Federal Role in Voter Registration: The
May 11, 2022
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and
Sarah J. Eckman
Subsequent Developments
Analyst in American
National Government
Historically, most aspects of election administration have been left to state and local

governments, resulting in a variety of practices across jurisdictions with respect to voter
registration. States can vary on a number of elements of the voter registration process, including

whether or not to require voter registration; where or when voter registration occurs; and how
voters may be removed from registration lists. The right of citizens to vote, however, is presented in the U.S. Constitution in
the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. Beginning with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, Congress
has sometimes passed legislation requiring certain uniform practices for federal elections, intended to prevent any state
policies that may result in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was
enacted in 1993 and set forth a number of voter registration requirements for states to follow regarding voter registration
processes for federal elections.
NVRA is commonly referred to as the motor-voter bill, as it required states to provide voter registration opportunities
alongside services provided by departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), although NVRA required other state and local offices
providing public services to provide voter registration opportunities as well. NVRA also created a federal mail-based voter
registration form that all states are required to accept and created criteria for state voter registration forms. Certain procedures
states must follow for performing voter registration list maintenance or removing voters from registration lists are also set
forth in NVRA. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) provided guidance to state election officials and issued biennial
reports to Congress on NVRA implementation and voter registration in each state until these roles were transferred to the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2002.
NVRA remains a fundamental component of federal voter registration policy and has not undergone many significant
revisions since its enactment, though voter registration remains a subject of interest to Congress. The Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) of 2002 enacted a number of election administration measures, several of which were based on recommendations
from the FEC’s biennial NVRA reports, and affected federal voter registration. These included the computerization of state
voter lists; grants to states for election technology upgrades; changes to the federal mail-based voter registration form; and
the transfer of the FEC’s role in administering NVRA to the newly created EAC. More comprehensive information on
HAVA can be found in CRS Report R46949, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in
Election Administration Policy.
More than 60 bills have been introduced in the 117th Congress to date related to federal voter registration or NVRA, and
similar numbers and types of voter registration proposals have been commonly introduced in other recent Congresses. Some
of these measures are narrow in scope, whereas others are more comprehensive electoral reforms. Many of these bills seek to
expand the ways in which states must allow individuals to register to vote. This can include adding other public service
agencies to the list of NVRA voter registration agencies, or requiring online voter registration, same-day voter registration,
preregistration of teenagers not yet eligible to vote, or automatic voter registration. A number of other bills reflect ongoing
concerns about the technology used to maintain voter registration data and about balancing the efficiency technology
provides for citizens and election officials with sufficient cybersecurity protections.
Congressional Research Service

Federal Role in Voter Registration

Introduction
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)1 requires that states follow certain voter
registration requirements for federal elections. NVRA does not set requirements for state or local
elections. The stated purposes of NVRA 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 accurate voter
registration records.2
NVRA was not the first piece of federal legislation addressing state electoral activities, but it did
create a more significant federal presence in voter registration activities. NVRA may be viewed
as an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and other federal legislation that sought
to create uniformity across state electoral processes in order to expand voter enfranchisement and
ensure constitutionally protected voter rights.
NVRA is sometimes referred to as the motor-voter bill, since one of its provisions requires that
eligible citizens must be able to simultaneously apply for voter registration when they apply
within a state for a motor vehicle driver’s license or other personal identification document issued
by a state department of motor vehicles. In addition to these motor-voter registration
opportunities, NVRA requires that states establish mail-based voter registration processes and
accept a federal mail-in registration form.3 States must also provide in-person voter registration
opportunities at the 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.4
In addition to voter registration methods, NVRA included procedural requirements for states to
follow when performing voter registration list maintenance or when adding, removing, or
modifying records for registered voters. NVRA further required that the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) provide guidance to the states for implementing NVRA. NVRA also directed
the 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 enactment of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) in 2002.
NVRA, as amended by HAVA, provides much of the framework for federal voter registration
policy. The first portion of this report provides a brief background on the federal role in voter
registration and the passage of NVRA, followed by a discussion of the key components of
NVRA. The implementation of NVRA, subsequent modifications to its provisions, and ongoing
considerations related to federal voter registration are also discussed. The final sections of this
report provide descriptions of types of common legislative proposals addressing elements of voter
registration policy similar to those included in NVRA.

1 P.L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77; 52 U.S.C. ch. 205.
2 52 U.S.C. §20501(b).
3 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(1). NVRA directed the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to create and maintain the federal
mail-based registration form, but updates since 2004 have been tasked to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
following the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. See U.S. Election Assistance Commission,
“National Mail Voter Registration Form,” at https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-voter-registration-form.
4 52 U.S.C. §20506(a).
Congressional Research Service

1

Federal Role in Voter Registration

Background and Context for NVRA Passage
Many elements of election administration remain under the domain of state and local
governments, but the federal government has become more involved in some election aspects
since the 1960s. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)5 and several subsequent federal laws,
including NVRA, reflect congressional initiatives to increase voter participation across the states.
Various proposals were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s to create national standards for voter
registration,6 but the enactment of NVRA in 1993 marked the first comprehensive federal policy
addressing voter registration.
The House and Senate considered measures during multiple Congresses in the 1970s, for
example, that would have created a postcard-based national voter registration form administered
by the Census Bureau.7 In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), congressional attention turned toward
creating national standards for same-day voter registration, but neither chamber passed related
legislation. Congress considered other voter registration measures between 1983 and 1988, but no
proposals appear to have reached the floor in either the House or Senate. Previous versions of
NVRA were introduced in the 101st Congress (1989-1990)8 and 102nd Congress (1991-1992)9
before similar legislation was ultimately signed into law on May 20, 1993.10
Two laws enacted prior to NVRA, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
of 1984 (VAEHA) and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986
(UOCAVA), may be viewed as legislative predecessors to NVRA. Primarily, these laws focused
on voting access, but they also contained provisions that addressed voter registration. VAEHA
and UOCAVA represented extensions of the federal government’s role in some electoral activities
that had traditionally been the domain of state and local governments.
VAEHA required that states make polling places more accessible for persons who are elderly or
disabled; provide absentee ballots for handicapped voters with no notarization or medical
certification required; and offer voting aids for elderly or disabled individuals to use in federal
elections.11 With regards to voter registration, VAEHA also required that states establish “a
reasonable number of accessible permanent registration facilities,” and offer registration aids for
elderly or handicapped individuals to use in federal elections.12
UOCAVA required each state to permit uniformed servicemembers, their spouses and dependents,
and overseas citizens who do not maintain a residence in the United States to vote absentee in

