Automatic Voter
Registration
Finding America’s Missing Votersliz kennedy, lew daly, & brenda wrightAbout Demos
Demos is a public policy organization working for an America where we all
have an equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy.
Our name means “the people.” It is the root word of democracy, and it
reminds us that in America, the true source of our greatness is the diversity ofour people. Our nation’s highest challenge is to create a democracy that truly
empowers people of all backgrounds, so that we all have a say in setting thepolicies that shape opportunity and provide for our common future. To help
America meet that challenge, Demos is working to reduce both political andeconomic inequality, deploying original research, advocacy, litigation, andstrategic communications to create the America the people deserve.

demos.org
220 Fifth Avenue, 2nd Fl.
New York, NY 10001

Media Contact
donte donald
Associate Director of Communications
ddonald@demos.org | 212.485.6062

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Foreword											1Executive Summary									4I. Introduction										6II. Self-Registration is an Unnecessary Hurdle to Voter Participation			9
III. Potential Impact of Automatic Voter Registration					11Closing Registration Inequalities & Narrowing Voting Gap				111. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens by Race & Ethnicity		 132. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens by Age				133. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens by Income				14Margins of Victory, Missing Voters, & Projected Potential Voters				15IV. How Automatic Voter Registration Helps Overcome Barriers to Participation 17
1. Reducing Administrative Burdens							182. Increasing Voter Education & Mobilization						19V. Automatic Voter Registration Policy Design & Key Considerations			
21
The Automatic Voter Registration Process							21Important Policy Design Considerations							231. Choosing Source Agencies								232. Confirming Eligibility & Providing Safe Harbors					203. Option to Decline Voter Registration							214. NVRA Compliance									225. Protections for Privacy & Use of Data							226. Language Access & Disability Access							237. Public Education & Mobilization							24VI. Getting to Universal Voter Registration: Other Voter Registration Building
Blocks and Complementary Policies							311. Automated Registration								312. Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)					333. Online Voter Registration								354. Restoring Voting Rights & Ending De Facto Disenfranchisement			 375. Expanding & Enforcing the National Voter Registration Act				386. Pre-Registration of 16- & 17-year-olds							407. Portable Voter Registration								408. Same-Day Registration									41VII. Current Landscape of AVR Building Blocks & Legislation				43VIII. Conclusion										46FOREWORD

What if America truly had the world’s greatest democracy?
Demos means “the people” of a nation, and it is the root word of
democracy. Yet the diverse members of our extraordinary American
Demos have never enjoyed equal access to the rights and freedomsof democracy. It has taken movements of people over generations
to expand the promise of full citizenship to all Americans, fromthe Reconstruction Amendments, through women’s suffrage, theVoting Rights Act, the 26th Amendment, and beyond. In many
ways, America’s history has been a march towards greater politicalequality.
Today, that struggle continues, through a new wave of laws
designed to make it harder for eligible citizens to exercise theirconstitutionally-protected voting rights. But even in states where
politicians are not actively working to distort their electorate, ourcurrent system of voter registration creates barriers to voting thatserve no significant purpose for democracy while excluding tens of
millions of potential voters from the political process.
It is essential to remember that voter registration systems—
where citizens are required to navigate bureaucratic and procedural
hurdles in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote—were
first implemented in the late nineteenth century as a racist voter
suppression tactic, in response to the 15th Amendment’s endowmentof formerly enslaved Americans with the right to vote.
As so often happens in our interconnected society, measuresintended to exclude one group end up disadvantaging millions anddistorting our society as a whole. Today, our barrier-laden voter
registration system is a major contributor to our unequal democracy,
where at least 51 million eligible voters—1 in 4 potential voters—are
not registered to vote.
Fortunately, there is a solution. Starting with the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 and continuing through the lesser-known National
Voter Registration Act, federal policy has enabled significant
progress in fostering a more inclusive electorate. In the following
report, Demos lays out a detailed policy blueprint for the next,
overdue reform in our democracy: universal registration throughan automatic registration system, where the government registers
eligible citizens to vote after confirming their eligibility based on
1 • demos.org

information it is already receiving.
The reform is overdue because the consequences of our unequal
democracy are urgent not just for public administration, but for thenation’s economic well-being. Higher-income Americans vote atnearly double the rate of the lowest-income Americans. According
to a recent Demos report by Sean McElwee, Why the Voting Gap
Matters, people who do not vote, most of whom are not registered,have economic policy preferences that would improve the economy
for most families, but these preferences are largely ignored by ourelected leaders. At a time when our economy is underperformingon the most crucial measures—failing to deliver enough familysupporting jobs and concentrating wealth to a degree that stifles
competition and broad prosperity—it is dangerous to exclude thepolicy preferences of those for whom the failures are most acute.
The idea of Automatic Voter Registration has taken hold, but inorder for it to address existing registration disparities, the design ofthe policy is essential. For the better part of a decade, Demos’ legal
strategists have been working with over a dozen state governments
to optimize enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act
in the places where lower-income citizens are more likely tointeract with the government: public assistance agencies and healthinsurance exchanges (and not just Departments of Motor Vehicles).
Demos’ policy blueprint for Automatic Voter Registration builds on
our and our partners’ experience of state NVRA implementation.
The potential is huge: if every state followed the lead of Oregon,
which has established the first automatic voter registration system inthe country, Demos calculates that approximately 27 million people
would immediately gain access to elections.
On the eve of becoming a fully multi-racial democracy, a newplural “Demos” with richly diverse cultural ideas and largely
progressive policy views—we need to re-commit ourselves to theidea of a fully inclusive democracy, where every person has anequal voice in the decisions that affect our lives. Automatic voter
registration can be a big leap forward toward this goal, in a pivotal
moment for our democracy and our economy.

Heather McGhee, President, Demos2015 • 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Casting a ballot that will be counted is how Americans, regardlessof privilege or status, have the power to engage in self-governmentand hold elected representatives accountable for their actions
or inactions. Participating in elections is a fundamental right ofcitizenship, a necessary element of what it means to be a free, selfgoverning people. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said:
The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of thehighest mandates of our democratic traditions and it isdemocracy turned upside down. So long as I do not firmly
and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess
myself. I cannot make up my mind—it is made up for me. I
cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I havehelped to enact—I can only submit to the edict of others.1
Elections are a public good and serve critical purposes: they are
how we choose our representatives, set the course for our public
policy and give voice to our views about the issues that impact
our lives, families, and communities. But elections cannot serve
these purposes well if we do not all participate, and we have a voter
participation problem in this country. In 2012, 66 million voterschose President Obama, 61 million voted for Governor Romney, and82 million eligible people did not vote at all.2 Further, the low overallvoting rate is compounded by significant voter turnout gaps among
different demographic groups. In particular, we see significantly lessparticipation by lower-income people, people of color, and young
people compared to higher rates of participation by older and more
affluent white voters.
Low voter turnout and the turnout gaps between different
demographic groups are driven by a number of factors, but thecritical first step toward full and inclusive voting is ensuring muchhigher rates of voter registration and, ultimately, a voting system
where every eligible citizen is registered to vote. Of course, manyother factors of engagement and mobilization must also come into
play, but registration is the necessary step for enabling all of our
missing potential voters to exercise their right to vote and havetheir voices heard in our elections. Registration is thus the criticalstructural problem that we need to fix if our goal is to achieve an
3 • demos.org

election system that is fully participatory on the core democratic
principle of “one person, one vote.” Without this step, tens of
millions of potential voters will continue to be excluded from theelectoral arena, and they will remain essentially invisible in our
democracy. Once these millions of potential “missing voters” areregistered, they matter politically, their voices can be heard, and,potentially, much more robust and inclusive voter turnout could
result. As the current numbers suggest, the potential for increasing
participation by increasing registration is huge:• The rate of voter turnout among all eligible citizens was only
64 percent in 2008, and 62 percent in 2012;3 but• The rate of voter turnout of people registered to vote was 90
percent in 2008, and 87 percent in 2012.4

When someone is registered to vote, the data shows, s/he is much
more likely to actually vote. Moreover, the differences in turnout
between demographic groups shrink dramatically among registeredvoters; as we demonstrate below, being registered correlates withgreater rates of participation among peopleof color, young people, and people earning
low incomes. Solving these problems of low
We project anturnout and unequal turnout, it is clear, has to
immediate impact
start with the problem of low voter registrationof approximately
rates.
Our current voter registration system,
27 million eligible
which is designed as a voter-initiated or
persons added to“self-registration” system, creates barriers toregistration that do not serve any significant
voter rolls across the
purpose in a democracy. Demos believes thatcountry if every state
full participation in elections significantly
depends on achieving universal voter
adopted automatic
registration through an automatic registration
voter registration.”
system. Automatic Voter Registration (AVR)
builds on the National Voter Registration Act
of 1993 (NVRA)5 and other voter registration reforms to improve
the overall effectiveness of the voter registration system. Automatic
Voter Registration uses information already on file with a variety of
government agencies to identify persons who are eligible to vote andadd them to the voter rolls, or update their voter information, in apaperless process. With comprehensive and inclusive AVR, states
have the opportunity to take a major leap forward in voting rights by“

2015 • 4

building the modern, equitable registration system that we need anddeserve.
In the following report, we make a detailed case for AVR as a
critical step forward for democratic participation in the UnitedStates. First, we take an objective look at the tens of millions of“missing voters”—the eligible citizens who are left outside of thepolitical process by our current registration procedures. Second,
we explain how AVR can increase political participation bylowering procedural barriers, reducing administrative errors, andincreasing the reach of voter education and mobilization efforts.
We project an immediate impact of approximately 27 million
eligible persons added to voter rolls across the country if every
state adopted automatic voter registration.6 Third, to help achieve
this goal, we lay out the optimal AVR policy design with a step-bystep explanation of the automatic registration process and provide
guidance about important considerations that need to be addressed.
These include: ensuring that ineligible people are not registered
to vote and are protected from legal consequences of inadvertent
registration; providing an option to decline registration; building inprivacy protections and data protections; and ensuring continued
compliance with the National Voter Registration Act.
Finally, we look at how AVR can be aligned and coordinated withother voter registration policies, such as online registration, preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds, and Same-Day (or ElectionDay) Registration. We explain how each of these other advancesin election administration can help prepare a state for automatic
voter registration and can work alongside automatic registration toachieve universal registration of all eligible American citizens. We
conclude with a 50-state matrix indicating where these “building
blocks” for AVR already exist, which can help advocates map thefuture of AVR on a state-by-state basis.

5 • demos.org

I. INTRODUCTION

America was built on the promise of equal political representationin order to secure a government that is “of the people, by the people,
and for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln famously described it. But
this promise cannot be fulfilled unless everyone who is eligible tovote participates in the elections that determine who represents us
in government and, in turn, the public policies that affect our lives.
Unfortunately, this is not currently the case. The promise of ourcountry as a self-governing republic remains unrealized because wehave not succeeded in achieving universal political participation andin many respects we have seen the opposite—systematic politicalexclusion.
Historically, even as Black Americans, women, and otherpreviously excluded groups gained the right to vote constitutionally,
unequal access to the ballot box was perpetuated through state andlocal election laws and election administration, and particularly
through the design and implementation of voter registration systems
in the states. As voting rights historian Alexander Keyssar tells us,
voter registration laws “served—and often were intended to serve—
as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant,
and poor voters from the polls.”7 While many of the most openly
discriminatory voter registration policies and practices were
eventually banned under federal law, today we continue to struggle
with low voter turnout rates and inequalities of turnout that reflect
continuing, serious problems in our voter registration systems.
Undoubtedly, we have made some progress with voter registrationin recent decades. The Voting Rights Act of 19658 (VRA) took
the first crucial steps of prohibiting unequal application of voter
registration laws on the basis of race and providing for federal
oversight of voter registration where needed.9 Later amendments
to the VRA expanded protections against racially discriminatory
registration and voting policies and added protections for membersof language minority groups. More recent reforms have focusedon government’s positive responsibility to help people register tovote and to make voting easier. The National Voter Registration Act(NVRA) provided eligible voters with opportunities to register by
mail and through state offices and agencies, and it also regulates
state policies and practices around removing voters’ records fromthe rolls. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 required states to2015 • 6

