Voter Registration: Recent Developments and
June 10, 2020
Issues for Congress
Sarah J. Eckman
Voter registration policies are typically determined by state and local governments, subject to
Analyst in American
certain federal requirements. Historically, much of the federal policy discussion surrounding
National Government
voter registration has focused on providing access to registration opportunities. Some federal

statutes that primarily address preserving voting access for certain constituencies also include
provisions that address voter registration, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), the

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 (VAEHA), and the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA).
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) expanded registration opportunities by creating a federal mail-based
registration form and requiring states to provide voter registration opportunities alongside services provided by departments
of motor vehicles (DMVs) and at other agencies. NVRA remains a fundamental component of federal voter registration
policy and contains a number of other provisions affecting voter registration administration. Other key provisions of NVRA
are related to processes used for voter list maintenance or removing voters from the registration list, among other provisions.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), a broader election administration statute, also addresses voter registration.
HAVA required states to create a computerized, centralized voter registration list and introduced revisions to the NVRA
mail-based voter registration form, among other provisions.
State officials retain the ability to determine a variety of features related to their voter registration systems. For example, state
registration deadlines for federal elections cannot be more than 30 days before an election under NVRA, but states may set
deadlines closer to Election Day or allow same-day voter registration. A number of states have automatic voter registration
policies, where data from individuals transacting business with certain agencies are au tomatically shared with state election
officials to facilitate new or updated voter registration records. States have different policies on whether convicted felons can
vote while incarcerated or after their sentences are completed, as well as different policies on determining residency or
domicile for voting purposes. States also vary in a range of administrative processes related to voter registration, including
voter registration list maintenance, voter removal processes, and data-sharing.
Legislation addressing voter registration is routinely introduced in Congress, often proposing to amend existing provisions
under NVRA or HAVA related to expanding voter registration opportunities or providing uniformity across state practices.
Voter registration system policies are also discussed in the context of election security, particularly following evidence that
foreign actors attempted to access or accessed voter registration systems in some states prior to the 2016 election. During the
116th Congress to date, more than 75 bills have been introduced that address some element of federal voter registration. Some
of these are standalone bills that solely address voter registration, and some of these are broader election administration o r
election security bills that contain specific provisions related to voter registration.
Many view congressional activity related to voter registration as an extension of the federal government’s role in upholding
the constitutional right to vote and ensuring the integrity of election processes. As a prerequisite to voting in each state but
North Dakota, which does not require voter registration, voter registration policies, broadly, can help prevent ineligible
individuals from voting or prevent eligible voters from voting multiple times in an election. Certain voter registration
measures, however, may be viewed as barriers that inhibit otherwise eligible individuals from being able to vote. Some may
question whether further expanding the federal role in voter registration is necessary, given existing federal and state
practices. Imposing uniform standards across states could also present challenges because of the decentralized nature of U.S.
election administration and the variety of election practices currently in place under state laws. Other measures addressing
elements of election administration or election integrity, unrelated to voter registration, may also be a legislative priority.
Congressional Research Service

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Introduction
Voter registration is a prerequisite for voting in federal elections in each state except North
Dakota, which does not require voter registration. States largely determine their own voter
registration policies, subject to certain federal statutory requirements, mainly found in the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA). Congressional attention to voter registration traditional y has been related to ensuring
registration access through promoting registration opportunities or protecting individuals from
discriminatory registration practices in federal elections, and these considerations remain in
current policy debates. Evidence of foreign interference attempts during the 2016 election cycle,
however, has also drawn congressional attention to election security considerations in the 116th
Congress.
Among other election interference evidence, the Senate Select Committee on Intel igence (SSCI)
found that Russian actors scanned voter registration systems in multiple states prior to the 2016
election. In at least seven states, voter registration systems were targeted for access, either directly
or through connections between the state’s registration database and other governmental or
election systems, and in two of those states, voter registration databases were inappropriately
accessed.1 The SSCI found no evidence that any registration data had been altered or deleted in
2016, but its report notes that the data obtained from security breaches may be used at a later date
for interference efforts or other purposes, such as identity theft.
The first sections of this report provide background information on current federal policies
affecting voter registration and an overview of voter registration policy aspects that can vary
across states. The later sections of the report provide an overview of selected voter registration
issues before Congress. These sections include references to specific bil s introduced during the
116th Congress to date; general y, many of the subjects addressed in these bil s have also been of
legislative interest in previous Congresses. A number of election security bil s introduced in the
116th Congress address elements of voter registration, and Congress also continues to explore
policy options that would address registration opportunities.
Current Federal Voter Registration Statutes
State and local governments are responsible for many aspects of election administration, but
several federal statutes affect voter registration processes. Historical y, federal laws addressing
voting access have also often included voter registration provisions. For example, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), as amended, prohibits any voting qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure that results in denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race,
color, or membership in a language minority.2 The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act of 1984 (VAEHA) requires states to establish “a reasonable number of
accessible permanent registration facilities” and offer registration aids for elderly or handicapped
individuals to use in federal elections.3 The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting

1 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the
2016 U.S. Election, Volum e 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views, 116th Cong., 1st
sess., July 25, 2019, at https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf.
2 52 U.S.C. §§10301, 10303; see CRS Report R43626, The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview.
3 P.L. 98-435, October 31, 1985, 99 Stat. 563; 52 U.S.C. ch. 201; see 52 U.S.C. §§20103 -20104 for voter registration
provisions.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 14 link to page 14 Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) requires states to accept and process any valid voter registration
applications received at least 30 days prior to a federal election from military or overseas voters4
and created an official postcard form states would accept for these individuals containing both a
voter registration application and an absentee bal ot application.5 The two main federal statutes
affecting voter registration are the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), summarized in the sections below.
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) is the primary federal statute addressing
voter registration.6 NVRA’s stated purposes are to establish procedures to increase the number of
eligible citizens registered to vote in federal elections; enable enhanced voter participation in
federal elections; protect the integrity of the electoral process; and ensure ac curate voter
registration records.7 Additional information on NVRA can be found in CRS Report R45030,
Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent
Developments.
Among its provisions to expand access to voter registration, NVRA requires states to provide in-
person voter registration opportunities at certain locations. The “motor-voter” provisions of
NVRA require states to simultaneously provide eligible citizens an opportunity to register to vote
(or update their registration information) when they apply for a motor vehicle driver’s license or
other personal identification document issued by a state department of motor vehicles (DMV).8 In
addition to DMVs, states under NVRA provide in-person voter registration opportunities at
designated, residence-based voter registration sites, in accordance with state law, and at
designated federal, state, or nongovernmental offices, including state agencies providing public
assistance or services to persons with disabilities.9
Other components of NVRA relate to voter registration administration and voter list
maintenance.10 Each covered state is required to designate a state officer or employee to serve as
the chief state election official and coordinate state responsibilities related to NVRA.11 NVRA
also specifies certain requirements for the information presented on and collected by state voter
registration forms for federal elections and requires states to accept a federal, mail-based voter
registration application authorized by NVRA.12 It also includes procedural requirements for

4 UOCAVA applies to members of the uniformed services and U.S. citizens who live abroad. T he uniformed services
includes members of the Merchant Marine, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the commissioned
corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
5 P.L. 99-410, August 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 924; 52 U.S.C. ch. 203; CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues.
6 P.L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77; 52 U.S.C. ch. 205.
7 52 U.S.C. §20501(b).
8 52 U.S.C. §§20502-20504.
9 52 U.S.C. §20506(a).
10 For further discussion on NVRA’s list maintenance provisions, see section on “ Voter List Accuracy, Maintenance,
and Record Sharing” later in this report.
11 52 U.S.C. §20509. States exempt from NVRA are Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
12 52 U.S.C. §20508. Voter registration applications under NVRA “may require only such identifying information ... as
is necessary” to verify eligibility and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. T hese
applications must include statements listing federal voting eligibility requirements (including citizenship) and require a
Congressional Research Service
2

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

transmitting completed applications from voter registration agencies to state election officials and
notifying applicants about the disposition of their applications.13 NVRA establishes criminal
penalties for individuals who “knowingly and wil fully” attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce
anyone who is attempting to register to vote, assisting with voter registration, voting, or
exercising any right under NVRA, and for individuals who attempt to deprive state residents of a
“fair and impartial y conducted election process” by procuring or submitting voter registration
applications or bal ots that are known to be fraudulent according to state law. These acts could be
punishable by fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code and/or imprisonment for up to five years.14
Some provisions of NVRA also address voter registration list maintenance efforts. NVRA
stipulates that once a voter is registered, that individual’s name wil not be removed from the list
or roster of eligible voters unless the voter requests removal; has died; has moved out of the
jurisdiction; or, as provided by state law, has received a disqualifying criminal conviction or is
found to be mental y incapacitated.15 Voters may not be removed from the registration rolls solely
due to nonvoting,16 or for moving within the same electoral jurisdiction.17 States may also remove
a voter from the registration rolls if the registrant has notified the election office that he or she has
moved.18
States may “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort” to remove voters from the
list due to death or a change of residence, which must be completed at least 90 days prior to a
federal election.19 The processes states use for maintaining their registration lists for federal
elections must be undertaken in a “uniform, nondiscriminatory” fashion and comply with the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.20 Registrars can send a notice to voters they believe should be
removed, containing a forwardable mail response card with prepaid postage, and if a voter does
not respond to the notice, that individual may be removed from the state’s registration list after he
or she fails to vote or appear to vote in two consecutive general elections for federal office.21
NVRA notes that states may conduct such a program using information from the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) National Change of Address (NCOA) database to identify those who may have
moved.