5 See CRS Report R43626, The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview.
6 U.S. Federal Election Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration
of Elections for Federal Office 1993-1994, report to the 104th Congress, June 30, 1995, p. 5 (hereinafter, 1993-1994
NVRA Report).
7 In the 92nd Congress (1971-1972), the House and Senate both held hearings to consider a postcard registration form.
The proposal came to the Senate floor for a vote, but was tabled. The Senate passed a similar measure during the 93rd
Congress (1973-1974), which would have created a National Voter Registration Administration within the Census
Bureau, but the House did not take up the bill (see S. 352, S. Rept. 93-91; H.R. 6278, H. Rept. 93-778). The House
passed a modified version of the postcard voter registration system in the 94th Congress (1975-1976), but the measure
stalled in the Senate (see H.R. 11552, H. Rept. 95-318).
8 H.R. 2190 passed the House; the Senate took no action on H.R. 2190 or S. 874.
9 S. 250 passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by the President.
10 P.L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77; 52 U.S.C. ch. 205.
11 P.L. 98-435, October 31, 1985, 99 Stat. 563; 52 U.S.C. ch. 201.
12 52 U.S.C. §§20103-20104.
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Role in Voter Registration

federal elections using a federal write-in absentee ballot or a state absentee ballot approved by the
presidential designee and made available at least 60 days before an election.13 UOCAVA also
required states to accept and process any valid voter registration applications received at least 30
days prior to a federal election from military or overseas voters and created an official postcard
form states would accept for these individuals containing both a voter registration application and
an absentee ballot application.14
Major Provisions of NVRA
NVRA’s shorthand name, the motor-voter bill, refers to one of its more well-known provisions—
the requirement that states establish procedures for eligible individuals to register to vote in
federal elections, or to update their voter registration records, simultaneously with their
applications for motor vehicle driver’s licenses or for any other form of personal identification
provided by the state’s department of motor vehicles (DMVs).15 Under NVRA, states must also
establish other in-person voter registration locations, including at federal, state, or
nongovernmental offices that primarily provide public assistance or services to persons with
disabilities, and at other locations as described in Section 7 of NVRA. In addition to specifying
locations for voter registration opportunities, NVRA also contains criteria for states’ voter
registration forms and requires states to accept a national mail-based registration form created by
the FEC.16 States must also meet certain procedural requirements when adding, removing, or
modifying records in their voter registration lists. Today, the EAC provides states with guidance
for implementing NVRA and publishes a biennial election report assessing the impact of NVRA
on federal election administration and providing recommendations, if necessary, for
improvements to federal and state procedures, forms, and other matters affected by NVRA.17
Voter Registration at Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs)
Section 5 of NVRA provides that “Each State motor vehicle driver’s license application
(including any renewal application) submitted to the appropriate State motor vehicle authority
under State law shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for
Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application.”18 An applicant
submitting a change of address to a state DMV can also designate that the change should be
relayed to election officials as an update to his or her voter registration. Voter registration
information collected by DMVs must be relayed to election officials no later than 10 days after it
is received. If the DMV receives voter registration information within 5 days of the state’s voter
registration deadline, it must be relayed to election officials no later than 5 days after its receipt.19

13 P.L. 99-410, August 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 924; 52 U.S.C. ch. 203.
14 See CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues for
additional information on UOCAVA and subsequent revisions to its voter registration provisions.
15 As defined in 52 U.S.C. §20502, “the term ‘motor vehicle driver’s license’ includes any personal identification
document issued by a State motor vehicle authority.”
16 Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), development and maintenance of the national mail-based voter
registration form was transferred to the newly created Election Assistance Commission (EAC). See P.L. 107-252
§§201, 202, 209, 802-804.
17 Ibid. The FEC was originally responsible for these functions, but they were transferred to the EAC when it was
created under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
18 52 U.S.C. §20504(a)(1).
19 52 U.S.C. §20504(e).
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 12 link to page 12 Federal Role in Voter Registration

This is the same timeline for application turnaround that NVRA requires for the other voter
registration agencies it covers, as discussed in the following section, “Other Voter Registration
Agencies.”
Proponents of NVRA expected that most voter registration would eventually occur through this
type of application.20 In the years since NVRA was enacted, DMVs have become a popular
source for voter registrations. Among the voter registration methods denoted in NVRA and
tracked in the biennial NVRA reports, DMVs are consistently the most common source of voter
registration applications. The EAC reports that between 2018 and 2020, departments of motor
vehicles accounted for a higher proportion of voter registration applications received (39.3%)
than any other source of voter registrations designated under NVRA.21 Table 1 provides
information on DMV-based registration and other sources for selected years.
Table 1. Sources of Registration Applications in NVRA States for Selected Years

1995-1996
2005-2006
2015-2016
Motor Vehicle Offices
33.10%
45.74%
34.43%
By Mail
29.74%
22.75%
18.01%a
Public Assistance Offices
6.28%
1.46%
2.77%
Disability Services
0.43%
0.13%
0.22%
Armed Forces Offices
0.18%
0.14%
0.14%
State Designated Sites
4.18%
6.44%
2.23%
Source: CRS calculations based on data for NVRA covered states reported in U.S. Federal Election
Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal
Office 1993-1994, report to the 104th Congress, June 30, 1995; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The Impact
of the National Voter Registration Act on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2005-2006, a report to the
110th Congress, June 30, 2007; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The Election Administration and Voting Survey
2016 Comprehensive Report, a report to the 115th Congress, June 29, 2017.
Notes: Data are provided on voter registration applications received and reported by NVRA-covered states;
this excludes voter registration application data for Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Wisconsin, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See “Initial NVRA
Implementation” section for discussion of why some states are excluded from NVRA. The percentages for each
year do not total 100% due to other sources of voter registration application that are not affected by NVRA.
The categories of voter registration applications tracked by the Election Administration Voting Survey and
reported in the biennial NVRA reports can vary across years and may not be directly comparable.
a. The 2017 report identifies this category as “Mail, Email, Fax.” A separate category for “Internet” registration
was also included in 2017, which accounted for 17.82% of voter registration applications.
Other Voter Registration Agencies
In addition to DMVs, under NVRA, states are required to provide opportunities for individuals to
register to vote in-person at other locations. These include “the appropriate registration site
designated with respect to the residence of the applicant in accordance with state law,” as well as

20 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1993, report to
accompany S. 460, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-6, p. 7.
21 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report,
a report to the 117th Congress, August 16, 2021, p. 114 (hereinafter, 2020 EAVS Comprehensive Report),
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/2020_EAVS_Report_Final_508c.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Role in Voter Registration

at certain federal, state, or nongovernmental offices.22 Section 7 of NVRA identifies these
additional locations as “voter registration agencies.”23 Any office in a state that provides public
assistance or administers state-funded programs primarily designed to provide services to persons
with disabilities must be designated as voter registration agencies.24 Recruitment offices for the
U.S. armed services are also designated as voter registration agencies.25 Beyond these required
designations, states are also directed to select other locations—such as public libraries, schools,
city or county government offices, unemployment compensation offices, and fishing and hunting
license bureaus—as voter registration agencies.26 The Higher Education Amendments of 1998
further required that colleges and universities in states exempt from NVRA “make a good faith
effort” to request and distribute mail-based voter registration forms to enrolled students.27
Each designated voter registration agency must distribute mail-based voter registration forms;
provide assistance to applicants completing the form, unless such assistance is refused by the
applicant; and transmit completed applications to the appropriate state election official28 no later
than 10 days after they are received or within 5 days of their receipt if received within 5 days of
the state’s voter registration deadline.29 This timeline is the same as NVRA requires for state
DMVs that receive voter registration forms. Individuals assisting with registration applications
cannot seek to influence the applicant’s political preference or party registration; display a
political preference or party allegiance; or make any statement or take any action that has the
intent or effect of discouraging an applicant from registering to vote or leading the applicant to
believe that the availability of other services provided by the agencies is dependent upon the
decision to register or not register.30
Mail-In Voter Registration
Section 6 of NVRA further directs states to make available mail-based voter registration
applications for federal elections. These mail-based applications can also be used for voters to
update a change of address.31 Section 6 requires states to accept and make available a mail-based
application created by the federal government, but also permits states to use a mail-based form of
their own creation. NVRA directed the FEC to develop and maintain the mail-based federal voter
registration application,32 but this function was transferred to the EAC following the passage of

