Executive Summary | i 

 
Election Administration and Voting Survey 2018 Comprehensive Report. A Report to the 116th Congress. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Executive Summary | i 

Executive Summary 

Since 2004, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has conducted the Election 

Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) following each federal general election. The EAVS asks 

all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to provide data about the ways in 

which Americans vote and how elections are administered. The EAVS provides the most 

comprehensive source of state- and local jurisdiction-level data about election administration in 

the United States. These data play a vital role in helping election officials, policymakers, and 

other election stakeholders identify trends, anticipate and respond to changing voter needs, 

and invest resources to improve election administration and the voter experience. EAVS data 

make it possible to drill down into the details of U.S. elections infrastructure and produce 

generalizable understanding of core aspects of the elections process and the management 

challenges faced by election officials. The survey provides policymakers and the public with 

critical information about how their democracy functions every two years and helps the EAC 

fulfill its congressionally mandated reporting requirements. 

Because of the decentralized nature of U.S. elections, it is important to have comprehensive 

data to identify trends in how elections are administered and how citizens participate in the 

electoral process. To this end, the EAC is pleased to present to the 116th Congress this report on 

the 2018 EAVS. 

This report describes in detail how the 2018 federal elections were administered and how 

voters cast their ballots. Data from the EAVS and the EAC’s accompanying Election 

Administration Policy Survey (Policy Survey) are used to provide an overview of each aspect of 

the elections process. Turnout, voting methods, ballot counting, and post-election auditing are 

covered in Chapter 1, Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018. Voter registration 

and list maintenance are covered in Chapter 2, Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond. Voting by 

individuals covered under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

is described in Chapter 3, Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA. Key laws, rules, 

policies, and procedures that govern U.S. elections are covered in Chapter 4, Election Law and 

Procedure in States: Policy Survey. Finally, the methodology of the survey and the survey 

instruments are discussed in Chapter 5, Survey Methodology and Process. 

Voting and Election Administration Findings 

For many, the biggest story of the 2018 general elections was turnout. EAVS data show that 

more than 120 million Americans voted in the 2018 general elections, a turnout rate of 52 

percent of the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP). The EAVS confirms that turnout in the 2018 

general elections increased in nearly all states when compared to 2014. Some states saw 

turnout levels that approached those of a typical presidential election. 

More than half of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day, and one-quarter of 

participants cast their ballots by mail. Nearly one-fifth voted early at in-person early voting sites, 

a rate that more than doubled since the 2014 elections. In six states, more than half of ballots 
were cast at in-person early voting sites. Although the overall rate of by-mail voting has not 

changed significantly since 2014, the states of California, Montana, and Utah saw large 

increases in their statewide by-mail voting rates. 

With more than 200,000 polling places in use on Election Day and more than 600,000 poll 

workers providing assistance to voters, administration of the 2018 general elections was a 

notable undertaking. However, recruiting poll workers continues to be a challenge for many 

states and jurisdictions, with nearly 70 percent of responding jurisdictions reporting that it was 

“very difficult” or “somewhat difficult” to obtain a sufficient number of poll workers.

States report increasing their use of electronic poll books, or e-poll books, since the 2016 

elections, with more than one-quarter of jurisdictions using them in 2018. More than 300,000 

pieces of voting equipment were deployed in the elections; the most commonly used types of 

equipment were scanners and ballot marking devices (BMD). Nearly 90 percent of election 

jurisdictions use voting machines equipped with some form of paper backup, and less than two 

percent of jurisdictions rely solely on voting machines with no paper backup. 

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) Findings 

More than 211 million persons were registered to vote for the 2018 general elections, an 

increase of 11 percent over the 2014 elections. Nearly 80 million registration applications were 

submitted between the 2016 and 2018 general elections. Departments of motor vehicles 

(DMV) remained the most utilized method for registration and accounted for 45 percent of 

registrations, an increase of 33 percent over 2014. Usage of online voter registration declined 

from 2016 but was still the second most common source of registration applications. More than 

800,000 same day registrations were received during the 2018 general election period. 

Pursuant to NVRA requirements, more than 21 million confirmation notices were sent by states, 

and 17 million voter registration records were removed from the rolls. The primary reasons for 

removal were not responding to a confirmation notice and failure to vote in two subsequent 

federal elections, moving outside of the jurisdiction in which they were registered, and death. 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

Findings 

More than 350,000 UOCAVA voters—including members of the uniformed services absent from 

their voting residence, their eligible family members, and U.S. citizens living overseas—

participated in the 2018 general elections. Continuing a trend that began with the 2016 

elections, the EAVS shows an increase in election participation among overseas civilians 

relative to uniformed services voters in 2018. Sixty percent of the UOCAVA ballots transmitted 

were sent to overseas civilians. 

The number of ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters increased by more than 50 percent over 

the 2014 election. Ballot transmission increasingly occurs electronically rather than through 

postal mail. Email was the most used method of ballot transmission for the 2018 midterm 

elections, accounting for more than half of all blank ballot transmissions to UOCAVA voters. 

UOCAVA voters also took advantage of electronic methods for returning their absentee ballots. 

ii | Executive Summary 
Executive Summary | iii 

Although postal mail was the most common mode of ballot return, a substantial number of 

ballots were returned via email, including more than one-quarter of ballots returned by overseas 

civilians and more than ten percent of ballots returned by uniformed services voters. 

The majority of ballots returned by UOCAVA voters were counted. Overall, only five percent of 

ballots returned by UOCAVA voters were rejected, most commonly because they were received 

after state deadlines. The number of Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) that states 

reported receiving quadrupled since the 2014 elections, enabling more than 5,000 UOCAVA 

eligible citizens to have their votes counted in 2018.

Election Administration Policy Survey Findings 

To provide context to the quantitative data that states report in the EAVS, the EAC also collects 

information about states’ election policies. Nearly 75 percent of states report using top-down 

voter registration systems that gather and aggregate information from their local jurisdictions’ 

voter registration databases. In order to keep their registration databases accurate and up to 

date, most states report sharing information with government entities that maintain death 

records, motor vehicle licensing agencies, and agencies that maintain felony or prison records. 

Nearly 75 percent of states offer online voter registration, and nearly half of states allow for 

same day voter registration (SDR). 

All states allow for some form of by-mail voting and in-person early voting for at least some 

segments of their domestic civilian population, although how that happens in practice varies 

widely. Three states administer their elections entirely by mail and four states have all-by-mail 

voting in select local jurisdictions. About one-quarter of states require in-person early voters to 

provide an excuse. Almost one-third of states have vote centers or allow voters to cast ballots at 

any polling place in their jurisdiction. 

Nearly all states limit or remove voting rights for persons convicted of certain crimes. Two-thirds 

of states restore voting rights to a person with a disqualifying conviction automatically after a 

period of time, whereas one-third of states require individuals convicted of certain crimes to 

reapply to have their voting rights reinstated. 

In the post-election period, nearly 80 percent of states require audits to ensure that established 

election procedures were followed in polling places, and all states have a mechanism for 

conducting recounts to ensure that ballots were counted correctly. 
iv | 

This report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is the result of a contract to collect and 

analyze data for the 2018 Election Administration and Voting Survey. The contract was 

performed by Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company based in Arlington, VA. 

Published June 2019 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

www.eac.gov
| v 
vi | 

 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 ....................................................... 1

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Election Administration in the United States ......................................................................................... 1

The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) ......................................................................... 3

Turnout in the 2018 Election .................................................................................................................. 4

How Americans Register to Vote ........................................................................................................... 17

Election Technology ............................................................................................................................... 19

A Closer Look: Election Security and the EAVS .................................................................................... 22

Overview Appendix A: Descriptive Tables ............................................................................................. 26

Chapter 2. Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond ................................................................................... 39

Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 39

Getting on the Rolls: Sources of Registration ...................................................................................... 43

Voter Registration Rates ....................................................................................................................... 47

Types of Registrations Received ........................................................................................................... 49

Registration List Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 51

NVRA Appendix A: Descriptive Tables................................................................................................... 55

Chapter 3. Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA .................................................................... 86

Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 86

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 86

Federal Laws Regulating Military and Overseas Voting ...................................................................... 87

The UOCAVA Voting Process .................................................................................................................. 88

Registration and Ballot Request ........................................................................................................... 90

UOCAVA Ballots Transmitted ................................................................................................................. 92

UOCAVA Ballots Returned and Submitted for Counting ...................................................................... 96

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs) ......................................................................................... 99

UOCAVA Appendix A: Changes to the EAVS Survey Instrument ........................................................ 101

UOCAVA Appendix B: Descriptive Tables ............................................................................................ 102

Chapter 4. Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey ......................................................... 117

Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 117
 

| vii 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 117

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 118

Voter Registration ................................................................................................................................ 118

Criminal Convictions and Voting ......................................................................................................... 124

Voter Identification .............................................................................................................................. 125

Modes of Voting ................................................................................................................................... 126

Post-Election Recounts and Audits ..................................................................................................... 130

Responding to the 2018 EAVS ........................................................................................................... 132

Policy Survey Appendix A: Descriptive Tables .................................................................................... 135

Chapter 5. Survey Methodology and Process ........................................................................................ 153

Survey Questionnaire Outline ............................................................................................................. 153

How States Completed the EAVS ........................................................................................................ 157

Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................................................157

Data Reporting and Calculations ........................................................................................................ 163

Methodology Appendix A: Survey Response Rates ........................................................................... 164

Methodology Appendix B: Validation Rules ........................................................................................ 169

Methodology Appendix C: External Data Validations......................................................................... 180

Methodology Appendix D: EAVS Survey Questions ............................................................................ 185

Methodology Appendix E: Policy Survey Instrument .......................................................................... 229
 

1 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Chapter 1. Overview of Election Administration 

and Voting in 2018 

Key Findings 

The 2018 edition of the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) collected data on election 

policies and procedures, ballots cast, voter registration, overseas and military voting, Election Day 

activities, voting technology, and other important issues related to voting and election 

administration. Notable findings from the EAVS include: 

• Turnout in the 2018 general election nationwide was more than 15 percentage points higher 

than in 2014. Forty-eight states reported turnout increases ranging from two to 28 

percentage points.

• More than 211 million persons were reported as registered and eligible to vote in the 2018 

general elections, and nearly 80 million registration applications were received between the 

2016 and 2018 general elections. 

• Although voting in person on Election Day remained the most used mode of voting in the 

2018 general elections, the rate of early in-person voting more than doubled since the 2014 

election. By-mail voting was used by one-quarter of the electorate in 2018. 

• Overseas civilians comprise the majority of Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act (UOCAVA) voters. Uniformed services voters and their eligible family members rely more 

heavily on mail to receive their transmitted ballots, whereas the majority of overseas civilians 

receive their ballots through electronic methods. 

• The usage of e-poll books among jurisdictions increased by nearly 50 percent between the 

2014 and 2018 general elections. 

• More than 90 percent of election jurisdictions use paper ballots or voting machines that 

produce paper records. Only a few states and jurisdictions use equipment that captures 

votes electronically and does not produce physical records of ballots cast. 

Election Administration in the United States 

Election administration in the United States is largely decentralized. Although the U.S. Constitution 

and various federal laws govern specific aspects of federal elections and a small number of federal 

agencies—such as the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the Federal Voting Assistance 

Program (FVAP)—play a limited role in election administration, broad legal and procedural authority 

rests with the states and local jurisdictions. As a result, wide variation exists among, and within, 

state election policies and practices, and such policies and practices are constantly evolving. 

Nevertheless, U.S. elections generally follow a standard process. As shown in Figure 1, the election 

process can be viewed as a cycle. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 2 

Figure 1. The U.S. Election Process 

The legal and procedural framework for elections is generally established well in advance of Election 

Day. This framework includes determining voter eligibility rules; how, when, and where voters may 

cast their ballots; and what technology will be used to support the elections. Supported by state 

election offices, most of these policies and procedures are implemented by election officials at the 

local level (e.g., county, township, municipality). To participate in elections, eligible citizens typically 

must register to vote, pursuant to the eligibility rules set forth in the legal framework.1 In many 

states, voters must register in advance of a set registration deadline; in others, eligible individuals 

 

1 North Dakota is the only state that does not require citizens to register before casting a ballot in an election. 
 

3 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

may register and cast a ballot on the same day. Voting itself begins for many voters in advance of 

Election Day, including eligible overseas civilians and military voters who are absent from their voting 

residence, as well as those who vote by mail and at in-person early voting sites. The options available 

to voters vary by state and local jurisdiction. However, most voters continue to vote at in-person 

polling sites on Election Day itself. In most states, individuals whose eligibility cannot be verified at 

the time of voting may cast a provisional ballot. Election officials then investigate the eligibility of 

those who cast provisional ballots to determine whether or not their ballots are counted. Once the 

polls close on Election Day, the process of counting ballots to determine election results begins. In 

the post-election period, many states conduct audits of their election results and voting equipment. 

The election process can be viewed as a cycle in the sense that the experiences from previous 

elections are used to inform decision-making around the legal and procedural framework for 

subsequent elections. Often, the successful approaches and innovations implemented in one state 

or local jurisdiction during an election are adopted by other states in subsequent elections. 

This chapter covers turnout and modes of voting (including Election Day in-person voting, by-mail 

voting, UOCAVA voting, and provisional balloting) in the 2018 general elections, polling places and 

poll workers, voter registration, and election technology. This chapter comprises a non-exhaustive 

overview of the data provided by states and jurisdictions in the EAVS. Voter registration is covered in 

greater detail in Chapter 2, Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond; UOCAVA voting is discussed further 

in Chapter 3, Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA; and state election policies and 

practices are featured in Chapter 4, Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey. 

The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) 

Since 2004, the EAC has conducted the EAVS, which asks all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, 

and the U.S. territories—American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—to provide 

data about the ways in which Americans vote in each federal general election. The EAVS includes 

questions regarding voter registration, by-mail voting, voting by individuals covered by UOCAVA, 

provisional voting, election technology, poll workers, polling places, and total turnout.2 The EAVS 

helps the EAC meet its mandate under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to serve as a national 

clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect 

to the administration of federal elections. The EAVS sections related to voter registration and 

UOCAVA voting allow states to satisfy their data reporting requirements established, respectively, by 

the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and UOCAVA. 

Data collected through the EAVS provide a detailed snapshot of how general elections are 

administered in the United States every two years and how numerous election stakeholders use the 

data. Members of Congress, legislative staff, and federal officials use EAVS data to assess the 

impact of federal election laws. Intelligence analysts, members of the U.S. national security 

community, and other stakeholders use the EAVS to evaluate how to better secure U.S. elections 

infrastructure. Journalists and academics use EAVS data in media reports and academic research to 

inform the public about key aspects of elections. Advocates and civic groups also use EAVS data to 

 

2 The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has not yet participated in the EAVS. At the time HAVA was enacted, 

this territory did not have representation in Congress. Puerto Rico did not participate in the 2018 EAVS because it did not 

conduct a federal election in 2018. However, Puerto Rico was included in the 2018 Policy Survey. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 4 

inform their advocacy and organizing efforts. The EAVS is also invaluable to election officials 

themselves. These officials use the EAVS to manage election oversight, conduct issue analysis and 

strategic planning, and create training and promotional materials. The EAC itself also uses EAVS data 

to create research and clearinghouse resources to advance the agency’s mission and to better 

support election officials and voters as well as to inform lawmakers and national level stakeholders 

about the impact of federal voting laws and the changing landscape of U.S. elections. 

In administering changes to the 2018 EAVS, the EAC had three interrelated goals: 1) to make the 

EAVS easier for state and local officials to complete, 2) to improve data quality and completeness, 

and 3) to make EAVS data more accessible and useful to the election community. The Survey 

Methodology and Process chapter (Chapter 5) of this report details how the survey was administered 

and the steps taken to advance these goals. 

Overall EAVS Response Rates 

In early 2019, all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories submitted and 

certified EAVS data. These states and territories comprised 6,459 jurisdictions, all but one of which 

(99.9 percent) are included in the 2018 EAVS data.3,4 During the data collection period, efforts were 

made to maximize the completeness and accuracy of the data reported here. If a state’s data are not 

included in a calculation because of missingness or data quality issues, then it is described in the 

notes that accompany the analysis in the report.5

Providing EAVS data is frequently a joint task undertaken by both state and jurisdiction election 

officials. Although some states are able to provide all EAVS data from their centralized election 

database, most states rely on local jurisdictions to provide responses to some or all EAVS questions.6

Complete details about the methodology of the 2018 EAVS, including an outline of the survey 

questionnaire, the data collection templates, the data validation process, and technical assistance 

provided to respondents can be found in the Survey Methodology and Process chapter (Chapter 5) of 

this report. 

Turnout in the 2018 Election 

According to EAVS data reported by states, 120,314,461 Americans voted in the 2018 general 

elections. As a percentage of the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) as estimated by the U.S. 

 

3 What constitutes a jurisdiction is defined by each state. Most states report data on the level of the county (or county 

equivalent, such as parishes for Louisiana). Illinois, Missouri, and Virginia report data for independent cities in addition to 

counties. The territories, the District of Columbia, and Alaska each report as a single jurisdiction. Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin report data on the level of individual townships. 

Maine also reports its UOCAVA data in Section B as a separate jurisdiction because this information is only collected at the 

state level. See Appendix A in Chapter 5 of this report for a breakdown of the number of jurisdictions reported in each state. 

4 These 6,458 jurisdictions provided at least partial EAVS data in 2018. One county in Texas did not provide any EAVS data. 

Full response rates for each section of the survey are detailed in Chapter 5 of this report. 

5 In the interest of consistency, the term “states” in this report includes the District of Columbia and the four U.S. territories. 

6 The 2018 Policy Survey asked states to report whether each section of the EAVS is answered entirely by the state election 

office, entirely by local election offices, or in part by the state and in part by local election offices. For most EAVS sections, 

approximately half of states answer questions entirely at the state level and the remainder of states answer questions 

either entirely or partially at the local level. More information about the responses to this question is available in Chapter 4 

of this report.
 

5 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Census Bureau, this represents a national turnout rate of 52.0 percent.7 On the state level, turnout 

ranged from 35.8 percent to 64.2 percent.8 Six states—Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin—had turnout levels exceeding 60.0 percent. 

The 2018 national turnout rate well exceeds the 2014 national turnout rate of 36.5 percent as 

calculated with EAVS data. Figure 2 shows that most states saw higher levels of turnout in 2018 

than in 2014.9 Only three states saw slight turnout drops from the previous midterm elections. 

 

7 For the purposes of this report, the 1-year American Community Survey (ACS) state estimate for 2017 was used as a point 

of comparison for the 2018 EAVS data, as the estimate for the year 2018 was not available by the time this report went to 

press. The 2013 1-year ACS estimate is used as a point of comparison for the 2014 EAVS data in order to be consistent. 

8 A breakdown of turnout levels by state, calculated both as a percentage of CVAP and as a percentage of total registration, 

can be found in Table 1 of Appendix A in this chapter. 

9 This figure excludes states that did not have a turnout increase from 2014 to 2018 and excludes Alabama and Indiana 

because of data quality issues. Territories are not shown because turnout as percentage of CVAP cannot be calculated for 

them.

Calculating Turnout Rates 

When assessing election administration, one primary outcome of interest is voter turnout, which is 

calculated by dividing the number of people who participated in an election by the number of people who 

could have participated. EAVS provides a measure of the total number of voters participating in an 

election for the numerator in this equation. However, multiple denominators could be used: 

• Number of registered voters or active voters. Number of people a state reports as being 

registered and eligible to vote (A1a in EAVS). Some states separately report the number of active 

voters who have no additional processing requirements to fulfill before voting (A1b in EAVS). This 

number is available for states and sub-state EAVS jurisdictions. 

• Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP). Estimate of the total number of U.S. citizens 18 years of 

age or older, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). This number 

is available for states and most sub-state EAVS jurisdictions, but not for U.S. territories. 

• Voting Eligible Population (VEP). Measure of the CVAP minus those who are ineligible to vote 

(such as persons with disqualifying felony convictions) and persons who are in the military or 

civilians living overseas. This number is available for states, but not territories or for sub-state 

EAVS jurisdictions. 

Relying on the number of registered or active voters is sometimes viewed as problematic for calculating 

turnout because it is often challenging for states to keep voter rolls fully up to date (see Chapter 2 of this 

report for a discussion of list maintenance practices). Using VEP as the denominator in turnout 

calculations would somewhat overrepresent voter turnout, as EAVS data explicitly include persons 

covered by UOCAVA, and would restrict the ability to estimate turnout for sub-state jurisdictions. Although 

each denominator has its limitations, the EAC uses CVAP to calculate turnout in this report due to its 

availability for the majority of jurisdictions that report EAVS data and because it provides a more accurate 

picture of the population covered by the EAVS.
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 6 

Figure 2. Most States Experienced Turnout Increases from the 2014 to 2018 Elections
 

7 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Election Day In-Person Voting 

Conducting an election is a complex undertaking. In the United States, federal general elections 

must be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November every even-numbered year. Election 

administrators must select polling locations and voting systems for Election Day and recruit and train 

poll workers to manage the process and assist voters at the polls. 

Despite the increasing use of other voting methods, Election Day in-person voting remains the most 

common way for Americans to cast their ballots. In the 2018 EAVS, states reported that 67,133,886

people voted at a physical polling place on Election Day, which represents 55.8 percent of those who 

participated in the 2018 elections.10

Election Day Polling Places 

For an election, each voter is assigned to a precinct according to his or her residential address as 

listed in the voter registration record. A precinct is a contiguous, bounded geographic area that is the 

basis for determining which contests and issues the voters legally residing in that area are eligible to 

vote on.11 All voters in a precinct are generally assigned to vote at the same Election Day polling 

place, which is the physical location where in-person voting takes place. According to the 52 states 

that provided this data, 230,871 polling places were used in 2018.12 Less than 1.0 percent of those 

polling places were located at election offices, with the remaining 99.4 percent at other locations 

such as schools, community centers, and churches.13

Among jurisdictions, the weighted mean of the number of in-person voters casting ballots per 

Election Day polling places was 280.8.14 Figure 3 shows the number of in-person Election Day voters 

per polling place in each state, as compared to the national weighted mean. 

 

10 This figure does not include voters who cast provisional ballots or who dropped off by-mail ballots at the polls; these 

figures are reported separately in other sections of this chapter. Both Oregon and Washington reported zero in-person 

Election Day voters. 

11 Some states use the terms “ward” or “voting district” to describe voting precincts.

12 Missouri did not provide a response to this question. Washington reported that this question does not apply because it 

does not have Election Day polling places. Iowa has been excluded from this analysis because of data quality issues. Yearover-year analysis of polling places as reported in the EAVS is cautioned against, as these items have been underreported 

in previous years. 

13 These percentages are calculated based on states that reported information on where their Election Day polling places 

were located. Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington did not respond to these questions.

14 Calculated as the total number of voters reported as voting at an in-person polling place on Election Day, divided by the 

number of Election Day polling places reported in use. This calculation has been weighted according to the number of 

polling places reported in use. Jurisdictions that conduct their elections exclusively by mail, as reported in item F1g, have 

been excluded from this calculation. Iowa’s data was excluded from this calculation because of data quality issues.
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 8 

Figure 3. States in the Eastern United States Have Higher Numbers of Voters per Election Day Polling Place 
 

9 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Election Day Poll Workers 

Many of the laws, rules, policies, and procedures governing elections are put into practice by the poll 

workers who assist with elections.15 These poll workers are typically not full-time election workers or 

employees of election offices; rather, they are recruited by local election offices and trained to assist 

in the voting process during an election. Poll workers assist by verifying the identities of those who 

come to vote; assisting voters with signing the register, affidavits, or other documents required to 

cast a ballot; providing ballots and setting up voting equipment; and performing other functions as 

dictated by the legal framework.16

Forty-five states reported a total of 637,713 poll workers assisting at polling places during Election 

Day for the 2018 general election.17 These states reported deploying an average of 8.0 poll workers 

per polling place on Election Day, an average that has been largely the same since the 2012 

election.18 However, staffing polling places continues to be a significant challenge for most local 

election officials. Of the jurisdictions that provided feedback about efforts to obtain a sufficient 

number of poll workers for the November 2018 general election, more than two-thirds reported it 

was “very difficult” or “somewhat difficult.”19 Only 15.3 percent of jurisdictions reported having a 

“somewhat easy” or “very easy” experience recruiting poll workers. 

Jurisdictions also reported the ages of their poll workers.20 Figure 4 shows that less than one-fifth of 

poll workers were younger than 41 years old, whereas more than two-thirds were 61 years or older. 

Early In-Person and By-Mail Voting 

All states allow voter participation through the use of by-mail ballots or in-person early voting for at 

least certain populations. The use of these voting options is growing steadily, and in the 2018 

 

15 Some states and jurisdictions use other titles for poll workers, such as election judges, booth workers, wardens, or 

commissioners. 

16 For more information about the legal requirements for serving as a poll worker in each state, see 

https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Compendium%20of%20State%20Poll%20Worker%20Requirements.pdf.

17 Georgia, Iowa, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin did not report the number of poll workers 

who served in the election. Oregon and Washington reported that this item does not apply to their states because they do 

not conduct any in-person voting on Election Day. 