signature from the applicant, attesting that he or she m eets the eligibility criteria. Voter registration forms may not
include “any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” T he forms also include a statement about
penalties for submitting a false voter registration application, and a statement asserting that information about declining
to register or the office where a citizen registered would be kept confidential.
13 52 U.S.C. §§20506(d), 20507(a).
14 52 U.S.C. §20511.
15 52 U.S.C. §20507(3-4). For an overview of state laws regarding voting rights and criminal convictions, see links
provided under “Additional Resources” at Felon Voting Rights, National Conference of State Legislatures, October 14,
2019, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx; for one overview of state laws
regarding voter rights and mental health conditions, see National Alliance on Mental Illness, Voter Rights: Mental
Health Conditions, 2018, at https://www.nami.org/Get-Involved/T ake-Action-on-Advocacy-Issues/
Vote4MentalHealth/Know-Your-Voting-Rights.
16 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(2).
17 52 U.S.C. §20507(e-f). If a voter changed addresses within a jurisdiction and was removed from the voter roll,
NVRA contains provisions to allow these individuals to vote or update their registration information on Election Day.
18 52 U.S.C. §20507(d).
19 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(4).
20 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(1).
21 52 U.S.C. §20507(d). For an analysis of the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute,
see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10175, Suprem e Court Rules Ohio Voter Roll Law Com ports with National Voter
Registration Act.
Congressional Research Service
3

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Under NVRA, states are required to keep records pertaining to voter registration list maintenance
and to make these records publicly available.22 NVRA also directed the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to publish a biennial election report assessing the impact of the act on federal
election administration and offering recommendations for improvements to federal and state
procedures, forms, and other matters affected by NVRA. These FEC responsibilities were
transferred to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) following the enactment of the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002.23
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)24
One key component of HAVA related to voter registration required states to create “a single,
uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list,”
maintained at the state level by the chief state election official and containing the name,
registration information, and a unique identifier for each voter.25 This electronic list is often
referred to as a state’s voter registration database (VRDB). States also must follow certain steps
to verify the identities of new voter registration applicants.26 States may not accept or process a
voter registration application for federal elections unless the applicant provides a current and
valid driver’s license number, the last four digits of his or her Social Security number, or (if the
applicant has neither) an alternate, unique identifying number assigned by the state for voter
registration purposes.27 New voters who submit a voter registration application by mail, and have
not previously voted in a federal election in a state, must provide a current and valid photo
identification or present “a current utility bil , bank statement, government check, paycheck, or
other government document that shows the name and address of the voter,” when they vote for
the first time.28
HAVA also introduced four specific additions to the federal mail-based voter registration form
created by NVRA: (1) a question asking whether the registrant was a U.S. citizen; (2) a question
asking whether the registrant would be 18 years of age or older by the next election; (3) a
statement that if the registrant had answered “no” to either of the preceding questions, that he or
she was to stop fil ing out the form and not register; and (4) a statement alerting a first-time
registrant applying via mail to submit copies of appropriate documentation with his or her
application or else he or she may be required to provide such documentation w hen voting for the
first time.29

22 52 U.S.C. §20507(i).
23 52 U.S.C. §20508. Since 2014, the EAC has published the NVRA report along with the UOCAVA report and the
Election Day survey as its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) Comprehensive Report. For
additional information and to view recent EAVS reports, see U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election
Adm inistration and Voting Survey (EAVS) Com prehensive Report, at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-
and-reports/.
24 52 U.S.C. §§20921 et seq. T his report only briefly addresses parts of HAVA that affected NVRA or voter
registration in federal elections. HAVA has many additional components related to elections administration; for more
information, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help Am erica Vote Act and Election Adm inistration: Overview and
Selected Issues for the 2016 Election.
25 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(1)(A).
26 For additional discussion, see National Conference of State Legislators, Voter List Accuracy, December 17, 2019, at
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-list-accuracy.aspx.
27 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)(A)(i-ii).
28 52 U.S.C. §21083(b).
29 Individuals who fall into this category and are unable to provide documentation when voting for the first time may
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 9 Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Certain HAVA provisions also address voter registration list maintenance. General y, HAVA
directs states to follow NVRA’s voter removal provisions if removing voters from the VRDB.
HAVA also requires states to coordinate their computerized voter registration lists with state
agency records on felony status and state agency records on death.30 Final y, HAVA directs state
DMV officials to enter into agreements with the Social Security Administration and with the chief
state election official to verify and match certain applicant information.31
HAVA provided funding to help states carry out its provisions32 and created the EAC, an
independent, bipartisan agency responsible for administering payment and grant programs related
to federal elections; testing and certifying voting systems; studying election issues; and issuing
guidelines and other guidance related to voting systems and implementation of HAVA’s
requirements, in consultation with election officials and other stakeholders.33
Components of Voter Registration Systems
In each state and territory (with the exception of North Dakota, which does not require voter
registration), voter registration can be thought of as a system, organized around the centralized,
statewide VRDB required by HAVA, with connections to the voter registration agencies required
by the NVRA and other components and practices that vary depending on state law and practice.
State election officials must general y ensure that VRDBs maintain (1) accurate records; (2)
privacy for individual data; (3) accessibility for relevant actors; and (4) reliability during an
election. The VRDB and the ways in which it connects to other offices or entities involved in
election administration (including vendors who provide software or equipment) can present
security vulnerabilities or oversight chal enges, some related to cybersecurity or technology, and
others related to human error or actions.34 Figure 1 provides an il ustration of a sample voter
registration system and the ways in which a VRDB may be related to other information sources or
election administration functions.

cast a provisional ballot. See 52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(2)(B).
30 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(2)(A)(ii).
31 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)(B).
32 52 U.S.C. §20901.
33 52 U.S.C. §§20921 et seq. See CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and
Selected Issues for Congress. T he EAC also issued voluntary guidance for states on implementing HAVA’s statewide
voter registration requirement; see U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Guidance on Im plem entation of
Statewide Voter Registration Lists, July 28, 2005, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/event_document/files/
voluntary%20guidance%20on%20implementation%20of%2 0statewide%20voter%20registration%20list%20public%20
meeting%20july%2028%202005.pdf.
34 For more information on election security and database management considerations related to voter registration
systems, see Carter B.F. Casey, Johann K. T hairu, Susie Heilman, et al., Recom m ended Security Controls for Voter
Registration System s, MIT RE Corporation, December 2019, at https://www.mitre.org/publications/technical-papers/
recommended-security-controls-for-voter-registration-systems; David Becker, Jacob Kipp, Jack R. Williams, et al.,
Voter Registration Database Security, Center for Election Innovation & Research, September 2018, at
https://electioninnovation.org/2018-vrdb-security/; Center for Internet Security, Security Best Practices for Non-Voting
Election Technology, October 2019, https://www.cisecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Security-Best-Practices-
Non-Voting-Election-Tech-Singles-19-Nov.pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Im proving Statewide Voter
Registration Databases, Clearinghouse Brief, January 2020; CRS In Focus IF11285, Election Security: Voter
Registration System Policy Issues; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Securing Voter Registration Data, June 26, 2018, at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
Securing%20Voter%20Registration%20Data_508.pdf; and Defending Digital Democracy Project, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, The State and Local Election Cybersecurity Playbook,
February 2018, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/state-and-local-election-cybersecurity-playbook.
Congressional Research Service
5

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Sample Components of a Voter Registration System

Source: CRS examination of federal and various state laws related to voter registration practices. Graphic
created by Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: Many of these relationships wil vary depending upon state laws and practices. The Help America Vote
Act (HAVA) (52 U.S.C. §§20921 et seq.), however, requires each state to have a centralized voter registration
database (VRDB) and requires state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) to enter into information-sharing
agreements with state election officials and the Social Security Administration.
Typical y, a VRDB receives inputs from various sources to update voter records or create new
ones. When processing voter registration applications, some state election officials receive
information directly from individual applicants, and some state election officials receive
applicants’ information from local registrars. Some voter registration applications may be
submitted electronical y, whereas others are mailed in or submitted in person as paper copies that
need to be digitized for entry into the VRDB.
Congressional Research Service
6