22 52 U.S.C. §20503(a).
23 For more information and recent developments, see CRS Insight IN11782, Voter Registration Agencies Under the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
24 52 U.S.C. §20506(a)(1-2). An agency providing home-based services to an individual with disabilities must provide
the voter registration services specified under 52 U.S.C. §20506(a)(4)(A) at the person’s home (see 52 U.S.C.
§20506(4)(B)).
25 52 U.S.C. §20506(c).
26 These and other examples of agencies that may be included are found in 52 U.S.C. §20506(a)(3).
27 See §489(b) in P.L. 105-244, October 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1581; 20 U.S.C. §1094(a)(23). See “Initial NVRA
Implementation” section for discussion of why some states are excluded from NVRA. Covered higher education
institutions may also provide voter registration forms (or a link to a voter registration form) to students through an
electronic message; see §493(a) in P.L. 110-315, August 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3308; 20 U.S.C. §1094(a)(23)(D).
28 52 U.S.C. §20506(d). Additional details pertaining to how voter registration agencies should distribute applications,
options for registration forms, and language to be used in conjunction with registration opportunities are provided in 52
U.S.C. §20506(a)(6)(B).
29 52 U.S.C. §20506(d).
30 52 U.S.C. §20506(a)(5).
31 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(3).
32 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(1) directs states to use the FEC-created form; NVRA’s requirements for the FEC form are
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 Federal Role in Voter Registration

HAVA, effective in 2004.33 Mail-based voter registration applications created by the states were
required to meet all the criteria specified by Section 9 of NVRA, which are described in the
subsequent section, “Voter Registration Form Requirements.”34
States were required to make mail registration forms available to governmental and private
entities for distribution, with an emphasis on making forms available for organized voter
registration programs.35 Under NVRA, state laws could require that voters new to a jurisdiction
who registered by mail vote in-person for their first election.36 If a registrar sends a notice to an
individual regarding the disposition of a mail-based voter registration application via
nonforwardable postal mail and the notice is returned as undeliverable, the registrar may begin
the process of removing the individual from the state’s voter list, as detailed in Section 8(d).37
Voter Registration Form Requirements
In addition to how and where states are required to provide voter registration opportunities,
NVRA contains requirements for the information presented on and collected by voter registration
forms for federal elections.38 These requirements are presented in Section 9(b) of NVRA, and also
serve as the criteria used for the federal, mail-based voter registration application created under
NVRA.39 States are also required to make the federal mail-based registration form available at
governmental and private entities for distribution, with a particular focus on distributing forms to
nongovernmental voter registration programs.40
Instead of listing a number of information fields that must be included on voter registration forms,
NVRA minimizes the amount of information an applicant needs to provide by utilizing personal
information the applicant provides elsewhere. At state DMVs, for example, the application for
registering to vote must be incorporated into the application form for a driver’s license and cannot
require the applicant to duplicate any information already provided on the driver’s license portion
of the form. For voter registration on driver’s license applications and for state mail-in
applications, a form may only request the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent
duplicate registrations and enable state election officials to determine the eligibility of the
applicant and administer voter registration laws.41
Voter registration applications under NVRA must include statements listing federal voting
eligibility requirements (including citizenship) and require a signature from the applicant,
attesting that he or she meets the eligibility criteria.42 Voter registration forms may not include

found in 52 U.S.C. §20508(a)(2). See also 11 C.F.R. §9428.4. First-time voters may be required under state law to vote
in person, if the individual has not previously voted in the same jurisdiction (52 U.S.C. §20505(c)).
33 P.L. 107-252, §§201, 202, 209, 802-804, October 29, 2002.
34 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(2).
35 52 U.S.C. §20505(b).
36 52 U.S.C. §20505(c). Persons eligible to vote through mail under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act or the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act are excepted from any state requirement to
vote in-person, as stated in 52 U.S.C. §20505(c)(2).
37 52 U.S.C. §20505(d).
38 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(2).
39 52 U.S.C. §20505(a)(1). See also 11 C.F.R. §9428.4.
40 52 U.S.C. §20505(b).
41 52 U.S.C. §20504(c)(2); 52 U.S.C. §20508(b).
42 52 U.S.C. §20508(b)(2)(B).
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Role in Voter Registration

“any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.”43 In recent years, the EAC and
U.S. Supreme Court have interpreted this to preclude states from requiring proof of U.S.
citizenship in order to submit an application for federal voter registration.44 The 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.
Maintenance and Updates to State Voter Lists
As noted above, agencies providing voter registration forms, including DMVs, are required by
NVRA to accept completed forms from applicants and transmit the forms to the appropriate state
election official within 10 days of receipt. If the completed form is collected by an agency within
5 days of the state’s voter registration deadline, the form must be transmitted to state election
officials within 5 days of receipt.45 Under NVRA, once state election officials have received and
approved or denied an application, they are required to send each applicant a notice regarding the
disposition of his or her application.46 State election officials are also directed to ensure that any
eligible applicant is registered to vote in time for a federal election, as long as the applicant’s
information was submitted to a voter registration agency or postmarked no later than 30 days
before a federal election (or the state’s registration deadline, if that is less than 30 days before
Election Day).47
Once a voter is registered, his or her name is not to 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 mentally
incapacitated.48 Voters may not be removed from the registration rolls solely due to nonvoting,49
or for moving within the same electoral jurisdiction.50 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.51
States may also remove a voter from the registration rolls if the registrant has notified the election

43 52 U.S.C. §20508(b)(3).
44 See U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Memorandum of Decision Concerning State Requests to Include
Additional Proof-of-Citizenship Instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form, January 14, 2014, available
at https://www.eac.gov/voters/nvra-related-documents/ (along with other related materials); Simone Pathé, “Voting-
Rights Advocates Get Win at Supreme Court,” Roll Call, June 29, 2015, at https://www.rollcall.com/news/supreme-
court-victory-for-voting-rights-advocates.
45 52 U.S.C. §20506(d).
46 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(2).
47 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(1).
48 52 U.S.C. §20507(3-4). For an overview of state laws regarding voting rights and criminal convictions, see 2020
EAVS Comprehensive Report, pp. 68-69; see also links provided under “Additional Resources” at National Conference
of State Legislatures, “Felon Voting Rights,” June 28, 2021, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/
felon-voting-rights.aspx; for more information on state policies regarding voter rights and mental health conditions, see
Jennifer A. Okwerekwu et al., “Voting by People with Mental Illness,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, vol. 46, no. 4 (December 1, 2018), pp. 513-520, at http://jaapl.org/content/early/2018/10/31/
JAAPL.003780-18; and Matt Visilogambros, “Thousands Lose Right to Vote Under ‘Incompetence’ Laws,” Stateline
blog, Pew Charitable Trusts, March 21, 2018, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/
2018/03/21/thousands-lose-right-to-vote-under-incompetence-laws.
49 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(2).
50 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.
51 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(4).
Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Role in Voter Registration

