U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Case Studies on the Impact of the 

Help America Vote Act’s Identification 

Requirements for First-Time Voters

May 2008

Case Studies on the Impact of the 

Help America Vote Act’s Identification 

Requirements for First-Time Voters
This page intentionally left blank.
Table Of Contents iii

Background....................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose And Methodology ............................................................................................... 3

Selection of Case Study Participants.......................................................................... 3

Availability of Data....................................................................................................... 6

Definitions ................................................................................................................... 6

The Six Selected States ................................................................................................... 7

Voter Registration........................................................................................................ 8

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 10

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 11

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 12

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 13

Voter ID Legislation................................................................................................... 13

Indiana ............................................................................................................................ 15

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 17

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 17

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 18

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 19

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 19

Massachusetts................................................................................................................ 20

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 21

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 23

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 23

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 23

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 24

Montana.......................................................................................................................... 25

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 26

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 27

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 28

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 28

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 29

New Jersey ..................................................................................................................... 30

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 31

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 32

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 32

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 32

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 33

North Carolina................................................................................................................. 34

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 35

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 36

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 36

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 36

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 36
iv

Pennsylvania................................................................................................................... 38

Voter Registration...................................................................................................... 39

At the Polls................................................................................................................ 40

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 40

Benefits and Challenges ........................................................................................... 41

Recommended Practices.......................................................................................... 41

References...................................................................................................................... 42
1

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) is an independent, bipartisan commission 

created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 

2002 to assist State and local election officials 

with the administration of Federal elections. 

The EAC provides assistance by disbursing, 

administering, and auditing Federal funds 

for States to implement HAVA requirements; 

conducting studies and other activities to promote 

the effective administration of Federal elections; 

and serving as a source of information regarding 

election administration. 

Section 244(a) of HAVA requires the EAC to 

study the impact of section 303(b) on voters who 

register by mail. 

How the States Chose to Comply 

With HAVA’s Mandates

Section 303(b) of HAVA introduced a new ID 

requirement for all individuals who register by 

mail and have not voted previously in a Federal 

election in the State in which they are applying 

to register. According to the Federal law, States 

must require each of these first-time voters to 

present one of the following types of ID before 

casting a ballot:

•	 A valid photo ID.

•	 A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, 

government check, paycheck, or other 

government document that shows the name 

and address of the voter.

A voter may avoid having to show ID at the 

polls by submitting a copy of one of the abovementioned IDs with his or her registration 

application. Alternatively, the voter may choose 

to include a driver’s license number or at least 

the last four digits of his or her Social Security 

number; if that number and the voter’s name and 

date of birth match an existing State identification 

record, ID will not be required at the polls. Any 

first-time voter who does not comply with these 

requirements may cast a provisional or fail-safe 

Background

ballot. Military and overseas voters are exempt 

from this requirement as are any voters, including 

people with disabilities, who are entitled to vote by 

absentee ballot according to Federal law.

Congress left it up to the States to decide whether 

to implement the law as the only ID requirement or 

to expand on it and require more from voters. 

When the law passed, 11 States required all voters 

to identify themselves before they were allowed 

to cast a ballot. Voter cards, hunting and fishing 

licenses, library cards, utility bills, drivers’ licenses, 

and Social Security cards were commonly accepted 

forms of ID. In some States, voters who did not 

bring ID with them to the polls were allowed to vote 

after signing an affidavit attesting to their identity.1

By 2004, 17 States required all voters to show ID 

and two more States required all first-time voters to 

show ID, including those who registered in person. 

By 2006, 24 States had laws in place that called 

for every voter to show ID at the polling place. Of 

those States, two required voters to show photo ID, 

three requested photo ID, and 19 mandated that 

every voter provide valid ID that displayed his or her 

name and address.2

In conjunction with ID requirements, the law also 

mandated that every State implement a statewide, 

computerized list of registered voters that, through 

a link to the State’s motor vehicles department, 

could be used to verify first-time voters’ identities. 

Motor vehicle administrators in turn were required 

to enter into agreement with the Commissioner of 

Social Security to obtain the information needed to 

verify voters’ identities. 

At least 37 States had already established the 

lists, but only 10 of them had databases that were 

accessible by State and local election officials 

as HAVA required.3 Although most State motor 

vehicles departments were verifying the Social 

Security numbers of driver’s license applicants 

before HAVA passed, by 2003, at least 7 still were 

not doing so.4
This page intentionally left blank.
3

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect 

that Section 303(b) has had on first-time voters who 

registered by mail and on election administration in 

the States. More specifically, Section 244 of HAVA 

requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) to study and report on the effect of the law 

on first-time voters who register to vote by mail and 

cast their ballots in person, voter registration, the 

accuracy of voter rolls, and existing State practices. 

This report presents the results of six case studies 

completed during the spring of 2007. The case 

studies were designed to analyze the effect of 

HAVA’s requirements on first-time voters and the 

States. Also during the spring of 2007, focus groups 

were conducted to give researchers perspective 

of the perceptions of first-time voters about 

identification requirements.

Data for this report were collected using primary 

and secondary sources. Electronic questionnaires 

were submitted to the States via e-mail. Followup 

phone interviews and in-person visits were 

conducted with State election officials to obtain 

more detailed information. Background information 

was gathered from sources such as the American 

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 

the National Conference of State Legislatures, 

electionline.org, EAC and Federal Election 

Commission reports, and State Web sites.

It is important to note that larger numbers of voters 

typically participate in Presidential elections than in 

midterm elections or “off years.” Nonprofit, political, 

and special interest groups often conduct voter 

registration drives during Presidential election 

years, which serves to increase not only the 

number of registration applications but also the 

total number and percentage of applications that 

are submitted by mail. As a result, more accurate 

comparisons can be made between similar election 

years (one Presidential election year versus 

another, one midterm election year versus another). 

Whenever possible, this report will compare figures 

for similar years.

Purpose And Methodology

Selection of Case Study Participants

The six States that participated in this study were 

selected based on a number of criteria. 

First, all States that do not use “top-down” voter 

registration databases were eliminated. A topdown system is hosted on a single, central 

platform maintained by the State and connected 

to terminals housed at local election offices. This 

kind of system is considered most closely akin to 

HAVA’s requirements. 

States that had similar or more stringent voter ID 

requirements before HAVA took effect were also 

precluded from participating in the study, as were 

any States that had not yet fully implemented the 

required voter registration database. 

The remaining States were organized into five 

categories based on Census Bureau data.

1. Elderly, Urban, and Affluent Populations

In this category, the States have wellestablished, stable populations that are highly 

educated. According to Census Bureau figures, 

residents of these States are typically more 

civically engaged. It follows, then, that they also 

might be more likely to understand and comply 

with HAVA’s voter ID requirements.

2. Young, Rural, and Low-Income Populations

States in this category generally have less 

stable populations—young residents often 

migrate out of State or to more urban areas 

within the State. Residents of these States 

are less likely to have obtained bachelor’s 

degrees than are residents of most other 

States. Voter participation rates are lower 

than the national average. Residents of these 

States might be less likely to understand and 

comply with voter ID requirements.
4

3. White, Rural, and Low Foreign-Born 

Populations

The residents of these States are typically 

long-time residents who are also older. They 

are more likely to vote. It is not uncommon 

for families to have lived in these States 

for generations. It could be possible that 

most first-time voters in these States would 

understand and comply with Section 

303(b) requirements.

4. Non-White, Urban, and 

High Foreign-Born Populations

High rates of immigration into these States 

and migration to them from other States make 

the populations less stable. The States that 

best fit this category generally have some of 

the lowest voter registration and participation 

rates in the country. If participation rates are 

any indication, it is possible that residents of 

these States will not understand and comply 

with ID requirements.

5. Suburban, Middle-Class Populations

A largely suburban, middle-class State was 

selected to balance the other states chosen. 

Final selections were made based on the 

representation of a variety of ethnic groups in each 

State’s population and varying ID requirements. 

Three of the selected States implemented 

more stringent voter ID requirements than were 

mandated by HAVA, and one of those States 

requires every voter to show photo ID at the polls. 

The remaining three States implemented the law as 

a maximum requirement. 

The two States remaining after the initial elimination 

process require voters to indicate their ethnic 

background on their voter registration forms. 

These States were included to help ensure that 

an ethnically diverse sampling of voters could be 

identified to participate in the focus groups that 

make up the second part of the project. 

Census Bureau data for each of the States were 

collected, analyzed, and compared. Overall, they 

represent a diverse sample of the 50 States. 

Note: The higher the rankings described in the 

following paragraphs, the larger the percentage of 

the specified group, characteristic, or per capita 

income. For example, a ranking of 10th indicates a 

higher percentage than a ranking of 23rd. 

Indiana, for example, ranked 17th among the 

States in the percentage of its population that 

is White; 23rd in the percentage that is African 

American; and 22nd in the percentages of residents 

who are Hawaiian-Pacific Islander and two or more 

races. It has a comparatively low foreign-born 

population, ranking 35th in that percentage of its 

total population. Its population is relatively young—it 

ranked 34th in the percentage of residents who are 

65 and older. 

Indiana ranked 29th in the percentage urban, 

classifying it as a largely suburban State. The State 

ranked 35th in per capita income. Its educational 

profile is comparatively low; only 21.9 percent of its 

population has a bachelor’s degree or higher level 

of education.5 

Indiana’s voter participation numbers are low. It 

ranked 45th in the percentage of its population 

that was registered to vote in 2004 and 46th in 

the percentage that actually voted in 2004. The 

corresponding percentages for 2000 were very 

similar, with sharp decreases in the “off year” 

of 2002.

Massachusetts ranked 23rd in the percentage of 

its population that is White; 28th in the percentage 

African American; 7th in the percentage Asian; 

and 13th in other races and ethnicities. It has a 

comparatively high foreign-born population, ranking 

9th in that percentage of its total population. Its 

population is relatively elderly, ranking 14th in the 

percentage of its residents who are 65 and older.

Massachusetts ranked 6th in the percentage urban, 

and 5th in per capita income. Its educational profile 

is high, as some 40.4 percent of its population has 

a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education.6 

The State’s voter participation numbers are high: 

it ranked 8th in the percentage of its population 

that was registered to vote in 2004 and 10th in the 
5

percentage that actually voted. The corresponding 

percentages for 2000 were very similar, with sharp 

decreases in the off year of 2002.

Montana ranked 9th in the percentage of its 

population that is White, 49th in percentage African 

American, 5th in the percentage American IndianAlaskan, and 9th in Hawaiian-Pacific Islander. It has 

a very low foreign-born population, ranking 49th in 

that percentage. Its population is relatively elderly, 

ranking 11th in the percentage of residents aged 65 

and older.

Montana exhibits a rural population profile, 

ranking 45th in the percentage urban; it ranked 

40th in per capita income. Its educational profile 

is comparatively low—some 25.1 percent of its 

population has a bachelor’s degree or higher level 

of education.7 

The State’s voter participation numbers are high. 

It ranked 14th in the percentage of its population 

that was registered to vote in 2004 and 8th in the 

percentage that actually voted. The corresponding 

percentages for 2000 were lower, with still greater 

decreases in the off year of 2002.

New Jersey ranked 40th in the percentage of its 

population that is White, 17th in the percentage 

African American, 3rd in the percentage Asian, 9th 

in the percentage Hispanic-Latino, and 6th in other 

races and ethnicities. The State has a high foreignborn population, ranking 3rd in that percentage of 

its total population. Its population distribution by age 

is unremarkable, ranking 24th in the percentage of 

residents who are 65 and older.

New Jersey ranked 3rd in the percentage urban 

and 3rd in per capita income. Its educational 

profile is high; 35.6 percent of its population has a 

bachelor’s degree or higher level of education. 

The State’s voter participation numbers are 

unremarkable. It ranked 26th in the percentage of 

its population that was registered to vote in 2004 

and 22nd in the percentage that actually voted. 

The corresponding percentages for 2000 were very 

similar, with sharp decreases in the off year 

of 2002.

North Carolina ranked 38th in the percentage of 

its population that is White, 8th in the percentage 

African American, and 10th in the percentage 

American Indian-Alaskan. Its foreign-born 

population is average, ranking 23rd in that 

percentage. It ranks 37th in the percentage 65 and 

older, so the population is comparatively young.

North Carolina ranked 40th in the percentage urban 

and 35th in per capita income. Some 25.6 percent 

of its population has a bachelor’s degree or higher 

level of education.8

The State’s voter participation numbers are on 

the low side. It ranked 28th in the percentage of 

its population that was registered to vote in 2004 

and 42nd in the percentage that actually voted. 

The corresponding percentages for 2000 were 

somewhat lower, with sharp decreases in the 

midterm election year of 2002. 

Pennsylvania ranked 19th in the percentage of its 

population that is White, 21st in percentage African 

American, and 33rd in the percentage HispanicLatino. Its population is aging; it ranked 3rd in the 

percentage 65 and older.

The State ranked 21st in the percentage urban and 

22nd in per capita income. Some 26.6 percent of its 

population has a bachelor’s degree or higher level 

of education.9

Pennsylvania’s voter participation numbers are 

relatively low. It ranked 34th in the percentage of 

its population that was registered to vote in 2004 

and 27th in the percentage that actually voted. The 

corresponding percentages for 2000 were lower, 

with sharp decreases in the off year of 2002.
6

Availability of Data

Unfortunately, a telephone survey of the 39 States 

that implemented top-down voter registration 

databases produced none equipped with systems 

that can generate detailed reports of first-time 

voters’ registration and voting behaviors. Although 

many States flag the individual records of first-time, 

by-mail registrants who must provide ID at the 

polling place, the State systems are not capable of 

producing comprehensive, statewide reports of the 

number of first-time voters who registered by mail 

or who showed a current and valid ID at the polls, 

for example. Although that kind of data is helpful for 

research projects such as this one, many election 

officials say that it is not vital to the administration 

of elections. 

The States that were selected to participate in this 

study collect at least as much data as other States 

and, in many cases, more. In cases in which exact 

figures are unavailable, State election officials have 

provided estimates. All estimates are identified in 

this report as such. 

Definitions

For the purposes of this report, we have provided 

the following working definitions of common 

election-related terms. 

Statewide Voter Registration 

Database or System

An interactive, electronic list of all voter registration 

records in any given State. The term is defined in 

the EAC’s “Voluntary Guidance on Implementation 

of Statewide Voter Registration Lists” as:

... the one official list of lawfully registered voters 

within a state for all elections for Federal office and the 

only lawful source of Federal registration information 

for poll books or precinct registers on Election Day. 

