (2023), IN H.B. 1334 (2023), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), ND H.B. 1431 (2023), NE L.B. 514 (2023), NH H.B. 523 (2021), NH S.B. 418 (2022), OH H.B. 458 (2022), OK H.B. 3364 (2022), SC S.B. 108 (2022), TX S.B. 1 (2021), UT S.B. 17 (2023), and WY H.B. 279 (2023).Ohio 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.footnote16_HtWP1AeGpUmVyZ1GfqREMaNuYvjCEvd842DPzqu6fM_ld5BAZj3MTcw16OH H.B. 458 (2022).Idaho eliminated student IDs as an acceptable form of voter ID, adding to the distinct challenges student voters face in casting their ballots.footnote17_SZbRLNX-W5miZOaTnph5RnClrI-YZiNUgyO9zbO835c_fqmTHLDMOyrN17ID H.B. 124 (2023).Arkansas removed the option for voters to issue a sworn statement in lieu of presenting IDfootnote18_tBexI0TcyeU2kweskJMoZDX4UQ32jJnDgC3i3XoXqps_xYiAVSXv4eQv18AR H.B. 1112 (2021).and imposed new ID requirements on individuals picking up mail ballots on a voter’s behalf.footnote19_lLDhjYgT6WRmP6v3aeB0DfkRPkJqCzwXoAFY3QTaZVE_fGDUjqh25cA019AR H.B. 1411 (2023).These 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.footnote20_uArkbFCQqaExrl9t8FfzxwcIY-Zmha11Iu750vp11y8_xoM5JmXCUMGF20AZ H.B. 2492 (2022), FL S.B. 90 (2021), FL S.B. 7050 (2023), ID H.B. 340 (2023), IN H.B. 1264 (2024), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KS H.B. 2332 (2021), LA H.B. 506 (2024), MS H.B. 1510 (2022), NH H.B 523 (2021), OK H.B. 3365 (2022), and TN S.B. 2586 (2024).For example, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee have imposed new restrictions on voter registration assistance offered by civic engagement groups,footnote21_0jwPJQgIZLeX2LBLZW8FTZss1d-lxul4faySHgFhJU_poUYxp5pORUz21FL S.B. 7050 (2023), LA H.B. 506 (2024), and TN S.B. 2586 (2024).while people in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and New Hampshire will have to meet stricter identification or proof-of-residence requirements to register.footnote22_aQTiLnHR4dOOuhJVLomQg1tyhsmpcafZ9S2q10is_axThMLfebyYI22AZ H.B. 2492 (2022), ID H.B. 340 (2023), IN H.B. 1264 (2024), and NH H.B 523 (2021).Arizona also expanded an existing law requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register,footnote23_zz7twJOFNa56WVOQOmNeURqRwyQP0ZsjolbRAosJE_uXBdZonSEHfS23AZ H.B. 2492 (2022). and Mississippi imposed a new proof-of-citizenship requirement that is more limited in scope.footnote24_hlKPvWIiJPSPyzXaO7IwZ8li7RRfgErYCLD4yjcc4_uh8YvEcx6YE524MS H.B. 1510 (2022).States 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 statesfootnote1_UBmj5U0U7GXRz2ITi8YAOue5jkb9TVhuKoIYuKiEs_z4iMFl0g4M4Z1Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.will have at least 31 new interference lawsfootnote2_2Iw5EZzqlOM0RssiNISg2Htz6p2Tkwp2NMdftgjY-w_jgxoLxnNEQXN2AL H.B. 285 (2021), AL H.B. 194 (2022), AZ H.B. 2905 (2021), AZ H.B. 2794 (2021), AZ H.B. 2237 (2022), AZ H.B. 2492 (2022), AR S.B. 644 (2021), AR H.B. 1411 (2023), AR S.B. 272 (2023), FL S.B. 90 (2021), FL S.B. 524 (2022), FL S.B. 4-B (2023), GA S.B. 202 (2021), GA S.B. 441 (2022), GA H.B. 1432 (2022), GA H.B. 1368 (2022), GA H.B. 1015 (2022), GA S.B. 222 (2023), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KS S.B. 2332 (2021), KY H.B. 301 (2022), LA H.B. 763 (2024), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), ND H.B. 1253 (2021), OK H.B. 3046 (2022), OK S.B. 523 (2022), SD H.B. 1165 (2023), SD H.B. 1182 (2024), TX H.B. 574 (2021), TX S.B. 1 (2021), and TX S.B. 1933 (2023).in place this fall that were not in place for the 2020 presidential election.footnote3_IwyqInQS8k0cfPmx4QvF3D9TAIgPbb8YG7-EiVvjE_pnn3TBxvGaIR3Two additional interference laws were enacted but have been temporarily or permanently blocked by courts. AZ S.B. 1819 (2021) and NC S.B. 749 (2023).The 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.footnote4_CaxgjquR7QIFcwN12Xei13ThrXlQrvru79tfX5JmEZA_dyAzsgkRc6HO4AL H.B. 285 (2021), AR H.B. 1411 (2023), AZ H.B. 2237 (2022), AZ H.B. 2492 (2022), AZ H.B. 2794 (2021), AZ H.B. 2905 (2021), FL S.B. 90 (2021), IA S.F. 413 (2021), KS H.B. 2332 (2021), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), SD H.B. 1165 (2023), SD H.B. 1182 (2024), TX H.B. 574 (2021), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).In 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,footnote5_SzbLdIBdFernKnDGDdG4gfk5BwTKz2ZAyNOgjVEbNc_fOZIkDv4wY9C5AR H.B. 1411 (2023), AZ H.B. 2905 (2021), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).establish mail ballot drop boxes,footnote6_mtgWzm4V6ChunIUp63cWuI1FSbi0ncF3OkypqQcBo_nWImYTqfNybs6FL S.B. 90 (2021) and SD H.B. 1165 (2023).and register new voters on Election Day and allow them to vote in that election.footnote7_Qbtu8n9Zru9rZX7nD6LoTYazbVX89Q6AM8V9hZ3mPn4_wbCXuu2vhmoZ7AZ H.B. 2237 (2022).An 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.footnote8_R2fdB2dtaZgCx1i-6YwcVxSvTad2L-UfHuNsGx0LSUg_wuzlQWhMSsDt8AL H.B. 285 (2021).This 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.footnote9_H69FjWTpYq8tE1tfUMnKLW9SZRTADKgZ1e0SPWLBDI_h5M9wTVpfeCe9AL H.B. 194 (2022), GA S.B. 222 (2023), KY H.B. 301 (2022), MO H.B. 1878 (2022), ND H.B. 1253 (2021), and OK H.B. 3046 (2022).In 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.footnote10_cNvLYrzw6ot7jX4XszB-Is-wxIwx4YlHTHXOmN2VO3o_xagoJnfR1Yl110IA S.F. 413 (2021), SD H.B. 1165 (2023), SD H.B. 1182 (2024), and TX S.B. 1 (2021).For 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.footnote11_K2w1hYvHDbK453C2ZIiRUrm7U7XqHfSdIlNRoG5p3g_uYZCTyE1H7EZ11FL S.B. 4-B (2023), FL S.B. 524 (2022), and GA S.B. 441 (2022).Some 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.footnote12_HpMWfcHcxb63D3VzDs6zFmhFugpPwHph4L7VAsM7HCQ_fZig3xEBCyE112AR S.B. 644 (2021).Georgia, similarly, has increased the partisanship of the state elections board and given it the power to meddle with local election boards.footnote13_IXhHKOy11D55GEVnsVsXLyOq2-yF3KtEZZLXx6WPZMg_iQG8kBvL3udU13GA S.B. 202 (2021).Texas 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.footnote14_Wm-HzcAz6hagNzncbEvejfzS9MmqOmRrS4981khBNR8_gItD92iYBerd14TX S.B. 1933 (2023).