office that he or she has moved.52 Under NVRA, states may also remove voters from the
registration rolls if the registrant does not respond to a notice sent by the registrar (containing a
forwardable mail response card with prepaid postage) and fails to vote or appear to vote in two
consecutive general elections for federal office.53
The processes states use to maintain accurate, up-to-date voter registration lists for use in federal
elections must be undertaken in a “uniform, nondiscriminatory” fashion and in compliance with
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.54 States could use the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) National Change
of Address program (NCOA) as one way to help maintain their voter registration rolls.55 Removal
of ineligible voters from the registration rolls must be completed at least 90 days prior to the date
of any federal election (general or primary).56 Beyond these guidelines, NVRA does not specify
any particular process states must follow when removing individuals from their registered voter
lists.
“Fail-Safe” Provisions for Within-Jurisdiction Residence Changes
NVRA includes “fail-safe” voting provisions, enabling voters who have moved within a
jurisdiction but lack updated registrations to vote on Election Day and to update the state’s
records.57 These “fail-safe” provisions are limited to registrants who move within the same
election jurisdiction, under the principle that “once registered, a voter should remain on the list of
voters so long as the individual remains eligible to vote in that jurisdiction.”58 This situation could
arise because voters did not realize their information required an update, or because of technical
or bureaucratic mistakes in processing a registrant’s updated application. A voter whose residence
was formerly covered by one polling place but whose residence is currently covered by another
polling place in the same jurisdiction must be allowed to update his or her voting records and
vote, either at the voter’s former polling place, current polling place, or at a central location
within the jurisdiction.59
Criminal Penalties
Section 12 of NVRA establishes criminal penalties for federal election fraud and voter
intimidation. No individual may “knowingly and willfully” 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. Individuals may also be charged for attempting to deprive
state residents of a “fair and impartially conducted election process” by procuring or submitting
voter registration applications or ballots that are known to be fraudulent according to state law.

52 52 U.S.C. §20507(d).
53 52 U.S.C. §20507(d). For an analysis of the related U.S. Supreme Court case, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute,
see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10175, Supreme Court Rules Ohio Voter Roll Law Comports with National Voter
Registration Act.
54 52 U.S.C. §20507(b)(1).
55 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(1).
56 52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A).
57 52 U.S.C. §20507(e)(2).
58 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1993, report to
accompany H.R. 2, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 2, 1993, H.Rept. 103-9, p. 18.
59 52 U.S.C. §20507(e)(2)(A). State law may set forth which of these options are available, but at least one must be
provided.
Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Role in Voter Registration

Individuals committing these acts could be fined in accordance with Title 18 of the U.S. Code
and/or imprisoned for up to five years.60
Records and Reporting Requirements
Under NVRA, states are required to keep records pertaining to voter registration list maintenance
and to make these records publicly available.61 NVRA also required the FEC to produce a
biennial report “assessing the impact of this Act on the administration of elections for federal
office ... including recommendations for improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms,
and other matters affected by this Act.”62 Since 2003, these NVRA reports have been produced by
the EAC.63 The biennial NVRA reports are submitted to Congress by June 30 of each odd-
numbered year.64 No further instructions on the content of the reports were provided by NVRA;
in practice, the FEC/EAC has chosen to conduct surveys of the states to collect information that it
deems necessary to carry out its statutory requirement.65
The biennial NVRA reports provide statistics and detailed discussion on the voter registration
activities of the states for the preceding two-year period under study.66 This includes information
on the total number of registered voters, new registrants, and sources of registrations covered by
NVRA (i.e., motor vehicle agencies, in-person, by mail, or other designated state office). The
NVRA reports also provide information on the removal of voters from registration lists and
reasons for removals. Issues with list maintenance have at times been discussed in these reports,
as have recommendations for improvements.
Initial NVRA Implementation
Many of NVRA’s requirements were designed to be implemented through state-level policy
changes, if existing state laws were not already in compliance with its provisions. Six states were
exempt from NVRA at the time of its enactment because they either had no voter registration
requirement or provided voter registration at polling places on Election Day.67 The other 44 states

60 52 U.S.C. §20511.
61 52 U.S.C. §20507(i).
62 52 U.S.C. §20508(a)(3).
63 HAVA transferred this responsibility from the FEC to the EAC in 2002. See P.L. 107-252, title VII, §802(a),
October 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1726, 42 U.S.C. §15532. Since 2014, the EAC has issued the NVRA report as a section of
a larger, combined report known as the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) report. For more
information, and copies of recent biennial EAVS reports, see U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Election
Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) Comprehensive Report,” at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-
and-reports.
64 52 U.S.C. §20508(a)(3).
65 For recent survey details, see U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Election Administration and Voting Survey
(EAVS) Datasets, Codebooks, and Survey Instruments,” at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-
and-surveys. Information on NVRA surveys from 2004-2010 is available at U.S. Election Assistance Commission,
“Archives – Surveys and Data,” at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/archives-surveys-and-data.
66 The first biennial report, covering 1993-1994, did not contain this information.
67 For the exemption requirements, see 52 U.S.C. §20503(b). North Dakota had no voter registration requirement when
NVRA was enacted; Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming enabled voters to register at polling places on Election Day
prior to March 11, 1993, the date specified in the original enacted text of NVRA. This cut-off date was changed to
August 1, 1994 (P.L. 104-91, title I, §101(a), January 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 11, as amended by P.L. 104-99, title II, §211,
January 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 37). Under this new date, Idaho and New Hampshire were also exempt from NVRA
requirements. See also 1993-1994 NVRA Report, p. 7. These states remain exempt; see 2015-2016 NVRA Report, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Role in Voter Registration

were tasked with implementing NVRA by January 1, 1995; however, if something in a state’s
constitution precluded compliance, NVRA allowed for a later enactment date to allow for the
state’s constitutional amendment process.68
NVRA provided no federal funding to the states to carry out any of its prescribed requirements.
States are, however, eligible to use reduced mailing rates from USPS for voter registration
mailings.69 Each state was required to designate a state officer or employee to serve as the chief
state election official and coordinate state responsibilities related to NVRA.70
NVRA also created specific roles for the FEC and made the Department of Justice (DOJ)
responsible for civil enforcement of its provisions.71 The FEC was responsible for providing
information to states about their responsibilities under NVRA; developing a mail-based federal
voter registration form; and producing a biennial report to Congress, in consultation with states’
chief election officers.72 Within the FEC, the Office of Election Administration (OEA) carried out
its NVRA responsibilities, until the passage of HAVA in 2002 transferred these responsibilities to
the EAC.73
The initial NVRA report from the FEC noted that “[NVRA] is something of an experiment in
governance in that the federal responsibilities for its proper implementation are divided between
two separate federal agencies,” meaning the FEC and DOJ.74 In early guidance to states regarding
NVRA implementation, the FEC stated it “does not have legal authority either to interpret the Act
or to determine whether this or that procedure meets the requirements of the Act,” noting that
such activities would fall under the DOJ’s civil enforcement responsibilities.75
While NVRA was under consideration by Congress, some were concerned about the costs it
could impose upon states, since the bill contained a number of requirements for state election
officials and other state agencies but no funding to carry them out.76 As states began to implement
NVRA, however, costs were not cited in the FEC reports as a significant impediment, and
implementation generally proceeded without many reported complications.77 In the 1995-1996