The list must be centrally managed at the State level 

in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. The list 

must be computerized and technically capable of 

providing immediate electronic access to appropriate 

State and local election officials; assigning unique 

identifiers; affording local officials expedited entry 

of voter registration information; allowing voter 

registration information to be verified with other State, 

local and Federal agencies; providing a means for list 

maintenance; tracking appropriate voting history; and 

ensuring appropriate system security.10 

State Definitions of a First-Time Voter

HAVA defines a first-time voter as an individual who 

has not previously voted in an election for Federal 

office in the State, or who has not previously 

voted in a Federal election in a jurisdiction located 

in a State that does not have a statewide voter 

registration database.11

Indiana and Massachusetts adopted HAVA’s 

definition of a first-time voter.

New Jersey and North Carolina define a first-time 

voter as an individual who is registering to vote for 

the first time in a county. 

Pennsylvania defines a first-time voter as an 

individual who is registering to vote for the first time 

in a precinct.

Montana has no definition for a first-time voter 

because the State’s ID requirements are the same 

for all voters. 

Section 303(b) of the HAVA has had diverse effects 

on State election administration and first-time 

voters. Although every State that participated in 

this study is compliant with the law, each State 

implemented HAVA in widely varied ways. In turn, 

election reforms have had different effects on the 

States and first-time voters who registered by mail.
The Six Selected States 7

New State Laws

Five of the States studied expanded on HAVA’s 

minimum ID requirement. Three require more than 

just first-time, by-mail registrants to provide ID and 

two more States broadened HAVA’s definition of a 

first-time voter. 

Indiana requires every voter to show photo ID 

before casting a ballot. First-time voters who 

register by mail are required to show additional ID 

that includes the address at which they registered 

to vote, but only if the photo ID they provided does 

not include that information. 

Every voter in Montana must show ID before voting. 

Acceptable forms of ID include those outlined in 

HAVA as acceptable for first-time voters: a photo ID, 

utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or voter card 

or other government document, which includes the 

voter’s name and address.

Pennsylvania requires all first-time voters, not just 

those who registered by mail, to show ID before 

voting. Pennsylvania, like Montana, will accept any of 

the forms of ID that are listed as acceptable in HAVA.

The States also passed legislation and 

promulgated rules to comply with other aspects of 

Section 303(b), including laws and rules related to 

the development of a HAVA-compliant statewide 

voter registration database, revisions to State voter 

registration forms, election official and poll worker 

training programs, voter education initiatives, and 

provisional balloting. 

Four of the six States (Massachusetts, Montana, 

New Jersey, North Carolina) had a voter registration 

database in place when HAVA passed and one 

(Pennsylvania) was in the process of developing 

one. None of the systems had all of the capabilities 

mandated by HAVA. 

Four of the six States (Massachusetts, Montana, 

New Jersey, North Carolina) offered some kind of 

provisional or fail-safe voting before HAVA required 

it, but most were more limited than what the law 

called for.

Every State made changes to its mail-in voter 

registration form as required by HAVA. All State 

forms now require applicants to indicate whether 

they are U.S. citizens and whether they will be at 

least 18 years of age on Election Day. States also 

added statements notifying first-time voters that, if 

they register to vote by mail, they must submit ID 

with the form or provide it before they vote.

Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers 

Thanks to money allocated by Congress to help 

pay for HAVA’s reforms, the States could afford to 

pay for new and expanded training programs for 

election officials. Some States had formal training 

in place before HAVA passed; others, such as New 

Jersey, had established training only for county 

supervisors. Instead of traditional classroom-style 

sessions, each State introduced innovative new 

training methods to better communicate the new ID 

and registration processing requirements to 

local officials. 

Indiana conducted training via streaming video 

on the Web and set up a “sandbox” system that 

mirrored the State’s actual voter registration 

database but was housed on a different server. 

Local officials were able to experiment with the 

sandbox without corrupting any of the live data. 

The contractor Indiana hired to develop its voter 

registration database even brought in motivational 

speakers to help with training. 

Montana provided every county with a special 

training DVD. Pennsylvania worked with colleges 

and universities to improve its training curriculum. 

North Carolina offered certification seminars for 

election officials through the University of North 

Carolina’s Institute of Government. 

Although some States had been training election 

officials for years, most had not been training poll 

workers because that task had primarily been the 

local officials’ responsibility. Before the passage of 

HAVA, it was quite common for poll worker training 

programs to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In 

2004, chief election officials in every State called for 

uniform procedures for training poll 

workers statewide. 
8

The office of Massachusetts’ secretary of the 

Commonwealth worked with local officials to design 

presentations to teach poll workers about new 

ID requirements. New Jersey’s attorney general 

published a manual that included procedures for 

obtaining ID from first-time voters and distributed it 

to poll workers across the State. 

Voter Education and Outreach

The States that participated in this study 

approached voter education in equally creative 

ways. Several States aired voter education videos 

on public access television and issued election 

guides for first-time voters. Every State posted 

information about ID requirements on the Web and 

many used free media coverage to communicate ID 

requirements to voters. 

Massachusetts sent postcards to first-time 

registrants who would be required to show ID at 

their polling place to notify them of the new law. 

The State also devoted most of the content of its 

Information for Voters booklet, which was sent to 

every household in Massachusetts, to explaining 

the ID requirement. 

Indiana and Montana enlisted community 

organizations to help educate voters. Indiana 

established partnerships with organizations such 

as the National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People and the American Association 

of Retired Persons to reach prospective voters who 

might have difficulty understanding and complying 

with ID requirements. Montana provided grants to 

more than 90 organizations in an effort to help them 

educate their constituents. 

New Jersey recruited high-profile celebrities to 

appear in public service announcements. Actors 

Michael Douglas and Jason Alexander and 

musician Wyclef Jean were among those who 

helped encourage voters to register and to visit the 

State’s Web site to learn more about requirements 

for first-time, by-mail registrants. 

Voter Registration

Although election officials process voter registration 

applications differently from State to State, they do 

have a few commonalities. 

All of the States studied adopted uniform 

procedures for processing voter registration 

applications and established a link from their 

statewide voter registration database to the 

State motor vehicles department for the purpose 

of verifying the identities of voter registration 

applicants. Every State notifies registrants when 

their applications are accepted. County officials in 

nearly every State studied enter voter registration 

applications into the system, although in 

Massachusetts municipal officials are responsible 

for processing the forms.

Election officials in every State notify applicants 

whose registration forms are incomplete or whose 

identities cannot be verified and give them the 

opportunity to provide additional information, but 

each State has different procedures for doing so. 

Local officials in Indiana are required to contact 

applicants by phone and by mail. If the applicant 

does not respond, he or she is not registered 

and must cast a provisional ballot at the polls. 

County officials in Montana and New Jersey 

notify applicants by phone and mail. In Montana, 

applicants who do not respond are “provisionally 

registered” and are required to show ID at the polls. 

New Jersey registers these applicants but requires 

them to show ID at the polls. In Pennsylvania and 

North Carolina, applicants receive a letter. If they do 

not respond, they will be offered a provisional ballot 

on Election Day. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

Before HAVA passed, it was common for different 

jurisdictions within the same State to use different 

systems and procedures to process voter 

registration applications. 
9

Montana reported that, in the absence of a 

statewide system, some of its counties had to 

rely on a word processing application to maintain 

their voter rolls. In Pennsylvania, each of the 

State’s 67 counties had different procedures for 

processing voter registration applications and it was 

nearly impossible for them to determine whether 

applicants were registered to vote in other counties. 

But new statewide voter registration databases 

and ID requirements have helped increase the 

accuracy of the States’ voter rolls. Now, all the local 

jurisdictions in each State use the same statewide 

voter registration database to process registration 

applications and follow the same procedures for 

entering the applications into the system.

When new registration applications are entered, 

voter registration databases in all six of the States 

that participated in this study use the ID number 

provided by the applicant to automatically check 

the State motor vehicles department’s records for 

duplicate registrations (one or more pre-existing 

registration records for the same voter). 

All of the States’ systems are password protected 

and permit only users to edit records for their 

jurisdiction. Several State databases also track 

user activity. The Massachusetts Voter Registration 

Information System, for example, requires users to 

log into a Windows domain controller first and then 

enter a separate user ID to log into the database. 

Each user’s ID serves as a traceable identifier that 

enables the system to track the user’s activity.

Some of the six States further ensured the accuracy 

of their voter rolls by providing election officials with 

technical support and instructional handbooks. In 

Montana, trainers helped the counties transfer voter 

registration records to the new system to maintain 

the integrity of existing records. Indiana distributed 

a ready-reference guide that system users could 

attach to their computer screens. 

Voter Registration Trends 

It is difficult to discern many significant trends from 

the Census Bureau’s State voter registration data 

for 2004, the year HAVA’s ID requirements took 

effect, but a few stand out. For example, between 

2000 and 2004, the increase in percentage of 

African Americans registered to vote outpaced 

the increase in percentage of the total population 

registered to vote in four of the States surveyed. 

Only in Massachusetts did African-American 

voter registration underperform the statewide 

average, showing a 1.8-percent decrease against a 

statewide 1.7-percent increase.12

Similarly, registration of voters aged 18 to 24 

increased considerably more than the State total 

in three of the six States surveyed, and that figure 

was unavailable in a fourth (Montana). Only in 

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania did that subgroup 

underperform the statewide averages and, in those 

two cases, only by a slim margin.

Registration of voters 75 and older differed 

considerably from their statewide changes in four 

cases. Those figures were considerably higher 

than the statewide changes in two States (Indiana 

and North Carolina) and considerably lower in two 

others (Massachusetts and 

New Jersey). 

Two States saw changes in registration among 

women that were not entirely consistent with 

the statewide trend. The percentage of women 

registered in Indiana decreased by 4.7 percent 

from 2000 to 2004 as compared with a 1.7-percent 

overall decrease in registered voters in the State. 

Registration among women in Montana increased by 

3.6 percent, nearly 2 points lower than the statewide 

increase in the total number of registered voters.13 

Fewer data were available for 2006, and no figures 

were available for racial/ethnic, age, and gender 

subgroups of interest. It appears that four out of the 

six States studied experienced an increase in the 

percentage of their voting-age citizen population 

that was registered to vote. But census population 

figures for 2006 are only estimated predictions 

because no formal census data are 

yet available.

Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, and Pennsylvania all reported increases 

in the number of new registrants that were added to 
10

the rolls in the days leading up to the 2004 election 

as compared with 2000. Only one State, Montana, 

reported adding more new registrants to the rolls 

in 2006 than in 2002.14 These registration figures 

are for the time period beginning after the close of 

registration for the previous Federal election year 

and running through the close of registration for the 

Federal election year named.15

Three States saw a significant increase in the 

percentage of voter registration applications that 

were submitted by mail in 2004 compared with 

2000, the previous Presidential election year. 

The largest increase in applications submitted by 

mail was in Massachusetts. Of all voter registration 

applications, 59 percent were submitted by mail in 

the State in 2004—a 41-point increase from just 

17.7 percent in 2000.16 This dramatic increase may 

be attributed in part to the State’s voter education 

efforts. In 2004, the secretary’s office sent an 

informational booklet to every household in the 

State that was largely devoted to explaining how to 

register to vote by mail and comply with HAVA’s ID 

requirements. The centerpiece of the booklet was a 

mail-in registration form. 

In Montana, approximately 23 percent of voter 

registration applications were submitted by 

mail in 2004 compared with 17 percent in 2000. 

The percentage of by-mail applications in 

Pennsylvania increased by 4 points from 2000 to 

2004. Pennsylvania also had the second highest 

percentage of by-mail applications in 2004: 

35 percent.17

Indiana experienced a 17-point drop in the 

percentage of applications that were submitted in 

2004. Of applications in 2000, 35 percent were by 

mail, but just 17.8 percent were by mail in 2004.18

The corresponding percentage for 2006 was 6.7 

points lower than in 2002. 

According to State estimates, most first-time, bymail registrants included a driver’s license number 

or the last four digits of their Social Security number 

with their registration form in 2004 and 2006. 

Estimates ranged from 80 to 95 percent. States also 

estimated that anywhere from less than 1 percent 

to 6 percent of first-time registrants submitted a 

copy of ID with their registration application. 

Because these figures are only estimates, no real 

comparisons can be drawn from State to State. It 

is clear, though, that most by-mail registrants who 

submitted ID with their registration form included 

a copy of their driver’s license. State estimates 

ranged from 80 to 98 percent. Two States (New 

Jersey and North Carolina) did not provide 

estimates but said most applicants who included ID 

used a driver’s license. 

The States agreed that most of the applicants who 

included a copy of their ID submitted the National 

Mail Voter Registration Form, a document created 

by the Federal Government that may be used to 

register to vote in any of the 47 States that accept 

the form. According to State election officials, voters 

who complete the national form are more likely to 

include ID than voters who complete a form that the 

State provides. 

That may be because the form’s accompanying 

instructions advise voters that “Federal law requires 

you to show proof of identification the first time you 

vote ... Voters may be exempt from this requirement 

if they submit a copy of this identification with their 

mail-in voter registration form.” A reminder on the 

application itself, in bold red lettering, alerts firsttime voters to “refer to the application instructions 

for information on submitting copies of valid 

identification documents with this form.” 

At the Polls

Most first-time voters who registered by mail 

provided current and valid ID at the polls in both 

2004 and 2006. State election officials’ estimates 

According to State election officials, 

voters who complete the national 

form are more likely to include ID 

than voters who complete a form that 

the State provides. 
11

of the percentage of first-time voters who complied 

with ID requirements on Election Day ranged from 

95 to 98 percent. North Carolina did not provide 

an estimate but reported that lack of acceptable ID 

was a nonissue. 

Most first-time voters who were required to 

show ID at the polls presented a driver’s license. 

Montana and Pennsylvania reported the lowest 

percentages of voters who showed a license: 85 

and 80 percent, respectively. 

Montana’s lower-than-average percentage is 

likely due to the fact that 6 percent of the State’s 

residents are Native American, and most Native 

American voters used a tribal ID card as their 

ID. Tribal IDs were the second most commonly 

presented form of ID in Montana.

Pennsylvania officials said that voters who did 

not show a driver’s license at the polls tended to 

be senior citizens and inner-city residents. These 

voters presented passports, State residence 

licenses, and student IDs as their identification. 

The number of provisional or fail-safe ballots cast 

in 2006 was considerably smaller than in 2004 

in nearly every State, which is understandable 

because fewer voters participated in the midterm 

election than in the Presidential election. But closer 

examination reveals that provisional ballot figures 

dropped more than voter participation figures did.