18 The 2012 EAVS reported 7.4 poll workers per polling place on Election Day 2012. The 2014 EAVS found an average of 

6.4 poll workers per polling place. The 2016 EAVS found an average of 7.8 poll workers per polling place. 

19 A total of 2,817 jurisdictions provided a non-missing response to this EAVS question. The remaining jurisdictions 

responded “data not available,” “does not apply,” “not enough information to answer,” or left the question blank. All or 

most jurisdictions in the states of Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin provided missing responses to this question. 

In addition to jurisdictions that replied it was “very difficult,” “somewhat difficult,” “somewhat easy,” or “very easy,” 16.5 

percent reported that recruiting poll workers was “neither difficult nor easy.”

20 The age distribution of poll workers as reported by states includes both Election Day poll workers and poll workers who 

assisted during early voting. Common sources of state data on poll worker ages are voter registration records, payroll 

records, or poll worker applications. However, not all states collect these data; Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, 

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, 

Vermont, and Wisconsin reported not being able to provide this information. Oregon and Washington did not report these 

data because they do not conduct any in-person Election Day voting. Because some states were able to provide the total 

number of poll workers but not the age breakdown, the denominator used in this analysis is the sum of the number of poll 

workers that jurisdictions reported in each age category, not the total number of poll workers reported. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 10 

Figure 4. Majority of Poll Workers are 61 Years of Age or Older 

general election, 52,013,328 voters—43.2 percent of total participants—cast their ballots outside of 

the context of Election Day in-person voting. This includes using a domestic civilian by-mail ballot, 

voting in person before Election Day, casting a UOCAVA ballot, or using another mode of voting.21

This represents an increase from the 2014 election, when 39.5 percent of voters used one of these 

voting methods. Figure 5 shows the most commonly used modes of voting in the 2014, 2016, and 

2018 general elections. 

 

21 These figures are calculated using item F1 of EAVS, in which states and jurisdictions provide the total number of 

participants in the 2018 election by mode of voting. This includes data reported in the “Other” category of this EAVS 

question. Usage of this item was rare; only about 25.0 percent of jurisdictions reported any data in this item, and the 

jurisdictions that did report in this item generally reported fewer than 100 election participants in this category. Other 

modes of voting reported by states included conditional voter registration, grace period Election Day registration, limited 

ballots, rejected provisional ballots, and “category unknown.” Altogether, fewer than 100,000 persons were reported as 

participating using one of these other modes. 
 

11 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Figure 5. Election Day In-Person Voting Used by Majority of Voters, but In-Person Early Voting Rates are 

Increasing 

In-Person Early Voting 

In-person early voting—also referred to as in-person absentee voting in some states—allows voters to 

cast their ballot at a polling place before Election Day.22 These individuals typically vote on the same 

type of voting equipment as they would on Election Day, but do so during the weeks leading up to 

Election Day. 

 

22 In-person absentee voting allows voters to receive, fill out, and cast their absentee ballot in person at an election office 

or at a satellite location rather than returning it through the mail. Because the ballots are cast or returned at a physical 

polling place, the EAC classifies in-person absentee voting as in-person early voting for purposes of the EAVS. In the 2018 

Policy Survey, 30 states reported using in-person absentee voting. However, some states’ data management systems do 

not distinguish in-person absentee voters from by-mail voters, so not all of these states were able to report data on how 

many of their voters voted this way. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 12 

States reported a total of 20,854,871 in-person early voters in 2018, which is 22.0 percent of those 

who participated in the elections. This percentage is more than double the rate of early voting in the 

last midterm elections in 2014, when 10.7 percent of participants cast their ballots this way. 

Increases in in-person early voting were especially large in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, 

Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont, all of which saw increases of 

at least 10 percentage points since the 2014 elections. Six of those states—Arkansas, North 

Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas—reported that more than half of the ballots 

cast in their state were cast through in-person early voting.23 Nationwide, states report 79,417 inperson early voting sites in use.24

By-Mail Voting 

By-mail voting (often called absentee voting) allows individuals to receive their ballot in the mail 

before the election and mark their ballot away from the election office. The marked ballot can be 

returned by mail to an election office or, in some states, dropped off at physical polling sites or 

designated drop-off boxes. A growing number of states and jurisdictions conduct their elections 

either primarily or entirely through by-mail ballots; these are categorized by the EAVS as all-vote-bymail systems. Three states (Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) fall into this category, and an 

additional four states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Utah) have all-vote-by-mail elections in 

select local jurisdictions.25

Twenty-two states report that they require an excuse to use by-mail voting, whereas 33 states allow 

no-excuse by-mail voting. In addition, 24 states allow voters to register as permanent by-mail voters 

who automatically receive a by-mail ballot in an election without having to request one. Ten of these 

states allow any registrant to request to be a permanent by-mail voter, whereas 14 states allow only 

individuals who meet specific criteria, such as individuals over a specified age, persons with 

disabilities or permanent illnesses, and caregivers. 

States reported a total 31,058,968 persons casting ballots by mail in the 2018 general elections, 

which represents 25.8 percent of election participants.26 Three states experienced especially large 

increases in the use of by-mail voting between 2014 and 2018. By-mail balloting in Montana rose 

from 60.2 percent to 73.4 percent. In California, by-mail balloting increased from 53.3 percent to 

69.1 percent, and in Utah it increased from 50.5 percent to 87.6 percent.27 Some of the increases in 

California and Utah are due to some local jurisdictions adopting an all-vote-by-mail system.28 States 

reported transmitting 21,632,297 by-mail ballots to voters on a permanent by-mail ballot voter 

registration list in the 2018 elections.

 

23 Table 2 in Appendix A of this chapter reports in-person early voting rates by state. 

24 Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania did not report any data on early voting sites. 

Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin did not report data on early voting sites despite reporting data on ballots cast at an early 

voting polling place. 

25 See Chapter 4 of this report for a full discussion of by-mail voting laws. 

26 This calculation combines participants who were reported as voting with a domestic civilian by-mail ballot, a UOCAVA 

ballot or FWAB, or by-mail in an all-vote-by-mail jurisdiction in item F1 of the EAVS. 

27 Utah’s reported by-mail voting rate in 2014 does not include UOCAVA voters, as Utah did not report UOCAVA voting in 

item F1 of EAVS in 2014. 

28 Thirty-eight of California’s 58 counties and 28 of Utah’s 29 counties reported data on voters who cast ballots in a voteby-mail precinct.
13 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 Figure 6. By-Mail Voting Rates are High in Western States
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 14 

As shown in Figure 6, by-mail balloting is particularly popular in states in the western part of the 

country. Although the vast majority of U.S. counties had by-mail voting rates below 25.0 percent, 

Arizona, California, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah saw by-mail voting rates above 50.0 percent in 

many counties. In addition, counties in Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, and Wyoming had by-mail 

voting rates between 25.0 percent and 50.0 percent in the 2018 general elections. The three allvote-by-mail states of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington had by-mail turnout rates at or near 100 

percent; these three states accounted for 24.2 percent of the by-mail ballots cast in the 2018 

general elections.29

Nationally, 42,444,522 non-UOCAVA by-mail ballots were transmitted for this election and 71.6 

percent of these ballots were returned by voters.30 Of these returned ballots, 91.8 percent were 

counted in the 2018 general elections and 1.4 percent were rejected.31 Table 1 shows that the most 

common reason for states to reject ballots was “other”—this includes reasons such as the voter was 

not registered or eligible, the ballot was missing an important document (such as an affidavit or 

certification) or included an incomplete document, or that the voter had already voted with a 

Table 1. Most Common Reason for By-Mail Ballot Rejection is “Other”32

Top Reasons for Rejecting By-Mail Ballots

Reason 

Percentage of 

Rejected Ballots

“Other” reason given 34.9% 

Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% 

Non-matching signature 15.8% 

No voter signature 13.0% 

No witness signature 2.5% 

All additional reasons 2.2%

Voter already voted in person 1.4% 

 

29 Colorado reported a by-mail turnout rate of 95.3 percent; this state reported some in-person participation during the 

early voting period and on Election Day. 

30 States reported that 28.4 percent of transmitted by-mail ballots were returned as undeliverable; were surrendered, 

spoiled, or replaced by voters; were transmitted to by-mail voters who voted in person with a provisional ballot; or had an 

unknown or other status. 

31 States reported that 6.8 percent of by-mail ballots returned by voters were not categorized as either counted or rejected.

32 Because percentages for each rejection reason are calculated independently, and only states that report data for a given 

reason are included in analysis, percentages do not total to 100 percent. 
 

15 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

different by-mail ballot or otherwise surrendered his/her by-mail ballot. Additional common reasons 

for rejecting by-mail ballots include ballot not received on time, the signature on the ballot did not 

match the signature on file, the ballot lacked a voter’s signature, the ballot lacked a witness’s 

signature, and because the voter had already voted in person.33

UOCAVA Voting 

Absentee and by-mail voting has long been used to facilitate voting by individuals in the military or 

living overseas, as these individuals frequently find themselves away from their usual place of 

residence during elections.34 The distinct needs of members of the uniformed services and overseas 

civilians remain an area of critical concern in election administration, and these individuals are given 

special voting protections under UOCAVA and its amendments.35 UOCAVA voters are able to 

participate in federal elections and are given special considerations as to when their ballots are sent 

to them and how blank ballots can be transmitted to them. 

Overall trends of increased turnout in the 2018 elections extended to the UOCAVA voting population. 

States reported 358,137 UOCAVA voters participating in the elections; as a percentage of the 

electorate, this represents an increase of nearly 50.0 percent over the 2014 election.36 Continuing a 

trend that began in the 2016 elections, overseas civilians continue to comprise a majority of UOCAVA 

voters. In 2018, overseas civilians represented 56.6 percent of registered UOCAVA voters, whereas 

42.1 percent were uniformed services members and their eligible family members.37

UOCAVA voters increasingly use electronic means to receive and return their absentee ballots, but 

rates differ by UOCAVA voter type. More than two-thirds of overseas civilians used electronic methods 

to receive the ballots transmitted to them from election offices, whereas 60.1 percent of uniformed 

services voters used postal mail instead. For both uniformed services and overseas civilians, the 

majority of UOCAVA voters return their completed ballots to election offices by postal mail. 

Chapter 3, Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA, contains a complete discussion of the 

EAC’s history of collecting data on voters covered by UOCAVA and a full analysis of the data collected 

about these voters and their ballots in 2018, including ballots transmitted, returned, counted, and 

rejected, and the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB). 

 

33 Of the total number of rejected by-mail ballots reported by states in item C4 of the EAVS, 7.1 percent were not 

categorized according to the reason for rejection. 

34 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez, Thad E. Hall, and Brian F. Roberts. (2007). Military voting and the law: Procedural 

and technological solutions to the ballot transit problem. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 34, 935. 

35 The uniformed services are the armed forces—Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard—as well as the 

Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned 

Corps, and the U.S. Merchant Marine. Uniformed services members, their spouses, and their dependents are, together, 

referred to as uniformed services voters. Overseas civilians are U.S. citizens living outside of the United States who are not 

uniformed services voters and are also protected by UOCAVA.

36 This calculation uses data on the number of election participants who voted using either a UOCAVA ballot or FWAB in 

item F1 of the EAVS. 

37 The remaining 1.3 percent of registered UOCAVA voters reported by states were not classified as either uniformed 

services or civilian voters. These percentages exclude the five states that did not report the number of registered UOCAVA 

voters and one state that did not subdivide this number by UOCAVA voter type. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 16 

Provisional Balloting 

One key aspect of HAVA is provisional voting. In most states, provisional ballots are offered to 

individuals whose eligibility to vote is challenged or whose registration status cannot be verified at 

the time of voting. Provisional ballots are kept separate from other election ballots and are later 

counted, partially counted, or rejected depending on whether the provisional voter’s eligibility can be 

verified in the days following the election. 

Five states—Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—are exempt from HAVA’s 

provisional ballot requirements because they allowed same day voter registration at the time the law 

was enacted. In addition, North Dakota is exempt from this provision of HAVA because it does not 

require citizens to register to vote. Despite being exempt, Wisconsin and Wyoming reported offering 

provisional ballots to their voters. Vermont reported that it does not allow for provisional ballots, and 

American Samoa did not report on its use of provisional ballots. 

In 2018, states reported that 1,483,708 voters participated using a provisional ballot, representing 

1.3 percent of all participants in the election.38 California continues to lead the nation in provisional 

ballots with 898,081 cast, more than all other states combined, partially because this state uses 

provisional ballots for more than the original purposes intended by HAVA.39 In most states, use of 

provisional ballots is more limited. In 27 states (49.1 percent), provisional ballots cast outside of a 

voter’s assigned precinct are rejected.40

Nationally, 59.4 percent of provisional ballots were counted in full, with another 7.0 percent partially 

counted.41 States reported that 26.3 percent of provisional ballots were rejected, with the remaining 

7.3 percent reaching some other adjudication.42 The most common reasons states reported for 

rejecting provisional ballots included the voter not being registered in the state (accounting for 40.2 

percent of rejections), “other” (25.1 percent), the voter was registered in the state but attempted to 

vote in the wrong jurisdiction (19.4 percent), the voter was registered in the state but attempted to 

 

38 States reported data on the number of voters who used provisional ballots in two questions of the EAVS. The figures of 

1,483,708 provisional ballot voters are based on states’ responses to question F1e, not E1a.

39 In California, eligible citizens who miss the deadline can go to their county elections office or a designated satellite 

location to register and vote conditionally via provisional ballot. Their ballots will be processed once the county elections 

office has completed the voter registration verification process. Voters can complete the conditional voter registration 

process 14 days before an election all the way through to that Election Day (see https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voterregistration/conditional-voter-reg/).

40 Information on state policies on provisional ballots cast in the wrong precincts is reported in item Q18 of the Policy 

Survey. Seven states (12.7 percent) did not provide a response to this question. Fifteen states (27.3 percent) reported

partially counting provisional ballots cast outside of a voter’s assigned precinct. Six states (11.0 percent) reported counting 

out-of-precinct provisional ballots in full. These include Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where federal ballot styles do not 

vary across precincts; the three all vote-by-mail states (Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin); and Montana, which allows 

transfer registrants to cast provisional ballots that are accepted in full when it is confirmed that they have not voted in 

another county or precinct (see https://sosmt.gov/Portals/142/Elections/Documents/MT-Votes-Provisional.pdf).

41 The states of Alabama, Florida, and Kentucky indicated in the survey comments that they do not partially count 

provisional ballots. Illinois reported that jurisdictions do not record partially counted ballots. Kansas, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey, and Utah do not track partially counted provisional ballots separately from fully counted provisional ballots. Maine 

noted that all provisional ballots are counted. Montana noted that provisional ballots are not tracked in voter history. 

42 Common descriptions of these provisional ballots provided by states included “Status unknown,” “Forwarded to another 

state/county,” and “Provisional ballots cast under APRI exception.”
 

17 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

vote in the wrong precinct (4.9 percent), failure to provide sufficient identification (2.3 percent), and 

the voter had already voted (2.2 percent).43

How Americans Register to Vote 

Every state except North Dakota has voter registration.44 The deadline to register to vote depends on 

the state and the method used to register. In 2018, nearly half of the states offered same day voter 

registration to their citizens.45

In nearly all states, the processes for maintaining voter registration rolls and the standard ways by 

which individuals can register to vote are governed by NVRA and HAVA, which together require states 

to adopt a computerized statewide voter registration list, create uniform requirements for the 

locations where individuals should be offered the opportunity to register to vote, and establish the 

process by which states maintain their voter registration rolls.46 Some states designate their 

registered voters as “active” or “inactive.” An inactive voter is a person who is on the registration 

rolls but requires address verification under the provisions of NVRA, whereas active voters do not 

require any additional action or verification. 

With proper notification, a state can remove a person from the voter registration rolls if the registrant 

dies, requests to be removed, or moves outside of the jurisdiction where he or she was registered. 

NVRA requires that states send confirmation notices to registrants when there in as indication that 

the registrant no longer resides in the registrar’s jurisdiction or when the voter has not voted or 

appeared to vote in recent federal elections.47 Individuals who do not respond to these confirmation 

notices and then do not vote in two or more consecutive federal general elections can also be 

removed from the rolls. If state law allows, individuals can be removed based on a finding of mental 

incapacity or upon a criminal conviction. 

States reported having 211,665,577 voters who were registered to vote and eligible to participate in 

the 2018 general elections, of which 90.0 percent were categorized as active voters. States reported 

 

43 These percentages are calculated by using the sum of all rejection reasons as the denominator. “Other” reasons 

described by states included missing documentation, ballots received after the deadline, disqualifying felony conviction, 

unqualified or unverifiable voter registration, and canceled registrations. Additional reasons for rejecting provisional ballots 

listed within the question categories—no signature, envelope and/or ballot was incomplete and/or illegible, ballot was 

missing from envelope, and a non-matching signature—accounted for 5.9 percent of rejections of provisional ballots. 

44 Because North Dakota does not have voter registration, this state did not respond to EAVS questions about voter 

registration or list maintenance. North Dakota’s election website states: “Precincts in North Dakota maintain a list of voters 

who have voted in previous elections. When a voter approaches a polling place they are asked to provide an acceptable 

form of identification. Then the election board will attempt to locate the voter’s name on the voting list. If the voter’s name 

is on the list, the voter’s name and address are verified and the voter is then allowed to vote.” 

(https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/votereg.pdf) 

45 State policies on same day voter registration vary. Some states have specific statutes allowing for same day registration 

or Election Day registration, whereas others have it because of an overlap between the start of early voting and the close of 

voter registration, and others have same day registration only in specific circumstances. This election policy is discussed in 

more detail in Chapter 4 of this report. 

46 In addition to North Dakota, the states of Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as well as the 

U.S. territories, are not covered by NVRA. With the exception of North Dakota, these states and territories provided data on 

voter registration in the EAVS.

47 Some states refer to confirmation notices using other terms, such as “removal notices.”
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 18 

Table 2. DMV is Most Common Source of Voter Registration Applications 

Sources of Voter Registration Applications 

Source 

Registrations Received 

Total Percentage 

Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 35,330,384 44.9% 

Online 11,253,404 16.1% 

Other48 10,794,103 15.3% 

Mail, Email, Fax 9,050,646 11.3% 

In Person at Local Election Office 6,996,437 9.0% 

receiving 79,854,972 registration forms between the close of registration for the 2016 general 

elections and the close of registration for the 2018 general elections. 

Table 2 shows the sources of the registration forms that were received during this time period. The 

most common source of registration forms by far was state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), 

which accounted for 44.9 percent of registrations received.49 In addition to DMV registrations, 

mail/fax/email and online registrations continued to account for sizeable percentages of registration 

forms received by states and jurisdictions. For the first time, in-person registrations accounted for 

less than 10.0 percent of total registration applications. 

In addition to registration forms received, states also reported on list maintenance activities in 

accordance with NVRA. States reported sending 21,595,121 confirmation notices between the close 

of registration for the 2016 general election and the close of registration for the 2018 general 

election, and 17,300,470 voter registration records were removed during that time period. This 

includes persons who had moved outside the voting jurisdiction, had died, had received a 

disqualifying felony conviction, had failed to respond to a confirmation notice and failed to vote in the 

two most recent federal general elections, were declared mentally incompetent, or who had 

requested to be removed from the rolls.50

Chapter 2 of this report contains a discussion of NVRA’s provisions relating to voter registration and 

list maintenance and a complete analysis of the data collected on voter registration, including trends 

in sources of voter registration applications, online and same day registrations, voter registration 

rates, rejected and duplicate registrations, and registration list maintenance. Information on state 

 

48 Some of the sources included under “Other” are armed forces recruiting offices, agencies designated by the state not 

included in NVRA, registration drives from advocacy groups or political parties, public assistance offices, and care facilities. 

49 In 2018, EAVS respondents were instructed to report automatic registrations triggered by interactions with the DMV as 

having originated from the DMV. 

50 The instructions for this question in the EAVS specified that “voters removed from the voter registration rolls in your 

jurisdiction” for having “[m]oved outside jurisdiction” should be reported. The question as written does not make any 

distinction between individuals who moved out of state entirely and those who moved to different jurisdictions in-state.
 

19 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

policies and practices on voter registration can be found in Chapter 4, Election Law and Procedure in 

States: Policy Survey. 

Election Technology 

The use of technology in polling places and vote tally locations varies widely among and within the 

states. An increasing number of jurisdictions check voters in at the polls using electronic poll books 

(e-poll books), and the voting equipment landscape continues to evolve. 

Electronic Poll Books 

When voters go into polling places, their identity is checked against voter registration information 

contained in poll books to ensure that they are registered to vote and did not already vote during inperson early voting or with a by-mail ballot. These poll books can be paper-based and printed before 

the election, or they can be electronic. 

Thirty-six states used e-poll books in at least one jurisdiction in the 2018 elections, with seven—

Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Rhode Island—and the District 

of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands using e-poll books in all jurisdictions statewide.51 In total, 26.2 

percent of jurisdictions nationwide reported using e-poll books. This represents a 48.0 percent 

increase in e-poll book usage since the 2016 election, when 17.7 percent used this technology.52

Of the jurisdictions that reported using e-poll books, nearly all used them to sign in voters (97.6 

percent). Other common uses were to look up polling places (87.9 percent) and to update voter 

history (85.7 percent). Another 14.8 percent of jurisdictions reported using e-poll books for other 

uses. Most of these other uses were to register voters, especially same day registrants. 

Voting Equipment 

The EAVS tracks the use of six types of voting equipment, in addition to the hand-counting of ballots: 

• Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines not equipped with a voter-verified paper 

audit trail (VVPAT): Allow voters to vote using a touch screen, monitor, wheel, or other device, 

and record votes electronically on the device. 

• DREs equipped with a VVPAT: Allow voters to vote using a touch screen, monitor, wheel, or 

other device, and record votes both electronically and on a paper printout. 

• Ballot marking devices (BMD): Allow voters to vote using a touch screen, monitor, wheel, or 

other device, but only mark ballots and do not tabulate votes. 

• Scanners: Devices that tabulate paper records that voters mark by hand or via a BMD. These 

devices may be optical or digital. 

 

51 Some jurisdictions reported using both paper and electronic poll books; 1.4 percent of jurisdictions did not report using 

either paper or electronic poll books (these jurisdictions were, for the most part, located in California, Oregon, and 

Washington, all of which use by-mail ballots heavily). The remaining jurisdictions that did not report using any poll books 

can be attributed to missing data.

52 The 2016 EAVS is used as a point of comparison for this item because prior versions of this question collected openended responses that make it difficult to provide a direct comparison to the revised version of the question. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 20 

• Punch card machines: Record the voter’s choices by punching holes in a paper ballot.

• Lever machines: Non-electronic mechanical voting devices. 

Nationally, jurisdictions reported deploying 334,422 pieces of equipment to cast and tabulate votes 

in the 2018 general elections.53 Figure 7 shows the number of states that reported using voting 

equipment in at least one jurisdiction; most jurisdictions and states used more than one type of 

equipment.54 The most commonly used equipment types were scanners (used in 96.3 percent of 

states) and BMDs (79.6 percent).55 Hand counting of ballots was used in 44.4 percent of states.56 

Figure 7. Scanners and BMDs are Most Commonly Used Types of Voting Equipment 

 

53 American Samoa, Missouri, Oregon, and Wisconsin did not respond to the EAVS questions asking for the number of 

voting technology machines deployed. 

54 Twenty-five jurisdictions (0.39 percent) did not respond to the questions reporting the use of voting equipment. These 

jurisdictions were primarily in Arkansas and Texas. 

55 Missouri left the question on usage of scanner equipment blank for all jurisdictions and is excluded from the percentage 

reported here. 

56 New Jersey responded “Data not available” for all jurisdictions to the question on the usage of hand counting and is 

excluded from the percentage reported here. 
 

21 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

DREs with VVPATs were used in 38.9 percent of states, and DREs without VVPATs were used in 29.6 

percent of states. States where more than half of jurisdictions used DREs without VVPATs are 

Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee. Less than two percent of jurisdictions reported using only DREs without 

VVPATs in the 2018 general elections without any other type of equipment, and no states or local 

jurisdictions reported using punch card or lever machines.57

Jurisdictions also reported where they tallied ballots according to ballot type, as shown in Figure 8. 

Jurisdictions could report whether ballots were tallied solely at the precinct or polling place, solely in 

a central location, or in a combination of both locations.58 Regular ballots cast in a precinct on 

Election Day and ballots cast on special devices accessible to voters with a disability were most often 

counted at the precinct or polling location. Less than one-fifth of jurisdictions reported counting 

these ballots solely in a central location and more than four-fifths of jurisdictions counted these 

ballots entirely or partially at the precinct or polling location. For by-mail ballots and ballots cast by inFigure 8. Election Day Regular Ballots and Ballots from Special Devices Tend to be Counted in Precincts

 

57 The jurisdictions that reported using only DREs without VVPATs are primarily located in Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, 

and Texas. One county in Florida reported using this equipment, but specified a make and model that is a scanner; this 

indicates a possible data entry error.