68 §13. The enactment date for states with constitutional conflicts was January 1, 1996, or “the date that is 120 days
after the date by which…it would be legally possible to adopt and place into effect any amendments to the constitution
of the States that are necessary to permit such compliance with this Act without requiring a special election.” Arkansas,
Vermont, and Virginia required constitutional amendments in order to implement NVRA. See 1993-1994 NVRA
Report, p. 7.
69 P.L. 103-31 §8(h); 39 U.S.C. §§2401, 3627, 3629.
70 52 U.S.C. §20509.
71 52 U.S.C. §20510.
72 P.L. 103-31 §9(a); 52 U.S.C. §20508(a).
73 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration,” at
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%2
0Election%20Administration.pdf; 1993-1994 NVRA Report, pp. 5-6.
74 Ibid., p. 4.
75 National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, U.S. Federal Election Commission, Implementing the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993: Requirements, Issues, Approaches, and Examples, January 1, 1994, p. 1.
76 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1993, report to
accompany S. 460, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 25, 1993, S.Rept. 103-6, pp. 50-51; Sen. Paul Coverdell, “Unfunded
Federal Mandates” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (March 10, 1994), pp. 4480-4482.
Alan Greenblat, “Court Rejects ‘Motor Voter’ Case, But the Battle Isn’t Over,” Congressional Quarterly, weekly
report, vol. 54, January 27, 1996, p. 232.
77 California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, however, were each engaged in litigation regarding NVRA
implementation at the time the first FEC report was issued. See 1993-1994 NVRA Report, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Role in Voter Registration

NVRA report, for example, the FEC said that the motor vehicle provisions “appeared to be the
easiest for States to implement,” and that states reported “relatively few problems” with
implementing the mail registration provisions. The FEC attributed this, in part, to the fact that 26
of the 43 states responding to the survey had already enacted some form of motor voter
registration prior to NVRA, and that 25 of the responding states already had voter registration by
mail prior to NVRA.78 Voter registration rates did increase in the years following the passage of
NVRA, as compared to the years immediately preceding its passage.79 Some have suggested,
however, that it is difficult to isolate the particular effect NVRA had on this increase, due to a
number of other factors that could lead voters to register or to not register.80
In its 1993-1994 NVRA report, the FEC noted that statewide computerization of voter registration
“greatly facilitates the implementation of NVRA,” and that “even larger networks linking motor
vehicle, public assistance, vital statistics, and courts to the voter registration system” could further
assist with intake and verification of voter records. At the time, FEC found varying degrees of
computerized record systems across states, and noted that in some states, the record systems used
by different local jurisdictions were incompatible with one another.81
States were granted some latitude to comply with other provisions in NVRA that were not as
strictly specified by the legislation, such as the designation of voter registration agencies and state
procedures for voter list maintenance; as a result, the ways in which they approached these
provisions varied. As one example, for NVRA’s requirement that states designate other offices as
voter registration agencies, the FEC’s 1995-1996 report found four states had not designated any
agencies, and the 21 other states that responded had selected “a wide variety of agencies.”
Regarding voter list maintenance, the FEC stated that “[a]s one might expect, [the] States covered
by this report approached the rather technical and detailed problems of list maintenance quite
differently and unevenly.”82
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA)83 was enacted in 2002 and serves as another key piece of
federal election policy, addressing a number of election administration elements in light of issues
revealed during the 2000 presidential election. This section focuses only on the parts of HAVA
that affected NVRA or voter registration in federal elections, namely, the computerization of state
voter lists; changes to the federal mail-based voter registration form; and transferring the FEC’s
role to a newly created Election Assistance Commission (EAC). HAVA has many additional
components, however, and more comprehensive information on it can be found in CRS Report

78 U.S. Federal Election Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration
of Elections for Federal Office 1995-1996, report to the 105th Congress, June 30, 1997, at https://www.fec.gov/about/
reports-about-fec/agency-operations/impact-national-voter-registration-act-1993-administration-federal-elections-html/,
pp. 1-5 (hereinafter, 1995-1996 NVRA Report). The 1995-1996 report is cited here, instead of the preliminary 1993-
1994 report, because it provides a more comprehensive account of NVRA’s early implementation. The 1993-1994
report was released only six months after the earliest effective date for state NVRA implementation, and only 37 states
and the District of Columbia participated in the survey.
79 See, for example, voter registration data reported in 1995-1996 NVRA Report, p. 11.
80 Benjamin Highton and Raymond E. Wolfinger, “Estimating the Effects of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993,” Political Behavior, vol. 20, no. 2 (June 1998), pp. 79-104.
81 1993-1994 NVRA Report, p. 7.
82 1995-1996 NVRA Report, p. 2.
83 P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, October 29, 2002; 52 U.S.C. §§20901 et seq.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Federal Role in Voter Registration

R46949, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election
Administration Policy.
In the years preceding HAVA, the FEC’s biennial NVRA reports contained a number of
recommendations related to the voter registration and list maintenance requirements set forth by
NVRA. HAVA incorporated several of these recommendations, some as its own provisions and
others as amendments to NVRA. Notably, HAVA established requirements for states to utilize
computerized statewide voter registration lists,84 which the FEC had frequently suggested in its
NVRA reports. HAVA also provided funding to help states carry out this requirement and its other
objectives, many of which were related to modernizing voting equipment and generally
improving federal election administration across all the states.85
HAVA required four specific additions to the NVRA mail-based voter registration form: (1) a
question asking whether the registrant was a citizen, with corresponding answer check boxes; (2)
a question asking whether the registrant would be 18 years of age or older by the next election,
with corresponding answer check boxes; (3) a statement that if the registrant had answered “no”
to either of the preceding questions, that he or she was to stop filling out the form and not
register; and (4) a statement alerting the registrant to submit copies of appropriate documentation
with his or her application, if he or she is a first-time registrant, and the completed forms are
submitted through the mail, or else he or she may be required to provide such documentation
when voting for the first time.86
Prior to HAVA, the FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) carried out federal activities
related to election administration. HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission, an
independent, bipartisan agency, which absorbed the OEA’s responsibilities in addition to carrying
out other new requirements.87 The EAC’s responsibilities included carrying out 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.
Biennial Report Recommendations Since HAVA
Since the passage of HAVA in 2002, the biennial EAC reports have often contained further
recommendations related to voter registration and election administration. Many of these recent
recommendations pertain to modernizing data collection and improving data sharing practices
within and among states. The recommendations are typically broad-based and use generalized
language; they serve only as suggestions to the states, or possibly to Congress, since the EAC
lacks the authority to require states to take any action related to voter registration. Table 2
presents a summary of NVRA recommendations contained in the EAC reports since 2004.

84 52 U.S.C. §21083.
85 52 U.S.C. §20901.
86 Individuals who fall into this category and are unable to provide documentation when voting for the first time may
cast a provisional ballot. See 52 U.S.C. §21083(b)(2)(B).
87 52 U.S.C. §§20921 et seq. For more information on the EAC, see CRS Report R45770, The U.S. Election Assistance
Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 7 link to page 7 Federal Role in Voter Registration