At least 41footnote1_1kv9byDhk29dRH0NdwfvstAJDDRq7Ieqm-00mkMnA_kcLcNxbhHwab1Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon. Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Washington, DC.states and Washington, DC, will have at least 1 expansive lawfootnote2_dxIlJmyhrATdEFhRlUa7gz2KnfMfHHvudf-OhjPaX0_ySsHnmcJAkyd2AR H.B. 1512 (2023), AR S.B. 247 (2023), AZ H.B. 2119 (2022), AZ H.B. 2785 (2024), AZ S.B. 1170 (2022), AZ S.B. 1638 (2022), CA A.B. 2815 (2022), CA A.B. 292 (2023), CA A.B. 37 (2021), CA A.B. 545 (2023), CA A.B. 626 (2023), CA S.B. 152 (2021), CA S.B. 29 (2021), CA S.B. 503 (2021), CO H.B. 1011 (2021), CO S.B. 276 (2021), CO S.B. 210 (2024), CO S.B. 72 (2024), CT H.B. 5004 (2023), CT H.B. 5262 (2022), CT H.B. 6941 (2023), CT H.B. 5308 (2024), CT H.B. 5498 (2024), CT S.B. 1202 (2021), DC C.B. 24–0507 (2022), DC C.B. 24–0951 (2022), DE S.B. 5 (2021), GA S.B. 129 (2023), HI S.B. 159 (2021), HI S.B. 548 (2021), ID H.B. 532 (2024), IL H.B. 1871 (2021), IL H.B. 3235 (2021), IL S.B. 2123 (2023), IL S.B. 825 (2021), IN H.B. 1265 (2024), IN H.B. 1479 (2021), IN H.B. 1485 (2021), IN S.B. 398 (2021), KS S.B. 221 (2023), KY H.B. 574 (2021), KY H.B. 580 (2024), LA H.B. 1074 (2022), LA H.B. 167 (2021), LA H.B. 286 (2021), LA H.B. 423 (2022), LA H.B. 449 (2023), LA H.B. 646 (2022), LA S.B. 155 (2024), MA H.B. 3973 (2021), MA H.B. 73 (2021), MA S.B. 2924 (2022), MD H.B. 1048 (2021), MD H.B. 206 (2021), MD H.B. 410 (2023), MD H.B. 745 (2021), MD S.B. 525 (2021), MD S.B. 596 (2021), MD S.B. 683 (2021), ME L.D. 1126 (2021), ME L.D. 1363 (2021), ME L.D. 1399 (2021), ME L.D. 1575 (2021), ME L.D. 221 (2021), ME L.D. 886 (2023), MI H.B. 4567 (2023), MI H.B. 4568 (2023), MI H.B. 4569 (2023), MI H.B. 4570 (2023), MI H.B. 4697 (2023), MI H.B. 4699 (2023), MI S.B. 259 (2023), MI S.B. 367 (2023), MI S.B. 370 (2023), MI S.B. 373 (2023), MN H.F. 1952 (2021), MN H.F. 28 (2023), MN H.F. 3 (2023), MN HF 4772 (2024), MS S.B. 2576 (2024), MS H.B. 1406 (2024), MT S.B. 15 (2021), NE L.B. 20 (2024), ND H.B. 1078 (2021), ND H.B. 1253 (2021), ND H.B. 1447 (2021), NH H.B. 1594 (2022), NH H.B. 555 (2021), NH H.B. 1098 (2024), NJ A.B. 3929 (2022), NJ A.B. 5175 (2023), NJ S.B. 3203 (2021), NM H.B. 231 (2021), NM H.B. 4 (2023), NM S.B. 180 (2023), NV A.B. 121 (2021), NV A.B. 286 (2023), NV A.B. 321 (2021), NV A.B. 432 (2021), NV S.B. 216 (2023), NV S.B. 327 (2023), NY A.B. 2574 (2021), NY A.B. 4009 (2023), NY A.B. 6047 (2021), NY A.B. 7690 (2023), NY A.B. 3250 (2024), NY S.B. 1046 (2022), NY S.B. 1327 (2023), NY S.B. 1733 (2023), NY S.B. 253 (2022), NY S.B. 284 (2022), NY S.B. 2951 (2022), NY S.B. 5545 (2021), NY S.B. 5984 (2023), NY S.B. 7394 (2023), NY S.B. 830B (2021), , NY S.B. 9837 (2024), OK H.B. 1711 (2022), OK H.B. 2663 (2021), OR H.B. 2681 (2021), OR H.B. 3021 (2021), OR H.B. 3291 (2021), OR S.B. 1538 (2024), OR S.B. 166 (2023), RI H.B. 7100 (2022), RI H.B. 7756/RI S.B. 2778 (2024), RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780 (2024), RI S.B. 2007 (2022), SC S.B. 108 (2022), TN S.B. 2118 (2024), TX H.B. 1217 (2023), TX S.B. 1599 (2023), TX S.B. 477 (2023), UT H.B. 37 (2023), UT S.B. 17 (2023), VA H.B. 1330 (2024), VA H.B. 1888 (2021), VA H.B. 1890 (2021), VA H.B. 1921 (2021), VA H.B. 1948 (2021), VA H.B. 1968 (2021), VA H.B. 2125 (2021), VA H.B. 441/VA S.B. 605 (2024), VA S.B. 1097 (2021), VA S.B. 1245 (2021), VA S.B. 1331 (2021), VA S.B. 1395 (2021), VT S.B. 15 (2021), WA H.B. 1048 (2023), WA H.B. 1078 (2021), WA S.B. 5112 (2023), WA S.B. 5208 (2023), WA S.B. 5890 (2024), WI A.B. 298 (2024), WV S.B. 631 (2023), and WY H.B. 79 (2023).in effect for the first time in a presidential election this fall, with 156 total new laws in effect.footnote3_DQk6–2sRCMHNYLq8ry-4RcxsVerzR0jF-vpE7CJJXaI_aJtk1RCKqCiG3States have enacted 12 additional expansive laws, but these were struck down, have delayed effective dates, or won’t affect voters yet. DE S.B. 25 (2022), DE S.B. 320 (2022), MI H.B. 4983 (2023), MI S.B. 594 (2023), NH H.B. 1264 (2024), NY A.B. 6046 (2021), NY S.B. 7565 (2022), OK H.B. 1629 (2024), OR H.B. 2107 (2023), OR H.B. 4133 (2022), OR S.B. 1533 (2024), and WA H.B. 1962 (2024).