58 Respondents were also given the option to report “Does not apply” if they did not use a ballot type; jurisdictions that 

selected this option or left these items blank were excluded from the percentages reported in this section. 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 22 

person early voters, approximately half of jurisdictions reported tabulating them in precincts or 

polling locations. Provisional ballots were counted either partially or entirely in a central location by 

nearly 85.0 percent of jurisdictions. The feasibility of certain types of post-election audits can be 

affected by the types of voting equipment used and the vote tally location. 

Post-Election Audits 

Many states and local election jurisdictions conduct audits to ensure that established election 

procedures were followed and that voting equipment functioned properly.59 Only 12 states (21.8 

percent) do not require any type of election audit. 

Thirty-six states (65.5 percent) report that post-election audits are required by statute, and seven 

states (12.7 percent) require post-election audits due to formal administrative rule or guidance. The 

Policy Survey asks about two specific types of audits. Sixteen states (38.1 percent of states that 

require audits) use audits to determine if every polling place followed the processes and procedures 

required in the election, 12 states do these audits in every election, and four conduct these audits 

only if certain conditions are met to trigger an audit.60 Thirty-one states (72.1 percent of states that 

require audits) use audits to determine whether the ballot tabulation completed by voting equipment 

matches the ballot tabulation completed by hand; 29 states conduct these audits in every election 

and two conduct them only under certain conditions. 

A Closer Look: Election Security and the EAVS 

In the post-2016 environment of heightened concerns regarding cybersecurity in elections, new 

users of EAVS data are looking to see how the data may be used to better understand and secure 

U.S. election infrastructure. These new consumers of EAVS data include election officials, 

lawmakers, national security officials, intelligence analysts, and other stakeholders who are using 

the data to investigate new research questions and bolster their understanding of the cybersecurity 

risk environment. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a useful framework for 

understanding how election officials and other stakeholders may use EAVS data to bolster their 

efforts to protect against, detect, and recover from malicious cybersecurity activity. This framework is 

shown in Figure 9. 

Identify and Protect 

EAVS data can help election officials and other stakeholders better understand core elements of the 

nation’s election infrastructure. The EAVS and accompanying Policy Survey collect extensive state-bystate, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information on the scope and scale of U.S. elections and on critical 

issues of election technology. From broad categories like the number of voters served and the 

number of ballots submitted by method in each jurisdiction, to specific items like the number of and 

 

59 The phrase “post-election audit” can refer to a variety of election validation efforts. The 2018 EAVS did not strictly define 

this term in the survey instrument, which could have led to some differences in how states interpreted the term and 

responded to the question. For the purpose of the Policy Survey, all post-election reconciliations are considered audits. 

60 New Jersey did not provide a response to this question. 
 

23 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

type of voting equipment used by jurisdictions and where e-poll books are used, EAVS data can be 

used to help identify core assets of U.S. elections infrastructure, outline the cybersecurity threat 

environment, and inform protection efforts.61

For example, EAVS data have been used to create models of election jurisdiction types and related 

scenarios that are used in cybersecurity tabletop training exercises. A jurisdiction that receives all or 

most of its ballots by mail faces a different cybersecurity threat landscape than one in which voters 

predominantly vote in person on Election Day. Similarly, threats against voter registration databases 

look different in top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid jurisdictions, as well as among those with different 

sets of linkages to other state systems, such as motor vehicle licensing agencies, state courts, and 

public assistance agencies.62

Figure 9. The NIST Cybersecurity Framework63

 

61 The number of voters participating in an election, both overall and by method, is reported in item F1 in the EAVS. The 

number and make/model of voting equipment used is reported in items F5–F11. Information on use of e-poll books is 

reported in item F3. 

62 Information on voter registration databases and linkages to other state systems is reported in items Q2, Q3, and Q4 in 

the Policy Survey.

63 Image reproduced from https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/04/nist-releases-version-11-its-popularcybersecurity-framework. More information about the NIST cybersecurity framework is available at 

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf.
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 24 

Detect 

The data collected through the EAVS can serve as baseline information to support the detection of 

potentially anomalous election activity. For example, knowing baseline levels of voter registration 

transactions by method may help election officials spot anomalous and potentially malicious 

registration activity in real time, such as a spike in the number of online voter registration requests.64

Similarly, knowing the baseline provisional ballot issuance rate for a given jurisdiction could 

potentially help election officials detect problems with their voter registration data or e-poll books in 

real time during polling, which could potentially result from a cybersecurity incident affecting voter 

registration systems and data.65

The EAVS and Policy Survey also collect information relevant to post-election audits. Many election 

officials conduct such audits to verify their election results and the proper functioning of voting 

equipment, which could potentially detect cybersecurity incidents when they occur. The Policy Survey 

collects information on state variations in auditing policy and practice.66 Jurisdiction-level EAVS data 

on voting equipment and tally location can be used to better understand the types of audits that may 

be feasible in specific jurisdictions.67 For instance, jurisdictions where ballots are counted in a 

central location may be better suited to certain types of audits. 

Respond and Recover 

Post-incident analysis is also a core component of cybersecurity response and recovery efforts. The 

data collected through the EAVS and Policy Survey offer analysts essential baseline information to 

complement such analyses. For instance, a jurisdiction’s analysis into an incident or known 

vulnerability regarding a specific piece of voting equipment would be bolstered by EAVS data that 

identify which jurisdictions across the country use this same equipment.68

Election officials have a number of failsafe mechanisms and redundancies built into their systems 

that may help them to respond and recover from cybersecurity incidents. EAVS and Policy Survey 

data can help election officials and other stakeholders better understand this landscape. For 

example, the impact of a cybersecurity incident that maliciously altered voter registration records or 

immobilized e-poll books may be mitigated by the use of provisional ballots or same day voter 

registration procedures. The EAVS collects data specifically on the scale of provisional ballot usage 

and same day registration transactions, and the Policy Survey collects information on state-level 

policies in both areas.69

 

64 Data on voter registrations by method is reported in items A4–A7 of the EAVS. 

65 The number of provisional ballot voters in a jurisdiction is reported in item E1 of the EAVS. 

66 Information on states’ auditing policies and practices is reported in item Q20 of the Policy Survey.

67 Data on voting equipment used is reported in items F5–F11 of the EAVS. The location for tallying ballots is reported in 

item F12. 

68 Information on the makes and models of voting equipment used in jurisdictions is reported in items F5–F11 of the EAVS. 

69 Data on the use of provisional ballots in a jurisdiction are reported in item E1 of the EAVS. Information on state-level 

policies regarding same day voter registration is reported in item Q7 of the Policy Survey, and the number of same day 

voter registrations for the 2018 general election is reported in item A2 of the EAVS. 
 

25 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Strengthening the EAVS and Policy Survey 

The EAC has taken multiple steps since 2016 to strengthen the EAVS and Policy Survey data 

collection efforts and their relevance to these new cybersecurity-related research questions and usecases. Two important examples include (1) reconfiguring the Policy Survey in 2018 and introducing 

new questions relevant to cybersecurity, including on the functionality of statewide voter registration 

databases, online voter registration, election failsafe mechanisms, and post-election auditing; and 

(2) redesigning EAVS Section F questions on voting equipment makes and models, which resulted in 

substantially improved data quality in this area from previous years’ EAVS.70 These efforts help lay 

the foundation for additional improvements in the 2020 EAVS and Policy Survey. 

 

70 The design of the Policy Survey and the changes to Section F of the 2018 EAVS are described in more detail in Chapter 5 

of this report.
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 26 

Overview Appendix A: Descriptive Tables 

Overview Table 1: Voter Turnout 

State Total Voter 

Turnout Total CVAP Turnout as Pct. of CVAP 

Total 

Registration 

Turnout as Pct. of 

Registration 

Alabama 1,723,694 3,688,249 46.73 3,465,352 49.74 

Alaska 287,485 531,653 54.07 624,467 46.04 

American Samoa 8,462 - - 15,527 54.50 

Arizona 2,409,906 4,895,706 49.22 4,276,891 56.35 

Arkansas 790,656 2,207,894 35.81 1,786,840 44.25 

California 13,828,680 25,650,456 53.91 25,167,218 54.95 

Colorado 2,586,432 4,057,437 63.75 3,953,613 65.42 

Connecticut 1,421,650 2,611,667 54.43 2,369,335 60.00 

Delaware 366,550 709,999 51.63 695,014 52.74 

District of Columbia 231,700 510,514 45.39 617,046 37.55 

Florida 8,355,817 15,014,950 55.65 14,126,722 59.15 

Georgia 3,951,876 7,362,615 53.67 6,944,851 56.90 

Guam 37,386 - - 55,941 66.83 

Hawaii 398,657 1,025,548 38.87 756,751 52.68 

Idaho 612,582 1,219,481 50.23 917,609 66.76 

Illinois 4,751,180 9,055,927 52.46 8,751,060 54.29 

Indiana 2,933,234 4,899,251 59.87 4,500,196 65.18 

Iowa 1,334,279 2,325,355 57.38 2,193,813 60.82 

Kansas 1,070,221 2,091,261 51.18 1,835,473 58.31 

Kentucky 1,619,587 3,350,956 48.33 3,402,905 47.59 

Louisiana 1,519,552 3,469,016 43.80 2,992,170 50.78 

Maine 646,083 1,064,497 60.69 1,057,967 61.07 

Maryland 2,335,128 4,310,864 54.17 3,954,027 59.06 

Massachusetts 2,753,623 4,993,001 55.15 4,574,967 60.19 

Michigan 4,341,340 7,481,928 58.02 7,471,088 58.11 

Minnesota 2,618,245 4,079,652 64.18 3,422,515 76.50 

Mississippi 961,025 2,234,722 43.00 2,079,732 46.21 

Missouri 2,553,274 4,606,843 55.42 4,127,333 61.86 

Montana 508,652 810,760 62.74 706,173 72.03 

Nebraska 708,924 1,368,000 51.82 1,219,276 58.14 
 

27 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 1: Voter Turnout 

State Total Voter 

Turnout Total CVAP Turnout as Pct. of CVAP 

Total 

Registration 

Turnout as Pct. of 

Registration 

Nevada 976,587 2,031,213 48.08 1,773,566 55.06 

New Hampshire 581,551 1,048,883 55.44 988,148 58.85 

New Jersey 3,248,642 6,199,409 52.40 5,869,078 55.35 

New Mexico 697,681 1,493,318 46.72 1,261,639 55.30 

New York 6,356,896 13,866,648 45.84 12,695,763 50.07 

North Carolina 3,705,224 7,509,879 49.34 7,095,209 52.22 

North Dakota [1] 329,950 564,475 58.45 - - 

Ohio 4,520,678 8,830,185 51.20 8,070,917 56.01 

Oklahoma 1,200,164 2,835,451 42.33 2,120,843 56.59 

Oregon 1,914,923 3,060,328 62.57 2,748,232 69.68 

Pennsylvania 5,057,630 9,764,119 51.80 8,607,748 58.76 

Rhode Island 389,161 792,337 49.12 781,478 49.80 

South Carolina 1,739,705 3,799,298 45.79 3,538,580 49.16 

South Dakota 340,324 641,666 53.04 594,453 57.25 

Tennessee 2,267,428 5,016,103 45.20 4,163,359 54.46 

Texas 7,976,548 18,174,344 43.89 15,615,925 51.08 

U.S. Virgin Islands 26,346 - - 51,095 51.56 

Utah 1,082,972 2,028,176 53.40 1,658,457 65.30 

Vermont 268,758 494,550 54.34 489,385 54.92 

Virginia 3,343,186 6,145,893 54.40 5,666,627 59.00 

Washington 3,133,462 5,259,892 59.57 4,841,431 64.72 

West Virginia 597,149 1,428,859 41.79 1,245,827 47.93 

Wisconsin 2,688,341 4,375,063 61.45 3,442,004 78.10 

Wyoming 205,275 428,379 47.92 283,941 72.29 

U.S. Total 120,314,461 231,416,670 51.96 211,665,577 56.69 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 28 

Overview Table 1 Calculation Notes 

(1) Total Voter Turnout uses question F1a. 

(2) Total CVAP uses 1-year estimate of Citizen Voting Age Population from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

(3) Turnout as Pct. of CVAP uses question F1a divided by the CVAP estimate. 

(4) Total Registration uses question A1a. 

(5) Turnout as Pct. of Registration uses question F1a divided by question A1a. 

Overview Table 1 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is an estimate of the number of U.S. citizens 18 

years of age or older in the state. This report uses the 1-year ACS state estimate for 2017 

instead of the 5-year estimate to ensure that the CVAP was as current as possible. The 

estimate for the year 2018 was not available by the time this report was finalized. 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states 

that provided data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation. For example, since 

there was no CVAP estimate for the U.S. territories, their turnout data (F1a) were not used for 

the calculation of “Turnout as Pct. of CVAP” at the national level.

[1] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 
 

29 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 2: By-Mail and In-Person Early Voting 

State Total Voter 

Turnout 

Total By-Mail 

Ballots 

Transmitted 

By-Mail Ballots Returned by Voters In-Person Early Voters 

Total Pct. of 

Transmitted 

Counted Rejected Other 

Total 

Pct. of 

Total 

Ballots 

Cast 

Total Pct. of 

Returned Total Pct. of Returned Total Pct. of Returned 

Alabama [1] 1,723,694 63,379 57,832 91.25 54,833 94.81 1368 2.37 1631 2.82 - - 

Alaska 287,485 29,257 24,425 83.48 23,667 96.90 758 3.10 0 0.00 56,434 19.63 

American Samoa 8,462 51 36 70.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 36 100.00 893 10.55 

Arizona 2,409,906 2,672,384 1,899,240 71.07 1,874,577 98.70 8,567 0.45 16,096 0.85 44,417 1.84 

Arkansas 790,656 17,120 15,208 88.83 11,611 76.35 1,150 7.56 2,447 16.09 413,254 52.27 

California 13,828,680 13,687,191 8,286,228 60.54 8,289,322 100.04 161,660 1.95 -164,754 -1.99 61,901 0.45 

Colorado 2,586,432 3,467,664 2,449,409 70.64 2,430,239 99.22 19,170 0.78 0 0.00 89,355 3.45 

Connecticut [1] 1,421,650 96,559 91,602 94.87 89,877 98.12 1,725 1.88 0 0.00 

- - 

Delaware 366,550 17,392 14,142 81.31 13,436 95.01 706 4.99 0 0.00 5,525 1.51 

District of Columbia 231,700 12,400 9,351 75.41 9,019 96.45 332 3.55 0 0.00 52,512 22.66 

Florida 8,355,817 3,499,591 2,604,544 74.42 2,585,374 99.26 30,540 1.17 -11,370 -0.44 2,681,708 32.09 

Georgia 3,951,876 281,490 242,661 86.21 218,858 90.19 7,512 3.10 16,291 6.71 1,893,368 47.91 

Guam 37,386 624 367 58.81 298 81.20 69 18.80 0 0.00 1,042 2.79 

Hawaii 398,657 286,317 224,492 78.41 12,616 5.62 1,638 0.73 210,238 93.65 28,300 7.10 

Idaho 612,582 81,172 76,197 93.87 72,872 95.64 1,188 1.56 2,137 2.80 166,195 27.13 

Illinois 4,751,180 496,345 417,092 84.03 429,874 103.06 9,056 2.17 -21,838 -5.24 1,078,372 22.70 

Indiana 2,933,234 766,722 762,511 99.45 750,339 98.40 3,413 0.45 8,759 1.15 616,016 21.00 

Iowa [2] 1,334,279 358,659 325,098 90.64 310,563 95.53 5,098 1.57 9,437 2.90 

- - 

Kansas 1,070,221 191,602 172,743 90.16 170,641 98.78 1,879 1.09 223 0.13 250,114 23.37 

Kentucky 1,619,587 29,244 25,837 88.35 23,971 92.78 1,756 6.80 110 0.43 64,407 3.98 

Louisiana 1,519,552 65,442 43,959 67.17 41,363 94.09 2,596 5.91 0 0.00 271,191 17.85 

Maine [2] 646,083 193,558 185,763 95.97 183,644 98.86 2,119 1.14 0 0.00 - - 

Maryland 2,335,128 146,208 113,702 77.77 111,696 98.24 1,997 1.76 9 0.01 663,188 28.40 

Massachusetts 2,753,623 105,454 89,437 84.81 84,280 94.23 5,157 5.77 0 0.00 580,091 21.07 

Michigan 4,341,340 1,123,415 1,061,835 94.52 1,055,822 99.43 6,013 0.57 0 0.00 98,136 2.26 

Minnesota 2,618,245 722,326 640,707 88.70 632,868 98.78 7,479 1.17 360 0.06 340,004 12.99 

Mississippi 961,025 69,904 64,060 91.64 17,979 28.07 482 0.75 45,599 71.18 50,727 5.28 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 30 

Overview Table 2: By-Mail and In-Person Early Voting 

State Total Voter 

Turnout 

Total By-Mail 

Ballots 

Transmitted 

By-Mail Ballots Returned by Voters In-Person Early Voters 

Total Pct. of 

Transmitted 

Counted Rejected Other 

Total 

Pct. of 

Total 

Ballots 

Cast Total Pct. of Returned Total Pct. of Returned Total Pct. of Returned 

Missouri [2] 2,553,274 227,927 215,879 94.71 211,178 97.82 4,700 2.18 1 0.00 - - 

Montana [1] 508,652 442,425 367,561 83.08 366,188 99.63 1,373 0.37 0 0.00 - - 

Nebraska 708,924 186,204 168,844 90.68 167,332 99.10 1,512 0.90 0 0.00 40,786 5.75 

Nevada 976,587 103,810 86,633 83.45 84,396 97.42 1,772 2.05 465 0.54 554,591 56.79 

New Hampshire [1] 581,551 46,831 44,615 95.27 43,416 97.31 1,199 2.69 0 0.00 

- - 

New Jersey [1] 3,248,642 563,106 406,325 72.16 392,931 96.70 11,694 2.88 1,700 0.42 - - 

New Mexico 697,681 448,987 440,138 98.03 448,987 102.01 240 0.05 -9,089 -2.07 375,283 53.79 

New York [1] 6,356,896 341,270 249,002 72.96 226,151 90.82 34,095 13.69 -11,244 -4.52 - - 

North Carolina 3,705,224 126,142 95,546 75.74 89,711 93.89 5,835 6.11 0 0.00 1,926,639 52.00 

North Dakota [2] 329,950 101,568 96,125 94.64 95,562 99.41 554 0.58 9 0.01 

- - 

Ohio 4,520,678 1,030,261 941,447 91.38 929,985 98.78 11,462 1.22 0 0.00 429,916 9.51 

Oklahoma 1,200,164 94,598 69,771 73.76 66,160 94.82 3,136 4.49 475 0.68 107,350 8.94 

Oregon [2,3] 1,914,923 2,860,072 1,907,342 66.69 7,043 0.37 176 0.01 1,900,123 99.62 - - 

Pennsylvania [1] 5,057,630 216,575 195,953 90.48 186,664 95.26 8,714 4.45 575 0.29 - - 

Rhode Island 389,161 31,677 27,193 85.84 26,418 97.15 775 2.85 0 0.00 10,872 2.79 

South Carolina 1,739,705 80,271 72,806 90.70 70,558 96.91 2,248 3.09 0 0.00 217,857 12.52 

South Dakota 340,324 89,616 87,311 97.43 32,056 36.71 300 0.34 54,955 62.94 18,273 5.37 

Tennessee 2,267,428 43,561 39,712 91.16 38,855 97.84 855 2.15 2 0.01 1,342,970 59.23 

Texas 7,976,548 621,386 533,566 85.87 527,787 98.92 9,377 1.76 -3,598 -0.67 5,452,510 68.36 

U.S. Virgin Islands 26,346 908 908 100.00 908 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,952 15.00 

Utah 1,082,972 1,469,654 973,915 66.27 965,147 99.10 8,768 0.90 0 0.00 11,042 1.02 

Vermont 268,758 28,317 26,623 94.02 25,936 97.42 722 2.71 -35 -0.13 33,190 12.35 

Virginia 3,343,186 102,658 97,295 94.78 95,238 97.89 2,057 2.11 0 0.00 193,993 5.80 

Washington 3,133,462 4,460,649 3,112,157 69.77 3,064,219 98.46 32,327 1.04 15,611 0.50 20 0.00 

West Virginia 597,149 12,063 10,342 85.73 10,238 98.99 104 1.01 0 0.00 175,403 29.37 

Wisconsin 2,688,341 168,788 150,114 88.94 147,597 98.32 2,517 1.68 0 0.00 427,415 15.90 

Wyoming 205,275 63,728 61,806 96.98 61,546 99.58 250 0.40 10 0.02 25,659 12.50 

U.S. Total 120,314,461 42,444,522 30,377,407 71.57 27,881,846 91.78 430,190 1.42 2,065,371 6.80 20,854,871 22.04 
 

31 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 2 Calculation Notes 

(1) Total Voter Turnout uses question F1a. 

(2) Total By-Mail Ballots Transmitted uses question C1a.

(3) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Total uses question C1b.

(4) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Pct. of Transmitted uses question C1b divided by question C1a. 

(5) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Counted Total uses question C3a. 

(6) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Counted as Pct. of Returned uses question C3a divided by question C1b. 

(7) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Rejected Total uses question C4a. 

(8) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Rejected as Pct. of Returned uses question C4a divided by question C1b. 

(9) By-Mail Ballots Returned, Other Total uses question C1b minus the sum of questions C3a and C4a. 

(10) By-Mail Ballots Returned by Voters, Other as Pct. of Returned uses question C1b minus the sum of questions C3a and 

C4a, all divided by question C1b. 

(11) In-person Early Votes, Total uses question F1f. 

(12) In-Person Early Votes as Pct. of Total Ballots Cast uses question F1f divided by question F1a. 

Overview Table 2 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation 

• Negative numbers in the “Other” column indicate that the sum of counted and rejected by-mail ballots account for more 

than the total number of returned by-mail ballots reported by the state. 

[1] Responded “Data not available” for In-person early voting. 

• Alabama reported: “Alabama has in person absentee voting that qualifies as ‘early voting’ but we do not have separate in 

person and mail absentee numbers”

• Montana reported: “F1f: Montana treats early voting as absentee and doesn't track use of early voting in the voter 

registration system.”

• New Hampshire reported: “‘-99’ does apply to in-person absentee voting, which NH has at the clerks’ office, and not at 

the polling place”
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 32

• New Jersey reported: “Cannot report on ballots returned ‘in person’”

• New York reported: “Data on voters who cast in-person absentee ballots is reported under F1d and could not be

broken out for F1f”

• Pennsylvania reported: “Sometimes counties will accept absentees in their office, which can technically be considered

in-person early voting, but there is no mechanism in the database to record it as such. It maintains a mark as a normal

absentee. This may lead to a discrepancy in metrics as the practice takes place to some extent, but there is not formal

mechanism to capture it yet.”

[2] Responded “Does not apply” for In-person early voting.

• Iowa reported: “In Iowa voting before election day is absentee voting, previous report expressing numbers in early vote

centers was at that time construed to include satellite locations of auditors' offices. F1d is all domestic absentee

voters by mail and in-person at the county auditor's office or a satellite location of the auditor's office. Early in person

absentee voting included and can't separate out.”

• Maine reported: “F1f & F1g: Maine does not have early voting or permanent by mail voting”

• Oregon reported: “Vote by mail state. F1b response applicable to election office only. No early voting.”

[3] Oregon reported “Vote by mail state. Based on instructions reported regular voters as absentee when under Oregon statute

they are not.” Oregon reported in total by-mail ballots transmitted and total by-mail ballots returned the total ballots at the

state level, as an all-by-mail state. However, for counted and rejected by-mail ballots, they seem to report only those ballots

that are considered by-mail ballots under Oregon’s statute, hence the difference and the large number of non-categorized bymail ballots in the ‘Other’ column.
 