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

VRDBs may also be linked to databases for other government agencies, VRDBs from other
states, or organizations to share records; these information-sharing agreements general y vary
across states and are determined by state law. State election officials can receive individual
records from other databases as a method of registering new voters, updating existing voter
records, verifying information submitted from applicants, or removing ineligible voters from the
VRDB. Registration status changes can occur for a variety of reasons, often dependent upon state
law, including changes related to an individual’s name, residence, mental incapacitation, criminal
status, or death. HAVA specifies that state election officials establish information-sharing
agreements to receive database records from state DMVs. State election officials may also utilize
database records from other voter registration agencies designated under NVRA or state law ; state
agencies with records on felon status, mental incapacity, or death; USPS change of address
records; or other sources. Some state election officials also may compare voter registration
information with other states’ records, either through partnerships with other state election
officials or organizations like the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)35 for list
maintenance or verification efforts.
In addition to sharing information for verification or list maintenance purposes, VRDB records
are accessed for election administration and transparency purposes. Many states or localities, for
example, provide websites where an individual voter can check his or her registration status and
related information. The records from a VRDB are used to create poll books (or lists of registered
voters) that are used at polling places to confirm the eligibility of those who turn out to vote on
Election Day. Traditional y, poll books have been printed volumes, prepared ahead of Election
Day, though digital electronic poll books (or e-poll books), accessible on a computer or tablet, are
becoming more commonly used.36 E-poll books may operate with downloaded voter records from
a VRDB, or (particularly in states with same-day voter registration) may maintain a real-time
connection to the VRDB on Election Day. States also have varying policies about how voter data
files may be acquired by members of the public, researchers, political committees, or
candidates.37
Voter Registration Policies Across States
Most elements of voter registration are determined by state and local laws or practices. This
section provides an overview of certain features of voter registration processes that vary across a
number of states. States and localities may have voter registration policies that are specific to
state and local elections, but some state or local policies can also affect voter registration for
federal elections. The information provided below is not intended to be a comprehensive catalog
of state policies, but instead highlights some of the dimensions along which voter registration
practices vary and may affect voter registration for federal elections. These topics are also often
addressed in congressional policy proposals related to voter registration.

35 For more information on ERIC, see https://ericstates.org/.
36 Electronic Poll Books | e-Poll Books, National Conference of State Legislatures, October 25, 2019, at
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx.
37 For one compilation of state policies on obtaining voter lists, see “Voter List Information,” United States Election
Project, August 22, 2015, at http://voterlist.electproject.org/.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 11

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Registration Deadlines
States often establish deadlines by which they must receive voter registration applications before
an election.38 Voter registration deadlines general y provide time for state election officials to
process and verify submitted information. State application deadlines for federal elections cannot
be more than 30 days before the election under NVRA.39 Some states have adopted a 30-day
voter registration deadline, others have deadlines closer to Election Day, and some states al ow
voters to register to vote on Election Day or during early voting periods through policies
commonly referred to as same-day voter registration. Figure 2 il ustrates state voter registration
deadlines and provides information on which states al ow voting on Election Day and/or during
periods of early voting.
Application deadlines may vary depending on the method of registration; in some states,
applications submitted via postal mail, for example, must be postmarked or received by state
election officials sooner than applications submitted online, if the state provides an online
registration option. States may also al ow localities to establish their own registration deadlines,
and states can require different lengths of time to process applications ahead of primary elections,
special elections, or general elections.
Figure 2. State Voter Registration Deadlines

Sources: CRS compilation, based on information from National Conference of State Legislatures, Same Day
Voter Registration, June 28, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-
registration.aspx; and National Conference of State Legislatures, Voter Registration Deadlines, November 1, 2019,
at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-registration-deadlines.aspx. Graphic created by
Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: Practices within states may vary by locality, and different voter registration deadlines (indicated by color
shading above) may apply based on method of registration or type of election. States with Election Day
registration or voter registration during early voting typical y also maintain a voter registration deadline for in -
person, mailed, and/or online registration applications submitted outside of a voting site. New Mexico has

38 For an overview of state voter registration deadlines, see Voter Registration Deadlines, National Conference of State
Legislatures, November 1, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-registration-
deadlines.aspx.
39 52 U.S.C. §20507(a).
Congressional Research Service
8

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

enacted Election Day voter registration, but it is not scheduled to go into effect until 2021. This figure general y
displays the earliest voter registration deadline provided by a state. In Il inois, the deadline for voter registration
is 28 days before an election, but 16 days if registering online; the availability of same-day voter registration
varies by county. In Iowa, the registration deadline is 10 days before an election, but mailed applications must
have a postmark of 15 days before an election. In Louisiana, the registration deadline is 30 days before an
election or 20 days if registering online. In Nebraska, the registration deadline is 11 days before an election or 18
days if registering online. In Nevada, the registration application must be postmarked or made in -person 28 days
before an election, but the deadline for registering online is 5 days before an election. In New Hampshire, voter
registration deadlines range from 6 to 13 days before an election, depending on the locality. In Utah, the
registration deadline is 30 days before an election or 7 days if registering online. In Washington, the registration
deadline through mail or online is 29 days before an election but the deadline for other applications is 8 days
before an election.
Domicile or Residency Requirements
Throughout the United States, voter registration is geographical y based, but states and localities
can have different definitions for terms like domicile and residence which are often used for
determining voting eligibility.40 The way in which domicile or residence is defined for election
purposes may or may not be similar to how a jurisdiction might define those terms in other
contexts, such as for tax purposes. Statutory definitions may differ across jurisdictions, but
typical y, domicile has traditional y referred to the permanent place where a person lives, whereas
residence traditional y has referred to a current location or more temporary place where a person
is living at present.41 State or local election laws and requirements may, however, use the terms
differently or in ways that might conflate their conventional meanings.42
These different definitions, and the ways in which jurisdictions ask voters to demonstrate proof of
residency or domicile,43 may impact the ability of certain people to register to vote, including
those who have recently moved to a jurisdiction, people with multiple residences, college
students, or people who are homeless or in transitional housing (such as a rehabilitation center,
nursing facility, or halfway house). A 1970 amendment to the Voting Rights Act prohibited
jurisdictions from requiring that voters have lived within their boundaries for a certain length of
time for presidential elections,44 but some jurisdictions may have durational residency
requirements for other elections.45 The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) provides a

40 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter Registration is All About Residency (and Domicile),” The
Canvass, issue 69 (May 2016), pp. 1-3, at https://www.ncsl.org/Documents/Elections/T he_Canvass_May_2016.pdf.
41 See, for example, definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd ed.) for “What is Domicile?” at
https://thelawdictionary.org/domicile/; and “ What is Residence?” at https://thelawdictionary.org/residence/.
42 For example, Hawaii requires that individuals must be state residents to register to vote, but notes that “[t]he
residence stated in your application cannot simply be because of your presence in the State but instead it must be that
the residence was acquired with the intent to make Hawaii your legal residence with all the accompanying obligations
therein.” See Office of Elections, State of Hawaii, “Determinin g Residency,” at https://elections.hawaii.gov/resources/
election-laws/determining-residency/. As another example, New Hampshire recently modified its general definition of
residence to mean “a person who is domiciled or has a place of abode or both in this state and in any city, town, or
other political subdivision of this state, and who has, through all of his or her actions, demonstrated a current intent to
designate that place of abode as his or her principal place of physical presence to the exclusion of all others.” See New
Hampshire Statutes, T itle I, ch. 21, §6, at http://www.gencourt.st ate.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-6.htm.
43 For examples of proof of residency requirements, see Iowa Secretary of State, Updating Your Voter Registration, at
https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/updatereg.html; Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Voting FAQ
for 2020, at http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Pages/votingFAQ.aspx#3; and Wisconsin Elections Commission,
Proof of Residence for Voter Registration, February 19, 2019, at https://elections.wi.gov/publications/voter-guides/
proof-of-residence.
44 52 U.S.C. §10502; P.L. 91-285, §6, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 316.
45 For further discussion, see “How long must voters live in a state to qualify as residents?” in National Conference of
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 13

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

definition of “voting residence” for U.S. servicemembers and citizens residing outside the United
States.46
Figure 3. State Automatic Voter Registration Policies

Source: CRS compilation, based on information from National Conference of State Legislatures, Automatic Voter
Registration, April 14, 2020, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-registration-
deadlines.aspx. Graphic created by Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist.
Contributing Agencies Providing Registration or Updates
Under NVRA, states are required to provide federal voter registration opportunities
simultaneously with applications for services at state DMVs, public assistance agencies, and
offices that provide services to individuals with disabilities and to present the opportunity to
register to vote at a number of state and local government offices deemed “voter registration
agencies” designated by each state.47 These are opportunities to opt in to register to vote, either
through selecting an option on a form for other services or by completing a separate voter
registration form at a participating agency.
Automatic voter registration (AVR) policies operate as an opt-out system, where an individual is
automatical y registered to vote when submitting personal information for certain agency
services. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have implemented automatic voter
registration, as shown in Figure 3. In many of these states, AVR occurs at DMVs, but some states
have designated other agencies to participate in their AVR programs.48 Under these policies, an

State Legislatures, “Voter Registration is All About Residency (and Domicile),” The Canvass, issue 69 (May 2016), p.
2, at https://www.ncsl.org/Documents/Elections/T he_Canvass_May_2016.pdf.
46 Federal Voting Assistance Program, Voting Residency Guidelines, at https://www.fvap.gov/info/laws/voting-
residency-guidelines.
47 For more information, see “Other Voter Registration Agencies,” in CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter
Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent Developments.
48 National Conference of State Legislatures, Automatic Voter Registration, April 22, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/
research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
10