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.footnote4_NZoOM2WnMVIqtQ0SgzDrrsd8V5dG5krokw2VZRET44_w9r4RzFyiSf24NY S.B. 1046 (2022).Three new laws allow more people to vote absentee: after twice expanding the list of reasons a voter can request an absentee ballot,footnote5_HAbKS9EjjTrn-AeveWWZCOh1Dk7L1avOg17OOJQHYY_fC0u61JKJSR65NY S.B. 5545 (2021) and NY S.B. 7565 (2022). NY S.B. 7565 (2022) expired at the end of 2022.the state enacted no-excuse absentee voting last year.footnote6_ShUR9BH179GWLAMTCrcpQBt4mOOA6GqMrUbYf3hmAY_tgsSrO55UwyW6NY S.B. 7394 (2023). The law faced legal challenges, but the state high court upheld it.Six additional laws help people vote absentee by allowing voters to request a ballot by letter,footnote7_2yakx4Z5uFVor3nOWnNCUsj2gLjgtdxQpv4cuCNwKA_tE2QzY7xDeHt7NY A.B. 6047 (2021).clarifying that technical errors such as stray marks on a ballotfootnote8_zKS2kdOYZIxU55Tnh2k3jaGDFV10h631nqB7uJvCi2k_uWozUxZyrzul8NY S.B. 253 (2022).or lack of a postmark on the envelopefootnote9_jqQ75VF43uh4Fh-NeW0FocifykLmW8y7FRmuvMXZIw_xNfYd9fL4Otf9NY A.B. 7690 (2023).are not automatic grounds to discount a ballot, allowing pre-registered voters to request an absentee ballot,footnote10_x3ESyeo3YdggX6vR5EG8MDt8-cCH3L8S4ewMqfiI4eU_iB7DS9jBmRtG10NY A.B. 3250 (2024).including paid postage for ballot curing and extending the deadline for ballot curing by a week,footnote11_PSn96B8TUgu2uxQSEkj9Rbzxz07wpIWKvtfEkc3QcCM_yL4KLdA3Y5Zz11NY S.B. 9837 (2024).and allowing for online mail ballot requests.footnote12_yTiqqB91tU-ze26p705UNs6YH6ezKLRvWjhTXcL9qQI_pUaFbQ467o1E12NY A.B. 6046 (2021). This law expired at the end of 2021.

Five new laws make voter registration in New York easier by expanding the list of agencies that offer automatic voter registration,footnote13_ZJnclT8Puf5Vb-IqshAubQtJ285IyotCrZmsRPBXByA_nCbUXRSsQsNA13NY A.B. 2574 (2021).extending the deadline to return registration forms,footnote14_5I4vbiaUzQYdquPBNzN5JsdCZewBcFVfoCmrjol4p0_rSw50A1GJft314NY S.B. 2951 (2022) and NY S.B. 1327 (2023).requiring high schools to provide students with voter registration forms,footnote15_pRIbdc1vw0i0dZInRXuppKbK7w1UC2r5NYseemRjng_tT4zMiJjxO4W15NY S.B. 1733 (2023).and allowing voters to register and cast provisional ballots during the early voting period.footnote16_QP7yk6LQ2q7urRhhLNttaZH1Y3q6fgPXo64bNppyjgE_jwABRaHBK4Ic16NY S.B. 5984 (2023).The remaining 3 new laws restore voting rights immediately upon release from incarceration,footnote17_pY2zB1ROvgA5z5EWSWNlQOtRLgR5lp5ivlmkVLv0pE_s7AduRrDTcLq17NY S.B. 830B (2021).require jails to provide people leaving custody with information on their voting rights,footnote18_XmT9jsEMfwcWqTaq7qSCcuKUtotN9Se8FVU7fvy9aQ_clXrE8fltCLk18NY A.B. 4009 (2023).and require the counting of ballots cast in the right county but the wrong precinct for races in which the person is eligible to vote.footnote19_WgSkmFUdxflvRgqpfgmRzCzPphNwpJNz-9eYiImKE_dPqkJeP1pj9T19NY S.B. 284 (2022).