33 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 3: Provisional Voting 

State Total Provisional 

Ballots Submitted 

Counted Full 

Ballot 

Counted Partial 

Ballot Rejected Other 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 9,032 5,333 59.05 0 0.00 3,687 40.82 12 0.13 

Alaska 13,244 4,451 33.61 7,521 56.79 1,272 9.60 0 0.00 

American Samoa 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Arizona 52,028 37,016 71.15 108 0.21 14,902 28.64 2 0.00 

Arkansas 1,899 1,105 58.19 5 0.26 778 40.97 11 0.58 

California 1,077,023 458,807 42.60 67,679 6.28 147,130 13.66 403,407 37.46 

Colorado 467 121 25.91 0 0.00 346 74.09 0 0.00 

Connecticut [1] 14 10 71.43 - - 4 28.57 0 0.00 

Delaware 115 8 6.96 0 0.00 107 93.04 0 0.00 

District of Columbia 2,406 975 40.52 0 0.00 1,431 59.48 0 0.00 

Florida 13,530 5,179 38.28 6 0.04 8,345 61.68 0 0.00 

Georgia [1] 21,604 11,905 55.11 - - 9,699 44.89 0 0.00 

Guam [2] 106 25 23.58 - - 81 76.42 0 0.00 

Hawaii 471 254 53.93 0 0.00 217 46.07 0 0.00 

Idaho [3] - - - - - - - - - 

Illinois [1] 19,180 12,255 63.89 - - 6,925 36.11 0 0.00 

Indiana [2] 2,590 484 18.69 - - 2,112 81.54 -6 -0.23 

Iowa [2] 10,143 9,332 92.00 - - 811 8.00 0 0.00 

Kansas [1] 29,048 - - - - 7,692 26.48 21,356 73.52 

Kentucky [2] 185 16 8.65 - - 169 91.35 0 0.00 

Louisiana 929 232 24.97 0 0.00 697 75.03 0 0.00 

Maine [2] 315 315 100.00 - - - - 0 0.00 

Maryland 54,510 33,173 60.86 16,053 29.45 5,284 9.69 0 0.00 

Massachusetts [1] 4,798 1,440 30.01 - - 3,348 69.78 10 0.21 

Michigan [2] 772 224 29.02 - - 548 70.98 0 0.00 

Minnesota [3] - - - - - - - - - 

Mississippi 13,199 9,810 74.32 0 0.00 3,389 25.68 0 0.00 

Missouri 4,494 1,529 34.02 0 0.00 2,963 65.93 2 0.04 

Montana [1] 10,190 9,812 96.29 - - 378 3.71 0 0.00 

Nebraska [2] 10,775 8,443 78.36 - - 2,332 21.64 0 0.00 

Nevada 2,061 144 6.99 0 0.00 1,917 93.01 0 0.00 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 34 

Overview Table 3: Provisional Voting 

State Total Provisional 

Ballots Submitted 

Counted Full 

Ballot 

Counted Partial 

Ballot Rejected Other 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

New Hampshire [3] - - - - - - - - - 

New Jersey [1] 80,988 - - - - 10,123 12.50 70,865 87.50 

New Mexico 4,095 2,531 61.81 0 0.00 1,562 38.14 2 0.05 

New York [2] 125,920 73,922 58.71 - - 52,220 41.47 -222 -0.18 

North Carolina 35,791 14,460 40.40 3,753 10.49 17,578 49.11 0 0.00 

North Dakota [3] - - - - - - - - - 

Ohio 100,960 87,506 86.67 602 0.60 12,080 11.97 772 0.76 

Oklahoma 3,320 1,199 36.11 1 0.03 2,120 63.86 0 0.00 

Oregon [2] 52 49 94.23 - - 3 5.77 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 16,422 3,996 24.33 5,460 33.25 6,968 42.43 -2 -0.01 

Rhode Island 3,905 1,731 44.33 289 7.40 1,885 48.27 0 0.00 

South Carolina [2] 5,539 2,830 51.09 - - 2,243 40.49 466 8.41 

South Dakota 273 54 19.78 0 0.00 219 80.22 0 0.00 

Tennessee 7,874 2,636 33.48 0 0.00 5,238 66.52 0 0.00 

Texas 54,179 13,136 24.25 196 0.36 40,834 75.37 13 0.02 

U.S. Virgin Islands 315 240 76.19 0 0.00 75 23.81 0 0.00 

Utah [1] 48,879 47,076 96.31 - - 1,792 3.67 11 0.02 

Vermont - - - - - - - - - 

Virginia [2] 1,561 1,527 97.82 - - 34 2.18 0 0.00 

Washington [2] 1,816 536 29.52 - - 844 46.48 436 24.01 

West Virginia 4,963 2,823 56.88 23 0.46 2,117 42.66 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [2] 466 152 32.62 - - 314 67.38 0 0.00 

Wyoming 30 23 76.67 0 0.00 7 23.33 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 1,852,476 868,825 49.86 101,696 6.88 384,820 20.78 497,135 26.84 
 

35 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 3 Calculation Notes 

(1) Total Provisional Ballots Submitted uses question E1a. 

(2) Counted Full Ballot, Total uses question E1b. 

(3) Counted Full Ballot, Pct. uses question E1b divided by question E1a. 

(4) Counted Partial Ballot, Total uses question E1c. 

(5) Counted Partial Ballot, Pct. uses question E1c divided by question E1a. 

(6) Rejected Ballot, Total uses question E1d. 

(7) Rejected Ballot, Pct. uses question E1d divided by question E1a. 

(8) Other, Total uses question E1a minus the sum of questions E1b. E1c and E1d. 

(9) Other, Pct. uses question E1a minus the sum of questions E1b. E1c and E1d, all divided by 

question E1a. 

Overview Table 3 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states 

that provided data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

• Negative numbers in the “Other” column indicate that the sum of counted and rejected 

provisional ballots account for more than the total number of provisional ballots reported by 

the state. 

[1] Responded “Data not available” for counted partial ballot (E1c).

• Kansas reported: “The number of provisional ballots partially versus fully counted were not 

broken out in the data collected.”

• Massachusetts reported: “There is no breakdown of provisional ballots counted, wholly or in 

part.”

• New Jersey reported: “Provisionals are not separated by partial of full ballot count.”

• Utah reported: “Although a clerk could count the part of a provisional relevant to that voter, 

the statewide tracking system only accounts for whether a provisional was counted (including 

partial counts) or not counted.”

[2] Responded “Does not apply” for counted partial ballot (E1c). 

• Kentucky reported: “Ballots are counted in full or not at all”

• Maine reported: “In Maine all provisional ballots are counted”

[3] Responded “Does not apply” to questions involving provisional ballots.

• Idaho reported: “Idaho is not required to use provisional ballots due to election day 

registration and being NVRA exempt.”

• Minnesota reported: “Minnesota does not have provisional ballots.”

• New Hampshire reported: “New Hampshire has election day registration and provisional 

ballots are not needed”
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 36 

Overview Table 4: Voting Technology 

State 

Total Number of 

Voting Machines 

Deployed 

DRE without 

VVPAT 

DRE with 

VVPAT 

Ballot Marking 

Devices Scanner 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 4,966 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,153 43.35 2,813 56.65 

Alaska 774 0 0.00 447 57.75 0 0.00 327 42.25 

American Samoa [1] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Arizona 1,966 0 0.00 799 40.64 546 27.77 621 31.59 

Arkansas 3,897 124 3.18 633 16.24 2,535 65.05 605 15.52 

California 20,793 308 1.48 16,124 77.55 1,490 7.17 2,871 13.81 

Colorado 1,555 0 0.00 36 2.32 1,327 85.34 192 12.35 

Connecticut 1,488 0 0.00 0 0.00 744 50.00 744 50.00 

Delaware 1,382 1,378 99.71 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.29 

District of Columbia 603 0 0.00 0 0.00 428 70.98 175 29.02 

Florida 13,851 1,101 7.95 62 0.45 3,829 27.64 8,859 63.96 

Georgia 28,028 27,324 97.49 0 0.00 0 0.00 704 2.51 

Guam 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 3 75.00 

Hawaii 674 0 0.00 353 52.37 0 0.00 321 47.63 

Idaho 1,564 0 0.00 74 4.73 782 50.00 708 45.27 

Illinois 21,386 0 0.00 10,843 50.70 2,613 12.22 7,930 37.08 

Indiana 8,252 5,864 71.06 0 0.00 1,070 12.97 1,318 15.97 

Iowa 3,372 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,680 49.82 1,692 50.18 

Kansas 6,365 894 14.05 57 0.90 4,461 70.09 953 14.97 

Kentucky 7,314 4,246 58.05 0 0.00 359 4.91 2,709 37.04 

Louisiana 9,475 9,396 99.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 79 0.83 

Maine 1,038 0 0.00 0 0.00 499 48.07 539 51.93 

Maryland 4,698 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,004 42.66 2,694 57.34 

Massachusetts 3,496 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,393 39.85 2,103 60.15 

Michigan 8,235 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,438 41.75 4,797 58.25 

Minnesota 5,930 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,909 49.06 3,021 50.94 

Mississippi 7,530 6,533 86.76 35 0.46 388 5.15 574 7.62 

Missouri [2] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Montana 549 0 0.00 0 0.00 405 73.77 144 26.23 

Nebraska 1,258 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,059 84.18 199 15.82 
 

37 | Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 

 

Overview Table 4: Voting Technology 

State 

Total Number of 

Voting Machines 

Deployed 

DRE without 

VVPAT 

DRE with 

VVPAT 

Ballot Marking 

Devices Scanner 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Nevada 5,615 0 0.00 5,462 97.28 112 1.99 41 0.73 

New Hampshire 568 0 0.00 0 0.00 309 54.40 259 45.60 

New Jersey 11,408 11,368 99.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 40 0.35 

New Mexico 1,203 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,203 100.00 

New York 18,773 0 0.00 0 0.00 7,768 41.38 11,005 58.62 

North Carolina 8,891 0 0.00 5,793 65.16 1,434 16.13 1,664 18.72 

North Dakota 641 0 0.00 0 0.00 275 42.90 366 57.10 

Ohio 27,895 0 0.00 22,038 79.00 1,764 6.32 4,093 14.67 

Oklahoma 2,044 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,044 100.00 

Oregon [3] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Pennsylvania 21,000 19,503 92.87 0 0.00 467 2.22 1,030 4.90 

Rhode Island 548 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 548 100.00 

South Carolina 13,170 13,119 99.61 0 0.00 0 0.00 51 0.39 

South Dakota 602 0 0.00 0 0.00 502 83.39 100 16.61 

Tennessee 8,899 7,766 87.27 0 0.00 694 7.80 439 4.93 

Texas 31,872 26,140 82.02 1,076 3.38 1,972 6.19 2,684 8.42 

U.S. Virgin Islands 79 0 0.00 0 0.00 39 49.37 40 50.63 

Utah 1,232 0 0.00 1,077 87.42 148 12.01 7 0.57 

Vermont 530 0 0.00 0 0.00 312 58.87 218 41.13 

Virginia 5,115 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,045 39.98 3,070 60.02 

Washington 119 0 0.00 13 10.92 35 29.41 71 59.66 

West Virginia 2,824 0 0.00 2,498 88.46 0 0.00 326 11.54 

Wisconsin [4] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Wyoming 951 0 0.00 115 12.09 350 36.80 486 51.10 

U.S. Total 334,422 135,064 40.39 67,535 20.19 54,339 16.25 77,484 23.17 
Overview of Election Administration and Voting in 2018 | 38 

Overview Table 4 Calculation Notes 

(1) Total Number of Voting Machines Deployed uses the sum of questions F5c_1, F5c_2, F5c_3, 

F6c_1, F6c_2, F6c_3, F7c_1, F7c_2, F7c_3, F8c_1, F8c_2, F8c_3, F9c_1, F9c_2, F9c_3, 

F10c_1, F10c_2 and F10c_3. 

(2) DRE without VVPAT, Total uses the sum of questions F5c_1, F5c_2 and F5c_3. 

(3) DRE without VVPAT, Pct. uses the sum of questions F5c_1, F5c_2 and F5c_3 divided by the 

total number of voting machines deployed (Column 1). 

(4) DRE with VVPAT, Total uses the sum of questions F6c_1, F6c_2 and F6c_3. 

(5) DRE with VVPAT, Pct. uses the sum of questions F6c_1, F6c_2 and F6c_3 divided by the total 

number of voting machines deployed (Column 1). 

(6) Ballot Marking Devices, Total uses the sum of questions F7c_1, F7c_2 and F7c_3. 

(7) Ballot Marking Devices, Pct. uses the sum of questions F7c_1, F7c_2 and F7c_3 divided by 

the total number of voting machines deployed (Column 1). 

(8) Scanner, Total uses the sum of questions F8c_1, F8c_2 and F8c_3. 

(9) Scanner, Pct. uses the sum of questions F8c_1, F8c_2 and F8c_3 divided by the total 

number of voting machines deployed (Column 1). 

Overview Table 4 Data Notes 

General Note: 

• The EAVS asked about the use of lever machines and punch cards, but all states and 

territories reported not using them, so they were excluded from the table. 

 

[1] American Samoa used hand counting in the 2018 election. 

[2] Missouri reported using DREs with VVPAT but did not provide the number of machines used in 

each jurisdiction. 

[3] Oregon reported using scanners but responded “Data not available” to the question asking for 

the number of machines of this type deployed in each jurisdiction. 

[4] Wisconsin reported using DREs with VVPAT, ballot marking devices, and scanners in their state. 

They also noted: “WI does not allow use of DREs that do not include a VVPAT, punch card machines, 

or lever machines. We do not track the number of machines deployed.”
 

39 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

Chapter 2. Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

Key Findings 

Section A of the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) collected data on voter registration 

between the 2016 and 2018 general elections. Election officials were asked a variety of questions 

relating to registration and list maintenance, including the number of persons registered and eligible 

to vote in the 2018 general election, registration forms process, confirmation notices sent pursuant 

to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and records removed from the voter registration rolls. 

Among the results of this section, notable findings include: 

• Nearly half of the voter registration applications received from 2016 to 2018 were filed in a 

state department of motor vehicles (DMV). This is an 11-point increase compared with the 

number of applications received by the DMV between the 2014 and 2016 general elections. 

• Online registrations continued to be the second most used method of registration among 

Americans and accounted for 16.1 percent of the total registrations received from 2016 to 

2018 in the 39 states that allowed Americans to register to vote online. This is more than a 

six-point increase over the same time period for the 2014 elections. 

• States reported more than 211 million registrants for the 2018 general elections, an 

increase of 11.0 percent compared with the 2014 general elections. 

• States reported removing more than 17 million voter records from voter registration rolls 

between the 2016 and 2018 elections. More than half of these removals occurred because 

a registrant failed to return a confirmation notice or because the registrant moved out of the 

voting jurisdiction. 

Introduction 

Voter registration is required in 49 states, all U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, making 

registration the first step toward election participation for most voters.1 Registration serves multiple 

purposes: it allows election officials to confirm if a person is eligible to vote; permits officials to 

efficiently allocate resources such as ballots, poll workers, and voting equipment, depending on the 

number of registrants per precinct and jurisdiction; and allows the tracking of voter participation on 

Election Day. 

To “establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in 

elections for federal office”

2 Congress passed the NVRA in 1993. This act, commonly known as the 

“Motor Voter Law,” requires that states offer the opportunity to register to vote at their motor vehicle 

licensing offices (known as the DMV in many states). The law also requires states to offer voter 

registration at offices that provide public assistance or state-funded programs primarily engaged in 

 

1 North Dakota is the only state that does not require voter registration. 

2 H.R. 2 (1993), https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2/text
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 40 

providing services to persons with disabilities and armed services recruitment offices. NVRA also 

provides guidelines on registration list maintenance and sets limits on how voters can be removed 

from the rolls. 

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 charged the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) with 

collecting data on voter registration and list maintenance procedures. The EAC meets its statutory 

requirement to report to Congress on the impact of NVRA via the EAVS.3 This section of the EAVS not 

only fulfills this statutory requirement, but also provides insight about the changes in registration 

behaviors of Americans in federal elections and the state policies affecting the registration process. 

The Registration Process 

The typical voter registration process is depicted in Figure 1. Citizens in the United States can 

register to vote using different methods, some of them mandated by federal law and others offered 

at the discretion of the state. Once a registration form is complete and submitted, the state or local 

election office must confirm the eligibility of the applicant. Eligible applicants are added to the 

registration rolls and notified of their registration status, whereas ineligible or incomplete applicants 

are contacted for further information to complete their applications. 

Voter registration also serves to assign each voter to a precinct—a bounded geographic area to which 

voters are assigned according to their residential address as listed in their voter registration record—

so that voters receive the correct ballot in the election. The voter registration system tracks each 

voter’s electoral participation so that an individual can be given credit for voting in an election, which 

helps ensure each person casts only one ballot per election. 

Every person with a valid registration is considered an active, registered voter. However, at times, a 

question arises as to whether a person still resides at his or her registration address. In these 

situations, the state or local election office may send the registrant a confirmation of address notice. 

In many states, if the person fails to return the form or the form is returned undeliverable, he or she 

is placed on a list of inactive voters. Inactive voters are still part of the voter rolls and included in the 

registration totals in most jurisdictions.4 However, before they can vote, inactive voters are typically 

required to show approved documentation of their eligibility (most commonly, proof of living at an 

address within the voting jurisdiction). In some cases, inactive voters may be required to cast a 

provisional ballot when their eligibility cannot be established at the polls on Election Day.

NVRA requires maintenance of the registration list. For example, if a registrant fails to return the 

confirmation notice and does not vote in two subsequent federal general elections, he or she might 

be removed from the registration rolls of a particular jurisdiction. In addition, registrants can be 

removed for other reasons like death, request by the registrant to be removed from registration rolls, 

or due to disqualifying criminal conviction or mental incompetence as provided by a state’s laws.

 

3 Before 2016, the EAC administered a separate survey called the NVRA Survey, which collected similar information. This 

survey was consolidated with the EAVS for the 2016 elections. Before the creation of the EAC, the NVRA Survey was 

administered by the Federal Election Commission. 

4 Jurisdictions in some states do not include inactive voters in the list of total registered voters. For example, South Carolina 

reports that “Inactive voters are not included in registered voter totals by state law.”
 

41 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

Figure 1. The Voter Registration Process 

Election offices may share data with other state agencies or entities that maintain death records or 

felony and prison records for the purposes of identifying potentially ineligible voters.5

Federal Laws Regulating Voter Registration 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) 

NVRA is the primary federal law governing voter registration in the United States. In this law, 

Congress provides a clear statement regarding the importance of voter registration: 

“(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right; 

 

5 More information about state policies on voter registration database linkages is found in Chapter 4 of this report.
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 42 

(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise 

of that right; and 

(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and 

damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and 

disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial 

minorities.”

6

The primary purposes of NVRA are: 

“(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who 

register to vote in elections for Federal office; 

(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement 

[NVRA] in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in 

elections for Federal office; 

(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and 

(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.”

7

NVRA’s first purpose is to expand opportunities for voters to register by creating more uniform 

processes for voter registration and designating more places as voter registration agencies. NVRA 

requires that states allow people to register to vote through five venues: (1) at DMVs when a person 

obtains or renews his or her driver’s license, (2) through the mail, using a standard registration form, 

(3) at all offices for state public assistance agencies, (4) at all offices or agencies that provide 

services to people with disabilities, and (5) armed forces recruitment offices. In addition, states can, 

at their discretion, designate other offices—such as libraries, public schools, and universities—as 

voter registration agencies. 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) 

HAVA was enacted with the goal of updating the voting administration system in the United States 

and creating a commission to assist in the administration of federal elections. In addition to 

legislating the update of the administration process for federal elections in the United States, HAVA 

mandates that states create and maintain a “computerized statewide voter registration list” that 

 

6 52 U.S.C. §20501 

7 52 U.S.C. §20507 

NVRA was fully implemented after the 1994 general elections. Several states are not covered by 

NVRA. North Dakota is exempt because it does not have voter registration. U.S. territories are 

also not subject to NVRA, and the states of Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming are exempt because they had same day registration (SDR) in 1994 and continue to 

make this option available. 
 

43 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

serves as “the official voter registration list for the conduct of all elections for Federal office in the 

State.”8 The computerized registration list must be centralized and “defined, maintained and 

administered at the State level.”9 However, although the registration list is administered at the state 

level, any local election official must be able to access the registration list and is required to enter 

any updated voter registration information in the computerized system. HAVA also specifies that the 

maintenance of the implemented computerized registration list will be carried out according to 

NVRA’s mandates, and that duplicate names or registrations will be removed from the state’s 

registration list.10

Getting on the Rolls: Sources of Registration 

Between the close of registration for the 2016 general elections and the close of registration for the 

2018 general elections, states and territories reported receiving a total of 79,854,972 registration 

applications. The most used method of registration was the DMV, as it accounted for 44.9 percent of 

the total registrations received (33,330,384 registration applications). Other NVRA-mandated 

sources of registration such as by-mail registration accounted for 11.3 percent, whereas in-person 

registration and online registration accounted for 9.0 and 16.1 percent of the total registration 

applications, respectively. The rest of the registration applications received during this time period 

were from sources such as registration drives by political parties or advocacy groups (3.8 percent), 

public assistance offices (2.1 percent), and armed forces recruiting offices (0.1 percent), among 

other sources.11

Main Sources of Registration 

Since the 2014 general election period, the three most common sources of registration applications 

have consistently been DMVs, online portals, and mail/fax/email. However, Figure 2 shows that 

applications received at DMVs and online have been growing as a percentage of registration 

applications received. In particular, the percentage of citizens that used the DMV to apply for 

registration increased more than eight percentage points in 2018 compared with the previous two 

registration periods. One potential explanation for this increase in registrations processed by the 

DMV may be the implementation of automatic registration policies in multiple states; in these states, 

registrations are most commonly initiated when a person interacts with the DMV.12

The percentages of registration applications submitted by mail and in person have decreased slightly 

compared with previous registration periods. In-person registration accounted for less than 10 

 

8 52 U.S. C. § 21083 

9 Ibid.

10 See also Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(23)(A) (“good faith effort to distribute voter registration forms to 

each student in attendance”).

11 The instructions for this question noted that registration applications should be classified according to the mode used to 

submit it. For example, if the voter submits a registration form online using the state’s online voter registration portal, this 

is considered an online voter registration. If the voter accessed the online voter registration system at a state public 

assistance office or at the office of an agency that primarily serves individuals with disabilities, this would also be 

considered an online registration. 

12 In addition, not all state voter registration databases record whether a registration application was received online, 

leading to difficulty in reporting data according to the pre-specified options. 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 44 

Figure 2. DMV is Most Common Source of Registration Applications Since 2014

percent of the total received registrations for the first time in the 2018 registration period. 

Mail/fax/email registrations declined by 6.3 percent compared to the 2016 registration period and 

4.7 percent compared with the 2014 registration period. 

The percentage of registrations received by other sources in 2018 remained similar to 2016, and 

when added together, accounted for 13.5 percent of the total registration applications received.13

Online Registration 

For the 2018 general elections, a total of 40 states (including the District of Columbia and Guam) 

offered citizens the ability to complete the full registration process using an online portal without the 

need to submit any paper form.14 These registrations are typically reviewed electronically and data 

from other state databases are used to verify a person’s identity, address, and eligibility. Two-thirds 

 

13 Examples of other sources of registration are public assistance offices, armed forces recruitment offices, disability 

services offices, high schools, and libraries.

14 More information about state policies on online registration is found in Chapter 4 of this report. 
 

45 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

of the states using this registration method report that applicants must have a driver’s license issued 

by the state in order to register online. 

States reported receiving 11,253,404 online registrations during the 2016–2018 registration 

period. Online registrations accounted for 16.1 percent of the total reported registrations among the 

states that allowed for this method, a notable increase compared to the 2014 registration period, 

when 9.4 percent of the registrations were completed online. The total number of online 

registrations decreased slightly compared with the 2016 registration cycle, when 13,485,127 online 

applications were received.15 Nonetheless, the number of states offering online registration grew, 

from 32 in 2016 to 40 in 2018, and online portals maintained their status as the second most 

commonly used mode of registration.16

Twelve states reported receiving more than 20.0 percent of their registrations online in 2018. The 

two states with the highest percentage of registration applications received online were 

Massachusetts (53.7 percent) and California (41.2 percent). The first state to implement online 

registration, Arizona, also remains among the states with the highest levels of registrations received 

online (25.8 percent). 

Same Day Registration 

Same day registration (SDR) allows voters to register to vote and cast their ballot on the same day. In 

most cases, this means that registration is allowed during Election Day, but SDR can also refer to 

those instances in which there is an overlap between the end of the registration period and the start 

of early voting. SDR depends on local laws and, thus, is only allowed in some states and territories. 

Some states have restrictions for its use, such as allowing SDR only for particular elections (e.g., 

Rhode Island only allows SDR for President and Vice President), or particular subsets of the 

population (e.g., UOCAVA voters, persons recently discharged from the military). 

Sixteen states report allowing for voter registration on Election Day, three report only having SDR for 

early voting, five states allow SDR during the overlap period between the start of early voting and the 

close of the registration process, and two states allow for SDR only in specific cases.17 Twenty states 

reported receiving 837,463 same day registrations during the 2018 general election period.18

At the national level, SDR accounted for 1.0 percent of the total registrations received for the 2018 

registration period.19,20 At the state level, the use of SDR varied considerably. The three states that 

reported allowing SDR only for early voting were among those with the lowest SDRs as a percentage 

of total registrations received (less than 2.0 percent), whereas in those states where SDR was 

 

15 Some of this decrease may be attributable to miscategorization of online registrations in previous EAVS. 

16 See generally EAC Deep Dive: Registering to Vote (https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/09/20/eavs-deep-diveregistering-to-vote/) 

17 More information about state policies on SDR is found in Chapter 4 of this report. 

18 Five states (Guam, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina and Washington) that reported having SDR in the 2018 

Policy Survey did not provide data on SDR for the EAVS. Arizona indicated that SDR is not an option but reported three total 

SDRs at the state level (probably by error). 

19 This calculation used the total registration applications received at the national level, including the data from those 

states that did not have SDR. 

20 The question in the EAVS survey that asks for SDR asks for “Total new same day registrations,” so the total SDRs 

reported in this section may not include SDRs that were used to update a registrant’s information.
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 46 

Figure 3. NVRA-Exempt States Have High Usage of Same Day Registration

allowed on Election Day, there was more variability (between 0.5 and 42.0 percent of total 

registrations received were SDR). 