•	 The number of provisional ballots cast in New 

Jersey was 74 percent lower in 2006 than in 

2004. The total number of ballots cast in the 

State dropped by only 37 percent. 

•	 The number of provisional ballots cast in 

Massachusetts dropped by 60 percent and 

voter participation dropped by 27 percent. 

•	 Nearly 71 percent fewer provisional ballots were 

cast in North Carolina. Voter participation in the 

State dropped by 44 percent. 

•	 In Indiana, provisional ballot totals were 

64 percent lower in 2006 than in 2004, 

compared with a 40-percent decrease in 

voter participation. 

Montana is the only State (for which data were 

available) in which the number of provisional 

ballots cast increased, from 623 in 2004 to 2,242 

in 2006, despite a 14-percent decrease in the 

number of ballots cast overall. The State passed 

its ID-for-all-voters law in 2003, so it is unlikely 

that the requirement was the cause of an increase 

in provisional ballots 3 years and one Federal 

election later. 

Montana reported that the percentage of 

provisional ballots that were able to be counted 

increased from 60 percent in 2004 to 95 percent 

in 2006. Just 27, or approximately 1 percent of 

provisional ballots were not counted due to the 

voter’s failure to provide proper ID. 

Four other States also reported higher 

percentages of provisional ballots counted in 2006. 

Indiana’s percentage of provisional ballots counted 

jumped from 15 to 44 percent. North Carolina’s 

percentage rose from 65 to 74. Provisional ballots 

counted in New Jersey increased from 55 percent 

in 2004 to 69 percent in 2006. Data were not 

available for Pennsylvania.

Massachusetts is the only State that reported a 

decrease, from 23 percent of provisional ballots 

counted in 2004 to 21 percent in 2006. State 

election officials in Massachusetts estimated that 

the percentage of provisional ballots cast by firsttime voters due to a lack of proper ID dropped a 

small amount: from 2 percent in 2004 to 1.5 percent 

in 2006.

Implementation Costs

The exact cost to the States of implementing 

Section 303(b) is hard to determine, because many 

of the expenditures paid for equipment, training, 

and practices that were necessary to comply with 

more than just this one HAVA mandate. 

Only one State, Massachusetts, set aside a 

designated Section 303(b) budget; but that $332,000 

budget did not include money spent to implement the 

required statewide voter registration database. 

Other States lumped these expenses in with 

the budget they earmarked to pay for a voter 

registration database, election official and poll 
12

worker training, voter education, and provisional 

balloting. States estimated they spent anywhere 

from less than 1 percent to 25 percent of this 

money on equipment, training, and initiatives 

necessary to comply with Section 303(b).

One easily identified cost to the States was time. 

Nearly every State reported that it takes election 

officials more time to process voter registration 

applications than it did before HAVA’s ID 

requirements took effect. 

New Jersey was affected the most. State election 

officials in New Jersey do not handle voter 

registration applications and were unable to 

estimate how long the process takes, but several 

counties reported that it takes them an extra 3 1⁄2 

minutes per application. 

Benefits and Challenges

Election officials in the six States that participated 

in this study were asked to highlight what they think 

were the benefits and challenges of implementing 

Section 303(b). In States that expanded on HAVA’s 

ID requirement, officials said one of the law’s 

biggest benefits is that ID for first-time voters who 

register by mail helps to deter fraud. 

“Just one case of voter fraud undermines 

democracy and cancels someone’s vote,” Indiana 

HAVA administrator Joe McLain said. “HAVA’s ID 

requirements and our additional ID requirements 

were a relatively inexpensive way for us to prevent 

fraud and increase voter confidence.”

Similarly, officials in States that chose to implement 

Section 303(b) as the maximum ID requirement 

reported that ID for first-time voters was one of the 

law’s biggest challenges. 

“We were concerned that the law would keep 

some eligible voters from participating in our 

elections,” said Maria DelValle-Koch, director of 

New Jersey’s election division. “We have a large 

immigrant population here. Many of them are new 

citizens and eligible to vote, but because English 

is their second language, they can be easily 

overwhelmed by complicated requirements for 

voting like voter identification.”

In Massachusetts, however, where IDs are 

required only from first-time voters who register 

by mail, legal counsel to the secretary of the 

Commonwealth’s Election Division Michelle 

Tassinari said that the new ID law is both beneficial 

and a challenge. She said the State’s aging poll 

workers are sometimes uncomfortable addressing 

complaints about the ID requirements from firsttime voters, but the State has had positive feedback 

from some voters.

“People like the comfort factor that the new ID 

requirements give them,” Tassinari said. “They know 

that the ID laws help protect against fraud.”

Two of the States that extended HAVA’s 

requirements beyond first-time voters reported 

that educating voters about the new law was 

challenging. Three States reported that the HAVAmandated statewide voter registration database 

was one of the biggest benefits of the law. 

According to elections specialist Alan Miller in 

Montana, the registration database, in conjunction 

with ID requirements, has made it possible for the 

State to “consider options that would otherwise not 

have been feasible if safeguards were not in place.” 

Specifically, Miller is referring to Election Day 

registration, which Montana currently allows. 

Another 19 States are considering legislation that 

would permit Election Day registration. Of the six 

selected States under review, only New Jersey 

has no legislation pending. Although four of the 

selected States are considering enacting Election 

Day registration legislation, Montana has draft 

legislation that would end Election Day registration. 

None of the States indicated that the added time 

it takes to process registrations and verify voters’ 

identities on the statewide system has been 

“People like the comfort factor that 

the new ID requirements give them,” 

Tassinari said. “They know that the 

ID laws help protect against fraud.”
13

a challenge. But five of the six States studied 

reported that the time it takes to process one 

registration has increased by 1 minute or more, 

which can add up in States that are handling 

several hundred thousand—and in some cases 

more than one million—applications each Federal 

election year. 

Recommended Practices

A number of State programs and resources proved 

to be particularly effective according to the States, 

and some were more effective than others. 

Voter Education

The Indiana secretary of State’s office worked with 

community organizations and other State agencies to 

reach out to groups of prospective voters, including 

first-time voters, who were deemed the least likely 

to understand and comply with the State’s ID 

requirements. State partners such as the Governor’s 

Planning Council for People with Disabilities, the 

National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People and the American Association of 

Retired Persons helped Indiana communicate ID 

requirements to these voters directly.

Montana employed a grassroots approach to 

educating voters. State election office staffers 

met with prospective voters face to face at powwows (gatherings of the State’s Native American 

population), State and county fairs, trade shows, 

conventions, and college-sponsored events. They 

used these opportunities to notify voters of new ID 

requirements and provisional voting procedures. 

The secretary of the Commonwealth’s office in 

Massachusetts sent its Information for Voters 

booklet to every household in the State. The voting 

guide focused on explaining requirements for 

first-time voters who register to vote by mail and 

included a mail-in voter registration form. 

New Jersey’s attorney general spoke about HAVAmandated election reforms, including ID for firsttime voters who register by mail, at a special event 

for young voters that was streamed via the Internet 

to every high school in the State. 

Training and Support for Local Officials

Montana established a “foster” program in which 

county officials who were members of the State’s 

election reform task force each adopted several 

counties. “Parent” officials advised the foster 

counties on how to comply with new ID procedures. 

Indiana provided local officials with ready-reference 

guides that were designed to be attached to the 

side of a computer screen and included instructions 

for processing voter registration applications from 

first-time voters. 

Election board officials in North Carolina added a 

live-help feature to the department’s Web site. Local 

officials who log into the system receive assistance 

from an information technology professional who 

can walk them through processes, such as entering 

a voter registration application, live on the system 

itself. North Carolina also established a Wellness 

Check program under which a team of State 

election officials visit county boards of elections and 

audit a number of procedures to ensure they are 

compliant with Federal and State laws. 

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania published detailed 

instructional manuals that, using screen shots and 

step-by-step directions, explained how to process 

registration applications from first-time voters. 

Media Outreach 

Indiana conducted background sessions for 

media throughout the State to explain the new 

ID requirements and other election reforms to 

reporters, producers, and editors. The secretary’s 

office also offered media training to local officials to 

prepare them to effectively communicate the new 

requirements to journalists. 

Voter ID Legislation

In the future, more States may join the list of those 

that have expanded on HAVA’s Section 303(b) 

ID requirements for first-time voters who register 

by mail. According to the National Conference 

of State Legislatures’ Web site, 16 States are 

considering legislation that would require all voters 
14

to provide photo ID at the polls. Another 12 States 

are considering legislation that would require every 

voter to show nonphoto ID. Two of the six studied 

States are considering legislation that would require 

ID from all voters. Legislation has been introduced in 

Indiana that would repeal that State’s photo ID law. 

Massachusetts is considering a spate of legislation. 

The most noteworthy bills are SB440, which would 

require voters to show a photo ID, and SB464, 

which would accept certain nonphoto IDs. Both 

bills were read in January of 2007 and have been 

referred to the Committee on Election Laws. 

North Carolina is considering HB185, which 

provides nonspecifically that voters provide ID 

before voting, and HB989 and SB779, which 

require government-issued photo ID. HB185 was 

introduced on February 15, 2007, and has been 

referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, 

and Operations. HB989 was introduced in March 

2007 and has been referred to the Committee on 

Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform and, if 

favorable, will go to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

SB779, also introduced in March 2007, has been 

referred to the Select Committee on Government 

and Election Reform. 

Indiana is considering two bills. One, SB182, 

defines what constitutes acceptable proof of 

Identification. Nonphoto IDs, such as utility bills and 

bank statements, would be considered acceptable. 

The bill was first read in January 2007; it has been 

referred to the Committee on Local Government 

and Elections. Another bill, HB1806, changes the 

definition of “proof of identification” for purposes of 

voting to reflect the standards set by HAVA. After 

an initial reading in January, it was referred to the 

same committee.
Indiana 15

Indiana

State election officials estimate 

that, in 2004 and 2006, 95 percent 

of first-time, by-mail registrants 

provided ID that met the State’s 

requirements.

New State Laws

The Indiana legislature passed a bill in 2005 

that gave the State some of the strictest ID 

requirements in the country.19 The law mandates 

that every voter present government-issued 

photo ID before signing in at the polling place. 

The ID must include the voter’s name, photo, and 

expiration date, and it must have been issued by 

the Federal Government or the State of Indiana. 

Voters who do not already have a valid photo ID may 

obtain one free of charge from the State’s Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles. Voters who apply for a photo ID at 

the bureau must provide three types of ID.

The requirements are best explained in Indiana’s 

handbook for precinct election boards, which 

appears in italics below. 

A new issuance of a photo ID Card requires the 

applicant to present:

•	 One (1) Primary Document 

•	 One (1) Secondary Document 

•	 One (1) Proof of Indiana Residency Document 

(A Primary of Secondary Document may also 

meet the Indiana residency requirement as long 

as the applicant’s name and correct address 

are shown on the document)

OR

•	 Two (2) Primary Documents 

•	 One (1) Proof of Indiana Residency Document

Primary Documents (one required)

•	 Official Birth Certificate or Certification of Birth 

DS-1350 

•	 U.S. Certificate of Naturalization/Citizenship 

•	 U.S. Passport 

•	 U.S. Military I.D. Card or Veteran’s Universal ID 

Card with Photo

Secondary Documents (one required)

•	 Bank Statement 

•	 Major Credit/Debit Card 

•	 Certified Academic Transcript 

•	 Insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid Card 

•	 Computer Generated Paycheck Stub

Proof of Indiana Residency (one required)

Any document from the list of Primary Documents 

or Secondary Documents may be used as proof 

of Indiana residence as long as the document 

contains the applicant’s name and residential 

address. For the purposes of this policy, a Post 

Office Box is not an acceptable residential address.

•	 Utility Bill 

•	 Other Current Bill or Benefit Statement (within 

60 days of issuance) 

•	 Voter Registration Card 

•	 Child Support Check from FSSA with name and 

address of the applicant attached 

•	 Change of Address Confirmation Form 

•	 Indiana Property Deed or Tax Assessment 

•	 Indiana Residency Affidavit 20

In addition to providing a photo ID at the polls, 

every first-time voter who registered by mail must 

present ID that includes the voter’s name and 

address, if it is not printed on the voter’s photo ID. 

First-time voters may avoid this requirement by 

providing ID with their registration application.21

Indiana’s photo ID law was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in April 2007, when the 

court voted not to rehear the case brought against 

the State by the Indiana Democratic Party and the 

State’s American Civil Liberties Union chapter. 
16 Indiana

Indiana also passed laws requiring all of the State’s 

92 counties to use the statewide voter registration 

database and to implement provisional ballots.22

Secretary of State Todd Rokita, elected in 2002, 

serves as Indiana’s chief election official. The 

secretary has worked with Indiana’s election 

division, a group within the secretary’s office led by 

two codirectors who are appointed by the governor, 

to implement all election reforms in the State. 

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form

Indiana did not have a statewide voter registration 

database before HAVA passed. The State hired 

Quest Information Systems in 2004 to develop a 

HAVA-compliant system that is accessible by every 

county voter registration office in the State. 

The system, known as First Tuesday, was introduced 

in 10 pilot counties in May 2005 and used by every 

county in the State by December 2005. Election 

officials use the system to generate poll lists that 

indicate which voters are first-time registrants who 

are required to present additional ID at the polls. 

First Tuesday also generates a voter ID card that is 

sent to every successfully registered voter.

Indiana’s voter registration application was updated 

to include a section that applicants are instructed 

to fill in with their driver’s license number or the last 

four digits of their Social Security number. The form 

also informs prospective registrants that, if they are 

registering to vote in a county for the first time and 

sending the application by mail, they must provide 

ID documentation either with the application or at 

the polls on Election Day. The form includes a list of 

acceptable ID. 

Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers 

Indiana contracted with its database developer, 

Quest, to conduct a series of extensive training 

sessions with the counties. Quest, in turn, hired 

motivational speakers and professional trainers 

to bring county officials up to speed on the new 

system.

Classes were conducted for all county officials in 

designated registration training centers throughout 

the State and on the Web. A sandbox that mirrored 

the database but was housed on a different 

server enabled new users to experiment with the 

registration system without corrupting the live data. 

A list of standard operating procedures was also 

issued to each county. 

Ongoing training is offered to any new hires, and 

counties are immediately notified of any changes 

or updates to the system. All training materials are 

posted on a designated Web site. 