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

option for declining to register to vote can be presented on the form itself, or can be provided to
the individual at a later time through a mailed notice from election officials.
Voter List Accuracy, Maintenance, and Record Sharing
States use a variety of methods to identify individuals who are ineligible to register to vote. Some
of this activity occurs when election officials screen voter registration applications, and,
depending on state law, may prompt either follow-up correspondence with an applicant to correct
or provide additional information or may result in the rejection of an application. Election
officials also examine existing voter registration records and may take action to remove an
ineligible voter from the state voter registration database if appropriate. HAVA and NVRA
provide some parameters for states to follow regarding applicant verification, voter registration
list maintenance, and removal of ineligible voters from state registration lists for federal elections.
Within these parameters, however, states maintain the ability to establish many of their own voter
registration verification processes, as wel as their own list maintenance and access procedures.
Voter registration applicants under HAVA must provide a current and valid driver’s license
number, the last four digits of their Social Security number, or (if the applicant has neither) an
alternate, unique identifying number assigned by the state for voter registration purposes.49 States
check the numbers provided by applicants against their DMV’s records and the Social Security
Administration’s records,50 but HAVA lets each state determine its own matching standards and
whether “the information provided by an individual is sufficient” to meet these requirements.51
NVRA specifies certain reasons why a voter can be removed from a state’s list of eligible federal
voters,52 and prohibits the removal of voters from a state’s list solely for nonvoting53 or for
moving within the same electoral jurisdiction.54 NVRA does not prescribe a particular program
for state voter registration list maintenance, but it does provide some guidelines for what states
can and cannot do when removing voters from their lists. State methods for maintaining their
registration lists for federal elections must be undertaken in a “uniform, nondiscriminatory”
manner in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.55 States may engage in a “general
program that makes a reasonable effort” to remove voters who have moved or died, which must
be completed 90 days prior to a federal election.56
NVRA notes that states can use the USPS NCOA database as one way to identify voters who may
have moved,57 but does not prohibit states from using records from other agencies or
organizations to identify voters whose records should be removed. States may enter into
agreements with other states, or participate in interstate information-sharing systems, to compare

49 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)(A)(i-ii).
50 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)(B).
51 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(5)(A)(iii).
52 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(3-4).
53 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(2).
54 52 U.S.C. §20507(e-f). If a voter changed addresses within a jurisdiction and was removed from the voter roll,
NVRA contains provisions to allow these individuals to vote or update their registration information on Election Day.
55 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(1).
56 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(a).
57 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(1).
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 4 link to page 4 Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

voter registration records with records of other states.58 The Electronic Registration Information
Center (ERIC) is one such interstate system that is currently used by 30 states.59
Some data-sharing practices, however, raise concerns among some about information security60
and appropriate use of voters’ data, particularly if states choose to use matching systems as the
basis of their voter removal processes.61 In addition to sharing voter information with other state
election officials, states or localities general y al ow entities or individuals meeting certain
requirements to request access to, or purchase, a list of their registered voters.62
Selected Legislative Issues in the 116th Congress
Congress has, at times, passed legislation requiring certain uniform practices for federal elections.
General y, federal laws addressing voter registration for federal elections have required states to
provide certain opportunities for individuals to register to vote or update their registration
information; addressed certain administrative elements related to state voter registration processes
for federal elections, such as voter verification methods or efforts to ensure that registration lists
are accurate; and provided protections for individuals against discrimination in voter registration
practices. More information on these laws can be found in the “Current Federal Voter Registration
Statutes” section of this report.
Legislative proposals related to the federal role in voter registration can vary widely, as discussed
in the sections below. As a general policy matter, some policymakers support expanding the
existing federal role in election administration and voter registration, whereas other policymakers
feel that such decisions are better left to state or local election officials. Views of particular policy

58 Being registered as a voter in multiple states is not in and of itself illegal under federal law but can create costs for
state election officials, for example, with regard to voter list maintenance, estimating voter turnout and allocating the
appropriate level of resources for elections, and/or communications with eligible voters. See P ew Center on the States,
Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient, issue brief, February 2012, at http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/
uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf. Use of multiple registrations to vote in multiple
jurisdictions during the same federal election would be illegal (52 U.S.C. §10307(e)). Some state statutes also address
double voting in other elections; see National Conference of State Legislatures, Double Voting, January 4, 2018, at
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double-voting.aspx.
59 For more information, see the ERIC website at https://ericstates.org/.
60 For example, see Peggy Lowe, “Kansas Voter T racking System Championed By Former SOS Kris Kobach is
‘Dead’,” KCUR 89.3, December 10, 2019, at https://www.kcur.org/post/kansas-voter-tracking-system-championed-
former-sos-kris-kobach-dead/; and T homas Brewster, “ 191 Million US Voter Registration Records Leaked In Mystery
Database,” Forbes, December 28, 2015, at https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/28/us-voter-
database-leak/.
61 Some cross-referencing systems states have used to identify and remove voters from their registration lists have been
criticized for the methodologies they use to create matches. Matches created using voters’ names and birthdays, for
example, may falsely identify multiple, unique individuals as a single voter registered in different states; see Michael P.
McDonald and Justin Levitt, “ Seeing Double Voting: An Ext ension of the Birthday Problem,” Election Law Journal,
vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 2008), pp. 111-122; and Sharad Goel et al., “ One Person, One Vote: Estimating the Prevalence of
Double Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections,” working paper, January 17, 2019, available at
https://scholar.harvard.edu/morse/publications/one-person-one-vote-estimating-prevalence-double-voting-us-
presidential-elections.
62 For examples, see Meta S. Brown, “Voter Data: What’s Public, What’s Private,” Forbes, December 28, 2015, at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/metabrown/2015/12/28/voter-data-whats-public-whats-private/; and Alex Howard,
“Publishing Voter Registration Data Must Balance Privacy with T ransparency,” Sunlight Foundation, June 16, 2016, at
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/06/16/publishing-voter-registration-data-must-balance-privacy-with-transparency/.
Information on state laws regarding voter list availability and uses is available from the United States Election Project,
Voter List Information, at http://voterlist.electproject.org/.
Congressional Research Service
12

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

proposals relating to voter registration policy may also depend on the specific elements of the
proposals.
Multiple bil s addressing voter registration have been introduced in recent Congresses, and some
of the bil s may be of particular interest to the current Congress, given evidence that voter
registration systems were targeted for access by foreign actors in seven states during the 2016
election.63 In the 116th Congress to date, more than 75 bil s have been introduced that address
some element of federal voter registration. Some of these are standalone bil s that solely address
voter registration, and some are broader election administration or election security bil s that
contain specific provisions related to voter registration. Often, these bil s propose amending
existing provisions found under NVRA or HAVA. In the 116th Congress to date, most of these
voter registration bil s have not advanced beyond committee referral. Of the bil s referenced in
the report, three have passed the House: H.R. 1 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 2722
(Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act), and H.R. 6800 (Health and Economic
Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions [HEROES] Act).64 The sections below categorize some
of the common types of policy proposals related to voter registration that have been introduced
during the 116th Congress to date that il ustrate issues currently under consideration. Given the
variety and quantity of measures related to election administration before this Congress, this is
not meant to be a comprehensive discussion of al available voter registration policy options.
Definitions Relating to Registration System Components
States vary in the types of equipment and software they use to administer elections, which can
make it chal enging to establish a singular definition of election administration infrastructure.
Congress and federal agencies have established certain definitions to help administer federal
support for election administration. Definitions of election administration architecture may be
narrowly construed or designed to apply broadly across differing state systems. While some
definitions may focus on equipment or software directly related to casting and tal ying votes,
other definitions may be more inclusive of other election components, like VRDBs or connected
systems.
HAVA designates certain equipment and systems used in election administration related to casting
and counting bal ots as a “voting system.”65 HAVA also directs the EAC to create “voluntary
voting system guidelines”66 that states may choose to follow, and the EAC provides laboratory
testing and certification of “voting system hardware and software” to states, upon request.67 The
HAVA definition of “voting system” represents a narrower scope than the Department of

63 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in
the 2016 U.S. Election, Volum e 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views, 116th Cong.,
1st sess., July 25, 2019, at https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf.
64 Additionally, H.R. 4990 (Election T echnology Research Act) was reported by committee; see H.Rept. 116-396.
65 From 52 U.S.C. §21081(b): “In this section, the term ‘voting system’ means means—(1) the total combination of
mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic equipment (including the software, firmware, and documentation required
to program, control, and support the equipment) that is used—(A) to define ballots; (B) to cast and count votes; (C) to
report or display election results; and (D) to maintain and produce any audit trail information; and (2) the practices and
associated documentation used—(A) to identify system components and versions of such components; (B) to test the
system during its development and maintenance; (C) to maintain records of system errors and defects; (D) to determine
specific system changes to be made to a system after the initial qualification of the system; and (E) to make available
any materials to the voter (such as notices, instructions, forms, or paper ballots).”
66 52 U.S.C. §20961.
67 52 U.S.C. §20971.
Congressional Research Service
13