“provide provisional ballots toeligible voters who were noton the registration rolls and to
America has tens
create centralized, computerizedof millions ofstatewide registration databases toconsolidate the patchworks of local“missing voters”—
voter registration lists.
eligible persons still
Despite this progress, America
has tens of millions of “missing
not on the voter
voters”—eligible persons still notregistration rolls.”
on the voter registration rolls. In
2012, 1 out of 4 eligible citizens,
or approximately 51 million people, were not registered to vote,according to the Pew Research Center.10 At the same time, we
also still see significant inequalities in registration across different
demographic groups, with substantially less participation of lowerincome people, young people, and people of color compared to more
affluent older white voters. Such inequalities effectively distort thevoting electorate, making it unrepresentative of the diversity of ourcountry. For example, in 2014, looking across race and income lines
in U.S. Census data:• White people in families making more than $75,000

constitute slightly more than a quarter of the U.S.
population (27 percent), but they make up more than athird of voters (35 percent).
• Non-white people in families making less than $50,000
make up 16 percent of the U.S. population, but only 11
percent of voters.
In the last two presidential elections, a seemingly more positive
story emerged on the registration divide between Black andwhite citizens. At the national level, Black and white registrationand voting were about equal in 2012, and in 2014 there was acomparatively small gap. However, there continue to be doubledigit registration disparities at the state level. For example, in 2014,
more than 70 percent of eligible white citizens in Massachusetts
were registered to vote compared to only 45 percent of eligible Black
citizens. In Washington state, the gap is 72 percent compared to just
47 percent. Other states, including California, Illinois, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had Black-white registration gaps
7 • demos.org

“in 2014 that were larger than the national
Black-white voting gap of approximately 4.7
percentage points.11
With AVR, when a
Moreover, the progress attained throughstate agency obtains
great struggle in recent decades is underinformation that
serious attack by the Supreme Court andmany states. Eight months after Barack
demonstrates an
Obama’s re-election in 2012, which brought
individual’s eligibility to
the highest turnout of Black voters onrecord, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling invote, s/he is added to the
Shelby County v. Holder12 struck down
voter rolls unless s/he
the Voting Rights Act’s (VRA) formulafor determining which states must submit
affirmatively declines totheir election law changes for federal
be registered to vote.”“preclearance” (meaning advance federal
review). Essentially, federal power toprevent states from implementing discriminatory registration and voting
policies has been gutted. In Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, and manyother states, this has led to what journalist Ari Berman describes as “themost sustained attack [on voting rights] since the passage of the VRA.”
Policymakers in these states are working to limit or repeal policies thatencourage and enable participation, such as Early Voting and Same-Day
Registration (SDR), while also erecting new policies that unnecessarily
limit participation, such as strict photo ID laws.13 As we move toward
the presidential election in 2016 and the next round of Census-based
redistricting in 2020 without core protections of the Voting Rights Act, it is
crucial that we continue the work of reforming and improving registration
systems—both to protect the progress we have made and to enable further
progress toward robust and fully inclusive participation in elections.
Implementing Automatic Voter Registration in the states is a vitaladvance to address these concerns, and an important step forward toachieve a more inclusive democracy. With AVR, when a state agency
obtains information that demonstrates an individual’s eligibility to vote,s/he is added to the voter rolls unless s/he affirmatively declines to beregistered to vote. This crucial, achievable reform can help maximize
political participation by making election administration more efficient,seamless, and up-to-date. State governments have a responsibility to runelections, and should modernize voter registration systems to improvethe voter’s experience and put people at the center of our politics. AVR isa big step forward in this direction, and it is the right step forward for a
democracy that has articulated but not yet fulfilled the promise of equal
political representation.
2015 • 8

I I . S E L F -R E G I S T R AT I O N I S A N U N N E C E S S A R Y
H U R D L E T O V O T E R PA R T I C I PAT I O N

Our current voter-initiated registration system creates
unnecessary hurdles and red tape on the way to the voting booth,particularly in the form of registration deadlines, uncertainty about
where or how to register, and, for many eligible persons, language
barriers. These procedural hurdles deter or prevent millions ofeligible Americans from registering to vote. In 2014:• 4.1 million Americans who tried to register to vote wereprevented from registering by registration deadlines.
• Another 1.9 million could not add themselves to the voter
rolls because they did not know where or how to register.
• Language barriers prevented almost 735,000 Americans
from registering. 14
In one snapshot of people who were prevented from registering tovote by procedural hurdles, researchers using a novel Google searchdata-based methodology estimated that 3 to 4 million Americans
would have registered to vote if they had not missed their states’
registration deadlines.15 Put another way, 3 to 4 million Americans
were looking for a way to register to vote in the final days or weeks
before the election; given the timing, the odds are that many ofthese Americans were planning to put newly-minted registrations
to immediate use. Registering voters through AVR would have
immediately positioned these voters to turn out to vote and allowed
them to freely cast their ballots on Election Day.
The specific hurdles that are partly illuminated in the data above,
however, speak to a simpler yet deeper point that underscores why
AVR is needed. Simply put, registration is the only thing that allotherwise eligible voters are required to do before they vote. Thus,
registration is the critical step forward, the one thing that we mustnecessarily improve if we want more people to vote, even if manyother factors ultimately determine whether people vote. Without
this step, tens of millions of potential voters will remain essentiallyinvisible in our democracy, with no avenue for participation inelections. But, once these millions of missing potential voters areregistered, they matter politically and their voices can be heard.
Potentially, our voting electorate could become much more fully
9 • demos.org

reflective of the growing diversity of our country.
The design of our current system of barrier-laden, voterinitiated registration has failed us in our collective responsibility
for enabling political participation and inclusion, without serving
any significant purpose for our democracy. In contrast, by enablinga potentially very large share of our country’s alarmingly vast
population of unregistered citizens to be registered and, therefore,
able to participate in elections, Automatic Voter Registration, if
widely implemented, can help us meet this necessary, and universal,
responsibility.
Further, if we care about voting as a means to equal politicalrepresentation we should be especially concerned that our current
registration system is characterized by generally low registration
rates coupled with unequal and in some cases dramatically unequal
registration rates across different demographic groups.
In this light, AVR is not simply a pathway for higher overallregistration; it is also a pathway for more inclusive participationin our elections, in accord with our values of equality and with thegrowing diversity of our country.

2015 • 10

I I I . P O T E N T I A L I M PA C T O F A U T O M AT I C
V O T E R R E G I S T R AT I O N

Closing Registration Inequalities & Narrowing Voting Gaps
While overall participation among citizens of voting age isdismally low in our country, the burdens of our current system fall
most heavily on young people, people with low incomes, and peopleof color:• 41 percent of eligible Latino citizens aren’t registered to vote.
• 44 percent of eligible Asian American citizens aren’t

registered to vote.
• 46 percent of eligible young adult (18-24-year-olds) citizens
aren’t registered to vote.
• 37 percent of eligible people with low incomes (under$30,000) aren’t registered to vote.16“

Voter turnout rates likewise varysignificantly across different demographic
groups. But, importantly, voter turnout gaps
With Automatic Voter
are much smaller for registered members ofRegistration 27 million
these groups compared to the groups as awhole. As we noted in the previous section,of America's "Missing
registration is a necessary, but not a sufficient,
Voters" would be
condition of voting; many other factors areimportant for getting people to the polls on
registered to vote.”
Election Day. Nevertheless, the recent data
we have on registration and voting gaps fordifferent demographic groups are both revealing of what is at stake
if we continue with the status quo, and also suggestive of what thepotential could be if we create a more inclusive voter registration
system.
Importantly, the state of Oregon has adopted and is in the processof implementing a truly automatic system of voter registration
through its Department of Motor Vehicles, the first of its kind in
the United States.17 If every state were to adopt a truly automatic
voter registration system and incorporated a “look back” period foradding updated records similar to Oregon’s, we project that, upon
implementation, approximately 27 million previously “missing
voters” would be registered to vote and newly enabled to participate
11 • demos.org

in elections.18 This would be a transformative achievement inbringing America’s missing potential voters—tens of millions ofeligible citizens who aren’t on the voting rolls—into the political lifeof our country.
1. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens
by Race & Ethnicity
In 2012, as noted above, there were hard-won yet still tenuous
gains in Black voter turnout;19 but at the same time, only 48 percent
of Latinos and 47 percent of Asian Americans turned out to vote—far below overall turnout of other groups. In the 2014 mid-term
elections, Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans all voted at lower
rates than whites did. Forty-six percent of whites voted, compared toonly 41 percent of Blacks and 27 percent of both Asian Americans
and Latinos.20
But looking at the turnout gaps between the registered membersof these groups in 2012 and 2014 tells a different story. As we seein Figure 1, among registered members of these groups, voter
turnout is generally much higher and turnout inequalities shrink
Figure 1. Turnout by Registration Status, by Race, 2012 and 2014
Asian

Latino

White

Black

100%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Raw Turnout,
2012

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2012

Raw Turnout,
2014

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2014

Source: Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015; Demos2015 • 12

dramatically for Latinos and Asian Americans, particularly in thepresidential election year. While registration is only one key part ofthis story, these data are suggestive of the potential impact of robust
registration reforms such as AVR on voter turnout and the racial
inclusivity of voting.
2. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens by Age
There are significant voting gaps across different age groups,
and registration gaps play a big role in excluding young people, inparticular, from participating in our elections. As Figure 2 shows,
In 2012 the gap in turnout rates between all eligible 18-24 year-olds
and all eligible people over 65 was 31 percentage points. But amongpeople who were registered to vote, the voting gap between theyoungest and oldest voters was only 14 points. While the voting gap
didn’t close as much in the low-turnout 2014 midterms, for younger
people, registration was associated with a much bigger boost in
voting than was the case with older people. In 2014, only 17 percent
of eligible 18-24-year-olds voted, while 41 percent of registered18-24-year-olds voted; in other words, registration was associatedwith a more than twofold boost in the voting rate of young people.
This comports with a recent study of 18-29-year-old non-voters, inwhich 55 percent of Black youth, 45 percent of Latino youth, and61 percent of white youth said they didn’t vote because they were“not registered to vote,” by far the most frequently cited reason.21
Figure 2. Turnout by Registration Status, by Age, 2012 and 2014
18-24

25-44

45-64

65+

100%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Raw Turnout,
2012

Source: Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015; Demos

13 • demos.org

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2012

Raw Turnout,
2014

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2014

For those over 65, the voting rate boost was smaller: 59 percentof the eligible population voted, and 79 percent of the registeredpopulation voted.
3. Voting Gaps between Eligible & Registered Citizens by Income
Finally, voting gaps between people making high and low
incomes also shrink dramatically if we account for registration
rates. In 2012, only 51 percent of all eligible citizens earning lessthan $30,000 voted, compared to 74 percent of those making morethan $100,000—a 23 percentage point voting gap (see Figure 3).
Registered low-income voters, however, voted at a rate of 81 percent,compared to 91 percent of registered high-income voters, reducing
the 23 point turnout gap to only 10 percentage points. In 2014, thevoting gap between low- and high-income eligible citizens was 20
percentage points, but, among registered members of these groups,
this turnout gap was reduced to 14 points.
Figure 3. Turnout by Registration Status, by Age, 2012 and 2014
Less than $30,000$30,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $99,999$100,000+

100%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Raw Turnout,
2012

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2012

Raw Turnout,
2014

Turnout asa Share ofRegistered
Population, 2014

Source: Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015; Demos2015 • 14

Margins of Victory, Missing Voters, & Projected Potential Voters
The outcomes of many elections—even at the top of the ticket—areoften determined by small margins, in a system where huge numbersof people are left out. It is instructive to look at the potential impact ofautomatic voter registration in states that have close margins of victory
in recent elections. In each of these states, the number of registrants
projected to be added to the rolls upon implementation of an automatic
voter registration system dwarfs the number of votes that constituted
the margin of victory in the most recent Senate, gubernatorial, and/or
presidential contest: 22• In the 2012 presidential election, a total of 1.3 million votes

decided the winner in the 10 states with the closest margins ofvictory. But 19.5 million citizens in those states were “missing
voters”—that is, they were voting-age citizens, but they were notable to vote because they were not registered to vote. We predict
6.8 million potential voters in those 10 states would be added
through automatic voter registration.
• In the 10 closest 2014 Senate elections, a total of 1.1 million votersdecided the winners, while 13.7 million citizens were missing
from the voter rolls. We predict 4.8 million potential voters would
be added in those states through automatic voter registration.
• In the 10 closest 2014 races for governor, just over 573,000 votersdecided the winners, while 16 million citizens were missing fromthe voter rolls. We predict 5.6 million potential voters would be
added in those states through automatic voter registration.
Table 1. 2012 Presidential Race, Margins of Victory, Missing Voters, and AVR Impact
State

WinnerMargin ofVictory

Total Votes

Victory Margin
Number of Votes

Eligible Citizen“Missing Voters”