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,footnote20_UJOoj7AjUR256HS7OoBT9oQI6aHJTVaNmqpydCCK0_wKhr1JdsU9AN20MI H.B. 4569 (2023).widen access to same-dayfootnote21_3Lsa7-t3D5HCR0001KqD2eGAg0vO2tXjXfqkRwMp1c_bWd2AqV9BwSq21MI H.B. 4567 (2023).voter registration and onlinefootnote22_DZ-c2qws8LoAg4faI57GRYaNw0WhePPepJ07pgqCuw_fchuILnfKd5622MI H.B. 594 (2023). This law goes into effect in 2025.voter registration, and extend automatic voter registration to new government agencies.footnote23_Hz6KdsbZFrVZoC0ZB0Y-934dNTpvtdCYXs1ffkgbC60_lg6XMVsgGLPt23MI H.B. 4983 (2023). This law goes into effect in 2025.Five laws assist people who want to vote absentee. They allow for online absentee ballot applications,footnote24_nTL5gPW-XipvSS-yeNaERPYHb2xFZ2F-SVslTL5crHw_oH4qA0Zukcvp24MI H.B. 4570 (2023).create a permanent mail voting list,footnote25_I93egW2YPMVH-hggG1u0oFo03rmMar4r80r3—xcE_m2ck99Z0ZF9R25MI H.B. 4699 (2023).simplify absentee ballot applications and make clerical errors easier for voters to fix,footnote26_7XEolwvxQnwnQ1UohhIFjTQpuykDGx3MDAYEZUwgYM_pBAZAsHty81J26MI S.B. 370 (2023).extend absentee ballot receipt deadlines for uniformed and overseas voters,footnote27_0iVy3qSLbG7Y3gu5Q3HEDEJ5humQ5DkPLubM9lajw_k6SEyB8Fz4mf27MI S.B. 259 (2023).and require at least 1 absentee ballot drop box per municipality.footnote28_auN1P21khUpy7RKo3JLkpRFTcFT4t1DNbIu5mvC75bg_mHmDHKxPCrr028MI H.B. 4967 (2023).The remaining 3 laws establish 9 days of in-person early voting,footnote29_JRarr-3-D8NoIzlbsVmaV7P9n9e9wW4R0W6mvaIdzHY_jO92bVP9W79m29MI S.B. 367 (2023).expand the list of acceptable voter IDs,footnote30_0j2amkcQpiGgKU6IX38qaFg6glGkRk1VivvUsAhnUs_rbJU1XIJKzgf30MI S.B. 373 (2023). and allow for the hiring of transportation to take voters to the polls.footnote31_lT-J1JRfEZGPwdpadEcev02UTKHCIx10sShVIA87fqM_giJSYQnNyJn631MI H.B. 4568 (2023).

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,footnote32_18ZFDiLtZWUUgnZke5v0Bce51Tw0mepbr0Sas2APcpE_eOKqPMm1NMPP32VA H.B. 1888 (2021) and VA S.B. 1245 (2021).no witness requirement when filling out absentee ballots,footnote33_rs2mrytJp4–7XOrm5WIKCK5XxZimCPeNosocsqZ1bi0_d32Iew2WF7eb33VA S.B. 1097 (2021) removed the requirement during a declared public health emergency, and VA H.B. 1948 (2023) removed the requirement permanently.accessible absentee ballots for people with visual impairments,footnote34_EQ4ze0u30mvNMafhnYqPMMgwAOAS4X9ha6yHFfel-aE_d3zioTrZ4OrA34VA S.B. 1331 (2021).and absentee voting for eligible citizens in jail.footnote35_3lWBZ853w3WHQP5zBKsWZaDNMKs-1PTvV3DxlUMKE_bBhuwVV0FDti35VA H.B. 1330 (2024). Citizens detained awaiting trial or convicted of a misdemeanor are eligible.Other laws permit people with disabilities to vote outside polling placesfootnote36_tiMTWsTLcg-RZgKBqI5sdqQTv1mQFD-dNNNNt2nOvI_foJt8sRYvyCP36VA H.B. 1921 (2021).and expand the definition of disability to make more people eligible for the privilege.footnote37_m3zfh9LgMdLtZWJJPPQPzrxCv9ZthkACZCMvpMhamQ_kw0NzgjRqXMS37VA H.B. 441/VA S.B. 605 (2024). We count these 2 laws as 1 because they are identical.The remaining few require early voting on the 2 Saturdays before an election,footnote38_2ke8DLVj1D0lCjatL9XkSjByYnid5VjFh2PZ0F-aKKI_bs2KYeiHxJBC38VA H.B. 1968 (2021).allow 16-year-olds to preregister,footnote39_kjoL0evI8stMxhJim9uMvPs17iLFihRk-x0agfc6B7M_hVnS2DFESkgb39VA H.B. 2125 (2021).and create a state Voting Rights Act to eliminate barriers to the ballot for voters of color.footnote40_GE49t0iKVSwOyca4c8Ixt6c2900awSSv6N-hy83x6Gw_sWP8EPfmkWdR40VA H.B. 1890 (2021) and VA S.B. 1395 (2021).