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Homeland Security’s definition of “election infrastructure” as critical infrastructure. The
announcement of the DHS designation specified the following:
we mean storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations locations used
to support the election process, and information and communications technology to include
voter registration databases, voting machines, and other systems to manage the election
process and report and display results on behalf of state and local governments.68
Some legislative proposals in the 116th Congress present ways to define relevant election
administration architecture, or propose modifying existing definitions, in ways that might specify
components of voter registration systems. For example, some bil s propose mandatory
cybersecurity requirements “for systems used in federal elections,” and specify components to
include equipment and software related to voting, as wel as voter registration systems.69 Other
proposals seek to change the HAVA definition of “voting system.” One bil , for example, would
include “voter registration databases and systems, including online interfaces,” as part of the
voting systems defined under HAVA.70 Other bil s would include electronic poll books (or e-poll
books)71 as part of HAVA’s voting systems or would codify a broader “election system” definition
that would include voter registration systems and e-poll books.72 Another bil would direct the
EAC to adopt voluntary guidelines for nonvoting election technology, including electronic poll
books and online voter registration systems.73

68 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election
Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector,” press release, January 6, 2017, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/
01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical.
69 For example, see S. 1472/H.R. 2754 (Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2019) and S. 2238 (Securing
America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act) in which minimum cybersecurity requirements would apply to “(1) optical
scanning devices (within the meaning of section 301(a)(7) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002); (2) ballot marking
devices (within the meaning of section 301(a)(10) of such Act); (3) election management systems, including those
systems used—(A) to configure optical scanning devices and ballot marking devices; (B) to aggregate election results;
and (C) to design paper ballots; (4) electronic po ll books; (5) any government database, website or associated
information system used by voters or government agencies for voter registration (including the management of voter
registration status); (6) systems used to deliver or publish election results; and (7) such other components of voting
systems (as defined in section 301(b) of such Act) as is determined appropriate by the Director [of CISA].”
70 See H.R. 4990 (Election T echnology Research Act).
71 Examples of legislation that would include the “treatment of electronic poll books as part of voting systems” under
HAVA include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill for the People Act of 2019),
H.R. 2660/S. 1540 (Election Security Act of 2019), and H.R. 2722/S. 2053/S. 2238 (Securing America’s Federal
Elections [SAFE] Act). For more information on e-poll books, see National Conference of State Legislatures,
Electronic Poll Books | e-Poll Books, October 25, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/
electronic-pollbooks.aspx.
72 Examples include H.R. 3529 (Achieving Lasting Electoral Reforms on T ransparency and Security Act ), H.R. 4777/S.
825 (Protect our Elections Act), and S. 823 (Election Systems Integrity Act [EISA]), which include the following
definition: an “‘election system’ means a voting system, an election management system, a voter registration website or
database, an electronic pollbook, a system for tabulating or repor ting election results, an election agency
communications system, or any other information system (as defined in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code)
that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the [EAC], identifies as central to the management,
support, or administration of a Federal election.” Other bills, including H.R. 2754/S. 1472 (Protecting American Votes
and Elections Act of 2019) and S. 2238 (Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act), denote similar
components of “systems used in federal elections” (including voter registration systems and e-poll books) that would be
subject to mandatory cybersecurity requirements created by DHS.
73 See H.R. 5707 (Protect American Voters Act).
Congressional Research Service
14

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Electronic Poll Books (E-Poll Books)
Whereas the VRDB itself may be viewed as separate from the voting-related components of
election equipment, electronic poll books (or e-poll books) are used at polling places to check in
eligible voters, using records from the VRDB. E-poll books are an emerging technology that have
increasingly been used by states in recent elections. On Election Day, or during periods of early
voting, election officials at polling places confirm that individuals are currently registered voters
and are at the correct location for their precinct or election district. In jurisdictions that use more
centralized vote centers, e-poll books help election officials verify, in real time, that a voter has
not already voted at another vote center location. Historical y, paper poll books with lists of voter
records have been printed by election officials and distributed for use on Election Day, but the
availability of centralized state VRDBs has introduced the possibility for jurisdictions to utilize
electronic versions. In 2016, 17.7% of election jurisdictions nationwide reported using e-poll
books, and in 2018, 26.2% of election jurisdictions, across 36 states, reported using e-poll
books.74
E-poll books can potential y provide more up-to-date voter information, simplify the task of
creating poll books for election administrators, and be faster for poll workers to use to check
voter records. They may also be used to register voters in states that have same-day voter
registration or update voter records. The technology used to provide this electronic voter
information, however, may present security vulnerabilities and may raise some voter privacy
concerns, particularly if e-poll books are networked to one another or when information is
uploaded to or downloaded from the VRDB.75 State requirements and practices for using e-poll
books vary,76 and e-poll books are not general y addressed in current federal elections guidance,
such as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) issued by the EAC. Technological
malfunctions on Election Day related to e-poll book software or device hardware could result in
voting delays or misidentification of voters, particularly in jurisdictions that exclusively rely on e-
poll books.77 Purchasing and maintaining the technology required to operate e-poll books securely
may also be a concern for election administrators.78

74 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report,
report to Congress, June 27, 2019, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/2018_EAVS_Report.pdf.
75 Miles Parks, “T echnology Has Made Voting Lines Move Faster But Also Made Elections Less Secure,” NPR, May
30, 2019, at https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/727529802/technology-has-made-voting-lines-move-faster-but-also-
made-elections-less-secure; Stefan Popoveniuc and John Kelsey, “ On privacy threats of electronic poll books,”
Proceedings of the Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society 2010, Chicago, IL, October 4, 2010, at
https://www.nist.gov/publications/privacy-threats-electronic-poll-books.
76 “Electronic Poll Books | e-Poll books,” National Conference of State Legislatures, October 25, 2019, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx; U.S. Election Assistance
Commission, E-Pollbook Requirem ents, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/e-pollbook-requirements.
77 For example, see Pam Fessler, “Russian Cyberattack T argeted Elections Vendor T ied T o Voting Day Disruptions,”
NPR, August 10, 2017, at https://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542634370/russian-cyberattack-targeted-elections-vendor-
tied-to-voting-day-disruptions; and Jonathan Lai, “ Philly elections officials touted new electronic poll books. Now the
city says they don’t work right,” Philadelphia Inquirer, September 18, 2019, at https://www.inquirer.com/politics/
philadelphia/philly-epollbook-electronic-systems-should-not-be-used-city-says-20190917.html.
78 For example, see Dominique Maria Bonessi, “T ech T hat Caused Problems During Maryland’s Special Election Will
Be Used Again,” WAMU 88.5, February 29, 2020, at https://wamu.org/story/20/02/29/tech-that-caused-problems-
during-marylands-special-election-will-be-used-again/.
Congressional Research Service
15

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

As discussed in the preceding section, some legislative proposals before the 116th Congress would
include e-poll books as part of HAVA voting systems79 or as part of an election system,80 which
could enable the EAC or DHS to issue guidelines related to the use of e-poll books by states in
federal elections. Several introduced bil s would direct DHS to issue mandatory cybersecurity
requirements for e-poll books and for other election components.81
Funding for States Related to Voter Registration
With HAVA and subsequent legislation, Congress has, at times, provided funding to help states
and territories with their election administration and security efforts.82 Some legislative
provisions stipulate that federal election funding must be used for specific purposes, whereas
other provisions al ow more flexibility for states or localities to spend election funds on areas
they identify as needs. Legislative language related to election funding has at times included voter
registration websites, VRDBs, e-poll books, or other registration-related elements as designated
uses for federal funding. Certain state election practices may also be a condition or a criterion for
consideration for federal funding. Typical y, the EAC administers payments to states and
monitors state compliance with funding requirements.
A number of bil s introduced in the 116th Congress would provide states with broad funding for
election administration or security. Most significantly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2020 (H.R. 1158; P.L. 116-93) provided $425 mil ion for payments under HAVA that authorize
funding for general improvements to federal election administration.83 In initial funding request
letters submitted to the EAC, several states and territories indicated they would use some of this
FY2020 funding for voter registration system improvements.84
Other legislative proposals more specifical y address voter registration as a use for proposed
federal funding. For example, some bil s would specify that the HAVA payments provided for
“voting system security improvements” could be used for “enhancing the security of voter
registration databases.”85 Some legislation also would provide funding for states to implement
certain voter registration practices, like automatic voter registration or same-day voter