Table 2. Summary of NVRA Recommendations from EAC Biennial Reports
EAC’s Recommendation
In Report Year(s)
Implement electronic transmission of state agency records to state election
2003-2004
officials
Check federal databases electronically for state voter list maintenance
2003-2004
“Continue to modernize” election systems
2006-2007; 2007-2008
Create statewide databases to track individual voter activity and voter registration
2003-2004; 2005-2006
history
Standardize data col ection practices across states for data used in the biennial
2005-2006
NVRA reports
Coordinate local election jurisdictions to provide voter registration data to the
2007-2008
states
Have states provide EAC with best practices on data collection
2007-2008
Use technology to alleviate workloads in election offices
2007-2008
Encourage state agencies to remind voters to update their registration
2007-2008
Make modernization a priority
2013-2014
Review advances in voter registration and list maintenance
2013-2014
Source: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act on the
Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 2003-2004, a report to the 109th Congress, June 30, 2005, pp. 13-15;
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act on the Administration of
Elections for Federal Office, 2005-2006, a report to the 110th Congress, June 30, 2007, pp. 13-14; U.S. Election
Assistance Commission, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act on the Administration of Elections for Federal
Office, 2007-2008, a report to the 111th Congress, June 30, 2009, pp. 8-9; U.S. Election Assistance Commission,
The 2014 EAC Election Administration and Voting Survey Comprehensive Report, a report to the 114th Congress, June
30, 2015, p. 24.
Notes: Recommendations in this table are paraphrased from EAC report language. No recommendations were
included in the EAC reports for 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2015-2016, 2017-2018, or 2019-2020. Reports for
recent years are available at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports, and reports for earlier
years are available at https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-voter-registration-act-studies/.
Voter Registration Sources Since NVRA
Table 1 (earlier in report) provides information on the sources of voter registration applications
for states covered by NVRA during 1995-1996, 2005-2006, and 2015-2016. These data include
new voter registration applications and applications requesting an update or modification for an
existing registered voter. Nationwide, DMV offices have remained the most common source
among those covered by NVRA for voter registration applications received by state election
officials; in 2020, 39.3% of applications came from DMVs.88 For many years, mail-based voter
registration was consistently the second-most common source for voter registration applications.89
Online voter registration, which is available in a number of states, has more recently become the

88 2020 EAVS Comprehensive Report, p. 121.
89 These findings are consistent across each biennial NVRA report through 2016, although only a selection of years is
presented in Table 1.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Role in Voter Registration

second-most common source of voter registration applications, representing 21.5% of
applications in 2016, 16.1% of applications in 2018, and 28.2% of applications in 2020.90
Legislative Proposals Regarding Voter Registration
Bills that address voter registration are routinely introduced in Congress. In the 117th Congress to
date, more than 60 bills have been introduced related to voter registration or other elements of
election administration covered by NVRA.91 Often, these bills seek to expand the ways in which
individuals can register to vote or to update the technologies states use to share and store voter
registration data. Some bills may be narrowly tailored to address a particular part of voter
registration, whereas other bills propose broader policies affecting a number of components of
election administration. Legislative proposals may or may not include funding to states for
implementing certain voter registration or election administration requirements.92 The sections
below categorize some of the common types of policy proposals related to NVRA and federal
voter registration. Given the variety and quantity of measures typically before Congress, this is
not meant to be a comprehensive discussion of all available voter registration policy options. For
additional discussion of related topics and policy options, see CRS Report R46406, Voter
Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress; and CRS Report R46943, Voter
Registration Records and List Maintenance for Federal Elections.
Automatic Voter Registration Legislation (“Opt-Out”)
Under NVRA, federal voter registration opportunities are made available at a number of state and
local government offices and are presented alongside state driver’s license applications.
Currently, an individual must indicate that he or she wishes to register to vote when applying for a
driver’s license, or complete a separate voter registration form at other agencies. Some have
proposed changing this to an “opt-out” system, where an individual is automatically registered to
vote when submitting a driver’s license application or other eligible agency form, rather than
being given the opportunity to opt in to register to vote through an additional selection. An option
for declining to register to vote could be presented on the form itself, or provided to the individual
at a later time through a notice mailed by election officials.
Automatic voter registration policies are currently in place in 22 states and the District of
Columbia.93 Proponents argue that automatic voter registration could increase the number of

90 2020 EAVS Comprehensive Report, p. 121. In 2012, the earliest year for which EAC data for online voter registration
are available, 5.3% of voter registration applications were submitted online; see 2016 EAVS Comprehensive Report, p.
7.
91 The discussion of recent legislation in this report only highlights provisions from these bills that would affect voter
registration or would affect a related component of election administration covered by NVRA. It does not provide a
comprehensive summary of each piece of legislation and may omit key provisions of these bills that address additional
elements of election administration that are beyond the scope of this report. Other election administration bills, like
those introducing voting by mail or providing election grants funding to states, might also have an indirect effect on an
element of voter registration policy; the effects of these bills may not be fully captured in the overview provided by this
report.
92 For more information on federal election funding available to states, see CRS Report R46646, Election
Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities; and CRS In Focus IF11961, Elections Grant
Programs: Authorizations and Appropriations.
93 Oregon became the first state to adopt automatic voter registration in 2015. The other states with automatic voter
registration processes are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
Congressional Research Service

14

Federal Role in Voter Registration

registered voters, particularly among demographic groups that are less likely to be registered, and
decrease registration costs.94 Others have raised concerns that the government should not require
citizens to register to vote, and that “opt-out” forms, if sent by mail, may not sufficiently ensure
that an individual who wishes not to register can decline registration. Similarly, automatic
registration may require more work for state election officials who must sort out eligible and
ineligible voter registration applicants.95 Several bills from recent Congresses have proposed
some form of automatic voter registration requirement, either at state DMVs or through other
agencies.96 Other bills would prohibit automatic voter registration.97
Same-Day Voter Registration
Several bills introduced in recent Congresses would require states to provide for same-day voter
registration, which would enable a qualified individual to register to vote and cast a ballot
simultaneously at a designated polling place.98 Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia
currently allow same-day voter registration on Election Day, and many of these states also allow
same-day registration during early voting periods.99 By combining these two steps, proponents
believe same-day voter registration simplifies the process for citizens and can increase
registration rates and turnout.100 The month before an election is often a peak time for political
campaigning, but unregistered individuals who are mobilized to participate during this period
may be unable to vote if the voter registration deadline has passed; in many jurisdictions, the
registration cut-off can be 30 days before Election Day.101 Others believe that preelection

Washington, and West Virginia. See Brennan Center for Justice, “History of AVR & Implementation Dates,” June 30,
2021, at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/history-avr-implementation-dates; and National
Conference of State Legislatures, “Automatic Voter Registration,” January 12, 2022, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/
elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx.
94 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/.
95 See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Automatic Voter Registration,” January 12, 2022, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx.
96 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 102 (Restoring
Faith in Elections Act), H.R. 237/S. 136 (Vote at Home Act of 2021), H.R. 2301 (Automatic Voter Registration Act),
H.R. 2358/S. 954 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), H.R. 5746 (Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act), and S. 2747
(Freedom to Vote Act). Also, H.R. 1308/S. 433 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2021) would provide automatic
voter registration for newly naturalized U.S. citizens through records from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
97 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 322/S. 459 (Save Democracy Act), and H.R. 5448 (Believe In
Delaware Election Nobility [BIDEN] Act).
98 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 65 (Same Day
Registration Act of 2021), H.R. 2358/S. 954 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), H.R. 5746 (Freedom to Vote: John R.
Lewis Act), and S. 2747 (Freedom to Vote Act).
99 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow
same-day voter registration on Election Day. North Carolina allows same-day voter registration during early voting
periods only. Additionally, Alaska allows for same-day voter registration for voting in presidential and vice-
presidential elections. See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Same Day Voter Registration,” September 20,
2021, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx.
100 Stephen Knack and James White, “Election-Day Registration and Turnout 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.
101 Rep. John Conyers, “Voter Suppression in America,” extension of remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 157, part
168 (November 4, 2011), p. E2016; Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, “Introducing Same Day Voter Registration Legislation,”
Congressional Research Service