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.footnote41_FXkDrj1sWX1yVmZb43aj4SgEjNC-DgACSQ8n0k0RfM_rzldQk1gJZeV41AR H.B. 1512 (2023), AR S.B. 247 (2023), CA A.B. 37 (2021), CA A.B. 2815 (2022), CA A.B. 292 (2023), CA A.B. 626 (2023), CA S.B. 29 (2021), CA S.B. 152 (2021), CA S.B. 503 (2021), CO S.B. 210 (2024), CT H.B. 5262 (2022), CT H.B. 5308 (2024), CT H.B. 5498 (2024), CT S.B. 1202 (2021), DC C.B. 24–0507 (2022), DE S.B. 320 (2022), IL S.B. 825 (2021), IN H.B. 1265 (2024), IN S.B. 398 (2021), KS S.B. 221 (2023), KY H.B. 574 (2021), KY H.B. 580 (2024), LA H.B. 1074 (2022), MA H.B. 73 (2021), MA H.B. 3973 (2021), MA S.B. 2924 (2022), MD H.B. 1408 (2021), MD S.B. 683 (2021), ME L.D. 1399 (2021), ME L.D. 221 (2021), ME L.D. 1363 (2021), ME L.D. 886 (2023), MI H.B. 4570 (2023), MI H.B. 4697 (2023), MI H.B. 4699 (2023), MI S.B. 259 (2023), MI S.B. 370 (2023), MN H.F. 1952 (2021), MN H.F. 3 (2023), MS H.B. 1406 (2024), ND H.B. 1253 (2021), NH H.B. 555 (2021), NH H.B. 1098 (2024), NJ A.B. 3929 (2022), NM H.B. 4 (2023), NM S.B. 180 (2023), NV A.B. 121 (2021), NV A.B. 321 (2021), NV S.B. 327 (2023), NY A.B. 6046 (2021), NY A.B. 6047 (2021), NY A.B. 7690 (2023), NY S.B. 253 (2022), NY S.B. 3250 (2024), NY S.B. 5545 (2021), NY S.B. 7394 (2023), NY S.B. 7565 (2022), NY S.B. 9837 (2024), OR H.B. 3921 (2021), RI H.B. 7100 (2022), RI H.B. 7756/RI S.B. 2778 (2024), RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780 (2024), RI S.B. 2007 (2022), TN S.B. 2118 (2024), TX S.B. 1599 (2023), UT H.B. 37 (2023), UT S.B. 17 (2023), VA H.B. 1330 (2024), VA H.B. 1888 (2021), VA H.B. 1948 (2023), VA H.B. 1968 (2021), VA S.B. 1097 (2021), VA S.B. 1245 (2021), VT S.B. 15 (2021), and WA S.B. 5890 (2024). Nine of these states, such as Texas, also passed restrictive laws targeting mail voting, meaning it may be harder to vote by mail in some of those states than it was in 2020. But most either passed no restrictive mail voting laws or had expansions that far outpaced the restrictions, such as New York, whose wide expansions will have greater impact than its one targeted mail voting restriction.All except 3 will be in effect this November.footnote42_s3CZ7jqQJLj3XjCrluit6hdwD4–6NTE0vpii5MdaL8_c52nUUv3uXcX42DE S.B. 320 (2022) was struck down, and NY A.B. 6046 (2021) and NY S.B. 7565 (2022) expired.In addition to the policies described above, key reforms include California and Vermont adopting universal vote by mail,footnote43_6AEgCOH0b-HWkUqrQFPXqt7z1Sn-wjsvRoYSfZwqtA_nb7laEtIv8PH43CA S.B. 29 (2021), CA S.B. 152 (2021), and VT S.B. 15 (2021). California adopted it for all statewide elections, and Vermont adopted it for all statewide general elections.under 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.footnote44_a8W4VmjoJZc6JlDT7W3eQfYBSyqL-zJCyjaLEXs5d4_rcbD0ZBJDsZV44California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, DC.Elsewhere, Maryland and Rhode Island (in addition to New York) enacted no-excuse mail voting.footnote45_445z4jNk2mMzQm3Ss2bZdhUX2caQXuJM8J6EwpRzQRE_gZLpUzwEp3AY45MD H.B. 1048 (2021), NY S.B. 7394 (2023), and RI H.B. 7100 (2022).