The State issued Election Day handbooks with 

basic information about polling place procedures to 

precinct election officials and poll workers in 2004 

and 2006. The 2004 guide included instructions for 

requesting ID from first-time voters who registered 

by mail and administering provisional ballots. 

Instructions for implementing the State’s photo ID 

law and additional ID requirements for first-time 

voters who registered by mail were added to the 

2006 guide. 

Indiana also created election official and poll worker 

training videos and streaming video on the Web. 

Voter Education and Outreach 

Indiana communicated HAVA’s ID and provisional 

balloting requirements to voters in 2004 through 

video and print materials and direct outreach. 

The secretary’s office developed agreements with 

local government and public television stations 

to air election reform information. The office 

produced a voter education video and public 

service announcements that aired on radio and 

television stations throughout the State and posted 

information for first-time voters on the Web. The 

State also sent representatives to community 

events throughout the State. 

After the State passed its photo ID law in 2005, 

Secretary Rokita assembled a Vote with ID Task 

Force made up of community leaders from around 
Indiana 17

the State. He worked with the group to develop a 

plan for educating voters, including first-time voters 

who registered by mail, about the new requirements. 

In 2006, Indiana implemented a multimedia voter 

education campaign that used the Internet, outdoor 

advertising and television and radio public service 

announcements to reach voters. 

The State produced English and Spanish versions 

of a Photo ID Quick Reference Guide that explained 

the basics of photo ID and provisional ballots to 

voters and was distributed by the secretary’s office, 

county election officials, Bureau of Motor Vehicles 

branches, State agencies and community leaders. 

The State also released a first-time voters’ guide to 

registering and voting.

Indiana worked with media outlets in the State to 

achieve coverage of the ID initiative. The secretary’s 

staff wrote a series of editorials, pitched ID-related 

stories and conducted train-the-media sessions for 

interested reporters and editors.

Voter Registration

Indiana’s local election officials process voter 

registration applications received from prospective 

voters in their jurisdictions and enter them into the 

First Tuesday system. First Tuesday automatically 

verifies the accuracy of driver’s license and partial 

Social Security numbers (the last four digits of 

the number) provided on voter registration forms 

through a link to the State’s Bureau of Motor 

Vehicles Commission. 

Voters whose applications are accepted receive a 

voter ID card. Local election officials are required to 

contact by phone all voters who submit incomplete 

registration forms. Counties follow up with written 

notification if they receive no response to the initial 

phone contact. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

Indiana’s counties had an assortment of systems 

for tracking and processing voter registration 

applications before HAVA passed. The State’s new 

First Tuesday system and the training local officials 

received immediately helped increase the accuracy 

of the State’s voter rolls by ensuring that each 

county used the same system and followed the 

same procedures to process applications. 

First Tuesday is password-protected and is capable 

of tracking system activity. In fact, the system saves 

and time-stamps each key stroke, so each user’s 

entire history can be viewed. User access is limited 

so that county officials can only edit the information 

that is relevant to their county. The system also 

automatically checks for duplicate registrations 

statewide whenever a new application is entered. 

Incomplete registration applications are designated 

by the system as “pending” until local officials can 

contact the applicant and obtain the additional 

information. That way, incomplete registrations 

do not become part of the permanent record of 

registered voters, and they are not put away in a 

file without followup. If election officials are unable 

to obtain the missing information, applications are 

rejected and voters must cast a provisional ballot.

Even if the registration application is approved, 

the voter is considered “pending” until the end of 

a 7-day period. During that time, if the voter ID 

card is returned to the county as undeliverable, 

the registration is cancelled before it is entered 

permanently into the system. 

At the Polls

The percentage of first-time voters who registered 

by mail and showed proper ID at the polls in 

Indiana was in line with the percentage reported 

by other States that participated in this study. State 

election officials estimate that, in 2004 and 2006, 

95 percent of first-time, by-mail registrants provided 

ID that met the State’s requirements.

Also according to State election officials, anywhere 

from 85 to 90 percent of those voters presented a 

driver’s license in 2004 and 2006. Approximately 

5 to 7 percent of voters in those years showed a 

State ID card and 2 percent provided military or 

student IDs. 
18

The percentage of total ballots cast that were 

provisional was lower in 2006 than in 2004 in 

Indiana: .13 percent in 2006 compared with .21 

percent in 2004. 

Notably, a much larger percentage of provisional 

ballots were counted in 2006 than in 2004. 

Approximately 16 percent of provisional ballots cast 

in 2004 were counted and 45 percent of provisional 

ballots cast in 2006 were counted.

State election officials were unable to determine 

what percentage of provisional ballots in either 

Indiana

Voter Registration Trends

•	 Indiana exhibited a slight decrease in voter 

registration from 2000 to 2004, declining 

from 68.5 percent registration statewide 

in 2000 to 66.8 percent in 2004, for a 

1.7-percent decrease overall, despite the 

fact that the State’s race for governor in 

2004 was closer than the 2000 governor’s 

race, and a closer margin typically increases 

participation.23

•	 Corresponding changes in registration 

percentages within gender, racial/ethnic 

and age subgroups were in some cases 

generally consistent with the statewide 

trend, whereas others stood apart. The 

latter include a 1.5 percentage point 

increase in voter registration among men 

and a 4.7 point decrease in registration 

among women.24 African-American voter 

registration increased 3.6 points, registration 

within the age 18-to-24 cohort increased 

5.7 percentage points and registration of 

75-and-older voters increased 1.8 points.25 

•	 More than 470,000 new registrants were 

added to Indiana’s voter rolls from the 

end of registration in 2003 through the 

registration period’s close of registration in 

2004. That number was up from 394,477 

during the same period from 1999 through 

2000. Approximately 18 percent of those 

voter registration applications were submitted 

by mail in 2004, a substantial drop from the 

35 and 39 percent that were submitted by 

mail in 2000 and 2002, respectively.26 

•	 Fewer new registrants were added to the 

State’s voter rolls in 2006—only about 

206,000. Registration figures are usually 

down in off-election years, but it is notable 

that 2006 numbers were lower than those 

for the last midterm. In 2002, 257,000 new 

registrants were added to the rolls.27

•	 Of all applications, 33 percent were submitted 

by mail in 2006, an increase from the just 18 

percent in 2004. The 2006 percentage was 

2 to 6 points lower than in 2000 and 2002, 

respectively.28

•	 Most by-mail registrants in Indiana included 

their driver’s license number or the last four 

digits of their Social Security number with 

their application. Of all registrants, 85 percent 

included one of the numbers in 2004 and 90 

percent included one of them in 2006.

•	 Anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of by-mail 

registrants submitted a copy of ID with their 

application, according to State estimates. Of 

those applicants, 90 to 95 percent included a 

copy of a driver’s license or State ID card. 

year were cast by first-time voters who registered 

by mail. The State is in the process of building 

that tracking capability into its statewide voter 

registration system.

Implementation Costs

State election officials estimate that Indiana spent 

anywhere from $11 to $15 million implementing a 

statewide voter registration database, educating 

voters, training election officials and poll workers 

and setting up provisional balloting. Approximately 5 

percent of that money—as much as $750,000—went 

toward Section 303(b) requirements. 
Indiana 19

It takes county officials less than 1 minute more 

to process voter registrations now than it did 

before the State implemented a statewide voter 

registration system and ID requirements. State 

officials estimate that some counties may even 

experience a time savings since moving to the 

more efficient, user-friendly statewide system for 

processing registration applications. 

Benefits and Challenges

The biggest challenge with regard to implementing 

Section 303(b) and the State’s photo ID 

requirement for all voters, according to State 

election officials, was educating voters. 

“But through a combination of multimedia and direct 

outreach programs, we were able to reach voters 

across the State,” Indiana HAVA Administrator 

Joseph McLain said. “We worked hard to make sure 

everyone understood the new requirements, and 

we were pleased to see that we did not get a large 

number of calls about voter ID to our hotline on 

Election Day.”

The number one benefit, according to McLain, is 

increased voter confidence.

“Just one case of voter fraud undermines democracy 

and cancels someone’s vote,” McLain said. 

“Without ID requirements, there’s no way to stop 

fraud. HAVA’s requirements and our additional ID 

requirements were a relatively inexpensive way for 

us to prevent fraud and increase voter confidence.”

Recommended Practices

The Indiana secretary of State’s office recognized 

that certain groups of voters might have a 

harder time than others complying with the new 

ID requirements, either because they do not 

understand the new laws or do not have the means 

necessary to obtain photo ID. 

These groups were identified as first-time voters, 

senior citizens, indigent voters, voters with 

disabilities and re-enfranchised ex-felons. 

The State moved quickly to reach out to these 

at-risk groups. The secretary’s office developed 

strategic partnerships with State agencies and 

private organizations that are uniquely suited to 

communicate with these voters. State partners 

included the American Association of Retired 

Persons, National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People, the Governor’s Planning Council 

for People with Disabilities, student groups, utility 

companies, and all political parties in the State, 

among others. Through these organizations, 

Indiana was able to reach targeted groups of voters 

directly in a way it could not have on its own. 

Indiana recognized the importance of 

communicating new ID requirements correctly 

to media outlets around the State, and so the 

State designed and conducted background and 

educational sessions for reporters, editors, and 

producers at regional media outlets. The secretary’s 

office also provided media training to county 

election officials to prepare them to be interviewed 

by reporters and to effectively and accurately 

communicate the new requirements.

The State provided counties with ready-reference 

guides in an effort to make new verification 

procedures easy for local officials to follow. The 

guides, which can be attached to the side of a 

computer screen and viewed while working on that 

computer, include instructions for processing voter 

registration applications from first-time voters who 

submitted them by mail. 

“Just one case of voter fraud 

undermines democracy and cancels 

someone’s vote.” 

Indiana HAVA Administrator 

Joseph McLain
20 Massachusetts

New State Laws 

Rather than expanding on HAVA and requiring ID 

from all voters, Massachusetts chose to implement 

Section 303(b) as the maximum requirement for 

voter ID in the State. In 2004, the State legislature 

passed a voter ID law that is an almost verbatim 

recitation of the requirements as stated in HAVA.29

The State requires only first-time voters who 

register to vote by mail to show ID at the polls. 

Acceptable ID includes a current and valid driver’s 

license, other photo ID or a current utility bill, bank 

statement, paycheck, government check or other 

government document that shows the voter’s name 

and address. 

Voters may be exempt from this requirement if they 

include a driver’s license number or at least the last 

four digits of their Social Security number on the 

application and that number and the voter’s identity 

can be verified. Applicants may also be exempt 

if they include with their registration a copy of a 

current and valid ID.

State legislation that established provisional voting 

was passed to comply with HAVA.30 The State had 

previously offered “escrow ballots” to voters if local 

election officials could not find any voter registration 

record for an individual who wished to vote. “Escrow 

ballots” were reviewed only if the election victory 

margin was so small that they could have an effect 

on the outcome. 

The State also passed a law that called on the 

secretary of the Commonwealth to establish 

Massachusetts

and manage a statewide voter registration 

database, as well as a number of rules related to 

implementing Federal requirements.31 Secretary 

William Galvin was elected in 1994 and is the chief 

State election official responsible for implementing 

HAVA’s mandates. 

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form 

Massachusetts has had a voter registration 

database since 1995, but overhauled the system 

after HAVA passed to comply with the law. The 

improved Voter Registration Information System 

(VRIS), a real-time database that supports more 

than 1,000 users in each of the State’s 351 

cities and towns, was developed by UNISYS 

in cooperation with on-staff developers in the 

secretary’s office. 

The VRIS was modified so that the system 

could communicate with the State’s Registry of 

Motor Vehicles’ network and verify the identity 

of registration applicants who provided their 

driver’s license number or the last four digits of 

their Social Security number. The system allows 

election officials to print a notification letter and 

mail it to any applicant whose registration is not 

accepted. It also generates lists of voters who will 

be required to present ID at the polls. Local officials 

and poll workers use these lists on Election Day to 

determine who should be asked for ID.

The State’s election division worked with local 

election officials to redesign the Massachusetts 

voter registration form before the 2004 Federal 

election. The updated form instructs voters to 

provide their driver’s license number or the last 

four digits of their Social Security number. If the 

voter does not have either of those numbers, the 

form explains that they will be assigned a unique 

identifier by the State. 

The form also advises voters that if their identity 

cannot be verified using a driver’s license or partial 

social security number and if they do not include 

a copy of valid ID, they will be asked to present ID 

before voting. A list of acceptable ID is provided. 

State election officials estimate 

that 97 percent of first-timers who 

were required to show ID at the 

polls in 2004 provided current, 

valid, and acceptable ID. 
Massachusetts 21

Training for Election Officials and 

Poll Workers 

Secretary Galvin developed a comprehensive plan 

for training local election officials and poll workers 

to ensure that the new ID requirements were 

applied in a uniform manner. 

The secretary led seminars on the new ID 

requirements at meetings of the Association of 

City and Town Clerks and made himself and his 

staff members available to help the locals train poll 

workers. He also worked with the clerks’ association 

to develop an educational certification program that 

included a briefing on Massachusetts’ laws and 

regulations relating to voter ID. 

In cooperation with local election officials, Secretary 

Galvin sponsored annual election administration 

workshops that covered such topics as voter ID. 

Together, State and local officials also produced 

separate training presentations for election officials, 

staff and poll workers on ID requirements. They 

included instruction on the nondiscriminatory 

application of HAVA’s ID requirements, provisional 

ballots, and poll worker training. 

Voter Education and Outreach

The secretary’s office established itself as the 

State’s central voter education clearinghouse and 

launched an aggressive voter outreach plan before 

the 2004 Federal election. 

Before both the primary and general elections, the 

State sent postcards to first-time registrants who 

would be required to show ID at the polling place to 

notify them of the new requirement. The content of 

the State’s Information for Voters booklet, which is 

mailed to every household in the State before each 

statewide election, was dedicated almost entirely to 

explaining new ID laws. 

The 2004 booklet directed first-time voters to attach 

ID to their registration form:

Because of a new Federal law, the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 passed by Congress, if you 

registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 

2003, you will be required to show identification 

when you vote for the first time in a Federal election 

since registering by mail in 2003, or you can send 

in a copy of your identification with your voter 

registration form.

The requirements for first-time voters were outlined 

both on the secretary’s Web site and in public 

service advertisements placed in newspapers 

and aired on radio stations throughout the State. 

Staffers who answered calls to the State’s toll-free 

voter education hotline were trained to answer 

questions from first-time voters about registration 

and voting. 