Projected Added
Registrants/
Potential Voters

Colorado

Barack Obama (D)5.4%

2,569,522

138,754

1,078,000

377,000

FloridaBarack Obama (D)0.9%

8,474,179

76,2685,188,000

1,816,000

Iowa

Barack Obama (D)5.8%

1,582,180

91,766

691,000

242,000

NevadaBarack Obama (D)6.7%

1,014,918

68,000770,000

270,000

New Hampshire

Barack Obama (D)5.6%

710,972

39,814

321,000

112,000

North Carolina

Mitt Romney (R)2.0%

4,505,372

90,1072,078,000

727,000

Ohio

Barack Obama (D)3.0%

5,580,847

167,425

2,852,000

998,000

Pennsylvania

Barack Obama (D)5.4%

5,753,670

310,698

3,390,000

1,187,000

Virginia

Barack Obama (D)3.9%

3,854,489

150,325

1,964,000

687,000

Wisconsin

Barack Obama (D)6.9%

3,068,434

211,722

1,227,000

429,000

37,114,583

1,344,880

19,559,000

6,845,000

Total

Source: Demos Analysis of Census Bureau Data and Oregon Law, Ballotpedia

15 • demos.org

Of course, as we have stressed, registration doesn’t guarantee turnout, andother factors, such as voter education and mobilization, are important forgetting registered citizens to the polls. But comparing the large numbers ofprojected potential voters with AVR to past margins of victory gives some ideaof the potential impact of removing registration barriers with AVR. In the 10
states with the closest margins of victory in the 2012 presidential election, theprojected number of potential voters added through AVR would be more than 5times the total margin of victory in those states; in the 10 states with the closest
Senate and Gubernatorial races in 2014, the ratios of projected potential votersto the total margins of victory are approximately 4 to 1 and 10 to 1, respectively.
Table 2. 2014 Senate Races, Margins of Victory, Missing Voters, and AVR Impact
State

WinnerMargin ofVictory

Total Votes

Victory
Margin Votes

Eligible Citizen“Missing Voters”

Projected Added
Registrants/
Potential Voters

AlaskaDan Sullivan (R)2.1%

282,400

5,930

167,000

58,000Colorado

Cory Gardner (R)

1.9%

2,041,020

38,779

1,078,000

377,000

Georgia

David Perdue (R)7.7%

2,567,761

197,718

2,453,000

859,000

Illinois

Richard Durbin (D)10.9%

3,603,475

392,779

3,235,000

1,132,000

Iowa

Joni Ernst (R)8.3%

1,129,700

93,765

691,000

242,000

KansasPat Roberts (R)10.6%

866,191

91,816640,000

224,000

Minnesota

Al Franken (D)10.2%

1,981,528

202,116

1,111,000

389,000

New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen (D)3.2%

488,159

15,621

321,000

112,000

North Carolina

Thom Tillis (R)

1.6%

2,915,281

46,644

2,078,000

727,000

Virginia

Mark Warner (D)0.8%

2,184,473

17,476

1,964,000

687,000

18,059,988

1,102,645

13,738,000

4,807,000

Total

Source: Demos Analysis of Census Bureau Data and Oregon Law, Ballotpedia

Table 3. State Governor Races 2014 Margins of Victory, Missing Voters, and AVR Impact
State

WinnerMargin ofVictory

Total Votes

Victory Margin
Votes

Eligible Citizen“Missing
Voters”

Projected Added
Registrants/
Potential Voters

AlaskaBill Walker (I)2.2%

279,958

6,159

167,000

58,000Colorado

John Hickenlooper (D)

3.3%

2,041,574

67,372

1,078,000

377,000

Connecticut

Dan Malloy (D)2.5%

1,092,773

27,319892,000

312,000

FloridaRick Scott (R)1.0%

5,951,561

59,516

5,188,000

1,816,000

Illinois

Bruce Rauner (R)

4.0%

3,627,690

145,108

3,235,000

1,132,000

KansasSam Brownback (R)3.7%

869,50232,172640,000

224,000

MarylandLarry Hogan (R)3.8%

1,728,975

65,701

1,153,000

404,000

Massachusetts

Charles D. Baker (R)

1.9%

2,158,326

41,0081,565,000

548,000

MichiganRick Snyder(R)4.0%

3,156,531

126,261

2,087,000

730,000

Vermont

Peter Shumlin (D)1.3%

193,087

2,510

158,000

55,00021,099,977

573,126

16,163,000

5,656,000

Total
Source: Demos Analysis of Census Bureau Data and Oregon Law, Ballotpedia

2015 • 16

I V. H O W A U T O M AT I C V O T E R R E G I S T R AT I O NHELPS OVERCOME BARRIERS TO
PA R T I C I PAT I O NCurrently, the U.S. voter registration system is based on having
individual eligible voters add themselves to the voter registration list
and keep their records up to date.23 An eligible voter is not able tovote unless he or she takes steps to figure out when, where, and how
to register and applies for registration.
This is not—historically or globally—the usual way to build avoter registration list. Early American voter registration rolls werecompiled by local officials, in contrast with our current system ofvoter-initiated registration. Our current system also lags behindthe voter registration systems of other modern democracies.24
Canada, for example, uses data collected by government agencies forpurposes like driver licensing to register eligible voters to vote. 25 In
France, the military draft registration process, which is similar to theUnited States’ Selective Service System, does double duty as a sourceof voter registration.26
As Yale law professor Heather Gerken argues, state governments
are well-positioned to fulfill this democratic responsibility: “State
officials have plenty of information on us. They know who we are
and where we live. Using data-matching technology widely deployedin the private sector, creating a universal, voter-registration list
would be a relatively simple matter.”27 Many state agencies alreadycollect the information required to add eligible voters to theregistration rolls in the course of normal agency business, such as
driver licensing, and many states are already equipped to transmit
this information electronically to elections officials. So, many states
already have the capacity to register the eligible citizens in theirjurisdiction automatically. In this light, state governments have all
the more reason to take responsibility for enabling the freedom tovote by automatically registering eligible voters.
As we noted above, a properly designed AVR system will directly
empower eligible citizens to vote by eliminating the procedural
hurdles that suppress voter registration. In addition, it is also worth
considering how AVR will solve another significant problem withour current registration system: administrative errors that thwart
registration and leave eligible voters stranded at the polls. Finally,
as we suggest in our analysis of the current voting and registration
17 • demos.org

gaps, AVR is a gateway into the election process that could lead tohigher rates of voter turnout and greater equality of voting acrossdifferent demographic groups. In what follows, we briefly examine
these additional benefits of AVR, before turning to our detailed
proposal for how an optimal AVR system should be designed.
1. Reducing Administrative Burdens
Our current voter-initiated registration system lends itself
to administrative errors and omissions that accidentally leaveeligible voters off the registration rolls. Elections officials
frequently find themselves overwhelmed by a crush of registration
applications at the registration deadline. These applications
have to be processed quickly to ensure that eligible voters areadded to the rolls by Election Day, which often requires enlisting
inexperienced temporary workers. The need for fast processing
and the inexperience of much of the workforce increases the riskof data entry errors and typos, which can translate to registration
problems at the polls.28 A review of elections administration in the
recent midterm elections found that 2.5 million votes were lost to
registration problems in 2014.29
AVR would reduce administrative errors and omissions byautomating much of the voter registration process. Under an
AVR system, information that is collected in the normal courseof agency business, and shows that an individual is eligible tovote, will be transmitted electronically and automatically to theelections office. This will minimize the number of registration
tasks agency employees are required to perform, increasing the
likelihood that voters’ eligibility information will be collected andtransmitted promptly and accurately.
AVR will also lessen administrative burdens by spacing
registration processing more evenly across the election cycle.
Rather than getting an overwhelming crush of voter registration
applications at the registration deadline, elections officials will
receive voter information throughout the election cycle, as eligible
voters visit other state agencies and offices. This will help reduce
the number of administrative mistakes in the voter registration
list because elections officials will have more time to double-checkvoter information and they will not have to rely as heavily on
inexperienced temporary workers.

2015 • 18

2. Increasing Voter Education & Mobilization
In addition to removing procedural hurdles and solving
administrative problems that limit voter registration, AVR can also
be an avenue for increasing voter turnout, potentially on a large
scale. By facilitating mobilization of eligible voters who are currently
largely invisible to mobilization efforts, AVR is more than just a
gateway into the process; it can also provide a positive boost towardvoting.
The specific strategies that candidates, political parties, andcommunity groups use to engage potential voters may vary, but
the starting point is often the same: the voter registration list.30 So,
eligible voters who don’t appear on the registration rolls are lesslikely than other eligible voters to be targeted for voter information
or mobilization efforts by campaigns or other groups. They are lesslikely to receive political mailings or phone calls, and canvassers areless likely to come to their doors with information about the election
or to encourage them to vote.31
Potential voters have to contend with the costs of informing
themselves about the candidates, locating their polling places andfinding the time and resources to get to the polls—all while fulfilling
their regular daily responsibilities of making a living, raisingchildren, caring for aging relatives and more. Adding currently
unregistered eligible voters to the rolls through AVR would put themon elections officials’ and voter mobilization groups’ radars, meaning
they can be reached with information about how to vote and why
their vote is so important. This outreach can have a significant
impact on voter turnout, especially for members of groups thatcurrently turn out to vote at lower rates. For example, studies show:• The turnout rate for registered voters with less than ahigh school education was 7.4 percentage points higher
in states where registered voters were mailed polling placeinformation and 6.2 percentage points higher in states
where they received sample ballots than in states where
there was no such outreach.32• Registered voters under the age of 25 turned out at rates 4.4
percentage points higher when they received polling placeinformation and 5.7 percentage points higher when they
were mailed a sample ballot.33• Asian American voters who received a follow-up phone callafter committing to vote in an initial call voted at a rate 13
19 • demos.org

percentage points higher than Asian American voters who
did not receive a follow-up call.34• Latino ‘infrequent voters’ who were targeted for door-todoor canvassing voted at a rate 10 percentage points higher
than Latino infrequent voters who were not canvassed.35
At least one study confirms the connection between reducing
barriers to registration, voter mobilization efforts, and voter turnout.
In comparing candidates’ spending on voter mobilization in stateswith and without Election Day Registration (a reform that allows
eligible voters to register when they show up at the polls to vote, also
known as Same-Day Registration), the study found that get-out-thevote-efforts (GOTV) had a comparatively larger effect on turnout in
EDR states.36 Like EDR, AVR is a reform that increases the numberof potential voters in a state and, therefore, the potential target
population for GOTV efforts. It seems likely that AVR, like EDR,
could have similarly positive effects on voter turnout and potentiallymuch greater effects if it is widely implemented and millions of
new people become “visible” (because newly registered) to election
officials, candidates, and voter mobilization groups.
Additionally, shifting to an AVR system would free up resourcesthat are currently being invested in voter registration efforts rightbefore an election to be redirected toward voter education andmobilization. With AVR, many nonprofit organizations and politicalparties that run voter registration drives could redirect thoseresources to voter education and mobilization efforts. So too, by
eliminating registration deadlines and thereby reducing the crush of
voter registrations right before an election, AVR could help election
officials devote more resources to voter information efforts.

2015 • 20

V. A U T O M AT I C V O T E R R E G I S T R AT I O N
P O L I C Y D E S I G N & K E Y C O N S I D E R AT I O N S

The goal of an Automatic Voter Registration program is universal
voter registration. The basic concept of automatic voter registrationis that when a state’s public agencies and/or systems already havethe information to know if a person is eligible to vote, the state’s
elections officials will add that person to the voter rolls unless theindividual declines to be registered. The system works through theelectronic transfer of information between public agencies and astate’s election databases. Here’s how Oregon describes what it calls
its “New Motor Voter” system, launching in January 2016:
Because DMV has access to age, address, and citizenshipdata and most importantly for vote-by-mail, an electronic
signature, the Secretary of State’s Office seeks to build upon
the technological systems already in place to make voter
registration even easier and more secure by using thisinformation to offer voter registration to eligible voters in thesystem and on an ongoing basis.37
The key to a truly automatic system is that an eligible voter
is registered to vote or has their registration updated with new
information after interacting with a public agency, without having
to take additional steps.38 Instead of eligible citizens having to “optin” to voter registration, meaning affirmatively take steps to register
to vote, eligible citizens will be registered to vote by the state if (1)their eligibility is clear from data already collected by state agencies,and (2) they do not “opt out” of voter registration when notified of
their eligibility and registration. A system that administers voter
registration with an opt-out rather than an opt-in approach, throughelectronic transfer of eligibility information, can add huge numbersof unregistered but eligible persons to the rolls.
The Automatic Voter Registration Process• A public agency, as part of its transactions with people,

receives information that demonstrates a person’s eligibility
to vote, i.e. name, date of birth, residence, and citizenshipstatus.