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.footnote1_W0H9g7qFj4oPx-Jhltrq14mlnQr9CtZR6EITIiwYK4_fV7S0z8JiZCg1AL H.B. 100 (2024), AL S.B. 1 (2024), AZ H.B. 2785 (2024), GA S.B. 189 (2024), ID H.B. 599 (2024), IN H.B. 1264 (2024), LA H.B. 114 (2024), LA H.B. 476 (2024), LA H.B. 506 (2024), LA H.B. 581 (2024), LA S.B. 155 (2024), LA S.B. 218 (2024), LA S.B. 226 (2024), LA S.B. 436 (2024), NH H.B. 1569 (2024), TN S.B. 1967 (2024), TN S.B. 2586 (2024), and WV S.B. 624 (2024).This 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,footnote2_vqwiglxQEiEm8jmOIHYLGyv7Oq86SOvY-iqjGriypo0_x6OvIXePadKj2The October 2021 roundup reports that states had passed 33 restrictive laws so far that year, however, the Brennan Center subsequently received new information about 2 laws and in 2022 removed NV S.B. 84 (2021) from the list and switched LA H.B. 167 (2021) from the restrictive list to the expansive list.and narrowly exceeds last year’s final count of 17. Ten will be in place for the upcoming election.footnote3_daaG5FtVEQPEAIrrOSSlWktEoRkdagbep4bIk4pkbg_hEloJhxO210a3AL H.B. 100 (2024), NH H.B. 1569 (2024), LA H.B. 114 (2024), LA H.B. 581 (2024), LA S.B. 218 (2024), LA S.B. 436 (2024), TN S.B. 1967 (2024), and WV S.B. 624 (2024) will not be.

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.footnote4_CmklsKD7T5iMHoAvmwEuYNse3XlI1X66KRJyAPAA0O0_nmJWAG44SFvi4LA H.B. 476 (2024), LA S.B. 155 (2024), and LA S.B. 218 (2024). LA S.B. 218 (2024) goes into effect in 2025.One imposes criminal penalties on voters for witnessing more than one absentee ballot certificate of a voter who is not an immediate family member.footnote5_-ep5A4B4LVu0EQwJHcrq6Td2vtmdbXWInFOff4-eS0_vgjO7jFTZkRg5LA H.B. 581 (2024). This law goes into effect in 2025.And the remaining law will result in more people not having their ballots counted because they missed some required information on their mail ballot certificate.footnote6_ZzUlWZ2KhZRlEiSSbESXSw7jdWGCNCeTWloffuT0RrM_wKf1EalIZ1nr6LA S.B. 226 (2024).

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,footnote7_PHrBqVymSFIUeDjfdjEVNjTdsLQxLQGPe9hgyj3igOE_lSuwjk3oy3mC7LA S.B. 436 (2024). This law goes into effect in 2025.require third-party organizations to register their voter registration drives,footnote8_yNBy8hB6aU0zIkoQiHt6Apn03LyIuR4yCF8bDXYXso_z7Uw4wI8TAFu8LA H.B. 506 (2024).and 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.footnote9_7SFchi508ABe7yzz57UfbY2fZcUw8cUGaXHm0pqaDH0_xmerXROlsVuA9LA H.B. 114 (2024). This law goes into effect in 2025.

In Alabama, a new law expands the list of crimes that result in voter disenfranchisement.footnote10_URrO2oMC3qZHbvUHhHeDL2AVhLk6t7k2rodUvjMxhA_qQx7sAB9yksX10AL H.B. 100 (2024).Georgia 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.footnote11_lV-Iqkpysq06heE8vkFm4xFo6P15K2K5n1lY15MxoJw_n5pLozoEdUPH11GA S.B. 189 (2024).