As in previous years, the five NVRA-exempt states remained among the states with the highest use of 

SDR. Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming reported 524,001 SDRs, which 

accounted for 62.6 percent of the total SDRs received nationwide for the 2018 general elections. 

Automatic Voter Registration 

Some states have passed and implemented laws in the past five years allowing for automatic voter 

registration (AVR). These laws allow for non-registered persons to be added to the voter registration 

rolls when they interact with a designated state agency, such as the DMV. AVR can take two forms. 

“Opt-in” automatic registration functions largely the same as the NVRA-mandated DMV registrations, 

in which voters are given the opportunity to register during their interaction with the state agency. In 

“opt-out” AVR, a person is added to the rolls and sent a notice. If the person does not wish to be 

registered, he or she must respond to that notice and decline to be registered. 
 

47 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

In 2016, Oregon was the first state to implement AVR at the state level, using an opt-out approach. 

Since then, 12 states have also started using AVR (most of them using the “opt-in” method).21 AVR is 

also being considered for use in other states, and five states anticipate implementing it before the 

2020 election. 

The EAVS does not include any questions reporting the number of automatic registrations processed 

by states. However, EAVS data do show an increase of almost 10 million in the number of 

registration applications received by states via the DMV for the 2018 general elections compared 

with 2016, and the percentage of the total registrations received by the DMV (which usually 

processes automatic registrations) has increased by 11 percentage points compared to 2016. In 

Oregon, the percentage of registrations processed by the DMV increased from 38.0 percent in the 

2016 election cycle to 68.8 percent in the 2018 election cycle. Alaska implemented automatic “optout” registration in 2017 and reported in the 2018 EAVS that 59.8 percent of the total registrations 

processed in this state were automatic registrations coming from the Permanent Fund Dividend. 

Other Modes of Registration 

States report receiving registration applications from additional sources. Other NVRA-mandated 

registration sources (including armed forces recruitment offices and public assistance offices funded 

by the state) account for less than 3.0 percent of the total registrations received. However, states 

report a variety of other ways to collect registration applications. For example, Guam and Nevada 

report receiving 65.4 and 35.9 percent, respectively, of their applications from registration drives 

carried out by political parties or advocacy groups.22

Voter Registration Rates 

NVRA requires each state to report its total number of registered and eligible, active, and inactive 

registrants for each federal general election.23 Most states report the total “registered and eligible” 

voters as the sum of active and inactive registrants.24,25,26,27 However, data on registered and eligible 

voters as reported in the EAVS should be used with caution, as these totals can include registrants 

who are no longer eligible to vote in that state but who have not been removed from the registration 

rolls because the removal process laid out by NVRA can take up to two election cycles to be 

completed. 

 

21 http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-voter-registration.aspx. 

22 Twenty-six states did not report receiving registration forms through this channel. 

23 Eleven states (Guam, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming) reported only active registrants. 

24 South Carolina did not include inactive registrants in the total “registered and eligible” voters item. The sum of active and

inactive exceeds the total reported “registered and eligible” voters by the number of inactive voters they reported by

396,653 voters. 

25 California and Texas reported more “registered and eligible” voters in their state than the sum of active and inactive 

registrants, resulting in 63,659 and 171,692 not categorized registrants, respectively. 

26 New Hampshire reported zero registrations in 18 of its 320 jurisdictions. Eleven of Texas’s 254 jurisdictions responded 

“Data not available,” and one of Wisconsin’s 1,850 jurisdictions reported zero total registrations.

27 North Dakota does not require voters to register. North Dakota’s election website states: “Precincts in North Dakota 

maintain a list of voters who have voted in previous elections. When a voter approaches a polling place they are asked to 

provide an acceptable form of identification. Then the election board will attempt to locate the voter’s name on the voting 

list. If the voter’s name is on the list, the voter’s name and address are verified and the voter is then allowed to vote.” 

(https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/votereg.pdf)
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 48 

Figure 4. In All States, a Majority of Voting-Aged Citizens are Registered to Vote 
 

49 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

For the 2018 general elections, states reported that 211,665,577 citizens were registered and 

eligible to vote. This represents an 11.0 percent increase in comparison to the number of eligible 

registered voters in the 2014 general elections. Nationally, 90.1 percent of all registrants are 

designated as active and 11.3 percent of registrants are designated as inactive.28 The total number 

of registered and eligible voters accounted for 91.6 percent of the Citizen Voting Age Population 

(CVAP). The CVAP is provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and reports the estimated number of 

citizens of voting age by jurisdiction and by state.29 The percentage of registered voters in each state 

is shown in Figure 4. Some states appear to have registration rates that exceed 100 percent of the 

state’s CVAP because of the long time period involved in removing ineligible voting records required 

by NVRA. 

Types of Registrations Received 

When a person submits a registration form, it is processed by the state and can reach one of several 

outcomes. Applications from persons who are eligible and not already registered are considered new 

applications and are added to the registration list. Applications submitted by persons already 

registered to vote at the same address, under the same name and personal information, are 

considered duplicates. Applications from already-registered persons wishing to change their name, 

party affiliation, or address are processed as updates to existing registrations. Applications that do 

not meet the requirements of eligibility are considered invalid or rejected. Where allowed by state 

law, applications submitted by persons under the age of 18 years old so that they will be registered 

when they become of voting age are considered pre-registrations. 

All registration forms received are processed and scrutinized by election officials to ensure that the 

information is correct, that only eligible voters are added to the registration rolls, and that duplicate 

registration records are not created. 

Valid Registrations 

Although new valid registrations make up a large percentage of the applications that states reported 

receiving during the 2018 registration period, they are not the only type of registration applications 

processed, nor the most common. Registration applications received from eligible persons in a 

jurisdiction where they were not previously registered, and which resulted in new registration records 

being created, comprise 26.9 percent of applications received during this time period. The plurality 

 

28 The percentages of active and inactive registrants do not add to 100 because of the reporting issues described in 

footnotes 24 and 25. 

29 The Citizen Voting Age Population is an estimate of the number of U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older in the state. This 

report uses the 1-year American Community Survey (ACS) state estimate for 2017 instead of the 5-year estimate to ensure 

that the CVAP is as current as possible. The estimate for the year 2018 was not available by the time this report was 

finalized.

Additional government data sources are available that can be consulted to learn more about 

state registration rates. The U.S. Census Bureau releases an estimate of the registration rate 

after each federal general election in its biennial Voting and Registration Supplement to the 

Current Population Survey (CPS). 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 50 

of registration forms (47.5 percent) instead resulted in updates to existing registration records, such 

as a within-jurisdiction change of address or a change of name (such as after a marriage or divorce) 

or party affiliation. Another type of valid registration reported in the EAVS were those changes of 

address that, while happening within the same state, crossed local jurisdiction borders, which 

accounted for 10.7 percent of the total registration applications filed. 

Finally, states reported additional registration types that were classified as “other,” which are not 

always valid registrations, and accounted for 7.1 percent of the total registration applications 

processed.30 These types of applications include pre-registrations of people under 18 years old that 

will be added to the rolls when they become of age (less than 1.0 percent of the total), administrative 

changes, and other registration applications that were processed but not categorized. 

Rejected and Duplicate Registrations 

Not all registration forms that states received result in the creation of or an update to a registration 

record. A state might consider a registration application invalid for many reasons, which can be 

distinguished in two main groups: rejected applications and duplicate applications. The first group 

includes applications that contain erroneous information, information that cannot be validated 

against existing state records, or applications from persons who do not meet eligibility requirements. 

In the period between the close of registration for the 2016 general elections and the close of 

registration for the 2018 general elections, states reported rejecting 2,479,439 applications, 

accounting for 3.4 percent of the total registration applications received. 

The second group includes applications that are exact matches to existing registration records; these 

can include applications submitted by persons who did not realize they are already registered to vote 

or who submitted multiple applications through different modes (e.g., submitting an application with 

the exact same information through the mail and online). States reported receiving 7,490,751

duplicate applications during this time period, which accounted for 10.3 percent of the total 

registrations received. 

Of those states that report the source of registration, most duplicate registrations were received at 

the DMV.31 Although the DMV is the most common mode of registration, it accounts for a larger 

percentage of duplicate registrations (63.1 percent) than total received registrations (44.9 percent). 

For the rest of the registration sources, the percentages of duplicate and invalid registrations were 

more aligned with the total registrations processed by each source. It is worth noting, however, that 

while “Other” accounted for 15.8 percent of the total invalid registrations, two of the categories 

accounted for most of those invalid registrations: registration drives comprised 8.6 percent and 

registrations in public assistance offices comprised 4.5 percent of the total invalid registrations at 

the national level. 

 

30 Some categories used by states were: unknown, reactivations at same name and address, and applications in pending 

status. Not all the applications accounted for in the “Other” category are valid but were included in this section because 

they cannot be fully identified as rejected or duplicate either. 

31 Forty states and territories broke down the number of duplicate registrations by source. Thirteen states (Alabama, 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and Wyoming) did not provide that data. North Dakota did not respond as it does not have voter registration. 
 

51 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

Registration List Maintenance 

NVRA requires states to maintain an “accurate and current voter registration roll” to “protect the 

integrity of the electoral process.”32 To facilitate this maintenance, NVRA requires that any change of 

address submitted to a DMV serve as notification of a change of address for voter registration, 

unless the individual indicates that the change is not for voter registration purposes. The law also 

requires states and territories to conduct a uniform and nondiscriminatory general program to 

remove the names of ineligible voters. States and territories have considerable freedom to choose 

when, where, and how these functions are performed, but must follow the guidelines listed in NVRA, 

which describe the need to use confirmation notices and contain a detailed list of instances in which 

it is appropriate to remove a record from the registration rolls. 

Figure 5. More than Half of Confirmation Notices Sent Have an Unknown Status

 

32 52 U.S.C. §20501
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 52 

Confirmation Notices 

A commonly used tool for maintaining registration lists under NVRA is the confirmation notice. These 

are postage pre-paid and pre-addressed return cards sent to those registrants who a state suspects 

of having changed their address. If the registrant does not return the confirmation notice, he or she 

can be added to the inactive registrant list and would be asked to provide proof of residence before 

voting to affirm his or her continued eligibility within the jurisdiction. If the registrant fails to return 

the confirmation notice and does not participate in two consecutive federal elections, then NVRA 

grants the state the ability to remove the registrant from the voter registration rolls. 

Nationally, 21,595,121 confirmation notices were sent, which accounted for 11.6 percent of the 

total number of active voters reported by states for the 2018 elections.33 This percentage is similar 

to what was reported by states in 2016 (10.9 percent) and 2014 (11.9 percent). Figure 5 shows that 

confirmation notices with an unknown status accounted for 61.9 percent of the total; these generally 

included confirmation notices sent but that were never returned to the jurisdiction. States reported 

that 19.6 percent of confirmation notices were returned, with 11.7 percent confirming the voter’s 

continued eligibility and 8.0 percent invalidating the voter’s registration.

Removing Voters from Registration Lists 

NVRA mandates that registrants may only be removed from the voter rolls in these circumstances: 

• upon the death of the registrant; 

• upon the registrant’s written confirmation that his or her address has changed to a location 

outside the registrar’s jurisdiction;

• on the request of the registrant; 

• for mental incapacity of the registrant, as provided for in state law; 

• on criminal conviction of the registrant, as provided for in state law; or 

• on the registrant’s failure to respond to certain confirmation mailings along with failure to 

appear to vote in two consecutive federal general elections subsequent to the mailing. 

Because some of the processes to remove a registrant from the voter rolls can take up to two federal 

general election cycles, it is inevitable that registration rolls will contain some number of voter 

records for individuals who are no longer eligible. Additionally, NVRA prohibits the completion of 

systematic voter removal program activities in the 90 days before the date of a federal primary or 

general election. This also can result in records that are no longer eligible remaining on the voter 

rolls at the moment of data collection for the EAVS. 

 

33 In 2018, 50 states and territories reported the number of confirmation notices they sent during the period of registration 

for the 2018 general elections. North Dakota does not require citizens to register to vote and thus does not use 

confirmation notices. American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands are NVRA exempt. Indiana did not provide this 

information because it “does not send the removal notices referenced by the EAC survey.” Forty-seven states reported the 

status of those confirmation notices. In addition to the states that did not report on confirmation notices, Idaho, Louisiana, 

and New Jersey did not break down the number of confirmation notices sent by status. 
 

53 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

Between the close of registration for the 2016 general elections and the close of registration for the 

2018 general elections, states reported removing 17,300,470 records from their registration rolls.34

The number of removed registrants comprised up to 8.2 percent of the total registered voters in the 

reported election period. Two-thirds of the states and territories removed a number of registrants 

that added up to between 5.0 percent to 10.0 percent of their total registered voters. There were 

some exceptions to this trend, however. As in 2016, New Mexico was the state with the lowest 

percentage of removals compared to total registrants (1.4 percent) and Indiana was the state with 

the highest such percentage at 28.7 percent.35

States also reported the reasons for removing records from their registration rolls. These reasons for 

removal are shown in Figure 6. The most common was failure to both respond to a confirmation 

notice and vote in two consecutive federal general elections, which accounted for 35.3 percent of 

Figure 6. More than One-Third of Removed Registration Records were a Result of Failure to Respond to 

Confirmation Notice

 

34 All states and territories reported data for the items related to voter removal, except for North Dakota, which does not 

require citizens to register to vote. 

35 The territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands had the lowest removal percentage with 0.8 percent registrants removed. 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 54 

the total removals. Cross-jurisdiction change of address and death of the registrant were the other 

two major reasons for states to remove registrants from their rolls (24.7 percent and 21.6 percent, 

respectively).36

The majority of states reported that felony and/or incarceration was a reason for voter removal from 

registration rolls,37 but only 2.5 percent of removals were the result of a disqualifying felony 

conviction. Two states, however, exceeded 10.0 percent of removals due to felony or conviction. 

Kentucky (12.9 percent) and New Mexico (25.1 percent) had the largest percentages of these types 

of removals. 

 

36 The instructions for this question in the EAVS specified that “voters removed from the voter registration rolls in your 

jurisdiction” for having “[m]oved outside jurisdiction” should be reported. The question as written does not make any 

distinction between individuals who moved from the state entirely and those who moved to different jurisdictions within the 

state. Some states reported those who moved outside of the jurisdiction as if they were removed from the local jurisdiction 

and as new registrants in their new local jurisdiction. Other states did not report them as removed, instead treating them as 

updates to existing records. These data quality issues affected multi-state comparative analysis of this item in the EAVS. 

37 In the 2018 Policy Survey, only Maine and Vermont reported this was not a reason for voter removal. Ohio and Guam did 

not respond to this question. Twenty-eight states reported that the loss of the right to vote would last during the period of 

incarceration and probation/parole, whereas 14 states reported it would only last during the period of incarceration.
 

55 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Appendix A: Descriptive Tables* 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Alabama 

2018 3,688,249 3,465,352 93.96 3,465,352 3,164,301 91.31 301,051 8.69 

2016 3,620,994 3,333,946 92.07 3,189,293 3,049,655 91.47 139,638 4.19 

2014 3,600,135 2,986,782 82.96 2,986,782 2,873,356 96.2 113,426 3.8 

Alaska 

2018 531,653 624,467 117.46 624,467 571,851 91.57 52,616 8.43 

2016 523,747 587,303 112.13 587,303 528,671 90.02 58,632 9.98 

2014 519,016 574,441 110.68 574,441 509,011 88.61 65,430 11.39 

American 

Samoa 

2018 - 15,527 - 15,527 8,462 54.5 7,065 45.5 

2016 - - - - - - - - 

2014 - 16,776 - 16,776 16,776 100 0 0 

Arizona 

2018 4,895,706 4,276,891 87.36 4,276,891 3,715,624 86.88 561,267 13.12 

2016 4,526,594 4,080,680 90.15 4,080,680 3,589,084 87.95 491,596 12.05 

2014 4,444,236 3,802,786 85.57 3,802,786 3,235,901 85.09 566,885 14.91 

Arkansas 

2018 2,207,894 1,786,840 80.93 1,786,840 1,456,887 81.53 329,953 18.47 

2016 2,164,083 1,765,513 81.58 1,765,513 1,422,393 80.57 343,120 19.43 

2014 2,152,344 1,695,208 78.76 1,695,208 1,453,485 85.74 241,723 14.26 

California [1]

2018 25,650,456 25,167,218 98.12 25,103,559 19,724,297 78.37 5,379,262 21.37 

2016 24,280,349 24,486,638 100.85 24,501,602 19,435,856 79.37 5,065,746 20.69 

2014 23,881,288 18,139,232 75.96 23,110,142 17,785,312 98.05 5,324,830 29.36 

Colorado 

2018 4,057,437 3,953,613 97.44 3,953,613 3,426,499 86.67 527,114 13.33 

2016 3,750,953 3,840,303 102.38 3,840,303 3,336,663 86.89 503,640 13.11 

2014 3,679,122 3,649,105 99.18 3,649,105 2,889,034 79.17 760,071 20.83 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 56 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Connecticut 

2018 2,611,667 2,369,335 90.72 2,369,335 2,193,586 92.58 175,749 7.42 

2016 2,574,178 2,331,684 90.58 2,331,684 2,162,797 92.76 168,887 7.24 

2014 2,564,233 2,160,979 84.27 2,160,979 1,968,094 91.07 192,885 8.93 

Delaware 

2018 709,999 695,014 97.89 695,014 672,632 96.78 22,382 3.22 

2016 681,606 675,663 99.13 675,663 642,334 95.07 33,329 4.93 

2014 674,336 642,022 95.21 642,022 596,284 92.88 45,738 7.12 

District of 

Columbia 

2018 510,514 617,046 120.87 617,046 511,633 82.92 105,413 17.08 

2016 485,116 493,287 101.68 493,287 493,287 100 0 0 

2014 475,399 456,633 96.05 456,633 456,633 100 0 0 

Florida 

2018 15,014,950 14,126,722 94.08 14,126,722 13,278,070 93.99 848,652 6.01 

2016 13,933,052 13,505,571 96.93 13,505,571 12,853,866 95.17 651,705 4.83 

2014 13,673,536 12,689,081 92.8 12,689,081 11,869,224 93.54 819,857 6.46 

Georgia 

2018 7,362,615 6,944,851 94.33 6,944,851 6,437,524 92.69 507,327 7.31 

2016 6,978,660 6,657,621 95.4 6,657,621 5,463,014 82.06 1,194,607 17.94 

2014 6,882,879 6,029,703 87.6 6,029,703 5,158,372 85.55 871,331 14.45 

Guam [2]

2018 - 55,941 - 55,941 55,941 100 - - 

2016 - 51,720 - 51,720 51,720 100 0 0 

2014 - 51,975 - 51,975 51,975 100 0 0 

Hawaii 

2018 1,025,548 756,751 73.79 756,751 712,765 94.19 43,986 5.81 

2016 1,001,729 751,483 75.02 751,483 666,573 88.7 84,910 11.3 

2014 989,250 708,721 71.64 708,721 630,640 88.98 78,081 11.02 

Idaho [2]

2018 1,219,481 917,609 75.25 917,609 917,609 100 - - 

2016 1,130,550 936,529 82.84 936,529 936,529 100 0 0 

2014 1,116,710 793,709 71.08 793,709 793,709 100 0 0 
 

57 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Illinois 

2018 9,055,927 8,751,060 96.63 8,751,060 8,091,045 92.46 660,015 7.54 

2016 8,979,999 8,843,038 98.47 8,843,038 8,055,096 91.09 787,942 8.91 

2014 8,939,894 8,336,548 93.25 8,253,161 7,333,048 87.96 920,113 11.04 

Indiana 

2018 4,899,251 4,500,196 91.85 4,500,196 4,168,374 92.63 331,822 7.37 

2016 4,801,113 4,839,038 100.79 4,839,038 4,149,560 85.75 689,478 14.25 

2014 4,773,227 4,587,021 96.1 4,587,021 3,855,819 84.06 731,202 15.94 

Iowa 

2018 2,325,355 2,193,813 94.34 2,193,813 2,037,516 92.88 156,297 7.12 

2016 2,285,126 2,222,380 97.25 2,222,380 2,047,368 92.13 175,012 7.87 

2014 2,273,765 2,142,572 94.23 2,142,572 1,937,709 90.44 204,863 9.56 

Kansas 

2018 2,091,261 1,835,473 87.77 1,835,473 1,670,217 91 165,256 9 

2016 2,053,919 1,785,834 86.95 1,785,834 1,601,818 89.7 184,016 10.3 

2014 2,043,785 1,747,792 85.52 1,710,125 1,560,327 89.27 149,798 8.57 

Kentucky 

2018 3,350,956 3,402,905 101.55 3,402,905 3,402,905 100 0 0 

2016 3,297,108 3,306,120 100.27 3,306,120 3,306,120 100 0 0 

2014 3,281,582 3,147,100 95.9 3,227,461 3,147,100 100 80,361 2.55 

Louisiana 

2018 3,469,016 2,992,170 86.25 2,992,170 2,856,722 95.47 135,448 4.53 

2016 3,410,634 3,058,741 89.68 3,023,241 2,891,902 94.55 131,339 4.29 

2014 3,385,548 2,935,692 86.71 2,935,692 2,772,069 94.43 163,623 5.57 

Maine 

2018 1,064,497 1,057,967 99.39 1,057,967 1,054,068 99.63 3,899 0.37 

2016 1,048,274 1,065,100 101.61 1,065,100 1,059,270 99.45 5,830 0.55 

2014 1,044,335 1,014,674 97.16 1,014,674 989,331 97.5 25,343 2.5 

Maryland [2]

2018 4,310,864 3,954,027 91.72 3,954,027 3,954,027 100 - - 

2016 4,182,241 3,900,090 93.25 3,900,090 3,900,090 100 0 0 

2014 4,142,452 3,701,666 89.36 3,701,665 3,701,665 100 0 0 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 58 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Massachusetts 

2018 4,993,001 4,574,967 91.63 4,574,967 3,947,897 86.29 627,070 13.71 

2016 4,850,598 4,534,974 93.49 4,534,974 3,994,635 88.09 540,339 11.91 

2014 4,799,876 4,301,118 89.61 4,301,118 3,769,892 87.65 531,226 12.35 

Michigan 

2018 7,481,928 7,471,088 99.86 7,471,088 6,488,823 86.85 982,265 13.15 

2016 7,380,136 7,514,055 101.81 7,514,055 6,748,385 89.81 765,670 10.19 

2014 7,347,661 7,446,280 101.34 7,446,280 6,578,733 88.35 867,547 11.65 

Minnesota [3]

2018 4,079,652 3,422,515 83.89 3,422,515 3,422,515 100 - - 

2016 3,950,807 3,473,972 87.93 3,473,972 3,473,972 100 0 0 

2014 3,920,514 3,197,751 81.56 3,197,751 3,197,751 100 0 0 

Mississippi 

2018 2,234,722 2,079,732 93.06 2,079,732 1,880,197 90.41 199,535 9.59 

2016 2,210,424 2,072,395 93.76 2,072,395 1,888,433 91.12 183,962 8.88 

2014 2,201,531 1,484,859 67.45 1,528,686 1,423,206 95.85 105,480 7.1 

Missouri 

2018 4,606,843 4,127,333 89.59 4,127,333 3,803,881 92.16 323,452 7.84 

2016 4,525,035 4,215,860 93.17 4,215,860 3,812,576 90.43 403,284 9.57 

2014 4,502,998 4,090,939 90.85 4,090,939 3,627,153 88.66 463,786 11.34 

Montana [3]

2018 810,760 706,173 87.1 706,173 616,642 87.32 89,531 12.68 

2016 781,250 694,370 88.88 694,370 574,334 82.71 120,036 17.29 

2014 774,019 674,264 87.11 674,264 555,005 82.31 119,259 17.69 

Nebraska [4]

2018 1,368,000 1,219,276 89.13 1,219,276 1,096,862 89.96 122,414 10.04 

2016 1,333,860 1,211,101 90.8 1,211,101 1,091,951 90.16 119,150 9.84 

2014 1,324,464 1,160,169 87.6 1,160,167 1,017,575 87.71 142,592 12.29 

Nevada 

2018 2,031,213 1,773,566 87.32 1,773,566 1,563,750 88.17 209,816 11.83 

2016 1,863,799 1,678,883 90.08 1,678,883 1,468,559 87.47 210,324 12.53 

2014 1,830,238 1,476,337 80.66 1,476,337 1,212,051 82.1 264,286 17.9 
 

59 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

New Hampshire 

[2,5] 