Voter Registration 

Local election officials in Massachusetts’ cities and 

towns are responsible for processing registration 

applications submitted by applicants in their 

jurisdiction and entering them into the centralized, 

statewide VRIS. 

The system automatically checks the driver’s 

license number or last four Social Security number 

digits provided by the applicant against the State’s 

Registry of Motor Vehicles records. If no match is 

found, a message will display notifying the election 

official. The official will then print and mail a notice 

to the prospective voter that explains that a copy of 

ID must be submitted on or before Election Day. All 

first-time voters who register by mail also receive 

this notice. 

Applications from voters who do not include a 

verifiable ID number or copy of ID and do not 

provide one when ID is requested in writing are 

rejected. Every voter whose registration is rejected 

for any reason is notified in writing and given an 

opportunity to provide any missing information. 

Voters whose registrations are accepted receive an 

acknowledgement notice. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

State election officials indicate that the VRIS and the 

procedures for using and maintaining the system 

have helped increase the accuracy of the State’s 

voter rolls through identity verification, a rejected 
22 Massachusetts

applicant notification system, password security, 

limits on user access and broadcast e-mail. 

The system makes it easier for election officials 

to quickly notify rejected applicants so that those 

applicants have an opportunity to correct any errors 

on their voter registration application. It can print 

rejection notifications as appropriate after each 

individual application is entered, or print them later 

from a special reports module. 

Measures built into the system help prevent 

untrained users from accessing the database and 

corrupting voter records. The VRIS features a dual 

layer of network password security. Users must log 

into a Windows domain controller first, and then 

enter a separate user ID to log into the database. 

Each user has a unique ID and password and is 

only permitted to access those sections of the 

database that fall under his or her purview. The login 

information also serves as a traceable identifier that 

enables the system to track user activity. 

The State can use the system to communicate 

new rules, regulations and laws to election officials 

across the State. A broadcast e-mail function allows 

the State to notify all system users of any new 

policies immediately.

The State supplies all system users with a 

handbook that provides a uniform set of instructions 

for using VRIS. The handbook also directs users to 

Voter Registration Trends

•	 More stringent ID requirements for first-time 

voters have not had a discernable effect on 

the number of people who register to vote 

in Massachusetts. Massachusetts exhibited 

a slight increase in voter registration from 

2000 to 2004, rising from 70.3 percent 

registration statewide in 2000 to 72 percent 

in 2004, for a 1.7-percent increase overall.32

This increase could be due in part to the 

fact that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry 

was a candidate for president in 2004. 

•	 Corresponding changes in registration 

percentages within different gender, 

racial/ethnic, and age subgroups were in 

some cases generally consistent with the 

statewide trend, whereas others stood 

apart. African-American voter registration 

decreased by 1.8 percentage points. 

Registration of voters aged 65 to 74 and 75 

and older dropped by 2 and 6.7 percent, 

respectively. Similarly, voter registration 

increased 16.7 percent in the Asian/Pacific 

Islanders subgroup and 5 percent in voters 

aged 25 to 44.33

•	 Massachusetts reported adding 736,558 

new registrants to its voter rolls after 

the close of the registration period in 

2002 through the end of registration in 

2004—nearly 140,000 more than in 2000.34

It is possible, though, that because the 

State was in the process of updating its 

statewide voter registration database, some 

of those registrants were actually previously 

registered voters who were updated in the 

system and recorded as new. 

•	 A noteworthy increase, however, occurred in 

the number of voter registration applications 

that were submitted by mail in 2004. Of voter 

registration applications, 59 percent were 

submitted by mail that year, compared with 

31 percent in 2002 and just 18 percent in 

2000.35 

•	 Most by-mail applicants in Massachusetts 

included their driver’s license number or 

the last four digits of their Social Security 

number on their registration application. Of 

prospective voters who registered by mail 

in both 2004 and 2006, 95 percent included 

one of the ID numbers as instructed by the 

voter registration form. 

•	 Only 3 percent of by-mail registrants 

submitted a copy of ID with their voter 

registration application. Of those applicants, 

95 percent included a copy of a driver’s 

license. Massachusetts reported that most 

of the applicants who included a copy 

of ID completed the National Mail Voter 

Registration Form. 
Massachusetts 23

carefully review all duplicates found in the system 

to help keep the database clean and to store voting 

records correctly.

The handbook states: “All of the potential duplicates 

that appear on this screen may not be the same 

person. Be sure to verify all of the information on this 

screen against the registration being entered. An 

important field to note is the middle name.” It also 

notes that “one of the most common mistakes is 

merging people with different middle initials.”

At the Polls

First-time, by-mail registrants in Massachusetts 

demonstrated a thorough understanding of new 

ID requirements on Election Day in 2004 in large 

numbers and in even larger numbers in 2006. 

State election officials estimate that 97 percent 

of first-timers who were required to show ID at 

the polls in 2004 provided current, valid, and 

acceptable ID. Two years later, 98 percent of firsttime voters who were required to do so showed ID, 

giving Massachusetts one of the highest rates of 

voter ID compliance. 

State election officials said the bulk of these voters, 

95 percent in both 2004 and 2006, provided a 

driver’s license. The other 5 percent presented any 

one of a number of different IDs, all acceptable 

under State and Federal law, including utility 

bills, government checks, paychecks, and bank 

statements. Voters who offered poll workers some 

form of ID other than a driver’s license tended to be 

senior citizens and college students. 

Higher numbers of provisional ballots were cast in 

Massachusetts in 2004 than in 2006. This could 

be due in part to the fact that 2004 was the first 

election during which the new ID requirements took 

effect but can certainly be attributed to the fact that 

more voters participated in the 2004 Presidential 

election than did in the 2006 midterm elections. 

Approximately 10,000 provisional ballots were 

cast in Massachusetts in 2004, .32 percent of the 

total number of ballots cast. State election officials 

estimate that 2 percent of those provisional ballots 

were cast by first-time voters who did not have 

proper ID in 2004. Of those ballots, 23 percent 

were deemed valid and counted. Just under 

4,000 provisional ballots, or .17 percent of the 

total number of ballots, were cast in 2006 and 21 

percent of those ballots were counted. First-time 

voters without ID cast 1.5 percent of those ballots. 

Implementation Costs

The secretary’s office earmarked $332,347 of the 

Federal and State HAVA dollars it received to pay 

for Section 303(b)-related expenses. In addition to 

that amount, approximately 5 percent of the money 

the State allocated to pay for improvements to its 

VRIS, voter education, election official and poll 

worker training and provisional balloting was used 

to fund activities and improvements designed to 

help meet HAVA’s ID requirement. 

Altogether, the State spent approximately $830,000 

to implement new registration and ID requirements 

for first-time voters. That is just slightly more than 

Montana reported spending, even though the 

population of Massachusetts is about six and a half 

times larger. 

State election officials estimated that new 

procedures for entering and processing registration 

applications from first-time voters who registered by 

mail lengthened processing time by 1 to 2 minutes 

per application. 

Two hundred and sixty thousand applications were 

submitted by mail in 2006. At a minimum, then, it 

took election officials more than 4,000 additional 

hours to process applications from first-time voters. 

That translates into 1 year’s work for two fulltime employees. It would have taken one full-time 

employee more than 9 months to process these 

voter applications in 2004.

Benefits and Challenges 

When asked to describe the benefits and 

challenges of implementing Section 303(b), the 

secretary’s office reported that the law has not 
24 Massachusetts

placed any undue burden on the State and has not 

been challenging to implement.

“Voters, local election officials and poll workers might 

feel differently, though,” said Michelle Tassinari, 

legal counsel to the secretary’s election division. 

“Some first-time voters might feel it’s somewhat of an 

inconvenience to bring ID with them to the polls, but 

we haven’t heard many complaints.” 

Some local election officials, however, have told 

the State that applying the ID law “selectively” has 

created challenges. 

“They have told us that, because poll workers are 

asking for ID from some voters and not others, firsttime voters sometimes ask why they have to show 

ID and the person standing next to them in line 

doesn’t,” Tassinari said. 

Local election officials have told the secretary’s 

office that members of the State’s aging pool of poll 

workers sometimes find it difficult to keep track of 

which voters are required to show ID and are often 

uncomfortable addressing complaints from those 

voters about the requirements. 

Tassinari says that although the benefits of Section 

303(b) are not always tangible, they are significant. 

“We didn’t have a large number of formal voter 

fraud complaints before HAVA passed, so it’s hard 

to prove that the law has helped to deter it,” she 

said. “But people like the comfort factor that the new 

ID requirements give them. They know that the ID 

laws help protect against fraud.”

Recommended Practices 

Several of Massachusetts’ Section 303(b) 

administration practices are worth consideration by 

other States. 

In 2003, the secretary’s office published the 

Central Voter Registry Resource Handbook, a 

step-by-step guide to using the VRIS and provided 

every local election office with a copy. The book 

is updated as needed and includes instructions 

for everything from logging into the system to 

generating comprehensive reports. Information in 

the handbook is organized by task and each set of 

directions is complete with color screen shots that 

illustrate the process. 

The handbook helped election officials navigate 

the complex system smoothly. But perhaps more 

importantly, it helped guarantee that first-time 

voter registration applications would be processed 

uniformly and according to State and Federal law 

by providing election workers with easy-to-follow, 

detailed instructions for handling them. 

The VRIS itself includes levels of functionality, 

above and beyond what HAVA requires, that help 

maintain accurate voter rolls. System features 

such as user traceability and password protection 

guard against untrained user access and errors. A 

broadcast e-mail capability allows the secretary’s 

office to communicate quickly with all system users.

The secretary of the Commonwealth’s office 

included detailed instructions for registering to vote 

by mail in its 2004 Information for Voters booklet, the 

centerpiece of which was a mail-in voter registration 

form. The 10-page booklet, which is produced 

before every statewide election and typically focuses 

on explaining ballot questions, was sent to every 

household in the State. The secretary’s office used 

the 2004 version to educate voters about new ID 

requirements and provisional voting. 

Massachusetts also ran ads in area newspapers 

and on radio stations throughout the State that 

explained the new requirements for voters who 

register by mail. It is likely that the publicity 

surrounding the new ID requirements helped 

encourage prospective voters to register by mail.
Montana 25

Montana

New State Laws 

Montana broadened HAVA’s ID requirement to 

include every voter in the State. According to State 

law, every voter must present current photo ID 

that includes his or her name to an election judge 

before casting a ballot. If the voter does not have 

photo ID, he or she must present a current utility 

bill, bank statement, paycheck, voter card or other 

government document that includes the voter’s 

name and address.36 Voters who cannot provide ID 

are offered a provisional ballot.37 

According to the office of Montana’s secretary 

of State, the State’s chief election official, State 

government officials thought local officials would be 

unnecessarily burdened by an ID law that required 

them to ask only first-time voters for identification. 

State officials thought an ID-for-everyone provision 

was a better way to guarantee a uniform and 

nondiscriminatory voting process. 

The State also passed laws and introduced 

regulations calling for a statewide voter registration 

database and establishing administrative 

procedures for processing voter registrations.38

Montana’s secretary of State—Bob Brown 

from 2000 to 2004 and now Brad Johnson—is 

responsible for implementing all election reform in 

the State.

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form

Montana had a computerized voter list when 

HAVA passed, but the system was incomplete by 

HAVA’s standards and the software and procedures 

for entering information differed from county to 

county. The secretary of State spearheaded the 

development of a new, enhanced system, which 

was fully implemented in 2006. 

The new system, designed by Saber Consulting 

with input from county election officials, connects all 

of the State’s 56 counties. It automatically verifies 

the identities of voter registration applicants by 

electronically checking the registrant’s driver’s 

license number or partial Social Security number 

against State motor vehicles department records. 

The secretary of State’s office worked with an 

election task force that included local election 

officials to redesign the State’s voter registration 

form. The form now prompts applicants to enter a 

Montana driver’s license number or the last four 

digits of their Social Security number. Applicants 

who have neither are advised to submit acceptable 

ID either in person or by mail. 

Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers 

The secretary’s office conducted workshops 

for election officials throughout the State that 

covered all aspects of election reform, including 

the statewide voter registration database, poll 

worker training and voter ID requirements. Saber 

Consulting was hired to provide training support. 

The company invited election officials from all 

56 counties in the State to participate in training 

sessions designed to introduce them to the new 

voter registration database. 

After the initial training sessions, Saber and 

members of the State’s election task force 

conducted several training sessions across the 

State and offered hands-on database training to 

local officials.

The State’s election judges’ handbook was updated 

to include information about new ID requirements 

and suggested techniques for training poll workers. 

Representatives from the secretary’s office also 

met with county election judges to review ID 

According to estimates by State 

election officials, 95 percent of 

first-time voters who registered 

by mail in Montana provided 

acceptable ID at the polls on 

Election Day. The percentage 

increased to 98 percent in 2006. 
26 Montana

requirements and provisional balloting procedures, 

and the State provided local election offices with a 

training DVD.

Voter Education and Outreach 

The secretary’s office led a statewide, grassroots 

marketing campaign and worked closely with 

community organizations and the media to get the 

word out to voters about the new ID requirements. 

Staffers from the State elections office 

communicated the new ID requirements directly 

to voters at pow-wows (gatherings of the State’s 

Native American population), State and county 

fairs, trade shows, conventions and collegesponsored events.

They also notified prospective voters of their right to 

cast a provisional ballot. 

The secretary of State provided voter education 

grants of $5,000 each to more than 90 community 

organizations. Grant recipients produced television 

commercials, held informative presentations, 

provided promotional material and brochures, and 

staffed booths at events around the State to answer 

questions from the general public. 

Election reform educational kits were distributed 

to every high school, college, university, and 

technical school in the State as well as to all 

county courthouses, adult care centers, and tribal 

governments. The State also hired a professional 

marketing firm to produce advertisements and 

public service announcements to inform the public 

about new voting laws. 

Voter Registration

In Montana, county election officials process voter 

registration applications from prospective voters who 

live within their jurisdiction. Election officials follow 

the same procedures when entering all registrations. 

State policy dictates that election officials enter the 

driver’s license or partial Social Security number 

into a special field in the voter registration database.

They must ensure that the number remains private 

and is accessible only to authorized county election 

officials and authorized staff at the secretary of 

State’s office. The number, once checked against 

motor vehicles department records, serves as 

a unique identifier in addition to another voter 

registration number that is automatically assigned 

to the voter. 

Applicants who fail to provide ID with their 

registration application are categorized as 

“provisionally registered electors.” These electors 

are permitted to cast regular ballots at polling 

places only if they provide ID. If they do not, they 

will be allowed to cast provisional ballots. 