15

Federal Role in Voter Registration

registration deadlines remain necessary for state election officials to sufficiently process
individuals’ applications.102 In some places with same-day registration, voters who register on
Election Day cast provisional ballots until their information can be verified, but this may create a
delay in determining election results.
Online (or Electronic) Voter Registration
A number of government forms and applications can be submitted on the internet, and some have
proposed a federal requirement for online (or electronic) voter registration applications.
Currently, 42 states and the District of Columbia allow for online voter registration.103 Several
bills introduced in recent Congresses have proposed requiring nationwide availability of online
voter registration for federal elections.104 Proponents believe that online voter registration could
increase registration rates, particularly among younger voters, and could serve as an extension of
existing accessibility accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Proponents note that
online forms can include required fields, which could reduce the number of errors on submitted
voter registration applications. Although there are some upfront costs to implement online
registration, proponents believe it may be a relatively inexpensive way for state election officials
to maintain up-to-date and accurate voter lists.105 Others, however, have concerns about the
ability to confirm applicants’ identities and the overall 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 illegally.106
Outreach or Preregistration for Teenagers
Under the Twenty-sixth Amendment, individuals must be 18 years old to vote in federal elections,
but some proposals related to voter registration seek to reach younger teenagers, usually 16 or 17
years old. Several bills introduced in the 117th Congress, for example, would require a
preregistration program under certain circumstances, in which state election officials would
accept voter registration applications from individuals who are 16 or 17 and process the

extension of remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 8 (February 1, 2005), p. E114.
102 Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, “Introducing the Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act of 2003,” extension of
remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 51 (February 1, 2005), p. E621.
103 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, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are the states that allow
online voter registration. Oklahoma and Maine have enacted legislation, but have not yet implemented online
registration. See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Online Voter Registration,” July 26, 2021, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx.
104 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 2358/S. 954
(Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), H.R. 5746 (Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act), and S. 2747 (Freedom to Vote
Act).
105 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; Iseul Choi,
Josef Dvorak, Steven Kulig, et al., Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing an Online Voter Registration System in
Wisconsin, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, December 20, 2013, at http://elections.wi.gov/publications/
other/CBA_projects.
106 Latanya Sweeney, Ji Su Yoo, and Jinyan Zang, “Voter Identity Theft: 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

16

Federal Role in Voter Registration

applications for the first election in which these individuals reach the voting-eligible age.107
Proposals have also been introduced in the 117th Congress that would address voter education or
voter registration and participation outreach programs in high schools or institutions of higher
education.108
Currently, each state that requires voter registration and the District of Columbia let individuals
under 18 preregister to vote, using a variety of age criteria.109 Proponents consider these measures
a means to help improve the turnout rate for younger voters, which is typically lower than for
older voters.110 By encouraging 18-year-olds to vote in the first election in which they are
eligible, some believe that there will be longer-term effects of these policies on voter turnout, as
voting becomes a lifelong habit for these individuals.111 Others, however, are concerned that
preregistered individuals are likely to move between the time of their application and the first
election they are qualified to vote in, which could render a number of the preregistrations invalid.
This could cause some young voters who have moved to mistakenly believe they are eligible to
vote in their new jurisdiction without updating their registration information, or create extra costs
for state election officials as they seek to update these individuals’ records and maintain accurate
voter lists.112
Protecting Voter Information and Voter List Integrity
Verification of voter registration data is a continual challenge for state election officials seeking to
maintain accurate, up-to-date records on voters’ eligibility.113 An initial check on a prospective
voter occurs when election officials confirm the identity and eligibility of an individual at the
time he or she first submits a voter registration application, based on criteria set by state and
federal law. These measures may require that individuals provide certain information to state

107 Examples include H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 102 (Restoring Faith in Elections Act),
H.R. 576 (Next Generation Votes Act), H.R. 635 (Pre-Registration Of Voters Everywhere [PROVE] Act), H.R. 1308/S.
433 (New Deal for New Americans Act of 2021), H.R. 2358/S. 954 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), H.R. 5746
(Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act), and S. 2747 (Freedom to Vote Act).
108 Examples include H.R. 126 (Students Voicing Opinions in Today’s Elections [VOTE] Act), H.R. 635 (Pre-
Registration of Voters Everywhere [PROVE] Act), H.R. 2232/S. 992 (Help Students Vote Act), and H.R. 6293 (High
School Voter Empowerment Act of 2021).
109 California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington allow 16-year-olds to preregister. Maine,
New Jersey, Nevada, and West Virginia allow 17-year-olds to preregister; Georgia, Iowa, and Missouri allow
individuals who are 17 years and 6 months old to preregister; Alaska allows individuals who are within 90 days of their
18th birthdays to preregister; and Texas allows individuals who are 17 years and 10 months old to preregister. Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming typically allow individuals to preregister if they will turn 18 by the next
general election. See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Preregistration for Young Voters,” June 28, 2021, at
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx.
110 Michael P. McDonald and Matthew Thornburg, “Registering the Youth Through Voter Preregistration,” Legislation
and Public Policy, vol. 13, no. 3 (2010), pp. 551-572.
111 Alan S. Gerber, Donald P. Green, and Ron Shachar, “Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized
Field Experiment,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 3 (July 2003), pp. 540-550; Richard A. Brody
and Paul M. Sniderman, “From Life Space to Polling Place,” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 7, no. 1 (July
1977), pp. 347-349.
112 See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Preregistration for Young Voters,” June 28, 2021, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx.
113 For further discussion, see CRS Report R46943, Voter Registration Records and List Maintenance for Federal
Elections.
Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Role in Voter Registration

election officials,114 or involve certain steps taken by state election officials when processing
voter registration applications. Individuals may also need to show a form of identification to
confirm their identity and eligibility when voting under certain circumstances or in particular
states.115
After an individual’s initial application, there are a number of reasons why his or her voter
registration information may subsequently change. These reasons may include a name change,
moving to a new address, a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death. NVRA sets out some
processes states must follow for performing voter list maintenance, and a number of
congressional proposals would further address these sorts of requirements found in NVRA and
HAVA.116 In the years since NVRA’s passage, technological advancements have made it possible
for agencies and officials to share and cross-reference records, which can help improve list
accuracy but has also raised some concerns about protecting voters’ personal information. Some
recent legislative proposals, for example, would require certain information sharing between
certain government offices and state election officials.117 Some measures would provide privacy
protections for certain voters,118 or promote the development of privacy and security standards for
voter registration records.119 Personally identifiable information, such as full names, addresses,
and birthdays, is commonly stored in state voter registration databases, and in related state or
federal databases that election officials use to help update their voter registration records within
the state. Interstate information sharing systems, such as the Electronic Registration Information
Center (ERIC) or the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck), are used by
some states to compare voter registration records with one another. These systems, proponents
argue, can help states identify ineligible voters or individuals who are registered in more than one
state.120