2018 1,048,883 988,148 94.21 988,148 988,148 100 - - 

2016 1,020,130 988,398 96.89 988,398 988,398 100 0 0 

2014 1,013,648 877,514 86.57 877,514 877,514 100 0 0 

New Jersey 

2018 6,199,409 5,869,078 94.67 5,869,078 5,456,506 92.97 412,572 7.03 

2016 6,053,893 5,751,090 95 5,751,090 5,321,542 92.53 429,548 7.47 

2014 6,002,841 5,552,481 92.5 5,552,481 4,943,194 89.03 609,287 10.97 

New Mexico 

2018 1,493,318 1,261,639 84.49 1,261,639 698,172 55.34 563,467 44.66 

2016 1,457,632 1,289,420 88.46 1,288,336 1,136,059 88.11 152,277 11.81 

2014 1,448,022 1,287,325 88.9 1,279,323 1,002,610 77.88 276,713 21.5 

New York 

2018 13,866,648 12,695,763 91.56 12,695,763 11,676,266 91.97 1,019,497 8.03 

2016 13,531,404 16,200,892 119.73 16,200,892 16,200,892 100 0 0 

2014 13,425,020 11,806,742 87.95 11,805,572 10,827,434 91.71 978,138 8.28 

North Carolina 

2018 7,509,879 7,095,209 94.48 7,095,209 5,898,244 83.13 1,196,965 16.87 

2016 7,107,998 6,924,469 97.42 6,924,469 5,930,252 85.64 994,217 14.36 

2014 7,015,219 6,628,521 94.49 6,628,521 5,873,618 88.61 754,903 11.39 

North Dakota [6]

2018 564,475 - - - - - - - 

2016 546,486 - - - - - - - 

2014 535,556 - - - - - - - 

Ohio [2]

2018 8,830,185 8,070,917 91.4 8,070,917 8,070,917 100 - - 

2016 8,709,050 7,861,025 90.26 7,861,025 7,861,025 100 0 0 

2014 8,678,486 7,748,201 89.28 7,748,201 6,374,206 82.27 1,373,995 17.73 

Oklahoma 

2018 2,835,451 2,120,843 74.8 2,120,843 1,857,700 87.59 263,143 12.41 

2016 2,768,561 2,157,450 77.93 2,157,450 1,817,461 84.24 339,989 15.76 

2014 2,749,197 2,022,456 73.57 2,022,456 1,632,500 80.72 389,956 19.28 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 60 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP 

Total 

Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Oregon [7]

2018 3,060,328 2,748,232 89.8 2,748,232 2,748,232 100 - - 

2016 2,867,670 2,553,810 89.06 2,553,810 2,553,810 100 0 0 

2014 2,830,526 2,174,763 76.83 2,174,763 2,174,763 100 0 0 

Pennsylvania 

2018 9,764,119 8,607,748 88.16 8,607,748 7,738,989 89.91 868,759 10.09 

2016 9,710,416 8,722,975 89.83 0 0 0 0 0 

2014 9,676,902 8,072,589 83.42 8,072,589 7,322,470 90.71 750,119 9.29 

Rhode Island 

2018 792,337 781,478 98.63 781,478 737,419 94.36 44,059 5.64 

2016 776,565 754,065 97.1 753,457 721,211 95.64 32,246 4.28 

2014 773,774 752,051 97.19 752,051 691,804 91.99 60,247 8.01 

South Carolina [8]

2018 3,799,298 3,538,580 93.14 3,935,233 3,538,580 100 396,653 11.21 

2016 3,566,508 3,157,027 88.52 3,432,319 3,157,027 100 275,292 8.72 

2014 3,515,423 2,881,293 81.96 3,327,827 2,881,293 100 446,534 15.5 

South Dakota 

2018 641,666 594,453 92.64 594,453 539,788 90.8 54,665 9.2 

2016 621,461 595,322 95.79 595,322 544,930 91.54 50,392 8.46 

2014 616,015 563,201 91.43 563,141 521,030 92.51 42,111 7.48 

Tennessee 

2018 5,016,103 4,163,359 83 4,163,359 3,764,513 90.42 398,846 9.58 

2016 4,828,366 4,110,318 85.13 4,110,318 3,534,800 86 575,518 14

2014 4,785,582 3,975,587 83.07 3,975,587 3,453,397 86.87 522,190 13.13 

Texas [1,5] 

2018 18,174,344 15,615,925 85.92 15,444,233 13,790,247 88.31 1,653,986 10.59 

2016 16,864,962 14,382,387 85.28 13,230,876 11,942,651 83.04 1,288,225 8.96 

2014 16,529,533 14,020,405 84.82 14,015,973 12,298,251 87.72 1,717,722 12.25 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

[9]

2018 - 51,095 - 51,095 51,095 100 - - 

2016 - 46,076 - 46,076 46,076 100 0 0 

2014 - 51,326 - 51,326 51,326 100 0 0 
 

61 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 1: Registration History 

State Year CVAP Total Reported 

Registrations 

Reported 

Registration 

% of CVAP 

Total Active 

+ Inactive 

Registrations 

Active 

Registrations 

(total) 

Active 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(total) 

Inactive 

Registrations 

(% of total) 

Utah 

2018 2,028,176 1,658,457 81.77 1,658,457 1,433,917 86.46 224,540 13.54 

2016 1,868,008 1,577,069 84.43 1,577,069 1,414,758 89.71 162,311 10.29 

2014 1,831,260 1,485,705 81.13 1,485,705 1,246,191 83.88 239,514 16.12 

Vermont 

2018 494,550 489,385 98.96 489,385 447,709 91.48 41,676 8.52 

2016 493,124 472,289 95.77 472,289 440,347 93.24 31,942 6.76 

2014 491,548 444,199 90.37 444,199 412,872 92.95 31,327 7.05 

Virginia 

2018 6,145,893 5,666,627 92.2 5,666,627 5,272,602 93.05 394,025 6.95 

2016 5,953,612 5,604,106 94.13 5,604,106 5,066,666 90.41 537,440 9.59 

2014 5,877,485 5,280,744 89.85 5,280,744 4,865,892 92.14 414,852 7.86 

Washington 

2018 5,259,892 4,841,431 92.04 4,841,431 4,362,480 90.11 478,951 9.89 

2016 4,937,212 4,872,385 98.69 4,872,385 4,277,499 87.79 594,886 12.21 

2014 4,866,911 3,922,378 80.59 4,416,027 3,922,378 100 493,649 12.59 

West Virginia 

2018 1,428,859 1,245,827 87.19 1,245,827 961,894 77.21 283,933 22.79 

2016 1,455,848 1,254,768 86.19 1,254,768 1,142,180 91.03 112,588 8.97 

2014 1,456,966 1,213,759 83.31 1,213,759 1,113,298 91.72 100,461 8.28 

Wisconsin 

[2,5,10] 

2018 4,375,063 3,442,004 78.67 3,442,004 3,442,004 100 - - 

2016 4,294,321 3,768,373 87.75 3,768,373 3,768,373 100 0 0 

2014 4,269,769 3,801,533 89.03 3,801,533 3,801,533 100 0 0 

Wyoming [2]

2018 428,379 283,941 66.28 283,941 283,941 100 - - 

2016 430,026 284,203 66.09 284,203 284,203 100 0 0 

2014 427,302 264,930 62 264,930 264,930 100 0 0 

U.S. Total 

[11,12] 

2018 231,416,670 211,665,577 91.47 211,826,879 190,662,485 90.08 21,164,394 10

2016 222,469,187 214,109,360 96.24 204,343,292 185,714,229 86.74 18,629,063 8.7 

2014 222,802,566 190,669,639 85.58 196,570,199 173,518,745 91 23,051,454 12.09 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 62 

NVRA Table 1 Calculation Notes 

(1) CVAP Total uses the 2017 1-year ACS CVAP estimate. 

(2) Reported Registrations, Total uses question A1a. 

(3) Reported Registrations, Pct. of CVAP uses question A1a divided by CVAP. 

(4) Active and Inactive Registrations, Total uses the sum of questions A1b and A1c. 

(5) Active Registrations, Total uses question A1b. 

(6) Active Registrations, Pct. uses question A1b divided by question A1a. 

(7) Inactive Registrations, Total uses question A1c. 

(8) Inactive Registrations, Pct. uses question A1c divided by question A1a. 

NVRA Table 1 Data Notes 

General Note: 

• The Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is an estimate of the number of U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older in the 

state. This report uses the 1-year ACS state estimate for 2017 instead of the 5-year estimate to ensure that the CVAP is 

as current as possible. The estimate for the year 2018 was not available by the time this report was finalized. 

 

 

[1] California and Texas reported more “registered and eligible” voters in their state (question A1a) than the sum of active and 

inactive registrants (questions A1b and A1c), resulting in 63,659 and 171,692 not categorized registrants, respectively. 

[2] The state responded “Does not apply” to number of inactive voters.

• Idaho reported: “Idaho only maintains active voters.”

• Maryland reported: “Active voters only”

• Minnesota reported: “Minnesota is NVRA exempt. Minnesota does not classify voters as inactive per NVRA.”

[3] Montana reported: “A1a: total registered/ eligible voters consists of active and inactive. Montana reports total registered/ 

eligible voters of 711,844. The difference is provisional, late registration and pending”. The sum of the registrations reported by 

each jurisdiction added up to the reported 706,173 total registrations at the state level. 
 

63 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

[4] Nebraska reported: “Nebraska does not have ‘inactive’ voters. The numbers in line A1c reflect the number of voters who were 

sent a section 8(d)(2) notice and have not responded.”

[5] Some jurisdictions did not report a number registered and eligible voters (question A1a): 

• New Hampshire: 18 of New Hampshire’s 320 jurisdictions responded zero to the total number of registrants and 

reported: “Unincorporated place - No voters”

• Texas: 11 of Texas’s 254 jurisdictions responded “Data not available” to the total number of registrants.

• Wisconsin: one of Wisconsin’s 1,850 jurisdictions reported zero total registrations. 

[6] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

[7] Oregon responded “Data not available” to number of Inactive voters and reported: “Do not track number of inactive voters.”

[8] South Carolina did not include inactive registrants in the total “registered and eligible” voters item (A1a). The sum of active 

and inactive registrants (A1b and A1c) exceeds the total reported “registered and eligible” voters by the number of inactive voters 

they reported (i.e., 396,653). South Carolina reported: “Inactive voters are not included in registered voter totals by state law.”

[9] U.S. Virgin Islands did not respond to number of inactive voters. 

[10] Wisconsin reported: “This count includes military voters, even though they are not required to ‘register’ in Wisconsin.”

[11] In contrast with the rest of the tables in the report, the percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) use data 

from all states and territories, not only for those for which data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation were 

available. This is to keep the calculations consistent with the previous elections reported in this table. The only two data points 

that would differ with the change of approach would be: 

• Reported registration as percentage of CVAP: which would be 91.64 percent instead of 91.47 percent. 

• Inactive registrations as percentage of total: which would be 11.27 percent instead of 10.0 percent. 

[12] Because for some states the sum of active and inactive registrants did not add up to the total reported registrants as 

described in notes 1 and 8 above, the percentage of active and inactive voters in this table does not add up to 100. 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 64 

NVRA Table 2a: Application Sources – Total Forms Received 

State Total 

Applications 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle 

Offices 

Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 1,707,185 49,972 2.93 113,789 6.67 240,716 14.10 1,070,491 62.71 52,094 3.05 7,226 0.42 200 0.01 13,347 0.78 30,405 1.78 128,945 7.55 0 0.00 

Alaska 620,224 49,036 7.91 96,934 15.63 33,357 5.38 62,418 10.06 6,019 0.97 105 0.02 1,140 0.18 139 0.02 0 0.00 371,076 59.83 0 0.00 

American Samoa 1,119 2 0.18 1,117 99.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Arizona 1,860,596 289,533 15.56 16,826 0.90 479,722 25.78 888,201 47.74 8,125 0.44 588 0.03 2,865 0.15 12,422 0.67 122,743 6.60 35,752 1.92 3,819 0.21 

Arkansas 448,787 65,878 14.68 81,086 18.07 - - 241,913 53.90 21,949 4.89 422 0.09 45 0.01 1,720 0.38 10,362 2.31 25,394 5.66 18 0.00 

California 8,572,410 1,049,437 12.24 513,285 5.99 3,530,619 41.19 1,932,780 22.55 77,183 0.90 2,720 0.03 4,626 0.05 114,452 1.34 183,719 2.14 612,915 7.15 550,674 6.42 

Colorado [1] 1,434,349 101,488 7.08 33,453 2.33 351,629 24.51 782,426 54.55 31,576 2.20 181 0.01 28 0.00 - - 89,963 6.27 43,605 3.04 0 0.00 

Connecticut 701,958 88,113 12.55 103,483 14.74 187,288 26.68 283,609 40.40 7,256 1.03 1,386 0.20 988 0.14 1,045 0.15 - - 28,790 4.10 0 0.00 

Delaware 354,500 5,840 1.65 63,172 17.82 22,136 6.24 252,077 71.11 1,832 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 520 0.15 1,563 0.44 7,360 2.08 0 0.00 

District of 

Columbia 120,149 3,021 2.51 17,530 14.59 15,113 12.58 68,157 56.73 250 0.21 339 0.28 102 0.08 231 0.19 2,554 2.13 3,067 2.55 9,785 8.14 

Florida 6,541,838 745,997 11.40 928,182 14.19 488,804 7.47 3,124,822 47.77 40,860 0.62 2,950 0.05 691 0.01 37,056 0.57 519,330 7.94 653,146 9.98 0 0.00 

Georgia 4,498,331 280,957 6.25 102,468 2.28 357,491 7.95 3,596,384 79.95 23,656 0.53 30,914 0.69 97 0.00 - - - - 106,364 2.36 0 0.00 

Guam 11,989 766 6.39 2,133 17.79 - - 38 0.32 1,217 10.15 - - - - - - 7,835 65.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Hawaii [2] 185,273 - - - - 45,126 24.36 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 140,147 75.64 

Idaho [3] 372,292 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 372,292 100.00 

Illinois 2,123,058 301,629 14.21 147,894 6.97 744,572 35.07 617,295 29.08 82,400 3.88 5,380 0.25 738 0.03 92,402 4.35 130,748 6.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Indiana 1,576,494 92,711 5.88 1,095 0.07 267,271 16.95 726,455 46.08 24,510 1.55 477 0.03 598 0.04 23 0.00 13,578 0.86 393,042 24.93 56,734 3.60 

Iowa 525,908 40,983 7.79 86,971 16.54 30,683 5.83 152,486 28.99 3,502 0.67 51 0.01 54 0.01 157 0.03 - - 211,021 40.13 0 0.00 

Kansas 655,028 89,941 13.73 66,556 10.16 150,600 22.99 252,684 38.58 2,171 0.33 168 0.03 48 0.01 3,093 0.47 28,185 4.30 62,524 9.55 -942 -0.14 

Kentucky 1,472,290 25,188 1.71 219,857 14.93 93,736 6.37 1,062,441 72.16 58,648 3.98 2,171 0.15 819 0.06 - - - - 9,427 0.64 3 0.00 

Louisiana 713,451 126,163 17.68 129,264 18.12 168,784 23.66 233,935 32.79 39,888 5.59 4,208 0.59 1,694 0.24 - - 9,515 1.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Maine [4] 198,377 12,034 6.07 149,382 75.30 - - 21,672 10.92 - - - - - - - - 6,122 3.09 9,167 4.62 0 0.00 

Maryland 1,675,979 323,312 19.29 42,528 2.54 181,949 10.86 778,704 46.46 29,079 1.74 309 0.02 90 0.01 245,765 14.66 - - 74,243 4.43 0 0.00 

Massachusetts 1,784,724 111,075 6.22 65,815 3.69 957,662 53.66 609,012 34.12 35,857 2.01 2,634 0.15 - - 2,669 0.15 - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Michigan [5] 2,262,301 148,876 6.58 222,228 9.82 195,864 8.66 1,676,663 74.11 17,665 0.78 441 0.02 564 0.02 - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Minnesota [6] 1,073,040 37,900 3.53 339,346 31.62 146,990 13.70 77,482 7.22 - - - - - - - - 13,004 1.21 458,318 42.71 0 0.00 

Mississippi 494,644 45,021 9.10 47,545 9.61 - - 121,275 24.52 14,510 2.93 440 0.09 0 0.00 1,809 0.37 0 0.00 11,115 2.25 252,929 51.13 
 

65 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 2a: Application Sources – Total Forms Received 

State Total 

Applications 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle 

Offices 

Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Missouri - 112,642 - 46,197 - 70,556 - 242,475 - 36,909 - 347 - 82 - 39 - - - 860 - - -

Montana 218,683 46,481 21.25 55,303 25.29 - - 70,739 32.35 1,896 0.87 13 0.01 65 0.03 - - 22,780 10.42 21,406 9.79 0 0.00 

Nebraska 536,709 102,656 19.13 32,614 6.08 92,592 17.25 304,154 56.67 829 0.15 958 0.18 5 0.00 - - - - 2,901 0.54 0 0.00 

Nevada 656,208 66,955 10.20 12,890 1.96 158,936 24.22 143,882 21.93 34,823 5.31 1,220 0.19 303 0.05 1,607 0.24 235,592 35.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 

[7] 308,432 718 0.23 307,714 99.77 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Jersey 2,241,134 51,908 2.32 - - - - 1,152,284 51.42 34,751 1.55 5,744 0.26 23,29

9 1.04 836,741 37.34 - - 136,407 6.09 0 0.00 

New Mexico 222,662 41,261 18.53 30,876 13.87 40,208 18.06 93,348 41.92 16,665 7.48 - - - - - - - - 96 0.04 208 0.09 

New York [8] 3,362,843 699,199 20.79 223,100 6.63 - - 1,232,349 36.65 195,922 5.83 - - - - 37,471 1.11 115,357 3.43 0 0.00 859,445 25.56 

North Carolina 2,672,101 380,392 14.24 573,404 21.46 - - 1,264,821 47.33 49,613 1.86 1,592 0.06 12 0.00 6,405 0.24 153,142 5.73 242,720 9.08 0 0.00 

North Dakota [9] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Ohio 2,382,804 433,752 18.20 338,103 14.19 370,037 15.53 757,038 31.77 234,69

4 9.85 3,742 0.16 175 0.01 56,783 2.38 188,480 7.91 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oklahoma 546,938 107,325 19.62 95,968 17.55 11,284 2.06 249,945 45.70 33,061 6.04 857 0.16 14 0.00 31 0.01 - - 48,453 8.86 0 0.00 

Oregon [10] 1,352,332 86,549 6.40 69,313 5.13 235,766 17.43 929,912 68.76 6,251 0.46 6,260 0.46 - - 16,556 1.22 - - 1,725 0.13 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 2,860,609 171,174 5.98 33,404 1.17 356,421 12.46 1,966,892 68.76 74,203 2.59 1,126 0.04 12 0.00 - - 61,605 2.15 195,772 6.84 0 0.00 

Rhode Island 141,890 10,573 7.45 14,139 9.96 22,907 16.14 84,894 59.83 - - - - - - - - - - 9,377 6.61 0 0.00 

South Carolina 1,435,340 328,431 22.88 244,489 17.03 120,082 8.37 688,261 47.95 44,505 3.10 580 0.04 663 0.05 - - - - 8,329 0.58 0 0.00 

South Dakota 135,610 18,628 13.74 34,398 25.37 0 0.00 72,884 53.75 2,921 2.15 22 0.02 5 0.00 1,827 1.35 4,940 3.64 37 0.03 -52 -0.04

Tennessee 1,070,697 272,668 25.47 170,068 15.88 185,208 17.30 326,827 30.52 47,315 4.42 92 0.01 11,93

6 1.11 12,159 1.14 8 0.00 44,416 4.15 0 0.00 

Texas 6,652,574 1,737,096 26.11 639,775 9.62 160,556 2.41 3,143,865 47.26 196,31

7 2.95 10,046 0.15 8,973 0.13 128,187 1.93 103,100 1.55 514,949 7.74 9,710 0.15 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

[11] 4,018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 4,018 100.00 

Utah [12] 979,275 37,917 3.87 150,947 15.41 89,388 9.13 131,622 13.44 18 0.00 6 0.00 4 0.00 - - - - 30,447 3.11 538,926 55.03 

Vermont [13] 83,525 1,134 1.36 13,451 16.10 17,251 20.65 41,526 49.72 - - - - - - 434 0.52 9,729 11.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Virginia 4,027,142 112,872 2.80 98,286 2.44 271,961 6.75 3,306,668 82.11 6,031 0.15 265 0.01 27 0.00 18,643 0.46 121,633 3.02 90,756 2.25 0 0.00 

Washington [14] 4,928,195 103,953 2.11 42,574 0.86 160,027 3.25 397,783 8.07 29,185 0.59 127 0.00 4,775 0.10 13,860 0.28 26,739 0.54 6,781 0.14 4,142,391 84.05 

West Virginia 287,111 16,128 5.62 18,960 6.60 43,609 15.19 94,795 33.02 - - - - - - - - - - 113,619 39.57 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [15] 685,702 24,132 3.52 83,610 12.19 156,503 22.82 - - - - - - - - - - 2,303 0.34 419,154 61.13 0 0.00 

Wyoming [16] 76,144 1,229 1.61 74,915 98.39 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 79,854,972 9,050,646 11.27 6,996,437 9.02 11,253,404 16.10 35,330,384 44.86 1,626,156 2.08 96,107 0.13 65,737 0.09 1,657,593 2.77 2,215,034 3.80 5,133,476 6.43 6,940,105 8.69 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 66 

NVRA Table 2a Calculation Notes 

• Total Applications uses question A3a. 

• Mail, Email, Fax, Total uses question A4a. 

• Mail, Email, Fax, Pct. uses question A4a divided by question A3a. 

• In-person, Total uses question A4b. 

• In-person, Pct. uses question A4b divided by question A3a. 

• Online, Total uses question A4c. 

• Online, Pct. uses question A4c divided by question A3a. 

• Motor Vehicle Offices, Total uses question A4d. 

• Motor Vehicle Offices, Pct. uses question A4d divided by question A3a. 

• Public Assistance Offices, Total uses question A4e. 

• Public Assistance Offices, Pct. uses question A4e divided by question A3a. 

• Disability Services Offices, Total uses question A4f. 

• Disability Services Offices, Pct. uses question A4f divided by question A3a. 

• Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Total uses question A4g. 

• Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Pct. uses question A4g divided by question A3a. 

• Other State Agencies, Total uses question A4h. 

• Other State Agencies, Pct. uses question A4h divided by question A3a. 

• Registration Drives, Total uses question A4i. 

• Registration Drives, Pct. uses question A4i divided by question A3a. 

• Other Sources, Total uses questions A4j, A4k and A4l. 

• Other Sources, Pct. uses the sum of questions A4j, A4k and A4l divided by question A3a. 

• Not Categorized, Total uses question A3a minus the sum of questions A4a to A4l. 

• Not Categorized, Pct. uses question A3a minus the sum of questions A4a to A4l, all divided by A3a. 

NVRA Table 2a Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation. For example, since several states did not have any data for Online 

registrations, their total 
 

67 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

registrations, their total reported registrations (A3a) were not used for the calculation of “Online registrations as a 

percentage of the total registrations received” at the national level (i.e., U.S. Total). 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of registrations received by source account for 

more than the total number of registrations received reported by the state. 

• The sum of the registrations received by source at the national level plus the total “not categorized” registrations does 

not add up to the total registrations received at the national level because Missouri reported data for items A4a – A4l 

(breakdown of registrations by source) but not for item A3a (total registrations), to which they responded “Data not 

available.” 

 

[1] Colorado reported regarding A4h: “Other agencies not mandated by NVRA – Colorado does not track this.”

[2] Hawaii reported: “Unable to differentiate registration data”

[3] Idaho reported: “The Idaho statewide voter registration system only tracks how online voter registration applications are 

received by the county clerks. also, Idaho code did not allow for registration cards to be submitted via email. Idaho is not covered 

by the NVRA because of election day registration. So there are no forms from any of the agencies that the NVRA requires.” Idaho 

responded “Does not apply” to questions A4a to A4l.

[4] Maine reported: “Maine doesn't have Online registrations; does not track individual agencies; all grouped under A4-7k”

[5] Michigan reported: “A4c MI does not currently have an Online voter registration mechanism. Totals reflected here are a result 

existing voters changing address through Michigan’s expresssos.com and registration updates are secondary to address changes 

on a driver's license or personal ID card. A4c is a subset of A3f.”

[6] Minnesota reported: “Some questions not applicable because Minnesota is NVRA exempt.”

[7] New Hampshire reported: “Election day registration state, not subject to NVRA, no online voter registration”

[8] New York reported: “No way to differentiate between Online and paper registrations from the DMV” 

[9] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

[10] Oregon reported: “Do not track registration form related to armed forces recruitment offices, registration drives, or number 

of invalid/rejected registrations. source of uncategorized registration cards not documented.”

[11] U.S. Virgin Islands responded “Does not apply” to items related to source of registration.
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 68 

[12] Utah reported: “A4-A7 the statewide voter database does not require counties to select ‘how registered’ before saving a 

voter record; therefore it has been used inconsistently across counties (regarding the total numbers, the numbers of duplicates, 

and the numbers of invalid/rejected). The only field that is collected automatically is ‘Internet’ registration (A4c), however, this 

was not tracked until part way through the data collection, in 2018). Data is only collected in A5e-i, A6d-i when a county makes a 

selection in ‘how registered.’ Regarding A4h, A54, A6h, and A7h: there are not other agencies (not mandated by NVRA) in Utah. 