21 • demos.org

• The public agency is a source agency for the Automatic Voter

Registration program, and it electronically transmits the voter
eligibility information from its database to election officials.
• Election officials receive the electronic records and confirm
the eligibility of each individual and also that the individual is
not already registered to vote (or that the individual needs to
update existing voter registration, for example because of an
address change).
• Election officials notify eligible unregistered people that they
will be added to the voter rolls, and this notification provides
instructions about how to decline registration and how tochoose a political party. This process may entail returning a
postcard mailed by election authorities.
• If a person takes no action s/he becomes a registered voter. If
a person chooses a political party then s/he will be registered
to vote as a member of that party; otherwise the person will
be registered as unaffiliated. If a person chooses to opt out
then s/he will not be registered to vote.
• If a person is already registered and has provided a change ofaddress, election officials will update their voter registration
records (unless the person opted out of updating their voter
registration records to reflect their new address).
Figure 4. The Automatic Voter Registration Process
Source Agency already has electronic records
demonstrating a person’s eligibility to vote

Source Agency electronically transmits voter
eligibility records to election officials

Election officials confirm voter eligibility and that
person isn’t already registered to vote

Election officials notify eligible unregistered people
that they will be registered to vote unless they decline& how to decline voter registration

If a person does not choose to opt-out of voter
registration, s/he is registered to vote.

2015 • 22

Important Policy Design Considerations
Each state should have the goal of universal voter registration,
but not every state is currently prepared to start building its voter
rolls through an automatic system based on database-transfer ofelectronic records. For example, states that already electronicallytransfer voter registration information between public agencies
and election officials may be closer to being able to implement
an automatic system for voter registration. Different states needto take a tailored approach to what will work best in their own
current context, but there is a common set of issues that all AVR
programs need to address.
1. Choosing Source Agencies
To achieve universal voter registration, an automatic voter
registration program must be inclusive, but protective. These
goals may be in tension with each other. Each public agency
that maintains a database that contains and can transmit thenecessary information to confirm eligibility for voting should
be considered as a potential source agency for automatic
registration. Fundamentally, it is important that public agencies
other than just DMVs are incorporated into the program sothat current registration gaps are not perpetuated. For example,
if only the DMV is a source agency, then people who do nothave driver’s licenses or other non-driver identification issued
by the agency will not be registered automatically. Studies haveshown that Blacks and Latinos are much less likely to have DMV
identification than whites.39 At the same time, we recognize thatstates may need to balance the comprehensiveness of source
agencies with other concerns, such as avoiding inefficient
duplication of effort between agencies that largely serve the same
populations. States will also have to consider the technologicalcapacities of potential source agencies, as we explain in moredetail below.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a broader range of source
agencies, such as the public assistance agencies and disability
offices covered by the NVRA, will need to be incorporated toachieve universal voter registration. States should also consider
including agencies additional to those where opt-in voter
registration services are already mandated by the NVRA, likepublic universities. Some states may also have unique statewide
programs that could provide the information necessary for
automatically registering eligible citizens. For example, Alaska
23 • demos.org

may adopt an AVR programin which the state’s Permanent
Fund Dividend program
would serve as a source
agency.40
To achieve the goal of
an inclusive AVR system,
states should also consider
including their Departmentof Corrections as a source
agency for AVR. Including the
Department of Corrections
can help close current
registration gaps that
disproportionately burden
communities of color,since mass incarceration
is deeply affected by racial
discrimination in thecriminal justice system. Also,
Departments of Correction
may be in a good position
to transmit registration
information to the election
authorities because in every
state except Vermont andMaine individuals imprisoned
for a felony lose their rightto vote for some periodof time. Presumably, stateelection officials are alreadyin communication with the
Department of Corrections
in some manner when
individuals lose their rightto vote or have their voting
rights restored.41 In an
automatic voter registration
system, state election officials
and the Department ofCorrections could continue
to work together in orderSame-Day Registration
Same-Day Registration (SDR) is an
important complement to an Automatic
Voter Registration program, as well as
being a time-tested pro-voter reform thatsignificantly increases voter participationin its own right. With SDR, voters are able
to register to vote or update their voter
registration at the polls, allowing them tocast a ballot that will be counted. Adopting ormaintaining SDR alongside an AVR systemprovides a failsafe so all eligible citizens canvote, even if they haven’t interacted with an
AVR source agency or otherwise become
registered prior to the election.
Voter registration deadlines, oftena month before an election, can be
an unnecessary barrier to participation.
This is particularly true for people who haverecently moved, who are often young, lowincome, and people of color. Even people
who have registered to vote before a deadline
may find that they are not on the rolls when
they arrive to vote because of mistakes inprocessing or flawed voter purges. SDR
means they won’t be stranded at the polls,
and cuts down on the use of provisional
ballots that frequently aren’t counted.
Same-Day Registration removes voter
registration deadlines as a barrier to voting
and allows any registration problems thatmight keep an eligible citizen from castinga ballot that will be counted to be resolved
at the polls. It is safe, cost effective and, as
discussed further below, increases voter
participation. SDR is an integral part of
updating and improving our registration
process to meet the needs of our modern,mobile society.

2015 • 24

to confirm the restoration of voting rights. In Rhode Island, forexample, state election authorities already automatically activate thevoter registrations of formerly incarcerated individuals when they
are released from prison and their voting rights are restored.42
Source Agency Information & Technology Needs
While the breadth of source agencies is important for developing
more inclusive voter registration systems, it is critically importantthat all source agencies be in a position to provide informationnecessary to confirm an individual’s citizenship status, in order toprotect non-citizens from being inadvertently registered to vote.
Any error on this count could have very serious consequences forany non-citizens who might be inadvertently registered to vote.43
Only agencies that collect information on citizenship status and cantransmit that information reliably should serve as source agencies
in an automatic voter registration system. There are several basic
questions necessary to ascertain which public agencies can be source
agencies for automatic voter registration in each state:• Which public agencies receive information about a person’s

citizenship status as part of their agency transactions?
Agencies that do not collect citizenship information are notappropriate source agencies for automatic voter registration.
• Which public agencies are technologically ready, or could
be technologically ready with sufficient investments intechnological improvements, to transmit informationelectronically to elections officials? Some systems may
already be exchanging data electronically with election
officials.
• Which public agencies are technologically ready, or could
be technologically ready with sufficient investment intechnological improvements, to collect and transfer anelectronic signature?
The databases of potential source agencies should be audited
for accuracy when they are incorporated into the automatic voter
registration system and start providing data to election officials.
Agencies should run audits to confirm the integrity of their
databases and the effectiveness of their transmission of voter records
to the Secretary.
States may choose to launch an automatic voter registration
program using as source agencies only those agencies that are
25 • demos.org

technologically ready to collect and share eligibility data now; atthe same time, states should work to upgrade systems so that a
broader set of agencies can participate, to make the AVR program
inclusive and equitable. States should build in a long runway for
implementation to allow lead-time for accuracy auditing, andshould provide funding (or secure outside funding) to upgrade
technological systems at public agencies so they can participate assource agencies.
2. Confirming Eligibility & Providing Safe Harbors
An automatic voter registration program must protect ineligible
people from being inadvertently added to the voter registrationrolls by requiring the state to confirm eligibility, and by providing
legal safe harbors if any ineligible person becomes inadvertently
registered to vote through state action.
First and foremost, there must be full confidence in the source
databases for the program: the provision and transmission of theinformation necessary to determine eligibility, including citizenship,must be entirely reliable. As discussed above, a state’s ability to
add citizens to its voter rolls without the individuals having totake affirmative steps is dependent upon agencies maintaining
the information needed to confirm individuals’ eligibility in adependable way. The burden is on the state to use the information
already provided by an individual as part of his or her agency
transaction to confirm a citizen’s eligibility to vote before adding him
or her to the voting rolls. For example, Oregon’s law establishing its
automatic voter registration program states:[t]he person shall be registered to vote if the county clerk
determines that the person is qualified to vote [under the
Oregon Constitution], and the person is not already registered
to vote.44
Second, each AVR statute should contain legal protections thatprovide safe harbors to protect non-citizens or other ineligible
persons from penalties designed to prevent and punish improperclaims of citizenship or eligibility. Safe harbor provisions should
be written into the law so that if any ineligible individuals are
inadvertently added to the rolls by the state, they are indemnified
and held harmless, having taken no affirmative steps to registerthemselves. A recently passed law in California, which automates
the transmission of voter registration records between the state’s
2015 • 26

Department of Motor Vehicles and election officials, contains
such safe harbors.45 California’s law shifts the burden of legal
responsibility so that the “person’s registration shall be presumed tohave been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that
person.”46
3. Option to Decline Voter Registration
Although the goal of AVR is to maximize enrollment of eligible
citizens in voter registration systems, an automatic system can also
provide an opportunity for individuals to decline registration. We
believe the best AVR program design should provide this “opt out”
opportunity to decline registration outside of the point-of-service
transactions with source agencies (this is sometimes termed a“back-end opt out”). Once state elections officials have received andprocessed the records to confirm eligibility and registration status,
elections officials contact eligible unregistered people to alert themto the process for opting out of voter registration before adding themto the voter rolls. This can take the form of returning a postcard.
Oregon, for example, will send each new potential registrant amailer with a letter setting out voter eligibility requirements and a
postcard that can be returned if the individual wants to decline to beregistered to vote. An individual who doesn’t want to be registered
to vote can return the postcard within 21 days. If an eligible
unregistered citizen doesn’t return the postcard within 21 days, heor she will be added to the voter rolls without having had to takeaffirmative action during or after the agency transaction.
The key consideration behind adopting this approach is inclusion.
Attempting to incorporate a choice of whether to register to vote into
the point-of-service transaction may discourage busy individuals
from becoming registered, which runs counter to the goal ofusing the capacity for truly automatic voter registration to achieve
universal voter registration. People may also decline registration on
the mistaken belief that they are already registered at their current
address. Preserving an option to decline registration after a source
agency transaction—but before a person is added to the voter rolls—
strikes the appropriate balance between enabling participation andprotecting individual choice about registration status.
This approach is also preferable because it leaves unaltered
the point-of-service (sometimes termed “front-line”) voter
registration responsibilities of agency staff required by the National
Voter Registration Act. The NVRA already requires states tooffer opportunities for people to register to vote during covered
27 • demos.org

transactions with designated agencies. When properly implemented—
which has not always been the case47—this can be very helpful for
facilitating voter registration, even though it does not require a fully
automatic voter registration system. To ensure the most voter-friendly
process, states should continue to provide the voter registration
option during agency transactions as required by the NVRA, evenafter they implement automatic voter registration programs with an
option to decline registration on the back end. In addition, a person
who no longer wants to be registered to vote may always cancel theirregistration at any time.
4. NVRA ComplianceStates can implement an AVR program while maintaining
compliance with the requirements of the National Voter Registration
Act. This is important because adopting an automatic voter
registration system does not alter a state’s legal obligations under
the NVRA to provide voter registration assistance during specificagency transactions.48 An automatic voter registration program willoften include state agencies that are already required to provide voter
registration services under the NVRA, and there need not be any
conflict between the two programs and their respective procedures.
States can and should start building their voter rolls automatically, but
state agencies that are covered by the NVRA must continue to provide
voter registration services and assistance to citizens during theirindividual agency transactions.49
In addition to the federal legal requirements of the NVRA, policy
considerations argue in favor of maintaining voter registration
services and assistance in individual transactions with public agencies(and, as discussed below, expanding the agencies that offer opt-in
voter registration opportunities). For example, an automatic voter
registration program may be set up so that if an individual has opted
out once from being added to the voter rolls, the individual won’t be
automatically registered in any future transaction with the agency.
Such individuals should have continued opportunities to decide toregister to vote and receive voter registration services and assistancewhenever they interact with the DMV, public assistance and disability
agencies, and other covered agencies. Existing NVRA procedures
provide exactly this opportunity for persons who might otherwise be
subject to a permanent opt-out from automatic voter registration. In
addition, many people may prefer having the opportunity to choose apolitical party during their transaction, rather than having to return apostcard afterward.
2015 • 28