114 Some proposals from the 117th Congress, for example, would prohibit states from registering an individual to vote in
federal elections unless the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship; examples include H.R. 322/S.
459 (Save Democracy Act), and H.R. 873 (Ensuring American Voters Act of 2021).
115 See CRS Report R42806, State Voter Identification Requirements: Analysis, Legal Issues, and Policy
Considerations; and National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter ID Laws,” January 7, 2022, at
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx.
116 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1529 (Verification and Oversight for Transparent Elections,
Registration, and Identifications [VOTER ID] Act), H.R. 2343 (Protecting American Voters Act), and H.R. 5037 (Safe
and Certain Elections Act). Other measures would provide funding for states’ list maintenance efforts, such as H.R.
1662 (Updating Postal Data on Addresses for Trustworthy Elections [UPDATE] Act), and H.R. 2844 (Election
Protection Act of 2021).
117 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 322/S. 459 (Save Democracy Act), and H.R. 2343 (Protecting
American Voters Act). Other proposals might require information sharing as part of the requirements associated with
implementing automatic voter registration.
118 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), and H.R. 2358 (Voter
Empowerment Act of 2021).
119 Examples from the 117th Congress include H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 102 (Restoring
Faith in Elections Act), H.R. 2358/S. 954 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), and H.R. 5746 (Freedom to Vote: John
R. Lewis Act), and S. 2747 (Freedom to Vote Act).
120 Research by the Pew Center on the States in 2012 revealed that approximately 24 million voter registrations in the
United States may be invalid or significantly inaccurate and that approximately 2.75 million individuals are registered
in more than one state. Registration in multiple states is not 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. Use of multiple registrations to
vote in multiple jurisdictions during the same federal election would be illegal. See Pew 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.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 16 Federal Role in Voter Registration

These data-sharing practices, however, raise concerns among some about information security
and appropriate use of voters’ data,121 particularly if states choose to use matching systems as the
basis for their voter removal processes. Some of the cross-referencing systems states use 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.122
ERIC and Crosscheck, however, both request additional data from voter registration files that, if
available, states could utilize to better ensure that duplicate registrants are accurately identified.
Technology Improvements
The enactment of HAVA in 2002 led to a number of election technology upgrades for states, but
in many of its subsequent reports, the EAC has continued to recommend that states further
modernize and improve the ways in which they collect voter data and maintain their registered
voter lists, as summarized in Table 2. States increasingly use electronic methods to register
voters, maintain voter lists, administer voting, and track election results, making cybersecurity an
important consideration for election officials. Some considerations involve protecting the
personal information of applicants and registered voters from those who seek to use it for other
purposes. Additional considerations involve ensuring system reliability during periods of high
usage, or near critical statutory deadlines for voter registration or Election Day vote counting.
These are familiar cybersecurity concerns, similar to those faced by any government agencies,
businesses, or other organizations that store individuals’ personal data. Other considerations,
however, are more specific to election integrity, such as the concern that voter databases or other
election systems may be targeted in attempts to manipulate election results.123
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designated federal election infrastructure as a
component of U.S. critical infrastructure in January 2017, following a series of cyberattacks on
state and local election systems prior to the 2016 election. After evidence of these cyberattacks
was discovered in August 2016, DHS and the EAC provided some assistance to state election
officials to address security concerns.124 The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)
found that in at least seven states, Russian actors targeted voter registration systems for access,
and, in two of those states, voter registration databases were inappropriately accessed.125 In
November 2021, the U.S. Justice Department indicted two Iranian nationals for attempting to

121 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/; Alex Howard,
“Publishing Voter Registration Data Must Balance Privacy with Transparency,” Sunlight Foundation, June 16, 2017.
Information on state laws regarding voter list availability and uses is available from United States Election Project,
Voter List Information, at http://voterlist.electproject.org/.
122 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
30, 2017, available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/morse/publications/one-person-one-vote-estimating-prevalence-
double-voting-us-presidential-elections.
123 For an overview of some of these concerns, see R. Michael Alvarez, “How Secure Are State Voter Registration
Databases?” Election Updates, blog, California Institute of Technology, October 12, 2016, at
https://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2016/10/12/how-secure-are-state-voter-registration-databases/.
124 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure.
125 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in
the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 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.
Congressional Research Service

19

Federal Role in Voter Registration

compromise state voter registration or voter information websites in 11 states ahead of the 2020
election, as well as successfully downloading information for over 100,000 voters in one state.126
Several bills during recent Congresses included measures related to technology or cybersecurity
upgrades for the software or equipment used by state election officials.127 For voter registration,
these upgrades could involve the websites used for online applications, the databases and/or
servers used to store voter list data, and the means by which voter applicant data are shared
between agencies or jurisdictions. Establishing best practices or required standards for equipment
and data systems used in federal elections are possible ways to initiate technology
improvements.128 The decentralized nature of election administration and the variety of software
and database systems in use may present challenges if uniform federal requirements are
introduced.129 Some proposals have included grant programs or other funding to help offset costs
to states for implementing these upgrades.130
Concluding Observations
Voter registration has remained a subject of interest to Congress in the years since the enactment
of NVRA. Many proposals addressing federal voter registration have been introduced in
Congress, but federal policies have remained largely unchanged, with the notable exception of
revisions made by HAVA in 2002. Many individuals believe that providing widespread access to
voter registration opportunities is a worthy objective and in keeping with protecting the
constitutional right to vote. In addition to providing voters with access to registration, state
election officials face the continuing challenges of updating and maintaining accurate voter
registration lists. Technological advancements in the years since NVRA have made it somewhat
easier for election officials to keep up-to-date voter records, but the increased reliance on
computer systems has also introduced new challenges regarding data security.
Some individuals may also question whether it is necessary to expand existing federal voter
registration requirements for states, believing that existing provisions are sufficient, or that the
perceived benefits of voter registration policy changes must be weighed against other
considerations. It can be challenging, for example, to impose uniform regulations across states,
which have each developed their own system of election laws. Many federal policy proposals

126 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, U.S. Department of Justice, “U.S. Attorney Announces
Charges Against Two Iranian Nationals For Cyber-Enabled Disinformation And Threat Campaign Designed To
Interfere With The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election,” press release, November 18, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/usao-
sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-charges-against-two-iranian-nationals-cyber-enabled. A link to the full text of the
indictment is available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1449276/download.
127 For further discussion, see CRS Report R46146, Campaign and Election Security Policy: Overview and Recent
Developments for Congress; “Voter Data Privacy, Transparency, and Security” in CRS Report R46943, Voter
Registration Records and List Maintenance for Federal Elections; and CRS In Focus IF11285, Election Security: Voter
Registration System Policy Issues.
128 For example, some legislative proposals in the 117th 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 voter registration database access policies and security safeguards;
examples include H.R. 1/S. 2093 (For the People Act of 2021), H.R. 2358 (Voter Empowerment Act of 2021), H.R.
5746 (Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act), and S. 2747 (Freedom to Vote Act).
129 Pam Fessler, “State and Local Officials Wary of Federal Government’s Election Security Efforts,” Morning Edition,
NPR, April 5, 2017, NPR, at http://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/522732036/state-and-local-officials-wary-of-federal-
governments-election-security-efforts.
130 For further discussion of recent election grants, see CRS In Focus IF11961, Elections Grant Programs:
Authorizations and Appropriations; and CRS In Focus IF11356, Election Security: States’ Spending of FY2018 and
FY2020 HAVA Payments.
Congressional Research Service

20

Federal Role in Voter Registration

regarding voter registration tend to mirror initiatives that have already been enacted across
several states, which may provide lessons for broader implementation, if enacted. Other proposals
may prioritize measures to protect election integrity or other areas of election administration,
outside of voter registration.

Author Information

Sarah J. Eckman

Analyst in American National Government

Acknowledgments
Tyler Wolanin, research assistant with the Government and Finance Division, contributed to the legislative
research for this report. Raymond T. Williams assisted with a previous version of this report.

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 not 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
R45030 · VERSION 9 · UPDATED
21