Regarding A4i, A5i, A6i, and A7i: data is not collected on registration drives by advocacy groups or political parties.”

[13] Vermont reported: “A4 e, f, & g, VT has compiled all registrations from agencies under the NVRA into the answer A4h. We do 

not break them out by these designations.”

[14] Washington reported: “Cross-county registrations are not tracked by method - Same day registrations cannot be accurately 

separated from in-state address changes that were processed after election day”

[15] Wisconsin reported: “1. Only military voters were able to register by fax or email in Wisconsin during the reporting period. 2. 

Wisconsin is exempt from NVRA and does not receive registrations from NVRA agencies and does not collect data on rejected 

registrations. 3.Election day registrations in A4k are under-reported in some jurisdiction because of mis-coded registrations.”

[16] Wyoming reported: “Wyoming is exempt from NVRA.”
 

69 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 2b: Application Sources – New Registrations 

State Total New 

Registrations 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle Offices Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 569,730 16,038 2.82 33,647 5.91 104,620 18.36 357,839 62.81 18,329 3.22 2,457 0.43 92 0.02 4,800 0.84 18,673 3.28 13,235 2.32 0 0.00 

Alaska 80,446 2,610 3.24 3,578 4.45 5,842 7.26 20,490 25.47 1,386 1.72 39 0.05 124 0.15 56 0.07 0 0.00 46,321 57.58 0 0.00 

American Samoa 782 1 0.13 781 99.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Arizona 646,554 59,079 9.14 7,980 1.23 127,189 19.67 380,693 58.88 3,546 0.55 224 0.03 653 0.10 4,383 0.68 52,914 8.18 9,883 1.53 10 0.00 

Arkansas 214,677 34,268 15.96 29,927 13.94 - - 131,967 61.47 11,110 5.18 249 0.12 11 0.01 801 0.37 4,010 1.87 2,409 1.12 -75 -0.03 

California 2,481,206 290,000 11.69 173,212 6.98 1,156,687 46.62 472,835 19.06 24,879 1.00 1,077 0.04 2,080 0.08 64,256 2.59 50,662 2.04 78,963 3.18 166,555 6.71 

Colorado [1] 378,688 18,023 4.76 7,184 1.90 51,072 13.49 250,475 66.14 9,047 2.39 48 0.01 6 0.00 - - 27,909 7.37 14,924 3.94 0 0.00 

Connecticut 259,386 33,599 12.95 44,385 17.11 79,363 30.60 94,848 36.57 3,316 1.28 32 0.01 434 0.17 427 0.16 - - 2,982 1.15 0 0.00 

Delaware 67,236 1,171 1.74 1,573 2.34 4,120 6.13 57,846 86.03 609 0.91 0 0.00 0 0.00 507 0.75 948 1.41 462 0.69 0 0.00 

District of 

Columbia 58,684 204 0.35 8,761 14.93 8,444 14.39 38,245 65.17 55 0.09 19 0.03 12 0.02 2 0.00 71 0.12 2,871 4.89 0 0.00 

Florida 1,148,128 78,964 6.88 114,565 9.98 110,249 9.60 749,738 65.30 6,097 0.53 385 0.03 53 0.00 6,342 0.55 82,597 7.19 0 0.00 -862 -0.08 

Georgia 902,006 92,205 10.22 22,938 2.54 67,085 7.44 697,335 77.31 10,004 1.11 8,253 0.91 15 0.00 - - - - 4,171 0.46 0 0.00 

Guam 10,433 - - - - - - 38 0.36 1,105 10.59 - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 9,290 89.04 

Hawaii [2] 75,706 - - - - 15,016 19.83 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 60,690 80.17 

Idaho [3] 156,602 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 156,602 100.00 

Illinois [4] - 291,381 - 142,584 - 723,761 - 584,558 - 69,694 - 4,398 - 736 - 79,412 - 127,221 - 0 - - - 

Indiana 387,560 67,233 17.35 872 0.22 71,203 18.37 175,366 45.25 6,549 1.69 137 0.04 113 0.03 5 0.00 0 0.00 47,166 12.17 18,916 4.88 

Iowa 111,698 7,822 7.00 18,009 16.12 1,178 1.05 73,675 65.96 1,418 1.27 19 0.02 8 0.01 55 0.05 - - 9,514 8.52 0 0.00 

Kansas 236,774 21,057 8.89 19,368 8.18 57,528 24.30 111,248 46.98 485 0.20 58 0.02 5 0.00 1,063 0.45 14,470 6.11 10,768 4.55 724 0.31 

Kentucky 193,967 3,799 1.96 25,748 13.27 28,231 14.55 128,841 66.42 2,629 1.36 579 0.30 164 0.08 - - - - 3,966 2.04 10 0.01 

Louisiana 213,751 38,581 18.05 15,249 7.13 65,401 30.60 78,916 36.92 12,282 5.75 1,736 0.81 244 0.11 - - 1,342 0.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Maine [5] 52,127 3,430 6.58 41,692 79.98 - - 1,240 2.38 - - - - - - - - 3,080 5.91 2,685 5.15 0 0.00 

Maryland 339,607 22,849 6.73 12,898 3.80 36,035 10.61 305,388 89.92 3,920 1.15 86 0.03 53 0.02 4,748 1.40 - - 20,630 6.07 -67,000 -19.73 

Massachusetts 327,104 50,736 15.51 26,398 8.07 108,119 33.05 126,877 38.79 12,652 3.87 1,321 0.40 - - 1,001 0.31 - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Michigan 1,164,718 32,860 2.82 84,106 7.22 - - 1,046,191 89.82 1,329 0.11 194 0.02 38 0.00 - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Minnesota [6] 278,842 18,102 6.49 150,221 53.87 78,019 27.98 22,668 8.13 - - - - - - - - 8,484 3.04 1,348 0.48 0 0.00 

Mississippi 187,828 45,021 23.97 47,545 25.31 - - 69,255 36.87 14,510 7.73 440 0.23 0 0.00 1,809 0.96 0 0.00 9,248 4.92 0 0.00 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 70 

NVRA Table 2b: Application Sources – New Registrations 

State Total New 

Registrations 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle Offices Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Missouri [7] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Montana 42,251 6,536 15.47 8,348 19.76 - - 19,874 47.04 389 0.92 1 0.00 9 0.02 - - 5,840 13.82 1,254 2.97 0 0.00 

Nebraska 132,848 22,864 17.21 1,814 1.37 22,809 17.17 84,906 63.91 195 0.15 10 0.01 2 0.00 - - - - 248 0.19 0 0.00 

Nevada 189,615 20,261 10.69 4,128 2.18 37,778 19.92 69,011 36.40 7,545 3.98 227 0.12 289 0.15 156 0.08 50,220 26.49 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 

[8] 51,752 280 0.54 51,472 99.46 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Jersey 528,963 1,037 0.20 

- - - - 

346,879 65.58 15,238 2.88 1,217 0.23 572 0.11 147,206 27.83 

- - 

13,383 2.53 3,431 0.65 

New Mexico 70,177 8,273 11.79 8,713 12.42 9,684 13.80 35,750 50.94 7,606 10.84 

- - - - - - - - 

40 0.06 111 0.16 

New York [9] 1,046,742 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 1,046,742 100.00 

North Carolina 916,291 100,192 10.93 127,084 13.87 

- - 

575,829 62.84 24,249 2.65 867 0.09 3 0.00 40 0.00 74,565 8.14 13,462 1.47 0 0.00 

North Dakota 

[10] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

Ohio 848,402 138,259 16.30 108,191 12.75 175,371 20.67 299,391 35.29 48,411 5.71 1,297 0.15 71 0.01 29,080 3.43 48,331 5.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oklahoma 264,757 65,916 24.90 53,351 20.15 

- - 

113,915 43.03 22,918 8.66 638 0.24 8 0.00 13 0.00 

- - 

7,998 3.02 0 0.00 

Oregon [11] 371,614 15,329 4.12 16,592 4.46 38,150 10.27 292,157 78.62 2,145 0.58 1,926 0.52 

- - 

5,008 1.35 

- - 

307 0.08 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 445,277 58,912 13.23 6,074 1.36 127,001 28.52 182,456 40.98 16,357 3.67 521 0.12 6 0.00 

- - 

33,515 7.53 20,435 4.59 0 0.00 

Rhode Island 80,687 5,218 6.47 8,527 10.57 12,603 15.62 51,032 63.25 

- - - - - - - - - - 

3,307 4.10 0 0.00 

South Carolina 172,514 11,671 6.77 3,466 2.01 45,625 26.45 110,065 63.80 1,686 0.98 1 0.00 0 0.00 

- - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

South Dakota 47,404 5,920 12.49 8,694 18.34 

- - 

28,150 59.38 1,240 2.62 9 0.02 2 0.00 653 1.38 2,813 5.93 36 0.08 -113 -0.24 

Tennessee 545,243 108,125 19.83 73,024 13.39 133,603 24.50 199,527 36.59 20,394 3.74 61 0.01 6,715 1.23 2,751 0.50 8 0.00 1,035 0.19 0 0.00 

Texas 2,749,990 754,674 27.44 220,553 8.02 15,997 0.58 1,312,533 47.73 70,229 2.55 7,163 0.26 7,170 0.26 33,764 1.23 48,127 1.75 109,961 4.00 169,819 6.18 

U.S. Virgin 

Islands 4,018 

- - 

4,018 100.00 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

Utah [12] 151,215 31,521 20.85 5,610 3.71 38,059 25.17 113,968 75.37 17 0.01 5 0.00 3 0.00 

- - - - 

0 0.00 -37,968 -25.11 

Vermont [13] 78,010 1,134 1.45 13,451 17.24 15,437 19.79 37,825 48.49 

- - - - - - 

434 0.56 9,729 12.47 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Virginia 499,584 38,140 7.63 46,144 9.24 71,592 14.33 286,133 57.27 2,794 0.56 138 0.03 12 0.00 796 0.16 53,614 10.73 221 0.04 0 0.00 

Washington 648,528 69,055 10.65 38,886 6.00 147,347 22.72 335,243 51.69 18,334 2.83 109 0.02 2,071 0.32 13,641 2.10 22,092 3.41 1,750 0.27 0 0.00 

West Virginia 76,858 6,890 8.96 10,736 13.97 13,365 17.39 42,904 55.82 

- - - - - - - - - - 

2,963 3.86 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [14] 343,667 7,946 2.31 29,935 8.71 156,499 45.54 

- - - - - - - - - - 

1,170 0.34 148,117 43.10 0 0.00 

Wyoming [15] 22,239 692 3.11 21,547 96.89 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 20,872,886 2,707,878 12.34 1,903,579 9.24 3,960,082 20.02 10,514,120 51.79 474,698 2.18 35,941 0.17 21,774 0.12 403,209 2.19 742,405 4.28 606,063 2.90 1,526,882 7.32 
 

71 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 2b Calculation Notes 

(1) Total New Registrations uses question A3b 

(2) Mail, Email, Fax, Total uses question A5a. 

(3) Mail, Email, Fax, Pct. uses question A5a divided by question A3b. 

(4) In-person, Total uses question A5b. 

(5) In-person, Pct. uses question A5b divided by question A3b. 

(6) Online, Total uses question A5c. 

(7) Online, Pct. uses question A5c divided by question A3b. 

(8) Motor Vehicle Offices, Total uses question A5d. 

(9) Motor Vehicle Offices, Pct. uses question A5d divided by question A3b. 

(10) Public Assistance Offices, Total uses question A5e. 

(11) Public Assistance Offices, Pct. uses question A5e divided by question A3b. 

(12) Disability Services Offices, Total uses question A5f. 

(13) Disability Services Offices, Pct. uses question A5f divided by question A3b. 

(14) Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Total uses question A5g. 

(15) Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Pct. uses question A5g divided by question A3b. 

(16) Other State Agencies, Total uses question A5h. 

(17) Other State Agencies, Pct. uses question A5h divided by question A3b. 

(18) Registration Drives, Total uses question A5i. 

(19) Registration Drives, Pct. uses question A5i divided by question A3b. 

(20) Other Sources, Total uses questions A5j, A5k and A5l. 

(21) Other Sources, Pct. uses the sum of questions A5j, A5k and A5l divided by question A3b. 

(22) Not Categorized, Total uses question A3b minus the sum of questions A5a to A5l. 

(23) Not Categorized, Pct. uses question A3b minus the sum of questions A5a to A5l, all divided by A3b. 

NVRA Table 2b Data Notes 

 General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation. 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 72 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of new registrations received by source 

account for more than the total number of new registrations received reported by the state. 

• The sum of new registrations received by source at the national level plus the total “not categorized” new 

registrations does not add up to the total new registrations received at the national level because Illinois reported 

data for items A5a – A5l (breakdown of new registrations by source) but not for item A3b (total new registrations). 

[1] Colorado reported regarding A5h: “Other agencies not mandated by NVRA – Colorado does not track this.”

[2] Hawaii reported: “Unable to differentiate registration data”

[3] Idaho reported: “The Idaho statewide voter registration system only tracks how online voter registration applications are 

received by the county clerks. Also, Idaho code did not allow for registration cards to be submitted via email. Idaho is not 

covered by the NVRA because of election day registration. So there are no forms from any of the agencies that the NVRA 

requires.”

[4] Illinois responded “Data not available” to item A3b (Total new registrations). Since item A3b is used to calculate the 

percentages in this table, all the percentage cells are blank for Illinois and only their totals per registration source are 

reported. 

[5] Maine reported: “Maine doesn't have Online registrations; does not track individual agencies; all grouped under A4-7k”

[6] Minnesota reported: “Some questions not applicable because Minnesota is NVRA exempt.”

[7] Missouri responded “Does not apply” to all the items reported in this table.

[8] New Hampshire reported: “Election day registration state, not subject to NVRA, no online voter registration”

[9] New York responded “Data not available” to items A5a to A5l. 

[10] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

[11] Oregon reported: “Do not track registration form related to armed forces recruitment offices, registration drives, or 

number of invalid/rejected registrations. source of uncategorized registration cards not documented.”

[12] Utah reported: “A4-A7 the statewide voter database does not require counties to select ‘how registered’ before saving a 

voter record; therefore it has been used inconsistently across counties (regarding the total numbers, the numbers of 

duplicates, and the numbers of invalid/rejected). The only field that is collected automatically is ‘Internet’ registration (A4c), 

however, this was not tracked until part way through the data collection, in 2018). Data is only collected in A5e-i, A6d-i when 

a county makes a selection in ‘how registered.’ regarding A4h, A54, A6h, and A7h: there are not other agencies (not 

mandated by NVRA) in Utah. regarding A4i, A5i, A6i, and A7i: data is not collected on registration drives by advocacy groups or 

political parties.”
 

73 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

[13] Vermont reported: “A5 e, f, & g, VT has compiled all registrations from agencies under the NVRA into the answer A5h. We do 

not break them out by these designations.” 

[14] Wisconsin reported: “1. Only military voters were able to register by fax or email in Wisconsin during the reporting period. 

2. Wisconsin is exempt from NVRA and does not receive registrations from NVRA agencies and does not collect data on rejected 

registrations. 3.Election day registrations in A4k are under-reported in some jurisdiction because of mis-coded registrations.”

[15] Wyoming reported: “Wyoming is exempt from NVRA.”
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 74 

NVRA Table 2c: Application Sources – Duplicate Registrations 

State Total Duplicate 

Applications 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle Offices Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services 

Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama [1] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Alaska 4,485 580 12.93 2,691 60.00 538 12.00 418 9.32 78 1.74 1 0.02 24 0.54 1 0.02 0 0.00 154 3.43 0 0.00 

American Samoa 214 0 0.00 214 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Arizona 68,885 16,222 23.55 1,004 1.46 1,567 2.27 38,461 55.83 316 0.46 54 0.08 138 0.20 2,328 3.38 5,342 7.75 3,453 5.01 0 0.00 

Arkansas [2] - 0 - 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - - - 

California 1,189,252 265,454 22.32 176,757 14.86 979,465 82.36 726,609 61.10 13,072 1.10 182 0.02 867 0.07 3,741 0.31 15,936 1.34 32,588 2.74 -

1,025,419 

-

86.22 

Colorado [3] 4,010 275 6.86 60 1.50 536 13.37 2,568 64.04 411 10.25 1 0.02 0 0.00 - - 99 2.47 60 1.50 0 0.00 

Connecticut [4] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Delaware 59,177 237 0.40 116 0.20 2,233 3.77 56,036 94.69 62 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.00 83 0.14 408 0.69 0 0.00 

District of Columbia 13,869 221 1.59 932 6.72 1,037 7.48 3,669 26.45 3 0.02 21 0.15 1 0.01 16 0.12 21 0.15 7,948 57.31 0 0.00 

Florida 8,234 1,264 15.35 1,215 14.76 494 6.00 3,438 41.75 94 1.14 2 0.02 0 0.00 52 0.63 1,656 20.11 19 0.23 0 0.00 

Georgia 444,326 7,164 1.61 1,803 0.41 11,797 2.66 421,742 94.92 85 0.02 928 0.21 0 0.00 - - - - 807 0.18 0 0.00 

Guam 4 - - 4 100.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Hawaii [4] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Idaho [5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Illinois 102,620 10,260 10.00 5,314 5.18 20,815 20.28 35,907 34.99 12,768 12.44 989 0.96 2 0.00 13,017 12.68 3,527 3.44 0 0.00 21 0.02 

Indiana 127,901 23,481 18.36 198 0.15 23,428 18.32 55,155 43.12 3,146 2.46 65 0.05 275 0.22 1 0.00 0 0.00 17,989 14.06 4,163 3.25 

Iowa 33,227 2,980 8.97 7,730 23.26 371 1.12 12,338 37.13 309 0.93 15 0.05 4 0.01 26 0.08 - - 9,454 28.45 0 0.00 

Kansas [4] 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 0 - 

Kentucky [5] - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Louisiana 12,028 3,138 26.09 121 1.01 2,996 24.91 2,131 17.72 3,394 28.22 142 1.18 3 0.02 - - 103 0.86 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Maine [6] 2,948 308 10.45 1,559 52.88 - - 660 22.39 - - - - - - - - 76 2.58 345 11.70 0 0.00 

Maryland 3,455 386 11.17 493 14.27 357 10.33 1,573 45.53 73 2.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 120 3.47 - - 453 13.11 0 0.00 

Massachusetts 277,689 3,390 1.22 980 0.35 178,721 64.36 91,197 32.84 3,222 1.16 39 0.01 - - 140 0.05 - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Michigan 160,777 8,825 5.49 4,203 2.61 0 0.00 146,705 91.25 950 0.59 87 0.05 7 0.00 - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Minnesota [7] 94,471 6,492 6.87 40,996 43.40 11,328 11.99 28,674 30.35 - - - - - - - - 1,824 1.93 5,157 5.46 0 0.00 

Mississippi 52,020 0 0.00 0 0.00 - - 52,020 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 
 

75 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 2c: Application Sources – Duplicate Registrations 

State Total Duplicate 

Applications 

Application Source 

Mail, email, fax. In-person Online Motor Vehicle Offices Public Assistance 

Offices 

Disability 

Services 

Offices 

Armed Forces 

Recruitment 

Offices 

Other State 

Agencies 

Registration 

Drives— Advocacy 

Groups or Parties 

Other Sources Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Missouri [5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Montana 10,704 2,978 27.82 444 4.15 - - 5,444 50.86 244 2.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 - - 1,112 10.39 482 4.50 0 0.00 

Nebraska 42,837 7,950 18.56 1,015 2.37 9,080 21.20 23,200 54.16 3 0.01 917 2.14 0 0.00 - - - - 672 1.57 0 0.00 

Nevada 9,833 317 3.22 91 0.93 406 4.13 3,396 34.54 363 3.69 18 0.18 0 0.00 24 0.24 5,218 53.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Hampshire [8] 1,885 10 0.53 1,875 99.47 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Jersey 63,002 252 0.40 

- - - - 

36,970 58.68 1,852 2.94 40 0.06 123 0.20 22,353 35.48 

- - 

1,194 1.90 218 0.35 

New Mexico [5] 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

New York 411,170 209,385 50.92 7,213 1.75 

- - 

171,208 41.64 11,289 2.75 

- - 

178 0.04 11,897 2.89 

- - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

North Carolina 660,201 164,991 24.99 189,630 28.72 

- - 

169,406 25.66 6,376 0.97 224 0.03 5 0.00 6,189 0.94 22,622 3.43 100,758 15.26 0 0.00 

North Dakota [9] 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

Ohio 450,301 74,343 16.51 55,093 12.23 39,633 8.80 135,892 30.18 75,866 16.85 1,052 0.23 39 0.01 9,121 2.03 59,262 13.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oklahoma 913 161 17.63 135 14.79 0 0.00 403 44.14 75 8.21 4 0.44 0 0.00 2 0.22 

- - 

133 14.57 0 0.00 

Oregon [10] 1,114 292 26.21 208 18.67 209 18.76 328 29.44 22 1.97 33 2.96 

- - 

18 1.62 

- -

4 0.36 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 261,710 11,194 4.28 3,221 1.23 23,186 8.86 202,504 77.38 9,971 3.81 75 0.03 

- - - - 

2,270 0.87 9,289 3.55 0 0.00 

Rhode Island [5] 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

South Carolina [5] 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

South Dakota 112 44 39.29 47 41.96 0 0.00 3 2.68 8 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.89 9 8.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Tennessee 87,253 20,758 23.79 3,247 3.72 21,451 24.58 37,695 43.20 3,079 3.53 2 0.00 517 0.59 463 0.53 0 0.00 41 0.05 0 0.00 

Texas 1,020,542 151,605 14.86 46,155 4.52 20,624 2.02 661,939 64.86 36,702 3.60 514 0.05 383 0.04 13,174 1.29 12,152 1.19 29,538 2.89 47,756 4.68 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

[5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

Utah [12] 4,299 611 14.21 8 0.19 

- - 

10 0.23 

- - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 3,670 85.37 

Vermont [13] 3,376 

- - - - 

1,595 47.25 1,781 52.75 

- - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

Virginia 1,654,279 18,218 1.10 6,587 0.40 44,222 2.67 1,562,403 94.45 758 0.05 39 0.00 2 0.00 3,747 0.23 13,360 0.81 4,943 0.30 0 0.00 

Washington 134,538 34,557 25.69 3,685 2.74 12,422 9.23 62,119 46.17 10,160 7.55 16 0.01 2,621 1.95 203 0.15 4,082 3.03 4,673 3.47 0 0.00 

West Virginia 3,428 

- - - - 

285 8.31 3,143 91.69 

- - - - - - - - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

Wisconsin 9,662 476 4.93 807 8.35 0 0.00 

- - - - - - - - - - 

18 0.19 8,361 86.53 0 0.00 

Wyoming [4] 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

U.S. Total 7,490,751 1,048,819 14.01 565,851 7.63 1,408,796 22.42 4,757,145 63.60 194,751 2.64 5,460 0.08 5,189 0.08 86,636 1.35 148,772 2.46 238,923 3.19 -969,591 -

12.94 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 76

NVRA Table 2c Calculation Notes 

(1) Total Duplicate Registrations uses question A3d.

(2) Mail, Email, Fax, Total uses question A6a.

(3) Mail, Email, Fax, Pct. uses question A6a divided by question A3d.

(4) In-person, Total uses question A6b.

(5) In-person, Pct. uses question A6b divided by question A3d.

(6) Online, Total uses question A6c.

(7) Online, Pct. uses question A6c divided by question A3d.

(8) Motor Vehicle Offices, Total uses question A6d.

(9) Motor Vehicle Offices, Pct. uses question A6d divided by question A3d.

(10) Public Assistance Offices, Total uses question A6e.

(11) Public Assistance Offices, Pct. uses question A6e divided by question A3d.

(12) Disability Services Offices, Total uses question A6f.

(13) Disability Services Offices, Pct. uses question A6f divided by question A3d.

(14) Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Total uses question A6g.

(15) Armed Forces Recruitment Offices, Pct. uses question A6g divided by question A3d.

(16) Other State Agencies, Total uses question A6h.

(17) Other State Agencies, Pct. uses question A6h divided by question A3d.

(18) Registration Drives, Total uses question A6i.

(19) Registration Drives, Pct. uses question A6i divided by question A3d.

(20) Other Sources, Total uses questions A6j, A6k and A6l.

(21) Other Sources, Pct. uses the sum of questions A6j, A6k and A6l divided by question A3d.

(22) Not Categorized, Total uses question A3d minus the sum of questions A6a to A6l.

(23) Not Categorized, Pct. uses question A3d minus the sum of questions A6a to A6l, all divided by A3d.

NVRA Table 2c Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the

numerator and denominator of the calculation.
77 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of duplicate registrations received by source

account for more than the total number of duplicate registrations received reported by the state.

[1] Alabama responded “Data not available” for items in A6. Alabama reported: “Alabama does not track duplicates through

registration form source”

[2] Arkansas responded “Data not available” to question A3d (Total duplicate registrations), “Does not apply” to question A6c

(duplicate Online registrations), and zero to the rest of the items involved in this table.

[3] Colorado reported regarding A6h: “Other agencies not mandated by NVRA – Colorado does not track this.”

[4] Responded “Data not available” to all or most of the items involved in the table.