79 See “Voting system defined” in 52 U.S.C. §21081(b). Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019),
H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 2660/S. 1540 (Election Security Act of 2019), H.R.
2722/S. 2053/S. 2238 (Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act), and H.R. 3412 (Election Security
Assistance Act).
80 Examples include H.R. 2754/S. 1472 (Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2019), H.R. 3412/H.R. 3529
(Achieving Lasting Electoral Reforms on T ransparency and Security Act ), H.R. 4777/S. 825 (Protect our Elections
Act), S. 823 (Election Systems Integrity Act [EISA]), and S. 2238 (Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act).
81 Examples include H.R. 2754/S. 1472 (Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2019) and S. 2238 (Securing
America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act).
82 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11286, Election Security: Federal Funding for Securing Election
System s; and CRS In Focus IF10925, State Election Reform Paym ents: FY2018 Appropriations.
83 T he appropriations language directs the EAC to “make payments to States for activities to improve the
administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election secur ity
improvements, as authorized by sections 101, 103, and 104 of such Act”; for more information, see “Federal Funding
for Securing Election Systems” section in CRS Report R46146, Cam paign and Election Security Policy: Overview and
Recent Developm ents for Congress.
84 See, for example, letters submitted by Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Guam, and Maryland, available at
“2020 HAVA Funds,” Election Assistance Commission, at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/2020-hava-
funds.
85 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 2660/S. 1540 (Election Security Act of 2019),
and H.R. 2722/S. 2053/S. 2238 (Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act).
Congressional Research Service
16

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

registration.86 Other bil s direct the EAC to distribute grant funding to states to improve voting
system security and may include certain voter registration practices, such as maintaining offline
backups of voter registration lists, logging requests submitted to the VRDB, or establishing a
policy of security safeguards and use limitations for voters’ personal information, as criteria for
the EAC to consider when awarding these grants.87
Online (or Electronic) Voter Registration
Many government forms and applications now can be completed and submitted via the internet.
In 39 states and the District of Columbia, online (or electronic) voter registration is available.88
Some bil s introduced in the 116th Congress propose requiring nationwide availability of online
voter registration for federal elections.89 Proponents view online voter registration as an option
that could increase registration rates, particularly among younger voters, and could serve as an
extension of existing accessibility accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Because
internet-based forms can include required fields, proponents also note that electronic voter
registration could reduce the number of errors on submitted voter registration applications. States
that do not currently have electronic voter registration may face some upfront costs to design and
implement an online system, but proponents believe that, once implemented, online voter
registration may be a relatively inexpensive way for state election officials to maintain up-to-date
and accurate voter lists.90 Others, however, have concerns about the ability to confirm applicants’
identities and the overal security of online voter registration systems. Without accurate checks on
the voter registration process, some believe that it could be easier for individuals to vote
il egal y.91 The SSCI’s report on election interference in 2016 also noted instances where state
online voter registration websites were targeted, and, among its other recommendations, noted

86 Some of these bills also present a national requirement for states to adopt cer tain voter registration practices;
examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), S. 550 (Register America to Vote Act), H.R. 1275/S. 549
(Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), and H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019). Other bills, such as
H.R. 1512 (Fair, Accurate, Secure, and T imely [FAST ] Voting Act), would provide grant funding as an incentive if a
state chose to adopt certain voter registration practices.
87 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 378 (Safeguarding Election Infrastructure Act of
2019), H.R. 1512 (Fair, Accurate, Secure, and T imely [FAST ] Voting Act), H.R. 2660/S. 1540 (Election Security Act
of 2019), and H.R. 2722 (Securing America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act).
88 T he states that currently have online voter registration are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, T ennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. An additional state, Oklahoma, has passed online voter registration legislation and is in the
process of a phased implementation. See “Online Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures,”
February 3, 2020, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-
registration.aspx.
89 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 6379 (T ake Responsibility for Workers and Families
Act), and H.R. 6800 (Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions [HEROES] Act).
90 Michelle Kanter Cohen, “Online Voter Registration,” Issues in Election Administration policy paper, Project Vote,
May 2013, at http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/Policy-Paper-Online-Voter-Registration.pdf; and Iseul
Choi, Josef Dvorak, Steven Kulig, et al., Cost-Benefit Analysis of Im plem enting an Online Voter Registration System in
Wisconsin, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, December 20, 2013, at http://elections.wi.gov/publications/
other/CBA_projects.
91 Latanya Sweeney, Ji Su Yoo, and Jinyan Zang, “Voter Identity T heft: Submitting Changes to Voter Registrations
Online to Disrupt Elections,” Journal of Technology Science, September 6, 2017, at https://techscience.org/a/
2017090601.
Congressional Research Service
17

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

that state election officials “should pay particular attention to the presence of high severity
vulnerabilities in relevant web applications.”92
Verification of Voters’ Personal Information
State election officials work to ensure that the individual records stored in a VRDB are accurate
and that correct determinations are made regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of voters to
participate in federal elections. Verification efforts can be done at the individual applicant level,
by specifying that certain information must be provided when a person submits a new voter
registration application or an update to an existing record, and some congressional proposals
contain similar applicant requirements that could aid in verification.93 Verification efforts may
also take place at the state or local level by the election officials who receive and process
information from applicants by cross-checking the information submitted on voter registration
applications with other records to confirm the prospective voter’s identity and address. Some of
these types of efforts are discussed below in the sections on automatic voter registration, same-
day voter registration, and list maintenance efforts.
Automatic Voter Registration (AVR)
With automatic voter registration (or AVR), individuals are typical y registered to vote (if
qualified) when they submit their personal information for services at another government
agency, such as a state DMV. Currently under NVRA, federal voter registration opportunities are
presented with state driver’s license applications and are made available at a number of other
state and local government offices. An individual must opt in and indicate that he or she wishes to
register to vote when presented the opportunity to register to vote at these agencies. AVR, instead,
is an opt-out system, where an individual’s personal information is automatical y sent to state
election officials for voter registration purposes when submitting a driver’s license application or
other eligible agency form unless the person indicates otherwise. The option for declining to
register to vote may be presented on the form itself, or provided to the individual at a later time
through a notice mailed by election officials. Under state law, 17 states and the District of
Columbia have implemented automatic voter registration; most of these states provide AVR at
DMVs, but several states have also designated additional state agencies to administer AVR.94
Proponents of automatic voter registration often argue that it could increase the number of
registered voters, particularly among demographic groups that are less likely to be registered.
Relaying information directly from other agency records can provide more up-to-date voter

92 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in
the 2016 U.S. Election, Volum e 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views, 116th Cong.,
1st sess., July 25, 2019, at https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf, pp.
21-23, 57.
93 For example, H.R. 1217 (Ensuring American Voters Act of 2019) would prohibit states from registering any
individual to vote in federal elections unless the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. A provision
in §1082 of H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019) would amend NVRA to require that driver’s license applicants
in a new state indicate whether the state would serve as their residence for voter registration purposes.
94 Alaska designates its Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) for its automatic voter registration agency. California,
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia
provide automat ic voter registration exclusively through their DMVs. Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington also use their DMVs but provide automatic voter registration through certain
other state agencies. See “Automatic Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 14, 2020, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
18

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

registration data and decrease opportunities for human error and overal registration costs.95
Others have raised concerns that the government should not require citizens to register to vote
and that the opt-out options, particularly if sent by mail, may not sufficiently ensure that an
individual who does not want to register, or is not qualified to register, can effectively decline
registration. AVR may also present opportunities for erroneous data to be submitted to state
election officials and require more work for those who must sort out eligible and ineligible voter
registration applicants.96
Proposals in the 116th Congress address automatic voter registration in a variety of ways, with
some providing incentives to states for adopting automatic voter registration and others requiring
states to implement automatic voter registration.97 Some proposals would essential y modify
existing requirements for state DMVs under NVRA, changing voter registration from an opt-in
choice to an opt-out choice.98 Some bil s would introduce AVR at certain agencies, designated
specifical y to provide voter registration to newly eligible individuals.99 Other proposals would
require AVR when individuals conduct transactions with a variety of “contributing agencies,”
which typical y would include DMVs, along with other state and federal agencies or other entities
(i.e., institutes of higher education that receive federal funding).100
Same-Day Voter Registration
For federal elections, NVRA specifies that state application deadlines cannot be more than 30
days before the election, but states may establish deadlines closer to Election Day and/or al ow
applicants to register at the time of an election through policies broadly known as same-day voter
registration.101 Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have same-day voter registration

95 “Automatic Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 22, 2019, at http://www.ncsl.org/
research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx; Robert Griffin and Paul Gronke, “ More States are
Registering Voters Automatically. Here’s How that Affects Voting,” Washington Post (Monkey Cage blog), June 16,
2017, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/16/more-states-are-registering-voters-
automatically-heres-how-that-affects-voting/.
96 “Automatic Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 22, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/
research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx; Matt Vasilogambros, “ Glit ches in California
Embolden Automatic Voter Registration Foes,” Pew Research Center (Stateline blog), October 17, 2019, at
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/17/glitches-in-california-embolden-
automatic-voter-registration-foes; and Sophia T arreen, “ Voter Registration Error Risks Deportation for Immigran ts,”
Associated Press, February 10, 2020, at https://apnews.com/4e959694ac7ea7b7458b3fcd7aa234fc.
97 H.R. 1512 (Fair, Accurate, Secure, and T imely [FAST ] Voting Act) is an example of a bill that would make grant
funding available to states for implementing automatic voter registration. Bills that would require states to adopt
automatic voter registration include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 92/S. 26 (Vote by Mail Act of
2019), H.R. 645 (Automatic Voter Registration Act), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), S. 550
(Register America to Vote Act), H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 4928 (New Deal for
New Americans Act of 2019), and S. 3470 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2020).
98 As examples, see H.R. 92/S. 26 (Vote by Mail Act of 2019) and H.R. 645 (Automatic Voter Registration Act).
99 H.R. 4928 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2019) and S. 3470 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2020), for
example, would require states to provide automatic voter registration for newly naturalized U.S. citizens based on
information shared from DHS. Another proposal, in S. 550 (Register America to Vot e Act), would require states to
operate a system to automatically register individuals to vote for federal elections at the time they turn 18 years old.
100 Examples of these broader automatic voter registration provisions include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of
2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), and H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill for the People Act of
2019).
101 For uniformed services and overseas voters, UOCAVA, as amended, requires states to accept and process any valid
voter registration applications received not less than 30 days before an election; see U.S. Department of Justice, The
Uniform ed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, at https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-
Congressional Research Service
19