A New Hampshire law creates stricter requirements for providing voter identification, eliminating options for registration and in-person voting.footnote12_0QrngcCOktucQJb5IsXF4JjTZsyULetMMEhGPR5ytic_sZCqRRiyG3x112NH H.B. 1569 (2024).The 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.footnote13_OvFs7Oa1nNjfk3OIDwJYQSfckaL-TkVvpXBR06qv514_iNkY5iXyKjaz13LA H.B. 763 (2024) and SD H.B. 1182 (2024).As 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.footnote14_qNNxx49Y2nqRTn5fkiibbvvbR9JW2Q1nmHeNpcZsfIM_jXeg1CQuEogw14AZ H.B. 2785 (2024), CO S.B. 72 (2024), CO S.B. 210 (2024), CT H.B. 5308 (2024), CT H.B. 5498 (2024), ID H.B. 532 (2024), IN H.B. 1265 (2024), KY H.B. 580 (2024), LA S.B. 155 (2024), MN H.F. 4772 (2024), MS H.B 1406 (2024), MS S.B. 2576 (2024), NE L.B. 20 (2024), NH H.B. 1098 (2024), NH H.B. 1264 (2024), NY A.B. 3250 (2024), NY S.B. 9837 (2024), OK H.B. 1629 (2024), OR S.B. 1533 (2024), OR S.B. 1538 (2024), RI H.B. 7756/RI S.B. 2778 (2024), RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780 (2024), TN S.B. 2118 (2024), VA H.B. 441/VA S.B. 605 (2024), VA H.B. 1330 (2024), WA H.B. 1962 (2024), WA S.B. 5890 (2024), and WI A.B. 298 (2024).All but 4 of these laws will be in effect for the 2024 election.footnote15_j9RCT9-Wzsewru2IctYJ2jl04kbs79hrhrm26Wj6iI_pXqt1M6PbdK115NH H.B. 1264 (2024), OK H.B. 1629 (2024), OR S.B. 1533 (2024), and WA H.B. 1962 (2024).Fourteen 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.footnote16_WiwxuAxxCbh9jBgxn0Z-zZ5fqr4lILLrcjzbvoSLg_cZxsd2vfVbpD16CO S.B. 210 (2024), CT H.B. 5308 (2024), CT H.B. 5498 (2024), MS H.B. 1406 (2024), NH H.B. 1098 (2024), NY A.B. 3250 (2024), NY S.B. 9837 (2024), RI H.B. 7756/ RI S.B. 2778 (2024), and RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780 (2024).Mississippifootnote17_-zg1vdVeGQiVw2nloDCVw6SnhHvpSBwYZ6HynjGYc_hZQ6WFYt0hDx17MS H.B. 1406 (2024).and New Yorkfootnote18_PSn96B8TUgu2uxQSEkj9Rbzxz07wpIWKvtfEkc3QcCM_dKnOdqDfLfXc18NY S.B. 9837 (2024).enacted laws to make it easier for voters to fix minor mistakes on their absentee ballots that could otherwise prevent them from being counted. Coloradofootnote19_t19Txt6r0Zx38myE5V6J1bz-HLv5ndAdm9yyH8PGAw_zoAvGd5KtLuR19CO S.B. 210 (2024).and Rhode Islandfootnote20_cObFDQBrU0LdGqYv6oaxMNmfUZnTJ23dAS6FdT01Vg_svX8WdOhGIPk20RI H.B. 7849/RI S.B. 2780 (2024).increased drop box availability. Connecticutfootnote21_HKKgO52j4Kpx8v263w1R0WwzsAL-9UdYQ85ZGI4nyI_dUWlb68a0TUb21CT H.B. 5308 (2024).and Louisianafootnote22_h7FxMHgy1oTs9TrO6ygtyBYRbIfelOok43Uvl-Sie4_adA75XKTXdIC22LA S.B. 155 (2024).both 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.footnote23_hHJrQ82tWNDnghEUrC6BVhoKMWpKqR2j33NTr6a2tw_caocawJST9uG23CT H.B. 5498 (2024).

In May, Colorado became the first state to require in-person voting opportunities for eligible voters in county jails or detention centers.footnote24_yotMEsln3k4bcXDBHvTozaorfHFshuWmwz8nQozma0_u2GIDgzEBdtn24CO S.B. 72 (2024).The law also requires that voters in jails have access to drop boxes.

Minnesota enacted a state Voting Rights Act.footnote25_ApYo1vGJCSKyk39FKmsJrds-TwjnHI5ZC3Z7h5J6Q4_xsjLBhObGS0p25MN H.F. 4772 (2024).It 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.footnote26_bscU5No95VsZW9tx59W-2kUdv7XNDXKM6ji4J5Jcw_hYsK9mMXtpeq26OK H.B. 1629 (2024).Under 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.footnote27_UN2OLYXVib9nX3lKtAzNGf1ALMJgjxuH2yldhHGxqVA_lFNAr6xQExtM27NE L.B. 20 (2024).The 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.