5. Protections for Privacy & Use of Data
Some people who want to register to vote should continue to have theirinformation kept confidential. For example, victims of domestic violence,
public safety officers, and people involved in reproductive health care shouldhave a statutory carve out written into the law that will allow them to beregistered to vote without having their personal address or other informationenter the public realm. Accordingly, states should ensure that their AVR
programs incorporate pre-existing privacy protections in both election
codes and other general statutes.50 California’s automated voter registration
law maintains the privacy protections contained in its Confidential Voter
Registration Law,51 by providing that:
This chapter does not affect the confidentiality of a person’s voter
registration information, which remains confidential pursuant to Section
2194 of this code and Section 6254.4 of the Government Code and for all of
the following persons:(a) A victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking
pursuant to Section 2166.5.
(b) A reproductive health care service provider, employee,volunteer, or patient pursuant to Section 2166.5.
(c) A public safety officer pursuant to Section 2166.7.
(d) A person with a life-threatening circumstance upon court orderpursuant to Section 2166.52
Data collected by state agencies and transmitted to elections officials
for voter registration purposes should not be used by the government
for purposes unrelated to running elections and facilitating politicalparticipation. Law enforcement should be prohibited from using the voter
registration database, or any lists created as a result of creating the voter
registration database, for any purpose outside of the realm of deterringor prosecuting voter fraud. In particular, there should be a bar to thegovernment’s use of eligibility information provided to a state agency for any
purpose other than meeting the mission of the agency and registering eligible
voters.
Additionally, an Automatic Voter Registration system should prohibit
discrimination against anyone who declines to be registered. For example, an
AVR statute should include the following protections for the use of data:(i) if an individual declines to register to vote, the fact that theindividual has declined to register will remain confidential and will
be used only for voter registration purposes; and29 • demos.org

(ii) if an individual is registered to vote, the source agency
through which the individual came onto the voter roll willremain confidential and will be used only for voter registration
purposes.53
In sum, individuals should be able to transmit their personal
information to the state to access public services, including automatic
voter registration. The state should accommodate privacy requirements ofspecific populations, and should not overstep the mandate of automatic
voter registration by using the personal information provided for purposes
other than those of election administration or the provision of agency
services.
6. Language Access & Disability Access
Access for people whose primary language isn’t English and for people
with disabilities must be built into the AVR system. Elections officials
should provide outreach and education materials in languages in addition
to English, as required by the Voting Rights Act.54 For example, in an
automatic registration system individuals can decline to be registered byreturning the postcard sent by election officials for that purpose. That
postcard should include the languages required by Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act.55 There may be jurisdictions with non-English-speaking
communities whose populations are too small to trigger the mandateof Section 203, but it is still consistent with best practices to provide
communications about voter eligibility in those languages.
In addition, if a state is able to include disability services offices as source
agencies in its AVR system, election officials should cooperate with public
and private outreach programs that serve people with disabilities in orderto ensure that they are informed about the state’s AVR opportunities.
7. Public Education & Mobilization
It is important to note that voters cannot use tools that they don’t knowthat they have. For these policies to have a truly transformative impact
on political participation, widespread outreach and public education
efforts should be required.56 Unless people are aware that the barrier ofrestrictive registration rules has been removed, they may not realize that
their individual political participation has been enabled and is expected.
Particularly in light of our national history of voter suppression andongoing exclusions from the ballot box, states should take responsibility
for strong public education campaigns to mobilize all the potential votersthat have gained access to the political system through automatic voter
registration.
2015 • 30

VI. GETTING TO UNIVERSAL VOTERR E G I S T R AT I O N : O T H E R V O T E R
R E G I S T R AT I O N B U I L D I N G B L O C K S A N D
C O M P L E M E N TA R Y P O L I C I E S

Automatic voter registration can be considered in concert withother complementary registration reforms that can serve as building
blocks towards an automatic program, or structural components
of an inclusive and effective universal voter registration system.
Each reform is individually important because it facilitates citizens’
exercise of their right to vote, and can also help prepare states toimplement AVR. Taken together, these reforms go a long way towardachieving universal voter registration by replacing our antiquated,burdensome voter registration system with a modern, effective
system that more fully embodies American values of voting rights,
political representation, and democratic participation.
1. Automated Registration
Truly Automatic Voter Registration means that an eligible
American will be added to the voter rolls without being required totake further steps if a relevant state agency possesses information
sufficient to establish his or her eligibility. But some states do not
yet have databases that contain data sufficient to confirm a voter’seligibility, or do not yet have databases that are technologicallysophisticated enough to electronically transfer information. States
may initially prefer to deploy something short of a fully automatic
system of voter registration to boost their political participation.
California has recently adopted such a system, which can be referred
to as “automated” registration to distinguish it from “automatic”
registration, such as Oregon’s new program.
In an automated voter registration system, data presented tothe agency as part of the agency transaction serves as the basis of
an individual’s voter registration application, but the individual isrequired to take some further affirmative step before being added
to the voter registration rolls. For example, though the state may
already have collected data sufficient to confirm a person’s eligibility
status, a citizen may be required to attest to their eligibility to vote
before being considered to have successfully completed a voter
registration application. A potential voter may even have to answer
yes or no to the question of whether they would like to be registered31 • demos.org

to vote. Because asking this question or requiring an attestation
during a transaction forces people to take an action related to voter
registration on the spot, this approach will surely have the effect of
excluding some eligible individuals who would otherwise have been
added the rolls in an automatic registration system. In this light,
we recommend the more inclusive approach of a truly automatic
registration system, provided that a state has sufficient technologicalcapabilities for operating such a system.
As noted above, California recently adopted an automatedvoter registration system that will be implemented once the state
has launched its VoteCal centralized statewide voter database.57
According to the voting rights director for the ACLU of California,
it is “a gold standard for what is an automated voter registration[system], but not automatic.”58 In California’s automated system,
the DMV will transfer, on a regular basis, electronic records to theSecretary of State that include:• A person’s name• Date of birth• Residence address and/or mailing address• Digitized signature• Telephone number, if available• Email address, if available• Language preference• Political party preference• Whether the person chooses to become a permanent vote-by-mail voter• Whether the person affirmatively declined to register tovote during a transaction with the DMV• A notation that the applicant has attested that he or shemeets all voter eligibility requirements• Possibly other information specified in regulations

One of the guiding principles of a truly automatic system isthat it does not require an individual to take any step to become
registered to vote that is additional to the regular agency procedure.
For the state to register an individual in the process created by the
California law, a person will have to affirmatively attest that he or shemeets all the voter eligibility requirements in order for the DMV totransfer the records for that person to the Secretary of State (SOS).
In California, the DMV records will not constitute a completed voter
registration application if “the person does not attest that he or she
2015 • 32

meets all voter eligibility requirements while at the DMV”:
Provide that the records of a person that are transmitted
from the DMV to the SOS pursuant to this provision shallconstitute a completed affidavit of voter registration for that
person unless a) the person affirmatively declines to register
to vote at the DMV, b) the person does not attest that he or
she meets all voter eligibility requirements while at the DMV,or c) the SOS determines that the person is not eligible toregister to vote.59
At least 30 states have or are implementing electronic transferof voter registration information from their departments of motor
vehicles to their elections officials.60 For example, in Delaware, theDepartment of Motor Vehicles has had an automated process ofvoter registration at the DMV since 2009. Agency workers follow
prompts on their computer screens, and the client’s voter registration
application is pre-populated with the data collected through theDMV process. Delaware’s “e-Signature” program allows an electronic
signature to be collected on a signature pad, which also enables theclient to:• Certify citizenship• Accept or refuse to register to vote• Affiliate with a party

These registration applications are electronically transmitted
to elections officials in real time. Eighty-five percent of new voter
registration applications in Delaware come from the Departmentof Motor Vehicles, and about 40 percent of the transactions at
the Department of Motor Vehicles result in a voter registration
application.61 Delaware also has electronic registration at its public
assistance agencies.62
2. Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a
consortium of states that have joined together to increase accessto voter registration services and maintain the accuracy of theirvoter registration lists. Member states include Alabama, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as
33 • demos.org

Washington, D.C., and more states continue to join.63 The exchange
was inspired because:
While most private industry, and many government agencies,
have updated their systems to take advantage of modern
technology, voter registration systems remain largely basedon 19th century tools, such as handwriting paper forms andpostal mail. The inherent inefficiencies in the system result in
unnecessarily high costs, and make it difficult to keep voter
rolls clean throughout the country.64
Members share electronic data from voter registration rolls andsource agencies (so far limited to motor vehicle departments, but
expandable to public assistance agencies). ERIC imports the Social
Security Administration’s death index and U.S. Post Office Data.
ERIC provides member states information to help them identify
voters who have moved within a state or moved between ERIC states(or out of the network of states), as well as voters who may have
duplicate registrations or may have changed their name, and voters
who may have died. This exchange of data allows ERIC to identify
out-of-date records, which states can use to maintain their voter rollsin accordance with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA.
ERIC notes that:[E]fficient and effective data matching and cleaner voter rolls will
result in such efficiencies as less returned mail, fewer provisional
ballots on election day, shorter lines at polling places, etc.65
States participating in ERIC are required to contact potentiallyeligible but unregistered voters with instructions about how toregister to vote.66 In the last three years ERIC states have identified
nearly twelve million potential voters, and, of those, 700,000
have opted in to registering to vote.67 By joining ERIC, AVR
states will be able to develop more complete, accurate voter rolls
more expeditiously. The Presidential Commission on Election
Administration endorsed data-sharing to build voter lists:
The Commission endorses state programs to share data andto collaborate in the synchronization of voter lists so that thestates, on their own initiative, come as close as possible tocreating an accurate database of the eligible electorate.68
ERIC is a good way to build a better opt-in system with more2015 • 34

responsibility on the government to reach out to eligible citizens
in their jurisdiction. Joining ERIC is a good way for a state to startbuilding its capacity for electronic transfer of voter registration
information between databases. But to create accurate registration
databases in the states, in the service of universal registration, thebest way forward is to combine ERIC’s interstate program of voter
registration data-sharing with automatic voter registration systems
in every state, supported by other complementary policies such as
Same-Day Registration.
3. Online Voter Registration
Adopting Online Voter Registration (OVR) is a common sense
step to integrate available technological advances into our current
opt-in voter registration system. It makes voter registration more
efficient and accessible, thereby lowering barriers to participation.
OVR also moves a state to use electronic records for its voter
registration database, and, therefore, will facilitate the transfer ofelectronic database information in an automatic voter registration
system.
Even once AVR is adopted, OVR should be maintained sothat individuals have access to their registration records. People
should be able to update their registration themselves if they’d like,particularly when they move in state and may not need to update
their driver’s license or otherwise interact with another source
agency. Not everyone interacts with a DMV or other source agency
upon arriving in a new jurisdiction where they are eligible to vote,and online registration provides the modern access that American
voters expect. An online system is also a convenient way for people
to be able to cancel their voter registrations, should they want to, or
to choose a political party affiliation.
OVR has been adopted in 30 states and the District of Columbia.
In addition to states that have passed new laws to adopt the
program, election officials have used their administrative authority
to adopt online systems of registration. For example, Iowa andPennsylvania have recently launched online voter registration
programs based on already existing election law, rather than waitingfor passage of a new law.69 Allowing voters to register online saves
states and localities money, and eliminates the administrative
burden of entering information from handwritten forms into theregistration system.70
OVR is particularly useful for closing voting gaps by loweringbarriers for young people—they are least likely to be registered to35 • demos.org

vote but very likely to have internet access.71• In Arizona, after the state introduced online and automatedregistration, registration rates among 18-24-year-old
citizens rose from 29 to 53 percent.
• In California, in the month before the registration deadline
in 2012, almost two-thirds of new registrations from young
voters came through the online system; over a third of
Latinos who registered online were 18-24-year-olds.
• In Maryland, a study showed that 18-29-year-olds madeup 42 percent of online registrants but only 19 percent ofregistered voters.72

Additionally, the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration reports evidence that turnout may be higher among
those registering online, finding that “in Arizona in 2008, 94 percent
of online registrants voted compared to 85 percent of those who
registered by paper.”73
One limitation on the inclusivity of online registration stems fromstate practices for capturing a voter’s signature. Identifying inclusive
ways to capture signatures securely through the implementation of
an OVR program can help a state prepare to run an inclusive AVR
program. Delaware allows any individual with a Social Security
number to register online. The system transmits the data to theappropriate county electronically, but at the end of the registration
process, the user must print, sign, and mail a form generated by thesystem to complete the registration. The application is incomplete
until the signed form is received; however, if the form is notreceived, the individual can still vote a regular ballot on Election
Day by showing ID74 and providing a signature at the pollingplace.75 Connecticut allows online registration for any individuals
who have a signature stored in any database available to the state,including federal databases.76 States should implement technology
to capture signatures electronically, similar to signing for credit
card purchases on touchscreens. In 2010, Santa Clara County,
California, became the first jurisdiction to accept voter registration
forms that were signed by hand and submitted electronically using
mobile, touchscreen technology.77 Each applicant’s informationand electronic signature, captured on a mobile Internet device
touchscreen, were integrated into a secure PDF file, and applicants
were able to email the secure file to the county elections office.78