Election officials immediately contact applicants 

whose registration is not able to be confirmed, but 

the voter registration system does not automatically 

generate rejection letters. Election officials in smaller 

counties typically contact applicants by phone. 

Larger counties write and send notification letters. 

The voter registration system also generates a 

voter card that is sent to every applicant whose 

registration is approved.

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

According to State election officials, Montana’s 

voter registration database and procedures for 

confirming the identity of voters have helped 

increase the accuracy of the State’s voter rolls in 

several ways. 

Before the new database was implemented, each 

county had its own unique system for processing 

and tracking voter records. Some counties entered 

voter records into a word processing application. 

Now, every county uses the State’s system and 

every election official follows the same procedures 

for processing applications. Saber Consulting trainers 

were on hand during the switch to the new system to 

help the counties transfer voter records, thus helping 

to maintain the integrity of existing records. 

The State also provides every county with access 

to a help desk staffed with technical advisors 
Montana 27

who can walk election officials through the 

process of entering new registrations. A 

help menu within the system itself allows 

the secretary of State’s office to provide 

uniform instructions and timely updates to 

all system users. 

All system users are given a unique 

user ID and password. Different levels of 

access for different users prevent users 

from editing records outside of their 

jurisdiction. The system also tracks and 

reports changes made to voter records 

and an audit log indicates which users 

processed which voter applications. 

At the Polls

According to estimates by State election 

officials, 95 percent of first-time voters who 

registered by mail in Montana provided 

acceptable ID at the polls on Election Day. The 

percentage increased to 98 percent in 2006. 

Of first-time voters, 85 percent provided 

a driver’s license when asked for ID at 

the polling place in 2004 and 2006. That 

number is considerably lower than the 

percentages reported by the other States 

that participated in this study. The difference 

can be explained by taking into account 

Montana’s large Native American population.

Montana has the fifth largest Native 

American population nationwide: 6 percent 

of the State’s residents are Native American, 

according to the Census Bureau. State 

election officials report that most of these 

voters presented a tribal ID card instead of a 

driver’s license. 

The State also has a large population of 

senior citizens: it ranks 11th nationwide 

in the percentage of its residents that are 

65 and older. Many of those voters do not 

have driver’s licenses and instead used a 

government check or utility bill as their ID at 

the polls. 

Voter Registration Trends 

•	 Following the passage of Montana’s ID for all 

voters law in 2003, the State exhibited a 5-percent 

increase in voter registration, rising from 70 percent 

registration statewide in 2000 to 75.1 percent 

in 2004. Corresponding changes in registration 

percentages within different gender, racial/ethnic, 

and age subgroups were in most cases generally 

consistent with the statewide trend. The one slight 

difference was exhibited by the less impressive 

increase in female voter registration of only 3.6 

percentage points.39

•	 Montana added 59,019 new registrants to its rolls 

in 2000, but that number dropped dramatically to 

30,653 in 2004. The State added 51,194 voters to its 

rolls in 2006, a significant increase from 2004 and 

a slight increase compared with the 2002 midterm 

when 49,008 were added.40

•	 Montana saw a significant increase in the number 

of applications that were submitted by mail in 2004. 

Of the applications that were submitted that year, 23 

percent (approximately 26,000) were mailed in; that 

is up 6 points from 17 percent (18,155) in 2000. Of all 

registration applications, 22 percent were submitted 

by mail in 2002, but because voter registration 

was lower in that midterm election year than in the 

Presidential election year of 2004, that amounted 

to just 9,996 applications.41 This increase in by-mail 

applications can be attributed at least in part to 

increased awareness of the option to register by mail 

as a result of the State’s voter education efforts.

•	 In 2006, the percentage of applications submitted by 

mail fell to 19 percent; however, the total number of 

by-mail applications was the second highest since 

2000 (18,936).

•	 According to State election officials’ estimates, 98 

percent of by-mail registrants included a driver’s 

license or partial Social Security number on their 

registration applications in 2004 and 2006. Of bymail registrants, 6 percent included a copy of ID with 

their application in 2004 and 5 percent included ID 

in 2006. Of by-mail registrants who submitted ID, 

98 percent chose to submit a copy of their driver’s 

license in both 2004 and 2006. Most applicants who 

included ID completed the NVRA rather than the 

State’s registration form.
28 Montana

In 2004, a small percentage of voters cast 

provisional ballots on Election Day—just .13 

percent or 623 voters. More than half of those 

ballots, 378, were counted. A larger percentage of 

voters cast provisional ballots in 2006, but the total 

was still less than 1 percent of the number of voters 

who participated or 2,242 voters. Of those ballots, 

95 percent were deemed valid and counted. 

State election officials estimated that less than 2 

percent of provisional ballots in both years were 

cast by first-time voters who did not provide proper 

ID. A total of 27 provisional ballots cast by first-time 

voters were not counted in 2006. The same number 

for 2004 was unavailable.

Implementation Costs

Montana set aside $3.2 million to pay for 

improvements to its statewide voter registration 

database and $930,000 for voter education, poll 

worker training, and election official training. The 

State spent $176,000 on provisional balloting, 

money used primarily to pay for additional election 

judges to help the counties process provisional 

ballots. The State used a percentage of each of 

those budgets to pay for measures that would bring 

it into compliance with Section 303(b). Altogether, 

Montana estimates it spent just over $730,000 to 

implement Section 303(b).

It took local election officials 3 minutes to process a 

voter registration application before HAVA passed 

and before the State implemented ID requirements 

for all voters. Now that State law calls for the 

verification of all registration applications through 

some form of ID—whether it is a driver’s license or 

partial Social Security number or a copy of valid 

ID—it takes election officials 5 minutes to process 

each application. 

In 2004, 114,341 State residents applied to register 

to vote. An extra 2 minutes per application adds 

up to an additional 3,800 hours to process those 

forms. That is about 2 years of work for one full-time 

employee. It took an extra 3,300 hours to process 

applications in 2006. That amounts to more than a 

year and a half of work for one full-time employee. 

Benefits and Challenges

The Montana legislature voted in 2007 to allow late 

registration in the State and, according to State 

election officials, they felt comfortable doing so 

because of the extra security measures that had 

been implemented as part of Section 303(b). 

Late registration allows voters to register or 

update their registration records after the close of 

the standard registration period (30 days before 

Election Day) up to and including Election Day. 

The State requires applicants to register and vote 

in person at their county election office during 

this period to guard against double voting. The ID 

numbers provided by the applicants are then verified. 

ID is checked and voters are given a ballot which 

they mark and return to the election office staff. 

“With the ID requirements in place, and the voter 

registration database being implemented ... we 

were able to reassure legislators that adequate 

safeguards would be in place for late registration,” 

said State election specialist Alan Miller. 

According to Miller, the State avoided one of the 

biggest challenges it might have faced as a result of 

Section 303(b).

“It would have been a challenge trying to educate 

first-time voters without confusing the rest of the 

public,” Miller said. “But with our ID-for-all provision 

we were able to avoid confusion and claims of 

discrimination against certain voters that might 

otherwise have arisen.”

...with our ID-for-all provision, we 

were able to avoid confusion and 

claims of discrimination against 

certain voters...

Montana State election specialist 

Alan Miller
Montana 29

Educating voters about the new ID-for-all law was 

challenging, but Montana spread the word by using 

HAVA funds to pay for voter education ads and by 

talking to voters at community events. 

Recommended Practices

Montana’s voter education efforts were unique. 

None of the other States that participated in this 

study used as extensive a grassroots, communitybased approach as the one employed by this State. 

And the secretary’s office saved money by taking its 

message directly to voters and communicating face 

to face at everything from State fairs to pow-wows. 

Montana also leaned heavily on community-based 

organizations that, with a little financial help from 

the State in the form of grants, helped educate their 

constituents and other community members. 

“These groups proved invaluable to our early efforts 

to spread the word about the new election changes 

under HAVA,” Miller said. 

In 2006, the secretary’s office carefully planned 

its media buys to make the most of what can 

sometimes be very expensive air time. It placed 50 

percent of their television and radio public service 

announcements in prime time slots and, to save 

money, negotiated “bonus spots” that aired at no cost. 

When it came to training election officials on the 

new statewide voter registration database, Montana 

set up a program in which county officials who were 

members of the State’s election task force each 

adopted several counties. The “parent” officials 

provided additional training on the system where 

needed and advised the foster counties on how to 

follow the new ID procedures.
30

New State Laws

New Jersey requires ID only from first-time voters 

who register to vote by mail and did not include a 

verifiable driver’s license number or the last four 

digits of their Social Security number with their 

voter registration form.42 The State did not require 

ID from any voters before HAVA and, after the law 

passed, New Jersey incorporated only HAVA’s 

minimum requirement into State law. 

According to the Office of the Attorney General, 

the chief State election official responsible for 

managing elections and election reform in New 

Jersey, the State was concerned that broadening 

the voter ID requirement could depress voter 

registration and turnout.

The State did, however, broaden HAVA’s definition 

of a first-time voter to include any individual who is 

registering to vote for the first time in a county. 

The State also passed laws requiring all of its 

local election officials to use the statewide voter 

registration database, follow uniform procedures for 

processing voter registrations and offer provisional 

ballots at all polling places.43

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form

New Jersey established a computer network in 

1996 that linked county election offices and allowed 

the counties to send their voter registration lists 

to the State electronically. But the system needed 

updating to bring it into compliance with HAVA. 

New Jersey

Of first-time voters who were 

required to show ID, 95 percent did 

so in 2004 and 2006. State election 

officials think most of those voters 

showed a driver’s license, but they 

were unable to provide a more 

exact figure. 

The State contracted with Covansys to create 

a new, Internet-based system, ElectioNet, that 

connects State, county, and municipal election 

offices. In New Jersey, 21 county clerks and 566 

municipal clerks serve as election officials. The 

system was also connected to the State’s Motor 

Vehicle Commission and other relevant State 

agencies. 

A space was added to the State’s voter registration 

form for voters to use to provide an ID number. An 

explanation of ID requirements for first-time voters 

who register by mail was also added to the form. 

The form advises prospective first-time voters 

that, if they do not have a driver’s license number 

or Social Security number, they should include a 

copy of a current and valid photo ID or a document 

with their name and address. Otherwise, voters are 

instructed to bring ID to the polling place.

Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers 

Both county and municipal officials administer 

elections in New Jersey. Training programs were 

in place for municipal officials before 2002, but 

county officials did not receive formal election 

administration training before HAVA passed. 

The State’s Attorney General—Peter Harvey from 

2003 to 2006, now Stuart Rabner—developed 

educational programs for county officials similar 

to a certification program that was already being 

offered to municipal officials. Office staff lectured at 

statewide and regional county election conferences. 

The Attorney General also issued memoranda 

to individual county offices outlining new ID 

requirements and other key election reforms. 

State law that predates HAVA requires poll 

workers to undergo training at least once every 2 

years. County election officials are responsible for 

conducting the training courses and historically 

each county’s sessions are unique. 

In 2004, State election officials developed uniform 

guidelines for poll worker training. The Attorney 

New Jersey
New Jersey 31

General’s office also made a standard manual 

available to all poll workers statewide. 

Voter Education and Outreach

New Jersey created its “Be Powerful, Be Heard” 

voter outreach and education initiative in 2004 

to notify the State’s residents of administrative 

changes related to HAVA, including ID requirements 

for first-time voters. The campaign also emphasized 

the importance of registering and voting. 

The State launched voter education initiatives in 

2004 and 2006 through the Internet, television and 

radio public service announcements as well as 

special events throughout the State. 

The public service announcements featured such 

high profile celebrities as actors Michael Douglas 

and Jason Alexander and musician Wyclef Jean. 

The announcements underscored the importance of 

registering and voting and encouraged prospective 

voters to visit the election division Web site, which 

included instructions for first-time registrants. 

Voter Registration 

When election officials enter a voter registration 

application into New Jersey’s newly redesigned 

voter registration database, the system 

automatically checks motor vehicles department 

records for a match. Information in the ID fields, 

which includes the applicant’s driver’s license or 

partial Social Security number, name and address, 

is submitted and electronically verified. 

Confirmation notices are automatically generated 

by the system and sent to applicants whose 

registrations are accepted. Applicants whose 

identity cannot be verified are contacted by mail or 

by phone and given an opportunity to provide or 

correct information. If they fail to do so, they will be 

registered but required to show ID before voting. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls 

The voter registration system that was in place in 

New Jersey before HAVA connected some—but 

not all—of the local and State election officials in 

the State. The system linked the State’s election 

Voter Registration Trends

•	 New Jersey exhibited almost no change in 

voter registration, rising from 63.2 percent 

registration statewide in 2000 to 63.7 

percent in 2004, for a minuscule increase of 

0.5 percent overall. Corresponding changes 

in percentages within the gender, racial/

ethnic, and age subgroups of interest were 

in some cases generally consistent with 

the statewide trend, whereas others stood 

apart. The latter include a decrease of 3.4 

percent in registration of 75-and-older voters 

and increases of 8.0 percent in AfricanAmerican voter registration, 5.7 percent in 

voters aged 18 to 24, and 6.3 percent in 

voters aged 65 to 74.44

•	 No real change occurred from 2000 to 

2004 in the number of voter registration 

applications that were submitted by 

mail. In 2000, 4 percent of applications 

were submitted by mail and, in 2004, 3.9 

percent were sent by mail. The percentage 

of by-mail registrations peaked in 2002, 

though. Approximately 7 percent of the 

applications submitted that year were sent 

by mail.45 New Jersey did not have 2006 

registration figures available at the time 

this report was prepared. 

•	 State election officials estimate that 

approximately 90 percent of voters who 

registered by mail included a driver’s 

license or partial Social Security number 

in 2004 and 2006. During both years, less 

than 1 percent included a copy of ID with 

their application. Most of those applicants 

that included ID submitted a copy of a 

driver’s license.

division with the 21 County Commissioners of 

Registration. It was not accessible, though, by the 

21 county clerks or the 566 municipal clerks who 

also handle election administration. 

The new system links every local election official, 

the State elections division, the New Jersey Motor 
32 New Jersey

Vehicle Commission and other relevant State 

agencies. Now, election officials anywhere in the 

State can access the system at any time which 

helps keep records current. 

The system includes a security infrastructure that 

provides different levels of access to different 

users based on job responsibilities. It helps protect 

data integrity by encrypting it before transferring 

it between the municipalities, counties, State 

elections division, and other State agencies. 

Additional security is built-in to protect voter’s 

personal information. 