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

on Election Day, with many al owing same-day voter registration during early voting periods, if
the state al ows early voting. North Carolina al ows for same-day voter registration during its
early voting periods, but not on Election Day.102
Same-day voter registration is often presented by its proponents as a measure to improve election
access, because records can be created and updated at the time of voting, but this also raises
considerations about verifying voters’ information and maintaining efficient Election Day
operations.103 Proponents believe same-day voter registration simplifies the process for citizens
and can increase registration rates and turnout.104 Same-day voter registration may also help
ensure that an individual who finds an error in his or her registration record, or forgot to update
certain registration information,105 can correct the record and stil vote. Similarly, these policies
may also help ensure continuity and ensure that eligible individuals wil be able to vote if a
broader VRDB issue is revealed during an election. In general, states have voter identification
requirements to help verify the information provided by same-day registrants.106 Others believe
that preelection registration deadlines remain necessary for state election officials to sufficiently
process individuals’ applications.107 Relatedly, a high volume of same-day voter registration
could also create longer lines or require additional staff at polling stations. In some places with
same-day registration, voters who register on Election Day cast provisional bal ots until their
information can be verified, but states vary on how these bal ots are accepted and counted, which
could create a delay in determining election results.
Several legislative proposals introduced in the 116th Congress would require states to permit
individuals to register to vote on Election Day or on any other day that voting is permitted;108 two

absentee-voting-act.
102 “Same Day Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, June 28, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/
research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx. In April 2020, Virginia enacted legislation to allow for
same-day voting, effective in October 2022; see “ HB 201 Elections; same-day registration,” Virginia’s Legislative
Information System, at https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB201&201+sum+HB201.
103 For an overview of literature on this topic, see “Same Day Registration” in U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Issues Related to Registering Voters and Adm inistering Elections, 16-630, June 2016, pp. 88-92, at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678131.pdf.
104 Stephen Knack and James White, “ Election-Day Registration and T urnout Inequality,” Political Behavior, vol. 22,
no. 1 (March 2000), pp. 29-44; Raymond E. Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT : Yale
University Press, 1980), pp. 37-80.
105 Under NVRA (52 U.S.C. §20507(e)(2)(A)), individuals who move within the same jurisdiction and had not updated
their voter registration address are still permitted to vote. States may determine where these voters can cast their ballots,
but at least one of the following options must be provided: the voter’s former polling place, current polling place, or a
central location within the jurisdiction.
106 Walter Shapiro, “Election Day Registration Could Cut T hrough Many of the Arguments in the Voting Wars,”
Brennan Center for Justice, October 16, 2018, at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/election-
day-registration-could-cut-through-many-arguments-voting-wars; “ Same Day Voter Registration,” National
Conference of State Legislatures, June 28, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-
registration.aspx.
107 “Arguments for and against same-day voter registration,” Ballotpedia, at https://ballotpedia.org/
Arguments_for_and_against_same-day_registration; Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, “ Introducing the Voter Outreach and
T urnout Expansion Act of 2003,” extension of remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 51 (February 1, 2005), p.
E621.
108 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 93 (Same Day Registration Act of 2019), H.R.
1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), H.R. 1438 (T o amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require
States to allow same day registration for Federal elections, an d for other purposes), S. 624 (Same Day Registration
Act), H.R. 6379 (T ake Responsibility for Workers and Families Act), and H.R. 6800 (Health and Economic Recovery
Omnibus Emergency Solutions [HEROES] Act ).
Congressional Research Service
20

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

of these bil s, H.R. 1 (For the People Act of 2019) and H.R. 6800 (Health and Economic
Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions [HEROES] Act), have passed the House. Another bil
would require states to provide same-day voter registration if they did not implement automatic
voter registration.109 A different legislative option would specify that grant funding could be used
for same-day registration.110
List Maintenance Efforts
Voter registration list maintenance efforts start with existing records and attempt to ensure that
eligible voters remain in the VRDB and ineligible voters (who may have moved, died, or are
ineligible for other reasons under state law) are removed before the next election. This differs
from verification efforts, which general y attempt to prevent inaccurate data from being added to
the VRDB. Accurate lists are important for administrative purposes and for maintaining election
integrity. With a count of the actual number of registered voters in a jurisdiction, election officials
can better plan and distribute their resources, such as preparing an appropriate number of
mailings and bal ots. Accurate records are also necessary to identify certain instances of voter
fraud, such as voter impersonation or double-voting. Supporters of robust list maintenance efforts
note that accurate lists can help election officials better plan for elections and distribute resources
appropriately. Some opponents of certain list maintenance practices note that removal of voters
may not comport with federal or state law (and sometimes describe such practices as voter
purging).111
Legislative proposals related to voter registration list maintenance general y address how states
receive updated voter information and/or what steps states should take before removing voters
from their lists. NVRA presents the USPS NCOA database as an option states can use to identify
voters who have moved, but it does not preclude states from using other methods to identify
ineligible voters on their lists. Some bil s introduced in the 116th Congress would clarify what
information about a voter must be shared among data sources in order to generate an accurate
match and help ensure that the records belong to the same individual.112 Matches created using
only voters’ names and birthdays, for example, may falsely identify multiple, unique individuals
as a single voter.113

109 S. 550 (Register America to Vote Act).
110 H.R. 1512 (Fair, Accurate, Secure, and T imely [FAST ] Voting Act of 2019).
111 See, for example, Naila S. Awan, “When Names Disappear: State Roll-Maintenance Practices,” University of
Mem phis Law Review, vol. 49, no. 4 (Summer 2019), pp. 1107 -1144; Matt Vasilogambros, “ T he Messy Politics o f
Voter Purges,” Pew Research Center (Stateline blog), October 25, 2019, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/25/the-messy-politics-of-voter-purges; and “ Voter caging and purging,” Ballotpedia, at
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_caging_and_purging.
112 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
and H.R. 1460 (T o amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit voter caging and other questionable challenges). In
addition to voter caging documents, these bills also would prohibit states from using an “unverified match list” as the
basis for preventing an individual from registering to vote or voting, o r formally challenging an individual’s
registration status or eligibility. An “ unverified match list” is defined as a list of individuals who are ineligible to vote
in the jurisdiction that lacks a signature, photograph, or unique identifying number to ensure that the information
matches voter registration records for the same individual. H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S.
549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), and H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill for the People Act of 2019) contain
provisions that would require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and T echnology (NIST ) to establish
matching standards for voter registrat ion list maintenance purposes.
113 Michael P. McDonald and Justin Levitt, “ Seeing Double Voting: An Extension of the Birthday Problem,” Election
Law Journal, vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 2008), pp. 111 -122; Sharad Goel, Marc Meredith, Michael Morse, et al., “ One
Person, One Vote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections,” working paper, October
Congressional Research Service
21

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

States can also compare registration data with other states through partnerships or organizations
like the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) to identify individuals who may have
registration records in multiple states.114 Some legislative proposals would provide criteria that a
state must follow if it removes voter data based on information received from an “interstate cross-
check.” These criteria can address what information about a voter must be shared among state
election officials to generate a reliable match of voter records or other procedural requirements
for removing voters through these methods.115
Another issue related to voter list maintenance and removal processes involves political
organizations or other groups that provide information to election officials about individuals
whose registration status may have changed. Often, a group first sends a mailing to registered
voters, and compiles information on which mailings are returned as undeliverable or which
recipients did not respond to the mailings. The list is then submitted to election officials and can
become the basis for chal enging the registration status of those named on it.116 Those who
engage in this process may view it as a way to help election officials identify inactive or
ineligible voters; opponents often refer to the process as voter caging and view it as an
objectionable effort to reduce political participation. Some bil s introduced in the 116th Congress
contain provisions that would limit state officials’ use of similar mailings or lists as the basis of a
formal chal enge to an individual’s registration status, eligibility to vote, or removal from a voter
list.117 Certain provisions would also require states to provide certain notifications to voters who
are removed or public notifications when list maintenance efforts occur.118
Database Management and Access Standards
Under HAVA, each state with voter registration maintains a “centralized, interactive computerized
statewide voter registration list” to serve as its official list of registered voters for federal
elections.119 HAVA specifies certain criteria for the records contained in a state VRDB (e.g., the
name, registration information, and a unique identifier for every legal y registered voter in the
state) and provides that registration databases shal be coordinated with other state agency