2015 • 36

4. Restoring Voting Rights & Ending De Facto Disenfranchisement
Voting is a fundamental democratic right, yet almost 6 million
American citizens have been stripped of their voting rights due
to a felony conviction.79 The Sentencing Project and Human
Rights Watch condemn these laws as having “no discernible
legitimate purpose.”80 But their impact has grown nearly five-foldin recent decades: the number of returning citizens and current
prisoners without the right to vote was 1.2 million in 1980 and has
skyrocketed to 5.9 million.
Felon disenfranchisement is an obstacle to political participation
and representation, and its negative effects on democratic
participation are a mirror image of the racial inequities in ourcriminal justice system, with the burden falling disproportionately
on communities of color:• 1 of every 13 Black citizens of voting age can’t vote due tocriminal conviction.
• 1 in 8 Black men are prohibited from voting because of
felon disenfranchisement laws.
• One-fifth of Black citizens of voting age are prohibited fromvoting in Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, and Tennessee isvery close to one-fifth.81
All states except Maine and Vermont deny voting rights to felons
while they are incarcerated, and many maintain their prohibition
on voting during a period of probation or parole. Seventy-five
percent of the people who have lost their right to vote due to theserestrictions have already returned to the community after serving
their time in prison.82 In too many states, a byzantine legal oradministrative process hampers the restoration of voting rights.
There is no reason why this should be the case. If states suspend
voting rights at all during incarceration, they should take steps toencourage participation when these citizens return to society:• Voting rights should be automatically restored to returning

citizens upon release from incarceration.
• While in prison, people who were previously registered
to vote should have their registrations suspended rather
than cancelled entirely. Then, once their rights are restored
after being released from incarceration, the state should
automatically activate their inactive registrations.
• In a system of automatic voter registration, if the
37 • demos.org

Department of Corrections already has sufficient eligibility
information about the individuals in its custody, theDepartment of Corrections should be a source agency.
Even when voting rights have been restored to returning citizens,
many do not register because they lack information about theireligibility and the registration process, and this leads to a large
problem of “de facto” disenfranchisement. Executive Directorof the Sentencing Project Marc Mauer says that “people withfelony convictions and the electoral officials themselves are often
misinformed about the policy. There may be substantially more
people who are kept away from the ballot box than even [thecurrent] legal prohibitions would require.”83 To help solve thisproblem, in states covered by the NVRA, the Department ofCorrections can be designated as a voter registration agency. Even
before a state has adopted AVR, or ended the practice of stripping
voting rights from people with felony convictions, the Departmentof Corrections should effectively offer opt-in voter registration
services at the time when voting rights are restored. For example, ifrights are restored after a period of probation or parole, probationand parole officers offer individuals the opportunity to register tovote.
Where felon disenfranchisement laws exist, they may have alreadyrequired the establishment of systems of electronic communication
between corrections agencies and election authorities. These systems
could provide a bridge to facilitate an automatic system of voter
registration if they were adapted to transmit release records (inaddition to incarceration records), which could serve as an eligibility
screen.
5. Expanding & Enforcing the National Voter Registration Act
One of the most effective ways a state can facilitate accessbefore adopting automatic voter registration is by improving voter
registration services at public agencies, as required by the NVRA.
States should ensure that agencies covered by the NVRA comply
with the law’s requirements for providing voter registration services.
Further, states should expand the spectrum of public agencies
designated as voter registration agencies, in order to provide opt-in
voter registration services to a larger group of people. Departmentsof Education and Departments of Corrections may be good targets
for such an expansion. Regardless of whether states adopt automatic
voter registration, states should seek to improve and expand their2015 • 38

provision of opt-in voter registration services.
Effective administration of NVRA voter registration
responsibilities would make great strides in increasing theinclusiveness and universality of current opt-in systems of voter
registration. Oklahoma recently reached a settlement in which
the state agreed to take steps to better meet their responsibilities
to offer voter registration at public assistance agencies, and thenumber of voter registration applications submitted has alreadyincreased dramatically.84 Because the populations served at current
NVRA agencies are often low-income, and because there is such apronounced registration gap between high-income and low-income
groups (see Figure 5), robust implementation of the NVRA should
be considered a vital pathway for developing a more inclusive
voter registration process and building toward automatic voter
registration.
Demos has worked for a decade to enforce the NVRA, whichgoverns the current system of opt-in registration at motor vehicle
and public assistance agencies. That work has had tremendous
impact in adding voters to the rolls, and, at the same time, it requires
continuous monitoring and vigilance by groups like Demos and ourpartners to make sure that the required services are provided overtime. An automatic voter registration system that incorporates a
declination option outside the agency transaction itself is the next
Figure 5. Voter Registration Rates and Income Levels from 1972-2012
Lowest Income Quintile

Mid-Income Quintile

Highest Income Quintile

1984

1996

90%

80

70

60

50

40

30

1972

1976

1980

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surve

39 • demos.org

1988

1992

2000

2004

2008

2012

step forward for maximizing voter registration through government
agencies and ensuring a seamless process that reduces the likelihoodof error or neglect in providing voter registration services.
6. Pre-Registration of 16- & 17-year-olds
Eligible 16- and 17-year-olds should be pre-registered to voteand automatically added to voting rolls when they turn 18. Preregistration does not require any additional voter registration
databases, as registration records for individuals who are not yet 18
can be entered as “pending.” Once they reach 18, their registrations
automatically move from pending to active. Adopting a preregistration system for 16- and 17-year-olds that automatically
activates their voter registrations when these citizens turn 18
would move us towards an inclusive system that facilitates voter
participation.
It would also be a stepping stone to adopting a truly automatic
voter registration system. If the state had the records to substantiate
eligibility, individuals could be mailed a card letting them know
their voter registration record will be activated on their 18thbirthday without requiring prior individual action.
Allowing young people to pre-register to vote is an effective way
to increase overall voter participation, not just in the short term
but also over a lifetime. Voters who are engaged at an early age are
more likely to stay engaged.85 Pre-registering 16- and 17-year-olds
to vote can be an important first step to engaging young adults. In
2008, pre-registered young voters in Florida turned out at a rate 4.7
percent higher than young voters who registered after turning 18.86
Currently, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, North
Carolina, and the District of Columbia allow eligible voters to preregister at 16.87 In Colorado, anyone who is an eligible voter over theage of 16 can register to vote, even if they will not be 18 by the timeof the next election.88 In addition, 9 states allow voters to pre-registerat seventeen.89 Adding to this, 20 states allow teens to register if they
will be 18 before the next election and 7 states allow teens to register
if they will turn 18 before the next general election.90
7. Portable Voter Registration
A person’s voter registration should remain valid when he or she
moves within a state (and programs like ERIC raise the potential for
portability even between interstate moves).91 A state’s centralized
voter registration database can allow for such voter registration
portability. Already, a quarter of Americans believe that when2015 • 40

they change their address with the post office, their registration
automatically changes as well.92 With portable voter registration,
when people move within a state, their registrations move withthem, and they are able to cast a regular ballot in their new location.
Implementing portable voter registration should bring a state a step
closer to being in a position to adopt automatic voter registration.
Allowing portable voter registration would help states movetowards the goal of universal voter registration and increase politicalparticipation. Studies have shown that Americans’ mobility plays asubstantial role in low voter turnout, and one estimate concluded
that if registration were portable within states, turnout would
increase by as many as 2 million voters nationally.93 The added needto re-register to vote with each move widens the voter participation
gap among certain demographic groups. In particular:• Young people: A Census survey on geographic mobility

found that individuals in their late twenties moved more
often than any other age group over a 5-year period.
• Communities of color: Census respondents who selfidentified as Hispanic/Latino or Black/African American
moved significantly more often than white respondents.
• Lower-income Americans: Over one-half (52.5 percent) ofpeople living below the poverty line moved between 2005
and 2010. Less than one-third (32 percent) of individuals at
or above 150 percent of the poverty line moved during thesame period of time.94
8. Same-Day Registration
Getting to universal voter registration requires the adoptionof Same-Day Registration (SDR). SDR is a timetested pro-voter
reform that significantly increases voter participation withoutcompromising the integrity of elections or substantially increasing
costs, and is an important complementary policy within an
automatic voter registration system. Some citizens who wish
to vote may not have interacted with a source agency and been
automatically registered to vote before the election, but if they meetthe eligibility requirements they should be able to register when they
go to vote. With or without AVR, non-registered eligible citizens
should be able to register to vote and cast a ballot at the polls.
In 2012, approximately 1.5 million Americans used Same-Day
Registration to cast their ballots and participate in democracy.95
41 • demos.org

Even in the midterm elections when turnout is typically very low,
SDR is important in helping people cast their ballots. In 2014,
average voter turnout was over 7 points higher in states with
Same-Day Registration as compared with non-SDR states.96
America is a highly mobile society: nearly 36 million individuals
changed residences between 2012 and 2013, according to the
U.S. Census.97 Many of these individuals failed to register to vote
before the registration deadline and found themselves unable tocast a ballot. Others who had submitted their voter registration
applications in time found on Election Day that their names had
not been added to the voter rolls and that their votes would not becounted.98 Same-Day Registration remedies both of these problems.
Voters simply register to vote on Election Day or during the earlyvoting period, or update a pre-existing registration record, and cast aballot that will be counted.
Voters in 9 states and the District of Columbia successfully used
SDR during the 2012 Presidential Elections; voters in 5 additional
states were able to use SDR for the 2014 Midterm Elections.99
Same-Day Registration was pioneered by Maine, Minnesota, Idaho,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming in the 1970s, and in the last decade it has
been adopted in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa,
Illinois, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Vermont, and theDistrict of Columbia (though it has been ended in North Carolina aspart of the state’s retrogressive moves to restrict voting access).100
Figure 6. Turnout Rates in SDR vs. Non-SDR States, 1980–2012,
Presidential Election Years
SDR Average

Non-SDR Average

80%

68%

70

58%

60

50

40

’80

’84

’88

’92

’96

’00

’04

’08

’12

2015 • 42

V I I . C U R R E N T L A N D S C A P E O F AV R B U I L D I N G
B L O C K S & L E G I S L AT I O N

Oregon was the first state fully to recognize and act on thepotential of AVR, enacting its AVR law in March 2015, with
implementation in January 2016. Other states quickly moved
to follow its lead. The New Jersey Legislature passed a bill thatwould adopt this form of AVR as part of a package of democracy
reforms, but it was vetoed by the Governor.101 In Louisiana, the state
Legislature considered a number of AVR proposals along these lines
and the state House opted to create a subcommittee to study theirfeasibility.102
Many states have bills proposing AVR systems that are similar
to Oregon’s model, using motor vehicle agencies as the source
agencies for automatic voter registration and giving individuals an
opportunity to decline registration. The bills that were introduced in
Alabama,103 Arizona,104 Illinois,105 Minnesota,106 New York,107 South
Carolina,108 Texas,109 Vermont,110 and the District of Columbia111
follow this model, as do some of the bills introduced in Georgia,112
Hawaii,113 and Ohio.114
However, some states have offered even more expansive AVR
proposals, which also include state offices and agencies otherthan motor vehicle agencies as AVR source agencies. Arkansas,115
Georgia,116 Ohio, 117and Pennsylvania118 have all seen proposals for
AVR systems that include additional source agencies. For example,
one of the bills introduced in Pennsylvania would include thestate’s Department of Human Services and Department of Military
and Veterans Affairs in the AVR system. Arkansas’ bill would
have designated both the state Office of Driver Services and State
Revenue Offices as source agencies for automatic voter registration.
As mentioned earlier, Alaska is considering an automatic voter
registration system that uses the state’s Permanent Fund as thesource list to identify eligible citizens.
Even before moving to Automatic Voter Registration, individualstates have increased access to registration by adopting building
block and complementary voter registration policies. As noted
earlier, 15 states and the District of Columbia have ratified
Same-Day Registration policies.119 Twelve states and the Districtof Columbia have implemented or will soon implement policies
allowing young people to pre-register for voting in advance of
43 • demos.org

their eighteenth birthdays, even if they will not be 18 by the next
election.120 Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia offer orwill offer eligible voters the opportunity to register to vote online.121
This following matrix provides a full landscaping of where AVRbuilding blocks or complementary policies exist.
Table 4. Automatic Registration Building Blocks and Complementary Policies122
State