At the Polls 

Of first-time voters who were required to show ID, 

95 percent did so in 2004 and 2006. State election 

officials think most of those voters showed a 

driver’s license, but they were unable to provide a 

more exact figure. 

The percentage of total ballots cast that were 

provisional decreased from 2004 to 2006. In 2004, 

1.7 percent of ballots were provisional and, in 2006, 

just .71 percent were provisional. The number of 

ballots that were able to be counted increased 

substantially from 65 percent in 2004 to 75 percent 

in 2006. Election officials estimate that anywhere 

from 1 to 2 percent of provisional ballots were cast 

by first-time voters who registered by mail. 

Implementation Costs

New Jersey budgeted $20 million for its statewide 

voter registration database; $5 million for voter 

education and election official and poll worker 

training; and $1 million for provisional balloting. A 

portion of this $26 million was spent to comply with 

Section 303(b), but State election officials did not 

know exactly how much. 

State election officials were unable to determine 

how much time it takes the counties to process 

registration applications using the new statewide 

database to verify voters’ identities. County 

election officials in Essex, the State’s second 

most populous county, said it takes 4 minutes 

to process a voter registration application using 

the new statewide voter registration database. 

Before the statewide system was implemented, it 

took them approximately 40 seconds to process 

an application. Burlington County, the State’s 

largest county geographically, also reported that 

it takes them 4 minutes to process an application 

now—compared with 40 seconds before HAVA’s 

requirements took effect. 

Burlington County processed 45,734 voter 

registration applications from the close of 

registration in 2002 through the close of registration 

in 2004. At 4 minutes per application, it would have 

taken one full-time employee 1 and a half years 

to process those voter registration applications. 

Burlington County received 16,496 applications 

from the close of registration in 2004 through the 

close of registration in 2006. That amounts to nearly 

7 months of work for a full-time employee. 

Benefits and Challenges

New Jersey election officials say the biggest 

challenge they faced with regard to Section 303(b) 

has been guarding against disenfranchising voters, 

particularly recently naturalized citizens. 

“We were concerned that the law would keep 

some eligible voters from participating in our 

elections,” said Maria DelValle-Koch, director of 

the State’s election division. “We have a large 

immigrant population here. Many of them are new 

citizens and eligible to vote, but because English 

is their second language, they can be easily 

overwhelmed by complicated requirements for 

voting like voter identification.” 

New Jersey election officials say the 

biggest challenge they faced with 

regard to Section 303(b) has been 

guarding against disenfranchising 

voters, particularly recently 

naturalized citizens for whom English 

is a second language.
New Jersey 33

DelValle-Koch said the State implemented only 

the minimum ID requirements mandated by HAVA 

to avoid depressing registration and turnout by 

asking first-time voters for photo ID. “A lot of older, 

recently naturalized citizens don’t have easy access 

to certain types of ID, like photo ID,” DelValle-Koch 

said. “They just never had a need for a driver’s 

license or any other photo identification.”

The law has its benefits. Improvements to the 

statewide voter registration database allowed local 

election officials to instantly identify duplicate voter 

registration records when entering registration 

applications. When a voter moves to a new 

jurisdiction and registers to vote there, the voter’s 

previous jurisdiction can forward that voter’s records 

to election officials in his or her new hometown. 

Recommended Practices 

Because the State has such a large percentage 

of foreign-born residents (it ranks third nationwide 

in the percentage of its population that is foreignborn), State election officials advocate the printing 

of voter education materials in multiple languages, 

including English and Spanish, Cantonese, 

Mandarin and Gujarati. 

New Jersey is not required to produce materials in 

all of these languages, but election officials think it 

is important to educate as many voters as possible 

in their native languages. 

The State’s “Be Powerful, Be Heard” voter 

education campaign included special events 

designed to educate specific demographic groups. 

At a special event for young voters, then-Attorney 

General Peter Harvey spoke about HAVA-mandated 

election reforms and emphasized the importance 

of registering and voting. He was joined by such 

celebrities as music mogul Russell Simmons, 

former rap artist Reverend Run, and actor Joe 

Piscopo. Live video of the event was streamed via 

the Internet to every high school in the State, and 

an estimated 55,000 students watched the event 

from their classrooms.

More than 100 senior citizens participated in 

the taping of a voter education public service 

announcement for seniors. The State also held a 

voter education event at a senior citizens’ health 

care facility and distributed election information and 

registration forms. 
34 North Carolina

New State Laws 

North Carolina chose to implement HAVA’s 

mandate as the State’s maximum requirement for 

identification—only first-time voters who register by 

mail are required to show ID before voting.46 The 

State expanded on HAVA’s definition of a first-time 

voter. In North Carolina, an applicant is considered 

a first-time voter if he or she has not previously 

registered to vote in the county in which he or she 

is applying to register. 

First-time voters who register by mail are required 

to present current and valid photo ID or a copy 

of a document, such as a paycheck or utility bill, 

that shows the name and address of the voter 

before voting. Voters may avoid the ID at the polls 

requirement by providing a copy of ID, driver’s 

license, or partial Social Security number with their 

registration form. 

As with most States, North Carolina also passed 

laws and rules that called for the implementation of 

a statewide database and provisional balloting and 

established administrative procedures.47

The North Carolina State Board of Elections 

manages all election reform efforts under HAVA. 

The Board’s executive director is primarily 

responsible for election administration in the State.

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form

North Carolina had a voter registration system 

that was all-but-statewide before HAVA passed. 

North Carolina

State election officials estimate 

that most first-time voters who 

registered by mail provided current 

and valid ID, acceptable under 

State law, at the polls in 2004 and 

2006. Of those voters, 90 percent 

presented a driver’s license as 

their ID. 

The State issued an RFP for the original system, 

known as SEIMS, in 1997. SEIMS linked all of the 

State’s 100 counties and enabled them to exchange 

information for voter registration reports, voter list 

maintenance and election management overall. 

The central database was used to distribute voter 

registration applications to the counties that were 

received at the State’s motor vehicles department, 

disseminate lists of deceased voters and check for 

duplicate voter records. 

SEIMS was not actually used by all of the counties, 

though. Five counties did not use the State 

system to process voter registration forms, and 

data from four counties were not sent in real time 

to the database. The list of counties not using 

the database included four of the most populous 

counties in the State. To comply with HAVA, North 

Carolina moved all of its counties to SEIMS in 2005.

SEIMS has been updated to meet the requirements 

of HAVA. The system automatically checks drivers’ 

licenses and partial Social Security numbers 

against the State’s motor vehicles department’s 

electronic records. 

North Carolina also changed its voter registration 

form. The form now prompts voters to include their 

driver’s license number or the last four digits of 

their Social Security number. If first-time voters do 

not have either number and they are registering 

by mail, the form instructs them to send a copy 

of current and valid photo ID or a copy of a utility 

bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck 

or other government document that includes their 

name and address. Voters who do not provide this 

information are advised that they will be required to 

present it when they vote.

Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers 

North Carolina began an election administration 

certification program for election officials and 

poll workers in 1995. After HAVA passed, the 

program’s “core” courses were supplemented with 

information on new ID requirements and methods 

for processing voter registration forms. 

A candidate for certification must complete a 

requisite number of core courses and electives, 

attend continuing education through seminars 

conducted by the State Board and the University 
North Carolina 35

of North Carolina’s Institute of Government, and 

pass a written examination. After completing these 

requirements, election officials are certified for a 

2-year period, but local officials must complete 

continuing education to maintain certification. 

Training videos and online training courses were 

produced to help train poll workers. The videos 

were distributed to public access television 

channels and libraries for viewing by the public. 

Voter Education and Outreach

The State Board’s voter education efforts centered 

on their Web site. The site has several tools 

available now and plans are in place for enhancing 

the site to include an online voter guide. Citizens’ 

Awareness Month and statewide voter registration 

drives are also directed and managed by the State 

Board of Elections.

 Voter Registration

SEIMS automatically verifies the applicant’s driver’s 

license or partial Social Security number when a 

voter registration application is entered by a local 

election official. An electronic message is sent to 

North Carolina Department Of Motor Vehicles and 

the SEIMS user is notified of the results. If an ID 

number is not provided on the form, the system 

assigns a unique identifying number to the voter. 

Once the registration is processed and accepted, a 

voter card is printed. If the voter is required to show 

ID before voting, the card includes a notation that 

reads: “ID required.” 

SEIMS also automatically generates letters to firsttime, by-mail registrants who did not include ID with 

their application. These letters serve as notification 

to voters that they must provide ID before they will 

be allowed to vote. When applications are rejected, 

notification letters are sent to applicants that 

include a description of exactly what information is 

needed to complete the application. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

The State immediately increased the accuracy of 

its voter rolls when it moved all of its 100 counties 

to SEIMS. Under the State’s certification program 

for election officials, local jurisdictions now follow 

uniform procedures for processing registration 

applications. The State helps guarantee, through 

continuing education classes, that election officials 

keep current on election administration practices. 

As with the systems in the other States that took 

part in this study, North Carolina’s voter registration 

database is password-protected and provides a 

Voter Registration Trends

•	 North Carolina exhibited an increase in 

voter registration, rising from 66.1 percent 

statewide in 2000 to 68.7 percent in 

2004, for a 2.6-percent increase overall. 

Corresponding changes in percentages 

within gender, racial/ethnic and age 

subgroups of interest were in some cases 

generally consistent with the statewide 

trend, whereas others stood apart. The latter 

include increases of 6.7 percent in AfricanAmerican voter registration, 7 percent in 

voters aged 18 to 24, and 6.3 percent in 

voters aged 75 and older.48

•	 North Carolina added more new registrants 

to the rolls in 2004 than in the days 

leading up to the 2000 Presidential 

election: 924,394 compared with 837,936. 

No noticeable change occurred in the 

percentage of registrants who submitted 

their applications by mail, only a slight 

decrease from 20.8 in 2000 to 20.1 in 

2004.49

•	 In 2006, 10.9 percent of North Carolina’s 

644,045 applicants submitted their forms by 

mail, which is a substantial drop from 2004, 

but a 0.4-point increase compared with the 

last midterm election in 2002.50

•	 According to State election officials, 90 

percent of by-mail registrants included a 

driver’s license or partial Social Security 

number with their application. Just 5 percent 

submitted a copy of their ID, and most of 

those included a copy of a driver’s license or 

Social Security card. 
36

unique and traceable ID for every authorized user. 

The system only allows users to access those areas 

that directly pertain to their job responsibilities. 

At the Polls 

State election officials estimate that most first-time 

voters who registered by mail provided current and 

valid ID, acceptable under State law, at the polls 

in 2004 and 2006. Of those voters, 90 percent 

presented a driver’s license as their ID. The other 

10 percent showed any one of a number of forms of 

ID, including a bank statement, utility bill or a photo 

ID other than a driver’s license.

More than 77,000 voters, or more than 2 percent 

of those who participated, cast provisional ballots 

in North Carolina in 2004 and 65 percent of those 

ballots were counted. Slightly more than 22,000 

voters, or 1.1 percent, cast provisional ballots in 

2006. Approximately 75 percent of those ballots 

were counted, a 10-percent increase from 2004.

Implementation Costs

The State budgeted $5 million to update its voter 

registration system; an additional $2 million to 

add an ID number verification capability and to 

conduct list maintenance mailings; $1.5 million 

to pay for election official training programs and 

support materials; and $1.65 million to implement 

provisional ballots. 

State election officials estimate that approximately 

42 percent of this money, or $4.3 million, was 

applied directly to Section 303(b)-related measures. 

The new verification procedures for first-time 

voters’ registration applications sent by mail added 

1 to 2 minutes per application to the processing 

time. As noted in other case studies, even such a 

short amount of time can have a major effect on 

elections staff.

Benefits and Challenges

To comply with HAVA, North Carolina created an 

information technology software interface that 

connected their SEIMS network to the State’s 

motor vehicles department’s computer system. 

State election officials say the development 

of this interface was one of the benefits of 

implementing Section 303(b) as well as one of 

the biggest challenges. 

Training election officials was another challenge, 

according to North Carolina Elections Liaison 

Sharon Everett, but the State elections board spent 

a considerable amount of time designing new 

educational programs for local election officials.

“Training was one of our priorities,” Everett said. 

“We added provisional voting and SEIMS classes 

to a certification program that already existed, but 

our IT staff also held a series of training sessions 

to introduce the counties to the new system. And 

we offer refresher courses to counties several 

times a year that cover SEIMS and the new 

identification requirements.”

Recommended Practices

North Carolina established a “Wellness Check” 

program in 2004. Under the program, a team from 

the State board visits county boards of elections 

and checks to make sure they are compliant 

with all aspects of Federal and State election 

administration law. 

State team members follow a formal set of 

guidelines for conducting the audits and record the 

counties’ answers to their questions. The guidelines 

include extensive checks of voter registration 

practices and poll worker training procedures, 

North Carolina

To comply with HAVA, North 

Carolina created an information 

technology software interface that 

connected their SEIMS network 

to the State’s motor vehicles 

department’s computer system. 

State election officials say the 

development of this interface was 

one of the benefits of implementing 

Section 303(b) as well as one of 

the biggest challenges. 
37

among other things. The State recommends 

improvements to the counties based on audit 

findings, and a schedule of target completion dates 

for improvements is agreed upon. 

If the counties do not comply with legislative 

mandates after these efforts, the State Board 

takes legal action against the county. Under North 

Carolina law, the State Board of Elections has 

jurisdiction to force county boards to comply with 

election law. One hundred North Carolina counties 

have been scheduled for 2007 “Wellness Check” 

visits in preparation for 2008.

North Carolina’s State Board of Elections worked 

with the State’s community college system 

to establish a specialized training and civics 

curriculum for election officials. The classes were 

also made available to members of the general 

public and the media. By offering these classes to 

the public, the Board hopes to develop a pool from 

which they may recruit poll workers in the future. 

The State established a SEIMS help desk that is 

staffed by IT professionals who can answer local 

election officials’ questions about the system. They 

also added a “live help” feature to their Web site. 

Local officials simply contact the SEIMS helpdesk 

for a live help ticket number, then log into live help 

and an IT professional walks them through the 

process in question, for example registering a firsttime voter, live on the system itself.