30, 2017, available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/morse/publications/one-person-one-vote-estimating-prevalence-
double-voting-us-presidential-elections; and Dartunorro Clark, “ T his System Catches Vote Fraud and the Wrath of
Critics,” NBC News, August 12, 2017, at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/system-catches-vote-fraud-
wrath-critics-n790471.
114 See https://www.ericstates.org.
115 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019) and H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of
2019), which would amend NVRA to require that a state using an interstate cross-check to remove voters would need
to receive (1) an individual’s full name (including a middle name, if any), (2) date of birth, and (3) last four digits of a
Social Security number; alternatively, a state could receive documentation from ERIC that a voter is a resident of
another state. States would also have to complete these interstate cross-checks at least six months prior to a federal
election.
116 See “Voter caging and purging,” Ballotpedia, at https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_caging_and_purging.
117 Examples expressly mentioning voter caging lists include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S.
549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019), and H.R. 1460 (T o amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit voter caging
and other questionable challenges). Some other bills include provisions that would prohibit state election officials from
considering nonvoting, failure by the voter to respond to certain mailings (unless they are returned as undeliverable), or
failure by the voter to take any other action as “ objective and reliable evidence of ineligibility”; as examples, see H.R.
3201/S. 958 (Stop Automatically Voiding Eligible Voters Off T heir Enlisted Rolls in States [SAVE VOT ERS] Act),
H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), and H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019).
118 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019) and H.R. 3201/S. 958 (Stop Automatically Voiding
Eligible Voters Off T heir Enlisted Rolls in States [SAVE VOT ERS] Act).
119 52 U.S.C. §21083.
Congressional Research Service
22

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

databases and must be available for access by any election official in the state. With regard to
VRDB security, HAVA states that “[t]he appropriate State or local official shal provide adequate
technological security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the computerized list
established under this section.”120
Some legislative proposals would provide further requirements related to VRDB security. Several
bil s introduced in the 116th Congress would instruct the director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop privacy and security standards for voter registration
information and would require state election officials to develop VRDB access policies and
security safeguards, as wel as file annual statements certifying compliance with these
standards.121 Other bil s would direct CISA, in consultation with NIST and the EAC’s Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), to create “mandatory cybersecurity requirements”
for federal election systems, including e-poll books and “any government database, website, or
associated information system used by voters or government agencies for voter registration
(including the management of voter registration status).”122
State policies vary on how voter registration lists may be accessed by members of the public,
academic researchers, or political organizations.123 State VRDBs may include an array of voter
information, including date of birth, phone numbers, driver’s license numbers, Social Security
numbers, party affiliation, place of birth, race, gender, and whether or not they need assistance to
vote. States that al ow disclosure of voter registration information also vary on which data fields
are released and which are redacted. In some instances, voter data may be used to distribute
political information for candidates or parties, or it can be used for get-out-the-vote efforts.
Outside groups may also examine voter data for irregularities or errors. While some might view
disclosures for these purposes as appropriate, there are also general privacy concerns surrounding
voter registration data and protecting this personal information contained in VRDB records.124
Some bil s introduced in the 116th Congress would prohibit the use of voter registration
information for commercial purposes.125 Other legislative provisions introduced in the 116th
Congress would prohibit state election officials who receive voter registration records from
contributing agencies from publicly disclosing “[a]ny information not necessary to voter

120 52 U.S.C. §21083(a)(3).
121 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
and H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019 ). H.R. 4990 (Election T echnology Research Act of 2019)
would direct NIST to create a common data format for voter registration and other voting systems and provide
technical assistance to states on implementing cybersecurity standards and privacy measures, among other provisions.
122 Examples include H.R. 2754/S. 1472 (Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2019) and S. 2238 (Securing
America’s Federal Elections [SAFE] Act).
123 For an overview of state practices regarding obtaining voter registration lists, see Access To and Use Of Voter
Registration Lists, National Conference of State Legislatures, August 5, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/
elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.aspx; and Voter List Inform ation, United States
Elections Project, at http://voterlist.electproject.org/; Voter Privacy in the Digital Age, California Voter Foundation,
May 2004, at https://www.calvoter.org/sites/default/files/voter_privacy_in_the_digital_age.pdf.
124 See Aki Peritz, “Registered to vote? Your state may be posting personal information about you online,” Washington
Post, April 9, 2019, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/09/registered-vote-your-state-is-posting-
personal-information-about -you-online/; Vivian Wang, “ After Backlash, Personal Voter Information Is Removed by
New York City,” New York Times, April 30, 2019, at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/nyregion/nyc-personal-
voter-information-election-board.html; and Issie Lapowsky, “ What Should (And Shouldn’t) Worry You in T hat Voter
Data Breach,” Wired, June 20, 2017, at https://www.wired.com/story/voter-data-breach-impact/.
125 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
and H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019 ).
Congressional Research Service
23

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

registration,” including any part of an individual’s Social Security number or driver’s license
number.126
False Information Regarding Registration Status or Eligibility
Under federal law, it is a crime to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten,
or coerce a voter in a federal election127 or a person registering or attempting to register to vote.128
The procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known to be “material y
false, fictitious, or fraudulent” under applicable state laws is also a federal crime.129
Some legislative proposals introduced in the 116th Congress would amend the federal criminal
code to include additional activities that could interfere with voter registration. For example,
several bil s include language that would make it il egal “for any person, whether acting under
color of law or otherwise, to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from
registering to vote or to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from aiding
another person in registering to vote,” and direct the EAC to develop and publish
recommendations to help states deter violations.130
Other legislation would prohibit any person acting under the color of law or otherwise from
communicating or producing misinformation regarding a voter’s registration status or eligibility
during a specified time preceding an election.131 These provisions would cover information
regarding a voter’s registration status or eligibility that is known to be material y false or with the
intent to prevent an individual from participating in an election.
Concluding Observations
Congress has enacted certain federal voter registration requirements that apply to states, such as
NVRA’s directive to provide simultaneous federal voter registration opportunities alongside state
DMV transactions and HAVA’s provision for a centralized, statewide database of voter
registration records. Through these requirements, Congress has, arguably, created a larger federal
role in voter registration policy than in some other areas of election administration. States,
however, continue to retain the authority to set a number of their own voter registration policies
and requirements, both for federal and state or local elections, and state voter registration
practices vary along several dimensions.

126 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
H.R. 1612 (Nonpartisan Bill For the People Act of 2019 ), and H.R. 4928 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2019).
127 18 U.S.C. §584.
128 52 U.S.C. §20511(1).
129 52 U.S.C. §20511(2)(A).
130 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 949 (For the People Act of 2019), H.R. 1275/S. 549 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2019),
and H.R. 1451 (Alice Paul Voter Protection Act).
131 For example, H.R. 3281 (Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019) would prohibit this
activity within 60 days preceding an election; H.R. 4617 (Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting
Democracy (SHIELD) Act) would prohibit this activity within 90 days preceding an election.
Congressional Research Service
24

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Voter registration has been of continuing interest to Congress for a variety of reasons. Because
voter registration is a prerequisite for voting in each state but North Dakota, many view
congressional involvement in this area as an extension of the federal government’s role in
upholding the constitutional right to vote and preserving fair elections. From one perspective,
certain voter registration practices might be viewed as security measures that prevent ineligible
individuals from voting or prevent eligible voters from voting twice. From another perspective,
certain voter registration practices might be viewed as impediments that can prevent eligible
voters from exercising their right to vote.
Concerns also exist over the general security of voter registration databases and related election
systems, both in terms of personal data protection and election integrity. These considerations are
particularly relevant in the current congressional environment, as voter registration databases
were targeted by foreign actors ahead of the 2016 election. Technological advancements can
make it easier for election officials to keep up-to-date voter records, but this increased reliance on
computerized systems has also introduced ongoing data-security chal enges.
Dozens of bil s related to voter registration have been introduced during the 116th Congress, with
some proposals reflecting long-standing areas of legislative interest, such as expanding
registration opportunities, and some reflecting more recent concerns surrounding election
cybersecurity. Many congressional proposals regarding voter registration tend to mirror initiatives
already in place across certain states, which may provide insights on potential broader federal
implementation.
Although some policymakers have expressed interest in an expanded federal role in voter
registration, some policymakers also question whether further congressional action is necessary.
Some policymakers view existing federal and state practices as sufficient, and some note there
may be other considerations to weigh against the perceived benefits of any federal voter
registration policy changes. Imposing uniform standards across states, for example, can present a
chal enge, considering the variety of election practices currently in place under state laws. Having
an array of voter registration systems across states may also limit the scope of any potential
problems to a few states or localities, rather than affecting al jurisdictions nationwide.
Policymakers may also choose to prioritize other election administration or election integrity
measures that are unrelated to voter registration.

Author Information

Sarah J. Eckman

Analyst in American National Government

Congressional Research Service
25

Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46406 · VERSION 1 · NEW
26