Electronic
Registration

AL

ERIC

OnlineRegistration

Portable
Registration
123

Preregistration

X
X

AR

X

CA

X

X
X

X

X

e

X

X

X

X

e

X

X

X

e

X

X

X

Xd

X

CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Xa

X

Xa

FL

X

X

GA

X

X

HI

X

X

b

X

a

X

a

X
X

X

a

X

X

f

X

X
X

X

X

X

IN

X

X

Xd

IA

X

X

KS

X

X

KY

X

LA

X

d

X

MA

X

MI

X

MN

X

MS

X

X

X

Xa

Xf

Xb

Xc

X

X

Xa

Xf

X

X

X

X

a

X

Xf

X

Xf

MT

Xd
X

X

NY

X

NC

X

NDg

-

X
X

Xf

X

X

Xf

X

X

Xe

X

X

X

f

-

X
X

Xd

NM

X
X

X

NH
X

X
X

X
X

NJ

X

d

X

MO

NV

X

Xd
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Xf

ME
X

X

d

IL

X

X
X

f

ID

MD

X

f

X

X

125

X

X

CO

DC

NVRA

X
f

AZ

NE

Same Day
Registration

X

AK

DE

RightsRestoration124

-

-

-

Xd

-

-

2015 • 44

Table 4. Continued
State

Electronic
Registration

NJ

X

NM

X

NY

X

NC

X

ND

g

-

ERIC

OnlineRegistration

Portable
Registration
123

Preregistration

RightsRestoration
124

Same Day
Registration

X

X

Xf

X

X

e

X

X

X

X

-

OH

-

-

X

d

X

OK

X
X

X

X

X

Xf

X

d

X

X

d

X

X

d

X

X

Xf

X
X

PA

X

RI

X

SC

X

SD

X

Xf

X

X
X

X

a

X

X

X

b

-

Xd

OR

TN
TX

125

Xf

f

-

NVRA

X

UT

X

VT

X
X

VA
WA

X

WV

X

WI
WY

X

X

a

f

X

X

X

X

d

X

c

X

X

X

X

X

Xf

X

X

X

X

f

X

f

X
X

Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, Electronic Registration Information Center, Fair Elections Legal Network,
The Sentencing Project and United States Department of Justicea Available to 16- and 17-year-olds
b Available to 17-year-olds
c Does not revoke voting rights for felony convictions
d Available on completion of incarceratione Available on completion of incarceration and parole
f Available on completion of incarceration, parole and probationg Does not have a voter registration requirement

45 • demos.org

X

X

VIII. CONCLUSION

We have the opportunity to bring millions of currently
unregistered citizens—America’s missing voters—into the politicalprocess. With new database technologies, and with rigorous
safeguards to ensure voting eligibility, AVR can help us take a bigleap forward to create a more robust and inclusive electorate at
the heart of our democracy. With AVR, we can modernize theadministration of elections and enable democratic participation
by eliminating registration barriers and helping new potential
voters become more visible and reachable in the election process.
Our commitment now should be to capitalize on this profoundopportunity to revitalize our democracy by establishing inclusive,
effective, and accurate Automatic Voter Registration systems instates across the country.

2015 • 46

ENDNOTES

1.

Martin Luther King, Jr. “Give Us the Ballot.” Address at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom. May 1957. http://
mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php.kingpapers/article/give_us_the_ballot_addrss_at_the_prayer_pilgrimage_for_freedom/.
2. David Leip. “2012 Presidential General Election Results.” US Election Atlas. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
national.php; Thom File. “The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (andOther Recent Elections).” U.S. Census Bureau. May 2013. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf.
All voter turnout numbers in this report are from the Census Bureau.
3. Ibid.
4. Thom File and Sarah Crissey. “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008.” U.S. Census Bureau.
May 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf; Thom File. “The Diversifying Electorate—
Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).” U.S. Census Bureau. May 2013.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf.
5. National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg, et seq.
6. For this projection, we draw on data gathered in the state of Oregon’s newly established AVR system. See note 19
below for further details.
7. Alexander Keyssar. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (New York: Basic
Books, 2009), 253.
8. Voting Rights Act of 1965, (PL 89-110, 6 August 1965), 79 United States Statutes at Large. 437-446. http://www.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg437.pdf.
9. Ari Berman. Give Us The Ballot. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Gioux). 2015.
10. Pew Center. “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America’s Voter Registration System Needs an
Upgrade.” The Pew Center on the States.February 2012. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
reports/2012/02/14/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-evidence-that-americas-voter-registration-system-needsan-upgrade.
11. Demos calculations based on United States Census, Current Population Survey, November 2014: Voting andRegistration Supplement, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2014/tables.html(Aug. 25, 2015).
12. Shelby County v Holder. 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3184629 (U.S. June 25, 2013) (No. 12-96).
13. Ari Berman. “50 Years After Bloody Sunday, Voting Rights Are Under Attack.” The Nation. March 5, 2015.
14. United States Census. Current Population Survey, November 2014: Voting and Registration Supplement, generatedusing DataFerrett. http://dataferrett.census.gov/TheDataWeb/index.html (Aug. 25, 2015).
15. Alex Street, Thomas A. Murray, John Blitzer and Rajan S. Patel. “Estimating Voter Registration Deadline Effects
with Web Search Data.” Political Analysis 23:2 (Spring 2015): 225-241.
16. To calculate the unregistered population, Demos subtracted the number of people who reported being
registered from the total citizen voting age population, following standard Census procedure. See also Thom
File, “The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent
Elections),” Census Bureau, May 2013. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf. All voter turnout
numbers in this report are from the Census Bureau.
17. Oregon House Bill 2177 (2015). https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2177/
Enrolled.
18. Our impact projections are derived from AVR data provided by the state of Oregon. In preparing for thelaunch of its AVR system, Oregon did a 2-year “look back” (back to 2013) in its Department of Motor Vehicles
databases, and they were able to confirm that 300,000 eligible citizens in their databases are currently notregistered to vote and would be registered automatically. According to Census data, there are currently 862,000
voting-age citizens in Oregon who are unregistered. The 300,000 new registrants through Oregon’s AVR
system equals approximately 35 percent of the state’s unregistered population. We take this share as reasonably
representative and use it to calculate projections of new registrants in other states if they adopt AVR. If eachstate were to add 35 percent of its unregistered voting age citizens to its voter rolls, then 27,221,000 registrants
would be added to the rolls. With this projection, we acknowledge the potential for significant variations in
impact based on a number of variables. For example, if every state did a 3-year or 5-year “look back” in its DMV
databases, a reasonable projection of new registrants would likely be substantially higher. Another factor is thevariation in rates of driver licensure and other DMV transactions in different states. Still another factor is thepotential variation in the scope of AVR source agencies in different states: states that are able to, and choose
to, include not just DMVs but public assistance agencies and potentially other state agencies in their AVR
systems will add more new registrants to their voter rolls. It should also be noted that a small share of potential
registrants may decline registration.
19. Infra, at p. 4.
20. The Census Bureau considers Hispanic to be an ethnicity. In the chart, “white” refers to people who are
categorized as “non-Hispanic whites” by the Census Bureau, and “Latino” refers to people categorized as“Hispanic” by the Census Bureau.
21. Jon C. Rogowski and Cathy J. Cohen. “Black Millennials in America.” Black Youth Project. October 2015. http://
blackyouthproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BYP-millenials-report-10-27-15-FINAL.pdf.
22. The following data analysis is based on Demos calculations from Census Bureau data. Margin of victory
numbers come from Ballotpedia and the Federal Election Commission: Ballotpedia, “Gubernatorial elections,2014.” http://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_elections,_2014; Ballotpedia, “United States Senate elections, 2014.”
http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014; Federal Elections Commission, “Federal Elections
2012: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives.” http://www.
fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml.
23. The one exception is North Dakota, which does not require its residents to register to vote.
24. Richard Franklin Bensel. The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004); Daniel P. Tokaji. “Voter Registration and Election Reform.” William & Mary Bill of
Rights Journal 17:2 (2008): 453-506.
25. FairVote, Universal Voter Registration: The Canadian Model (Aug. 25, 2015). http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/
universal-voter-registration/universal-voter-registration-the-canadian-model/.
26. Jennifer S. Rosenberg and Margaret Chen. “Expanding Democracy: Voter Registration Around the World.”

47 • demos.org

Brennan Center for Justice (2009). https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/expanding-democracy-voterregistration-around-world.
27. Heather K. Gerken. “Make It Easy: The Case for Automatic Registration,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas Vol. 28(Spring 2013). http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/make-it-easy-the-case-for-automatic-registration.php.
28. “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade.”
The Pew Center on the States. February 2012. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
reports/2012/02/14/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-evidence-that-americas-voter-registration-system-needsan-upgrade.
29. Charles Stewart III. 2014 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report. (Sep. 15, 2015). https://
dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/28979.
30. Eitan D. Hersh. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2015).
31. Traci Burch. Trading Democracy for Justice: Criminal Convictions and the Decline of Neighborhood Political
Participation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
32. Raymond E. Wolfinger, Benjamin Highton and Megan Mullin. “How Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of
Citizens Registered to Vote.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:1 (Spring 2005): 10-11.
33. Ibid., 12.
34. Lisa Garcia Bedolla and Melissa R. Michelson. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through GetOut-the-Vote Campaigns (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012). 73-74.
35. Ibid., 117-118.
36. Peter L. Francia and Paul S. Herrnson. “The Synergistic Effect of Campaign Effort and Election Reform on Voter
Turnout in State Legislative Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4:1 (Mar. 20, 2004): 74-93.
37. Erin Seiler, “HB 2177, Staff Measure Summary.” February 2015. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/
Downloads/MeasureAnalysisDocument/25219.
38. Ibid.
39. For example, in the litigation challenging Texas’ strict photo ID law, the federal District Court found that
African-American registered voters are 305 percent, and Hispanic registered voters 195 percent, less likely tohave the required forms of ID, which included DMV identification. Liz Kennedy, SCOTUS to Texas, October 20,
2014. http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/20/scotus-texas-go-forth-discriminate-citizens-starting-monday/.
40. Penny Gage, et al. “Alaska Will Gain By Providing Voter Registration With PFD Application.” Anchorage Daily
News. September 30, 2015, http://www.adn.com/article/20150930/alaska-will-gain-providing-voter-registrationpfd-application.
41. The period of time that individuals lose their voting rights varies by state, with some states restoring voting
rights upon release from incarceration and others requiring completion of probation or parole; some states
automatically restore voting rights at the end of this period, and some require an individual to petition to havetheir voting rights restored.
42. The Rhode Island Restoration of Voting Rights Act (RIRVRA) requires the Department of Corrections toshare with the Secretary of State, on a monthly basis, lists of individuals who have lost or regained their voting
rights, and the SOS updates the Statewide Central Voter Registry System with this information. See, Rules andRegulations Adopted by the Office of the Secretary of State In Connection With The Rhode Island Restorationof Voting Rights Act of 2006 (RIRVRA) Pursuant to Title 17, Chapter 9.2 of the General Laws of Rhode Island,
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/archives/regdocs/released/pdf/SOS/4665.pdf.
43. See, e.g., Carl Wicklander, “Illinois Now Considers Automatic Voter Registration Amid Praise and Concern,”
October 19, 2015. http://ivn.us/2015/10/19/illinois-now-considers-automatic-voter-registration-amid-praiseand-concern/.
44. HB 2177 2015 Regular Session (2015). https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB2177.
45. California’s new law includes the following:
2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter … that person’s
registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.
2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or
attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be
presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting tovote …, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
See A.B. 1461 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (CA. 2015-2016). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461.
46. Ibid.
47. J. Mijin Cha. Registering Millions. Demos. http://www.Demos.org/publication/millions-polls-online-registration.
48. There is no question that Section 5 and Section 7 of the NVRA require specific voter registration services tobe provided during front-end transactions at departments of motor vehicles, public assistance and disability
agencies.
49. The NVRA requires somewhat different processes at departments of motor vehicles and at public assistanceagencies alongside the automatic voter registration program. In all cases, a state must retain an affirmative
opportunity for people to register to vote alongside the automatic voter registration process.
50. For example, the draft Oregon Motor Voter Registration Manual explains that “The DMV file sent to theElections Division will not include individuals or their family members who have received a personal safety
exemption from DMV, public employees or their family members who do not submit a residence address to
DMV pursuant to ORS 802.250 or law enforcement officials who obtain license/ID cards pursuant to OAR
735-062-0290”. Oregon has an Address Confidentiality Program, and “individuals who are not participants in
the Address Confidentiality Program may also request to be excluded from the list of active registered voters.”
DRAFT: Oregon Motor Voter Registration Manual, Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division, at 5, 11 (2015)
http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Documents/draft-omv-manual.pdf.
51. California Secretary of State. “Confidential Voter Registration Law.” http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/safehome/laws/confidential-voter-registration-law/#EC2166. (Section 2166. 1. Any person filing with the county
elections official a new affidavit of registration or reregistration may have the information relating to his or
her residence address, telephone number, and e-mail address appearing on the affidavit, or any list or roster orindex prepared therefrom, declared confidential upon order of a superior court issued upon a showing of goodcause that a life-threatening circumstance exists to the voter or a member of the voter’s household, and naming
the county elections official as a party. 2. Any person granted confidentiality under subdivision (a) shall: 1.
Be considered a vote by mail voter for all subsequent elections or until the county elections official is notified
otherwise by the court or in writing by the voter. A voter requesting termination of vote by mail status thereby
consents to placement of his or her residence address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the roster ofvoters. 2. In addition to the required residence address, provide a valid mailing address to be used in place ofthe residence address for election, scholarly, or political research, and government purposes. The elections
official, in producing any list, roster, or index may, at his or her choice, use the valid mailing address or the word