North Carolina
38 Pennsylvania

New State Laws

The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a 

law in early 2002, before HAVA, that called for the 

establishment of a statewide voter registration 

database administered by the secretary of the 

Commonwealth. Under the law, county election 

officials are responsible for adding, modifying, 

and deleting records. The secretary’s office also 

implemented a rule that outlined procedures for 

processing voter registration applications using the 

new system.51 

The State legislature passed another election 

reform bill in December of 2002 that amended the 

State’s election code to comply with HAVA. The 

law established provisional ballot requirements 

and voter ID requirements for all first-time voters, 

among other mandates.52

Pennsylvania’s voter ID requirements exceed those 

imposed by Federal law. Although HAVA requires 

ID only for first-time voters who register by mail, 

Pennsylvania requires all voters who are voting for 

the first time in a district to present ID—regardless 

of their method of registration. 

The types of ID that the State will accept from 

these voters are identical to those identified 

as acceptable in HAVA. They include photo ID 

such as a valid driver’s license, U.S. passport, or 

military ID or nonphoto ID that includes the voter’s 

name and address such as a utility bill, bank 

statement, or paycheck.

Pennsylvania’s secretary of the Commonwealth is 

the State’s chief election official and is responsible 

for managing election reform and administration in 

the State. 

Pennsylvania

State election officials estimate 

that 96 to 98 percent of firsttime voters provided valid ID as 

required on Election Day. Of those 

voters, 80 percent presented a 

driver’s license. 

Changes to the State’s Voter Registration 

Database and Registration Form

Although State law called for a statewide 

registration system in Pennsylvania before HAVA 

passed, the State had to expand its requirements 

for the system to comply with Federal law. For 

example, the secretary’s office entered into 

an agreement with the State’s transportation 

department to provide for the verification of 

driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of 

registrants’ Social Security numbers. 

The State updated its voter registration form, which 

now requires applicants to include their driver’s 

license number or the last four digits of their Social 

Security number. If the applicant does not have 

either number, the form’s instructions indicate that 

a unique identifier will be assigned to him or her by 

the State. 

The form also provides instructions for registrants 

who may be required to show ID:

Pennsylvania law requires that registered voters 

who appear in person to vote for the first time in 

an election district after December 9, 2003, must 

present a form of identification. If you are voting 

for the first time in your county, and you intend to 

vote by absentee ballot, please include a copy of 

a form of identification with this voter registration 

mail application. Otherwise, you will be required 

by federal law to include a copy of a form of 

identification with your absentee ballot. 

Training for Election Official and Poll Worker 

The secretary’s office provided extensive training to 

State and county election officials and poll workers. 

State department staff attended a meeting 

of the Eastern and Western County Election 

Personnel Associations in early 2004 to advise 

the group about handling provisional voting, 

voter identification, and poll worker training. 

The department also conducted county training 

sessions in 2004 at five regional meetings across 
39

the State. Of the State’s 67 counties, 62 attended 

the sessions.

Similar training courses were held in 2006 and 

developed by the State department in cooperation 

with county election personnel associations, 

colleges and universities, and representatives 

of alternative language and disability groups. 

Department officials continue to offer seminars 

each year on election procedures, including 

obtaining ID from first-time voters. They also 

conduct video conference training sessions.

In 2004 and 2006, State department personnel 

conducted poll worker training sessions in any 

county that requested assistance. Training included 

take-away materials that poll workers could 

reference while working at the polls on Election Day. 

The secretary’s office hired additional staff to help 

conduct poll worker training and work with local 

officials to ensure each county uses consistent and 

standard procedures in every polling place. 

Voter Education and Outreach

Pennsylvania developed its “Ready. Set. Vote.” voter 

education and outreach program in 2004, with 

input from county election officials and advocacy 

groups. The campaign was aimed at increasing voter 

registration and participation and notifying voters 

of new ID requirements. The State promoted the 

campaign, which was centered on the interactive 

voter education Web site www.votespa.com, through 

print, radio, television, and Internet advertisements. 

The secretary’s office also produced voter guides 

and a tip sheet for first-time voters that included 

information about ID requirements and a list 

of acceptable forms of ID. Publications were 

distributed to voters through county offices and 

advocacy groups and posted on the secretary’s 

Web site.

The State department also aired voter education 

videos on the Pennsylvania Cable Network 

and released public service announcements 

immediately before both the primary and the 

general elections in 2004 and 2006. 

Voter Registration

Pennsylvania’s county election officials use the 

Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) 

system to process applications from prospective 

registrants in their jurisdictions. SURE was designed 

by Accenture to streamline the management of voter 

rolls by enabling counties to share voter records and 

to verify applicants’ identities through a link to the 

State motor vehicle department’s computer system, 

among other things. 

The system automatically checks applicants’ driver’s 

license numbers or the last four digits of applicants’ 

Social Security numbers against the transportation 

department’s records. Once a match is found, a 

voter card is automatically generated by the system 

and sent to the registrant. If that card is returned as 

undeliverable, the application is rejected. 

Local election officials in Pennsylvania contact 

any applicant whose registration form is missing 

information or whose identity is unable to be 

verified. Applicants are given 40 days to correct any 

errors by phone, mail, or in person. Applicants who 

do not provide any additional information before 

Election Day, must vote a provisional ballot and 

provide ID at the polls. 

The Accuracy of Voter Rolls

Each of the State’s 67 counties had its own 

procedures for processing voter registration 

applications before the State implemented SURE, 

making it almost impossible for the counties to 

crosscheck their voter records against those of 

other counties. Now, counties can use SURE to 

check for duplicate voter records instantly.

SURE is password protected and allows users to 

access only those areas of the system that directly 

pertain to their job responsibilities. 

If an application is complete, it is considered pending 

until the end of a 10-day period. If, during that time, 

the voter card that is sent to the registrant is not 

returned as undeliverable, the registration is accepted.

Pennsylvania
40

Voter Registration Trends

Pennsylvania exhibited an increase in voter 

registration from 2000 to 2004, rising from 65.3 

percent registration statewide in 2000 to 69.3 

percent in 2004, for a 4-percent increase overall.53

Corresponding changes in percentages within 

gender, racial/ethnic and age subgroups of 

interest were in some cases generally consistent 

with the statewide trend, whereas others stood 

apart. The latter include decreases of 2 percent 

in registration among Asians and 2.3 percent in 

Hispanic registration. Nevertheless, increases of 

8.9 percent in African-American voter registration 

and 6.4 percent in registration of voters aged 25 to 

44 are noteworthy.54

State election officials reported adding 1,061,531 

voters to the rolls in 2000 and 1,435,974 in 2004. 

In 2006, more than 855,000 new registrants were 

added to the rolls. The percentage of voters who 

registered by mail jumped from 26.3 percent in 

2002 to 35.3 percent in 2004, but dropped to 

26.9 percent in 2006. The percentage of by-mail 

registrants in 2000 was 4 percentage points lower 

than in 2004.55

Of first-time voters who registered by mail, 80 

percent included a driver’s license or partial Social 

Security number on their application in both 2004 

and 2006. Less than 1 percent included a copy of ID 

during those same years. Registrants who chose to 

include a copy of ID included a copy of their driver’s 

license 80 percent of the time in 2004 and 2006. 

Other registrants who included ID sent a copy of a 

U.S. passport, student ID or State residence license. 

At the Polls

State election officials estimate that 96 to 98 

percent of first-time voters provided valid ID as 

required on Election Day. Of those voters, 80 

percent presented a driver’s license. Most of the 

remaining voters produced either a U.S. passport, 

student ID or State residence license. 

Voters who did not use a driver’s license as their ID 

on Election Day tended to be senior citizens and 

inner-city residents, according to State officials who 

said that members of both groups very often do not 

have a driver’s license. 

Just .3 percent of voters cast provisional ballots in 

2006. Of those ballots, 37 percent were counted and 

25 percent were partially counted. Of the 12,345 

provisional ballots cast, 664 were not counted 

because the provisional ballot envelope did not 

include all the information required from the voter (it 

might have been missing a signature, for example) 

and 2,539 provisional votes were not counted 

because the voter was not registered. Provisional 

ballot figures for 2004 were not available. 

Implementation Costs

Pennsylvania budgeted $13 million to pay for the 

development of its statewide voter registration 

database; $7.6 million for voter education, election 

official and poll worker training programs; and 

$195,000 for provisional balloting. 

State election officials were unable to estimate 

exactly what percentage of that money was applied 

to costs directly associated with Section 303(b). 

The State estimated that it takes local election 

officials 1 additional minute to process voter 

registration applications using the newly 

redesigned SURE system. Election officials in 

Lycoming County, the geographically largest 

county in the State, agreed, reporting that it takes 

them approximately 1 extra minute to process 

applications now. 

The State’s most populous county, Philadelphia 

County, said it takes them twice as long to process 

an application now. For example, the County 

received approximately 30,000 paper applications 

on the last day of registration in 2004 and, using 

their old system, it took them 6 days to process 

those applications. It took county officials 7 days to 

process 13,000 registrations under the new system 

in 2006. 

But Philadelphia County is unique. Because of the 

political nature of the city and the large number of 

nonprofit organizations and political groups that 

work to register voters, the County receives more 

paper applications than most. 

Pennsylvania
41

Benefits and Challenges

When asked what the benefits and challenges of 

implementing Section 303(b) were for the State, 

State department officials said the measure helps 

prevent fraud, but that it creates a risk of possibly 

discouraging people from voting. 

Molly O’Leary, the State’s chief of voter registration, 

highlighted improvements to SURE as a major 

benefit of the law.

“Our new SURE system provides accurate and 

up-to-date information about our electors,” O’Leary 

said. “In fact, every night a snapshot is run by each 

of the 67 counties that details all of the updates that 

were made that day.”

O’Leary also indicated that the State’s “Ready. Set. 

Vote.” Web-based campaign, which was undertaken 

to educate voters about HAVA-related election 

reform in the State, helped the State engage voters 

in a new way. 

Recommended Practices

The secretary’s office produced a 25-page manual 

dedicated entirely to providing local officials 

with guidelines for processing registration for 

applications from first-time voters. The manual, 

entitled “Job Aid: Entering and Processing 

Applications Requiring Driver’s License and Social 

Security Number Checks,” included step-by-step 

instructions and screen shots from SURE. 

The office also created guides designed to help 

poll workers apply the new ID laws uniformly. Poll 

workers were encouraged to take the booklets to the 

polls on Election Day and refer to them as needed. 

Pennsylvania

When asked what the benefits 

and challenges of implementing 

Section 303(b) were for the State, 

State department officials said the 

measure helps prevent fraud, but 

that it creates a risk of possibly 

discouraging people from voting. 
42 References

1 The Constitution Project and Electionline.org, “Election 

Reform Briefing: Voter Identification,” Electionline.

org, April 2002, http://www.electionline.org/Portals/1/

Publications/Voter%20Identification.pdf.

2 ibid.

3 Electionline.org, “Election Reform Briefing: Statewide 

Voter Registration Databases,” Electionline.org, March 

2002, http://www.electionline.org/Portals/1/Publications/

Statewide%20Voter%20Registraion%20DB.pdf.

4 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 

“AAMVA Survey Summary: Results on Compliance 

with HAVA Provisions for Motor Vehicle Agencies,” 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 

November 10, 2003, http://www.aamva.org/aamva/

DocumentDisplay.aspx?id={260CEE16-96E5-4B45-

A289-4045A5266E27}.

5 U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment of the 

Population 25 Years and Over, By State, Including 

Margin of Error: 2006,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, www.

census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2006/

tab13.xls.

6 ibid. 

7 ibid.

8 ibid.

9 ibid.

10 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Voluntary 

Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter 

Registration Lists,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

July 2005, http://www.eac.gov/docs/Statewide_

Registration_Guidelines_072605.html.

11 The Help America Vote Act of 2002. Public Law 

107-252. 107th Congress, section 303(b) (2002).

12 U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and 

Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Sex, 

Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2004,” 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, http://www.census.gov/

population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab04a.xls.

13 ibid.

14 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “The Impact 

of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on 

Administration of Elections for Federal Office 2003-2004,” 

Tables 1 and 2, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

June 30, 2005.

*15 Federal Election Assistance Commission, “The Impact 

of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the 

Administration of Election for Federal Office 1999-2000,” 

Tables 1 and 2, Federal Election Commission. 

16 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000 and 2003-2004.

17 ibid.

18 ibid.

19 Indiana Public Law 109-2005

20 Indiana Secretary of State and Indiana Election 

Division, “2006 Indiana Election Day Handbook,” Indiana 

Secretary of State and Indiana Election Division, July 

2006, http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/EDH_FINAL.

pdf.

21 Indiana Code 3-7-33-4.5

22 Indiana Codes 3-5-2-40.5, 3-7-13-13, 3-7-26.3, 

3-7-44-4.5, 3-7-33-5, 3-7-34, 3-11-8-25.1, 3-11-8-25.2

23 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States.”

24 U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and 

Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, 

for States: November 2004,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, 

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/

cps2004/tab04b.xls

25 ibid.

26 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.

27 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993” 2001-2002.

28 ibid.

29 Massachusetts General Law Chap. 54, Sec. 76B

30 M.G.L. Chap. 54, Sec. 76C

31 M.G.L. Chap. 51, Sec. 47; Code of Massachusetts 

Regulations 950-57.04, 950-58.03

32 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States” and “Reported Voting and Registration 

of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, for States.”

33 ibid.
43

34 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000 and 2003-2004.

35 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.

36 Montana Code 13-13-114

37 Montana Code Annotated 13-13-601

38 M.C.A. 13-2-107, 13-2-110, 13-2-207, 13-2-301, 

13-13-114, 13-15-107; Administrative Rules of Montana 

43.3.2002, 44.3.2013, 44.3.2102, 44.3.2114, 44.4.2013

39 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States” and “Reported Voting and Registration 

of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, for States.”

40 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.

41 ibid.

42 New Jersey Statutes Annotated 19:31-5

43 N.J.S.A.19:31-1, 19:31-5, 19:31-6.5, 19:31-31, 

19:53C-3; New Jersey Administrative Code 13:17-1.1

44 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States” and “Reported Voting and Registration 

of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, for States.”

45 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.

46 North Carolina General Statute 163-166.12

47 N.C.G.S. 163-82.4, 163-82.7, 163-82.11

48 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States” and “Reported Voting and Registration 

of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, for States.”

49 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.

50 ibid.

51 25 Pa. C.S. Pt. IV; 4 Pa. Code Ch. 183

52 25 P.S. 3050; 25 Pa.C.S. 1328

53 See “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total 

Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States” and “Reported Voting and Registration 

of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Age, for States.”

54 ibid.

55 See “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004.
44 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

EAC Commissioners

Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez

Vice Chair Caroline Hunter

Commissioner Donetta L. Davidson

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Ave., NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

1-866-747-1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.gov

www.eac.gov