2015 • 48

“confidential” or some similar designation in place of the residence address. 3. No action in negligence may
be maintained against any government entity or officer or employee thereof as a result of the disclosure of theinformation which is the subject of this section unless by a showing of gross negligence or willfulness.
52. Section 2267, A.B. 1461 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (CA. 2015-2016). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461
53. This language reflects the data protections and confidentiality provisions found in the NVRA.
54. Voter Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. Sec 10503.
55. J. Mijin Cha and Liz Kennedy. Millions to the Polls: Language & Disability Access. Demos. February 2014. http://
www.Demos.org/publication/millions-polls-language-disability-access.
56. California’s new automated registration law contains the following section requiring an education and outreachcampaign: 2270. The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to implement this chapter, including regulations
addressing both of the following:(b) An education and outreach campaign informing voters about the California New Motor Voter Programthat the Secretary of State will conduct to implement this chapter. The Secretary may use any public andprivate funds available for this and shall provide materials created for this outreach and education campaign
in languages other than English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503).
Section 2270, A.B. 1461 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (CA. 2015-2016). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461
57. AB 1461 2015-2015 Session (Cal. 2015), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201520160AB1461.
58. Melanie Mason. “Here’s how California’s new voter registration law will work.” L.A. Times. October 16, 2015,.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-story.html.
59. Bill analysis, AB 1461 2015-2015 Sess. (CA. 2015). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461.
60. Voter Registration Modernization in the States, Electronic Registration. Brennan Center for Justice. October 21,
2015. http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-registration-modernization-states
61. Stuart Naifeh. Driving the Vote: Are States Complying With the Motor Voter Requirements of the National
Voter Registration Act? Demos. February 5, 2015. http://www.Demos.org/publication/driving-vote-are-statescomplying-motor-voter-requirements-national-voter-registration-a.
62. Holly Maluk, Myrna Perez, and Lucy Zhou. “Voter Registration in a Digital Age: 2015.” Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University School of Law.
63. Electronic Registration Information Center, (ERIC). http://www.ericstates.org/.
64. ERIC states Membership Agreement Section 5. a State Voter Registration Systems. October 28, 2015. http://
www.ericstates.org/images/documents/ERIC_Bylaws_10-28-2015.pdf.
65. Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC). “Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.ericstates.org/
faq.
66. ERIC states Membership Agreement Section 5. a State Voter Registration Systems. October 28, 2015, http://
www.ericstates.org/images/documents/ERIC_Bylaws_10-28-2015.pdf.
67. David Becker. “Director’s Note: Expanded Opportunities on National Voter Registration Day.” The Pew
Charitable Trusts. September 22, 2015. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2015/09/22/
directors-note-expanded-opportunities-on-national-voter-registration-day.
68. PCEA Report 29. https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2014/01/Amer-Voting-Exper-final-draft-01-09-14-508.
pdf
69. Pa. Cons. Stat. 25 Pa.C.S.A. 1324 (2002); Pa. Cons. Stat. 25 Pa.C.S.A. 1327 (2002).
70. J. Mijin Cha and Liz Kennedy. Millions to the Polls: Online Registration. Demos. February 18, 2014, http://www.
Demos.org/publication/millions-polls-online-registration.
71. U.S. Census. 2010 Current Population Survey, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2010, Table
2A, Reported Internet Usage for Individuals 3 Years and Older, by Selected: Characteristics: 2010. http://www.
census.gov/hhes/computer/files/2010/table2A.xls; Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012,
Table 4c. Reported Voting and Registration, by Age, for States: November 2012. http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/Table04c.xls.
72. Michelle K. Cohen. “Online Voter Registration.” May 2013. http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/
Online%20Voter%20Registration/Policy-Paper-Online-Registration-May-2013.pdf.
73. PCEA. The American Voting Experience, 26. https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2014/01/Amer-Voting-Experfinal-draft-01-09-14-508.pdf.
74. Utility bills, bank statements, inter alia, are accepted as identification, Delaware Commissioner of Elections, Web
Based Voter Registration Application, § Terms & Agreement (2013). https://registertovote.elections.delaware.gov/
voterreg/TermsAgreement
75. Brennan Center for Justice. VRM in the States: Delaware. June 14, 2012. http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/
vrm-states-delaware.
76. H.B. 5024, Gen. Assembly, Feb. Sess. (Conn. 2012). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/ACT/PA/2012PA-00056R00HB-05024-PA.htm
77. Fair Elections Legal Network. “Mobile Voter Registration.” October 2010. http://fairelectionsnetwork.com/
webfm_send/61.
78. Ibid.
79. The Sentencing Project estimates that 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws thatprohibit voting by people with felony convictions. Jean Chung, “Felony Disenfranchisement,” The Sentencing
Project, 2014, http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=133
80. The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch. “Losing the Vote.” October 1998, http://www.
sentencingproject.org/doc/file/fvr/fd_losingthevote.pdf.
81. Jean Chung. “Felony disenfranchisement: A Primer.” http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_
Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Primer.pdf
82. http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1911&id=133
83. Katie Rose Quandt. “1 in 13 African-American Adults Prohibited From Voting in the United States.” Moyers &Co. March 24, 2015. http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/24/felon-disenfranchisement/.
84. Jenn Rolnick Borchetta. “Settlement in Oklahoma Sparks Huge Increase in Voter Registration.” Demos. October
2015. http://www.Demos.org/blog/10/9/15/settlement-oklahoma-sparks-huge-increase-voter-registration.
85. The New America Foundation. “Empowering California’s Youth: A proposal allowing voters to pre-register atage 16.” 2007. https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/4114-pre-registration-at-age-16/Pre-registration%20
at%20Age%2016.b45524be040143f6967bd2003dd07346.pdf.
86. Michael P. McDonald and Matthew Thornburg. “Registering the Youth: Preregistration Programs.” 13 N.Y.U.
J. Legis. & Pub. Policy 51, 567 n.88 (2010). http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Michael-P.McDonald-Matthew-Thornburg-Registering-the-Youth-Through-Voter-Preregistration.pdf.
87. National Conference of State Legislatures. Pre-Registration for Young People. 2013.

49 • demos.org

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx; A Uniform
Advance Voter Registration Age: Boosting More Efficient Registration and Education Programs. 2012.
http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uniform-Registration-FACT-SHEETNATIONAL.pdf.
88. The Governor of Colorado signed this measure on May 10, 2013. H.B. 13-1135, 69th Gen.
Assembly., Reg. Sess. (Col. 2013), http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/
C9538D3A79A9B9C487257AEE00573D96?open&file=1135sstaapp.pdf.
89. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Preregistration for Young Voters.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/
elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx.
90. Ibid.
91. J. Mijin Cha and Liz Kennedy. Millions to the Polls: Permanent and Portable Registration. Demos. February 18,
2014. http://www.Demos.org/publication/millions-polls-permanent-portable-voter-registration.
92. Pew Center. Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient, 7.
93. Adam Skaggs and Jonathan Blitzer. “Permanent Voter Registration” (2009). http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/
default/files/legacy/Democracy/Permanent%20Registration.pdf.
94. David K. Ihrke and Carol S. Faber. Geographical Mobility: 2005 to 2010, Population Characteristics. 2012. http://
www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-567.pdf.
95. Estelle S. Rogers and Steven Carbó. Same-Day Registration—a Factsheet. Project Vote and Demos. July 2013.
http://www.Demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/SameDayRegistration-Explainer.pdf.
96. Michael P. McDonald. “2014 November General Election: Turnout Rates.” www.electproject.org/2014g.
97. U.S. Census Bureau. Geographical Mobility 2012-2013 (Table 1). https://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/cps/cps2013.html.
98. Myrna Perez. “When Voters Move.” Brennan Center for Justice. June 13, 2009, https://www.brennancenter.org/
publication/when-voters-move..
99. For the 2012 Presidential Election, Same-Day Registration was in place in Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota,
Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. California and Connecticut passed SDR
in 2012; Maryland and Colorado in 2013, and in 2014 Illinois and Utah adopted Same-Day Registration pilot
programs. California will not fully implement SDR until June of 2016; Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado
have operated SDR since 2013; Illinois passed a law in January 2015 to make Same-Day Registration permanent.
North Carolina repealed One-Stop Voting, which included SDR, in 2013.
100. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Same Day Voter Registration.” 2013. http://www.ncsl.org/research/
elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx.
101. A.4614 2014-2015 Reg. Sess. (NJ. 2014-2015). https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A4613/2014.
102. H.B. 132 2015 Reg. Sess. (LA. 2015). https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HR132/2015.
103. H.B. 529, 2015 Reg. Sess. (AL. 2015). https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB529/2015.
104. H.B. 2434, 52th Legis. Reg. Sess. (AZ. 2015). http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/hb2434p.htm
105. H.B. 4208, 99th Gen. Ass. (IL. 2015-2016). http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.
asp?DocName=&SessionId=88&GA=99&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4208&GAID=13&
106. S.F. 1346, 89th Leg. (MN. 2015-2016). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.
php?number=SF1346&session=ls89&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2015;
H.F. 1449, 89th Leg. (MN. 2015-2016). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.
php?number=HF1449&session=ls89&version=list&session_number=0&session_year=2015.
107. S 2538, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (NY. 2015-2016). http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_
fld=&bn=S02538&term=2015&Summary=Y&Text=Y; S 5367, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (NY. 2015-2016). http://
assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S05367&term=2015&Summary=Y&Text=Y.
108. S 596, 121st Sess. (SC. 2015-2016). http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/596.htm.
109. H.B. 3267, 84th Leg. (TX. 2015-2016). https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB3267/2015.
110. H 458, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (VT. 2015-2016). https://legiscan.com/VT/text/H0458/2015.
111. B 194, (DC. 2015-2016). https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/DC/21/B/194/texts/introduction.pdf.
112. S.B. 31, 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (GA. 2015-2016). http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/145459.pdf.
113. S.B. 150, 28th Leg. (HI 2015). https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB150/id/1155677; H.B. 401, 28th Leg. (HI 2015).
https://legiscan.com/HI/text/HB401/id/1157419.
114. S 158, 131st Gen. Ass. (OH 2015). https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131SB-158; H 179, 131st Gen. Ass. (OH 2015). https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislationsummary?id=GA131-HB-179.
115. H.B. 1616, 90th Gen. Ass. (GA 2015). https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/HB1616/2015.
116. S.B. 31, see footnote X.
117. S 158, see footnote XI.
118. H.B. 1306, 2015 Sess. (PA. 2015). http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.
cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2015&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1306&pn=1742.
119. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Same Day Voter Registration,” September 15, 2015. http://www.ncsl.
org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx.
120. Fair Elections Legal Network. “Voter Preregistration.” April 16, 2015. http://fairelectionsnetwork.com/wpcontent/uploads/Preregistration-Brief.pdf.
121. National Conference of State Legislatures. Online Voter Registration. October 1, 2015. http://www.ncsl.org/
research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx; Peter Hirschfeld. “Online Voter
Registration Now Open in Vermont.” Vermont Public Radio. October 12, 2015.
122. This chart captures policies that have been enacted, including policies that are currently awaiting
implementation. Some laws include specific restrictions, such as special limitations on eligibility for online
registration or rights restoration. For complete details about a policy, please contact Demos or consult therelevant state authority.
123. Eligible voters who move within the state in states with Same-Day Registration also have the opportunity tocast a regular ballot. Though their registration addresses may not be updated automatically, they can register or
update their registration information at the polls.
124. This category captures states that offer opportunities for restoration of voting rights at or before completion of asentence for a felony conviction.
125. States that do not have a voter registration requirement or had Same-Day Registration on and after August 1,
1994, are exempt from the National Voter Registration Act.

2015 • 50

demos.org