[5] Responded “Does not apply” to all or most of the items involved in the table.

[6] Maine reported: “Maine doesn't have Online registrations; does not track individual agencies; all grouped under A4-7k”

[7] Minnesota reported: “Some questions not applicable because Minnesota is NVRA exempt.”

[8] New Hampshire reported: “Election day registration state, not subject to NVRA, no online voter registration”

[9] North Dakota does not have voter registration.

[10] Oregon reported: “Do not track registration form related to armed forces recruitment offices, registration drives, or number

of invalid/rejected registrations. source of uncategorized registration cards not documented.”

[12] Utah reported: “A4-A7 the statewide voter database does not require counties to select ‘how registered’ before saving a

voter record; therefore it has been used inconsistently across counties (regarding the total numbers, the numbers of duplicates,

and the numbers of invalid/rejected). The only field that is collected automatically is ‘Internet’ registration (A4c), however, this

was not tracked until part way through the data collection, in 2018). Data is only collected in A5e-i, A6d-i when a county makes a

selection in ‘how registered.’ Regarding A4h, A54, A6h, and A7h: there are not other agencies (not mandated by NVRA) in Utah.

Regarding A4i, A5i, A6i, and A7i: data is not collected on registration drives by advocacy groups or political parties.”

[13] Vermont reported: “A6 & 7 e, f & g are not reported because we do not enter these registrations into our system because

they are received as a paper registration. Clerks do not track the rejections or duplicates.”

[14] Wisconsin reported: “1. Only military voters were able to register by fax or email in Wisconsin during the reporting period. 2.

Wisconsin is exempt from NVRA and does not receive registrations from NVRA agencies and does not collect data on rejected

registrations. 3.Election day registrations in A4k are under-reported in some jurisdiction because of mis-coded registrations.”
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 78 

NVRA Table 3a: Voter List Maintenance – Confirmation Notices 

State 

Confirmation Notices 

Sent 

Result of Confirmation Notice 

Received Confirmation 

From Voter 

Confirmation 

Returned as 

Undeliverable 

Status Unknown Other Not Categorized 

Valid Invalid 

Total 

Pct. 

Active 

Voters 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 416,632 13.17 5,984 1.44 42,411 10.18 229,407 55.06 138,830 33.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Alaska [1] 122,433 21.41 3,120 2.55 - - 29,858 24.39 80,192 65.50 0 0.00 9,263 7.57 

American Samoa [2] 0 0.00 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Arizona 2,154,139 57.98 87,220 4.05 49,763 2.31 242,934 11.28 1,776,074 82.45 0 0.00 -1,852 -0.09 

Arkansas 239,184 16.42 85,260 35.65 20,386 8.52 33,510 14.01 100,773 42.13 0 0.00 -745 -0.31 

California 2,586,236 13.11 430,577 16.65 317,788 12.29 162,129 6.27 987,932 38.20 347,959 13.45 339,851 13.14 

Colorado 323,475 9.44 6,595 2.04 4,447 1.37 - - 312,433 96.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Connecticut 284,361 12.96 111,798 39.32 - - - - 172,831 60.78 0 0.00 -268 -0.09 

Delaware 36,804 5.47 23,205 63.05 653 1.77 10,489 28.50 2,457 6.68 0 0.00 0 0.00 

District of Columbia 187,116 36.57 10,259 5.48 10,835 5.79 21,223 11.34 112,621 60.19 32,178 17.20 0 0.00 

Florida 1,135,237 8.55 90,332 7.96 131,311 11.57 340,116 29.96 572,291 50.41 714 0.06 473 0.04 

Georgia 478,295 7.43 36,452 7.62 3,401 0.71 73,292 15.32 365,150 76.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Guam 760 1.36 760 100.00 - - - - - - 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Hawaii 795,026 111.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 340 0.04 794,686 99.96 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Idaho [3] 106,420 11.60 - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 106,420 100.00 

Illinois 585,296 7.23 92,643 15.83 205,078 35.04 83,927 14.34 203,648 34.79 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Indiana [3] - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Iowa [4] 204,815 10.05 - - - - - - 137,011 66.90 0 0.00 67,804 33.10 

Kansas [5] 228,732 13.69 14,750 6.45 32,535 14.22 13,888 6.07 169,596 74.15 0 0.00 -2,037 -0.89 

Kentucky [6] 614,210 18.05 - - - - 264,472 43.06 350,535 57.07 0 0.00 -797 -0.13 

Louisiana [3] 364,221 12.75 - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 364,221 100.00 

Maine 125 0.01 0 0.00 27 21.60 0 0.00 66 52.80 32 25.60 0 0.00 

Maryland [7] 872,626 22.07 10,743 1.23 38,160 4.37 - - 823,723 94.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Massachusetts [3] 543,177 13.76 - - - - - - - - 543,177 100.00 0 0.00 

Michigan 170,881 2.63 119 0.07 17,050 9.98 27,247 15.95 126,465 74.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Minnesota [3] 75,474 2.21 - - - - - - - - 75,474 100.00 0 0.00 

Mississippi 103,627 5.51 - - 0 0.00 - - 103,627 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 
 

79 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 3a: Voter List Maintenance – Confirmation Notices 

State 

Confirmation Notices 

Sent 

Result of Confirmation Notice 

Received Confirmation 

From Voter 

Confirmation 

Returned as 

Undeliverable 

Status Unknown Other Not Categorized 

Valid Invalid 

Total 

Pct. 

Active 

Voters 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Missouri 472,431 12.42 8,228 1.74 - - 96,344 20.39 - - 124,745 26.40 243,114 51.46 

Montana 84,153 13.65 6,543 7.78 1,491 1.77 20,992 24.95 54,914 65.25 213 0.25 0 0.00 

Nebraska 168,746 15.38 25,082 14.86 24,737 14.66 17,114 10.14 101,813 60.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Nevada 259,573 16.60 83,533 32.18 14,823 5.71 115,888 44.65 45,329 17.46 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 32,362 3.28 314 0.97 - - 4,769 14.74 27,281 84.30 0 0.00 -2 -0.01 

New Jersey [4] 348,453 6.39 - - - - - - - - 0 0.00 348,453 100.00 

New Mexico 54,022 7.74 1,488 2.75 155 0.29 14,414 26.68 37,965 70.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New York 405,036 3.47 16,980 4.19 28,922 7.14 44,680 11.03 166,330 41.07 0 0.00 148,124 36.57 

North Carolina 1,024,832 17.38 - - - - 333,952 32.59 630,339 61.51 60,541 5.91 0 0.00 

North Dakota [8] - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - 

Ohio 860,060 10.66 158,414 18.42 35,483 4.13 66,034 7.68 600,129 69.78 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oklahoma 264,386 14.23 36,692 13.88 6,228 2.36 31,723 12.00 189,743 71.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oregon [4] 329,246 11.98 - - - - - - - - 329,246 100.00 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 373,994 4.83 40,308 10.78 40,041 10.71 17,597 4.71 276,048 73.81 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Rhode Island [4] 11,069 1.50 - - - - - - 11,069 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

South Carolina 275,463 7.78 36,340 13.19 2,156 0.78 47,010 17.07 185,729 67.42 4,228 1.53 0 0.00 

South Dakota 31,036 5.75 728 2.35 782 2.52 21,323 68.70 8,203 26.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Tennessee 186,429 4.95 20,789 11.15 5,337 2.86 27,573 14.79 132,730 71.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Texas 1,850,540 13.42 345,545 18.67 52,790 2.85 208,780 11.28 970,963 52.47 36,714 1.98 235,748 12.74 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

[3] - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

Utah [9] 102,781 7.17 98 0.10 4,137 4.03 17,544 17.07 - - 0 0.00 81,002 78.81 

Vermont [3] 625 0.14 - - - - - - - - 625 100.00 0 0.00 

Virginia 422,514 8.01 61,731 14.61 - - 7,289 1.73 353,494 83.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Washington 556,320 12.75 177,904 31.98 173,173 31.13 72,020 12.95 263,791 47.42 0 0.00 -130,568 -23.47 

West Virginia 124,880 12.98 18,806 15.06 1,019 0.82 11,850 9.49 86,687 69.42 6,518 5.22 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [10] 723,171 21.01 34,481 4.77 - - 238,308 32.95 450,382 62.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Wyoming [11] 3,697 1.30 613 16.58 - - 621 16.80 2,395 64.78 68 1.84 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 21,595,121 11.58 2,084,434 11.67 1,265,119 7.95 2,948,657 16.36 11,926,275 61.95 1,562,432 7.24 1,808,204 8.37 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 80 

NVRA Table 3a Calculation Notes 

(1) Confirmation Notices Sent, Total uses question A8a. 

(2) Confirmation Notices Sent as Pct. of Active Voters uses question A8a divided by question A1b. 

(3) Confirmation Notices Received - Valid, Total uses question A8b. 

(4) Confirmation Notices Received - Valid, Pct. uses question A8b divided by question A8a. 

(5) Confirmation Notices Received - Invalid, Total uses question A8c. 

(6) Confirmation Notices Received - Invalid, Pct. uses question A8c divided by question A8a. 

(7) Confirmation Notice Returned Undeliverable, Total uses question A8d. 

(8) Confirmation Notice Returned Undeliverable, Pct. uses question A8d divided by question A8a. 

(9) Status Unknown, Total uses question A8e. 

(10) Status Unknown, Pct. uses question A8e divided by question A8a. 

(11) Other Confirmation Notices, Total uses the sum of questions A8f, A8g and A8h. 

(12) Other Confirmation Notices, Pct. uses the sum of questions A8f, A8g and A8h, all divided by question A8a. 

(13) Not Categorized Confirmation Notices, Total uses question A8a minus the sum of questions A8b to A8h. 

(14) Not Categorized Confirmation Notices, Pct. uses question A8a minus the sum of questions A8b to A8h, all divided by 

question A8a. 

NVRA Table 3a Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of confirmation notice’s categories account for 

more than the total number of confirmation notices reported by the state. 

 

[1] Alaska reported: “A8c: Alaska does not have a tracking method for cards returned requesting cancellation in Alaska.”

[2] Responded zero to all or most items involved in this table. 

[3] Responded “Does not apply” to all or most items in the table:
 

81 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

• Idaho reported: “A8a only includes the number of notices mailed to voters for being purged for not voting in the last two 

federal primary and general elections. Idaho law does not require cancellation notices to be mailed to voters except for 

purging.”

• Indiana reported: “Indiana’s understanding is this aligns with voter list maintenance activities. Indiana does not send the 

removal notices referenced by the EAC survey, Indiana provided the number of voter records cancelled due to being in 

inactive status for more than 2 federal general elections for question A9e.”

• Louisiana reported: “Confirmation notices are sent pursuant to 52 USC §20507(d)(2). The department of state only 

collects the data for the total number of sent confirmation notices.”

• Minnesota reported: “Minnesota is NVRA exempt. Minnesota sends a notice if a registration will be inactivated because of 

an NCOA or ERIC out-of-state move.”

[4] Responded “Data not available” to all or most items in the table:

• Iowa reported: “System does not track follow up status information”

[5] Kansas reported: “The NVRA process is being carried out in all 105 counties. The numbers provided are the best information 

available to our office.”

[6] Kentucky reported: “First postcard, non-forwardable sent. Second postcard has not been sent. Our system tracks all 

undeliverable mail to qualify for the 2nd postcard mailing and can't differentiate on the status unknown. Therefore, some ‘status 

unknown’ may be higher.”

[7] Maryland reported: “A8d data is included in A8e”

[8] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

[9] Utah reported: “A8a-A8e: these numbers were run through the state's voter registration database based on statuses entered 

by counties. It appears some counties did not mark confirmation notices as ‘sent,’ even if they were yet are marking the notice as 

‘received’ when they get it back; therefore, some counties have a higher number of confirmations received back, than 

confirmations sent. A8e is not tracked.”

[10] Wisconsin reported: “Wisconsin is exempt from NVRA, however we sent notices to voters who have not voted in a 4-year 

period, as well as ERIC mover mailings.”

[11] Only three jurisdictions reported data for this table. The rest of the counties reported: “County does not track information” 

and responded “Data not available” to the items involved in the table.
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 82 

NVRA Table 3b: Voter List Maintenance – Removal Actions 

State 

Voters Removed Reason for Removal 

Total 

Pct. 

Registered 

Voters 

Moved Out of 

Jurisdiction Death 

Failure to Return 

Confirmation 

Notice 

Voter’s Request Felony or 

Conviction 

Mental 

Incompetence Other Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama 237,627 6.86 59,698 25.12 76,261 32.09 69,545 29.27 246 0.10 9,834 4.14 194 0.08 21,467 9.03 382 0.16 

Alaska 51,737 8.28 4,450 8.60 7,997 15.46 30,585 59.12 7,611 14.71 1,094 2.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

American Samoa 2,678 17.25 0 0.00 106 3.96 2,572 96.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Arizona 437,701 10.23 109,420 25.00 92,073 21.04 180,355 41.21 26,945 6.16 22,165 5.06 623 0.14 6,120 1.40 0 0.00 

Arkansas 136,550 7.64 12,817 9.39 39,111 28.64 69,106 50.61 637 0.47 6,823 5.00 108 0.08 7,948 5.82 0 0.00 

California 733,618 2.91 89,426 12.19 404,144 55.09 9,463 1.29 20,521 2.80 23,639 3.22 579 0.08 179,661 24.49 6,185 0.84 

Colorado [1] 289,247 7.32 31,257 10.81 55,825 19.30 172,379 59.60 22,745 7.86 6,506 2.25 

- - 

535 0.18 0 0.00 

Connecticut 100,936 4.26 35,054 34.73 17,107 16.95 10,405 10.31 28,916 28.65 1,706 1.69 

- - 

7,748 7.68 0 0.00 

Delaware 52,454 7.55 20,204 38.52 13,637 26.00 16,410 31.28 392 0.75 1,804 3.44 0 0.00 7 0.01 0 0.00 

District of 

Columbia 27,683 4.49 4,085 14.76 6,582 23.78 10,823 39.10 - - 

164 0.59 

- - 

6,029 21.78 0 0.00 

Florida 1,046,514 7.41 68,895 6.58 304,281 29.08 590,780 56.45 31,901 3.05 47,197 4.51 2,033 0.19 1,427 0.14 0 0.00 

Georgia [2] 797,124 11.48 11,865 1.49 126,036 15.81 524,654 65.82 3,048 0.38 68,249 8.56 47 0.01 63,225 7.93 0 0.00 

Guam 8,305 14.85 391 4.71 553 6.66 7,296 87.85 

- - - - 

65 0.78 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Hawaii 30,976 4.09 3,651 11.79 25,690 82.94 0 0.00 1,523 4.92 72 0.23 0 0.00 40 0.13 0 0.00 

Idaho 106,420 11.60 3,955 3.72 13,662 12.84 86,223 81.02 300 0.28 973 0.91 

- - 

1,307 1.23 0 0.00 

Illinois 866,679 9.90 307,842 35.52 122,941 14.19 352,867 40.71 2,279 0.26 

- - - - 

80,750 9.32 0 0.00 

Indiana [3] 1,292,252 28.72 11,832 0.92 73,814 5.71 452,238 35.00 

- - 

5,468 0.42 

- - 

5,996 0.46 742,904 57.49 

Iowa 87,562 3.99 34,623 39.54 46,327 52.91 929 1.06 743 0.85 4,885 5.58 55 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Kansas 148,064 8.07 29,396 19.85 39,529 26.70 69,200 46.74 518 0.35 3,889 2.63 45 0.03 5,398 3.65 89 0.06 

Kentucky 92,710 2.72 6,875 7.42 71,854 77.50 0 0.00 857 0.92 11,955 12.90 1,169 1.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Louisiana 284,735 9.52 90,809 31.89 71,909 25.25 56,636 19.89 19,229 6.75 13,165 4.62 113 0.04 32,874 11.55 0 0.00 

Maine [4] 133,887 12.66 105,601 78.87 20,909 15.62 2,983 2.23 1,040 0.78 

- - - - 

3,354 2.51 0 0.00 

Maryland 275,973 6.98 66,376 24.05 76,826 27.84 126,996 46.02 717 0.26 3,592 1.30 10 0.00 1,984 0.72 -528 -0.19 

Massachusetts 

[5] 629,710 13.76 341,962 54.30 87,199 13.85 130,215 20.68 9,485 1.51 1,008 0.16 - - 

59,841 9.50 0 0.00 

Michigan [6] 404,901 5.42 54,051 13.35 175,810 43.42 163,024 40.26 12,016 2.97 

- - - - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 

Minnesota [7] 299,362 8.75 78,685 26.28 59,609 19.91 160,437 53.59 

- - 

0 0.00 0 0.00 631 0.21 0 0.00 

Mississippi 172,747 8.31 35,979 20.83 53,369 30.89 73,407 42.49 1,652 0.96 5,871 3.40 33 0.02 2,436 1.41 0 0.00 

Missouri 431,006 10.44 73,638 17.09 101,423 23.53 150,411 34.90 1,703 0.40 14,210 3.30 1,989 0.46 0 0.00 87,632 20.33 
 

83 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

NVRA Table 3b: Voter List Maintenance – Removal Actions 

State 

Voters Removed Reason for Removal 

Total 

Pct. 

Registered 

Voters 

Moved Out of 

Jurisdiction Death 

Failure to Return 

Confirmation 

Notice 

Voter’s Request Felony or 

Conviction 

Mental 

Incompetence Other Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Montana 65,343 9.25 6,350 9.72 14,124 21.62 36,216 55.42 2,571 3.93 286 0.44 3 0.00 5,793 8.87 0 0.00 

Nebraska 86,796 7.12 25,745 29.66 25,872 29.81 29,043 33.46 1,179 1.36 3,490 4.02 3 0.00 1,464 1.69 0 0.00 

Nevada 196,800 11.10 16,641 8.46 20,330 10.33 112,051 56.94 17,420 8.85 2,260 1.15 37 0.02 28,061 14.26 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 108,278 10.96 96,087 88.74 10,533 9.73 

- - - - 

58 0.05 

- - 

1,600 1.48 0 0.00 

New Jersey 446,569 7.61 65,624 14.70 103,754 23.23 220,949 49.48 13,714 3.07 10,930 2.45 25 0.01 31,573 7.07 0 0.00 

New Mexico 18,011 1.43 2,975 16.52 10,456 58.05 3 0.02 57 0.32 4,519 25.09 

- - 

0 0.00 1 0.01 

New York 410,301 3.23 153,438 37.40 172,816 42.12 46,511 11.34 1,313 0.32 4,705 1.15 95 0.02 31,423 7.66 0 0.00 

North Carolina 744,453 10.49 331,563 44.54 129,794 17.43 220,446 29.61 3,452 0.46 25,598 3.44 

- - 

33,600 4.51 0 0.00 

North Dakota [8]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

0 

- - - 

Ohio 495,207 6.14 209,931 42.39 171,122 34.56 17,738 3.58 81,581 16.47 14,812 2.99 23 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Oklahoma 282,184 13.31 68,487 24.27 35,118 12.45 167,071 59.21 888 0.31 4,591 1.63 275 0.10 5,754 2.04 0 0.00 

Oregon 165,744 6.03 34,609 20.88 55,219 33.32 58,100 35.05 17,137 10.34 

- - - - 

679 0.41 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 286,383 3.33 106,811 37.30 169,886 59.32 297 0.10 1,578 0.55 0 0.00 60 0.02 7,751 2.71 0 0.00 

Rhode Island 40,991 5.25 4,291 10.47 9,296 22.68 20,959 51.13 1,090 2.66 1,619 3.95 2 0.00 3,734 9.11 0 0.00 

South Carolina 328,273 9.28 84,302 25.68 45,873 13.97 185,729 56.58 2,249 0.69 8,836 2.69 

- - 

1,284 0.39 0 0.00 

South Dakota 34,380 5.78 5,036 14.65 9,202 26.77 17,558 51.07 681 1.98 1,886 5.49 3 0.01 14 0.04 0 0.00 

Tennessee 474,280 11.39 152,906 32.24 92,465 19.50 211,868 44.67 5,687 1.20 11,324 2.39 0 0.00 30 0.01 0 0.00 

Texas 1,609,040 10.30 394,294 24.50 197,734 12.29 403,369 25.07 96,910 6.02 19,445 1.21 820 0.05 240,158 14.93 256,310 15.93 

U.S. Virgin 

Islands 396 0.78 0 0.00 387 97.73 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 2.27 0 0.00 

Utah 106,731 6.44 19,080 17.88 12,399 11.62 64,108 60.07 945 0.89 26 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 10,173 9.53 

Vermont [9] 36,179 7.39 656 1.81 8,689 24.02 15,634 43.21 4,555 12.59 

- - - - 

6,645 18.37 0 0.00 

Virginia 926,015 16.34 613,591 66.26 95,179 10.28 182,256 19.68 20,003 2.16 11,082 1.20 995 0.11 2,909 0.31 0 0.00 

Washington [2] 560,802 11.58 11,836 2.11 43,835 7.82 148,384 26.46 18,475 3.29 6,222 1.11 4 0.00 332,046 59.21 0 0.00 

West Virginia 116,936 9.39 10,417 8.91 37,146 31.77 56,751 48.53 1,911 1.63 2,545 2.18 17 0.01 8,149 6.97 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [10] 558,930 16.24 159,893 28.61 71,114 12.72 310,377 55.53 616 0.11 5,195 0.93 144 0.03 11,591 2.07 0 0.00 

Wyoming 22,290 7.85 1,063 4.77 3,690 16.55 16,738 75.09 48 0.22 37 0.17 0 0.00 714 3.20 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 17,300,470 8.17 4,268,463 24.67 3,730,617 21.56 6,062,095 35.26 489,084 3.14 393,735 2.51 9,569 0.08 1,243,759 7.19 1,103,148 6.38 
Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond | 84 

NVRA Table 3b Calculation Notes 

(1) Voters Removed, Total uses question A9a. 

(2) Voters Removed as Pct. of Registered Voters uses question A9a divided by question A1a. 

(3) Voters Removed – Moved Out of Jurisdiction, Total uses question A9b. 

(4) Voters Removed – Moved Out of Jurisdiction, Pct. uses question A9b divided by question A9a. 

(5) Voters Removed – Death, Total uses question A9c. 

(6) Voters Removed – Death, Pct. uses question A9c divided by question A9a. 

(7) Voters Removed – Failure to Return Confirmation Notice, Total uses question A9e. 

(8) Voters Removed – Failure to Return Confirmation Notice, Pct. uses question A9e divided by question A9a. 

(9) Voters Removed – Voter’s Request, Total uses question A9g. 

(10) Voters Removed – Voter’s Request, Pct. uses question A9g divided by question A9a. 

(11) Voters Removed – Felony or Conviction, Total uses question A9d. 

(12) Voters Removed – Felony or Conviction, Pct. uses question A9d divided by question A9a. 

(13) Voters Removed – Mental Incompetence, Total uses question A9f. 

(14) Voters Removed – Mental Incompetence, Pct. uses question A9f divided by question A9a. 

(15) Voters Removed – Other, Total uses the sum of questions A9h, A9i and A9j. 

(16) Voters Removed – Other, Pct. uses the sum of questions A9h, A9i and A9j all divided by question A9a. 

(17) Voters Removed – Not Categorized Total uses question A9a minus the sum of questions A9b to A9j. 

(18) Voters Removed – Not Categorized, Pct. uses question A9a minus the sum of questions A9b to A9j, all divided by A9a. 

NVRA Table 3b Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of the reasons for removal account for more 

than the total number of removals reported by the state. 
 

85 | Voter Registration: NVRA and Beyond 

[1] Colorado reported: “A9f – voters removed: declared mentally incompetent - Colorado law does not allow cancellation for this 

reason: C.R.S. 1-2-103 (5) a person confined in a state institution for persons with behavioral or mental health disorders shall not 

lose the right to vote because of the confinement.”

[2] Item A9b (“moved out of jurisdiction”) lists those voters that moved outside of the state’s borders.

• Georgia reported: “A9b represents voters who moved out of the state”

• Washington reported: “A9b = moved out of state”

[3] Indiana reported: “Although Indiana does not send the removal notices referenced by the EAC survey, Indiana provided the 

number of voter records cancelled due to being in inactive status for more than 2 federal general elections for question A9e. 

These statistics represent the majority of cancellations for this reason, based on the county user selecting the option to run this 

process in batch. However, county users have the option to also cancel voters one-by-one for this reason, but those statistics are 

not included in the counts for question A9e.”

[4] Maine reported: “A9d & A9f-voters not removed in Maine for these reasons”

[5] Massachusetts reported: “Voters are removed for felony conviction upon notice from appropriate law enforcement officials 

only”

[6] Michigan reported: “A9d: in MI, registered voters cannot cast a ballot while they are incarcerated serving sentence; however, 

their registration is never cancelled. Felony convictions alone do not disqualify voters from casting a ballot.”

[7] Minnesota reported: “A9d and A9f: voter is not removed but status changes to ‘challenged.’ A9e: did not vote or update 

registration in prior four years. A9g: voter request not tracked separately, is included in A9h.”

[8] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

[9] Vermont reported: “VT allows citizens with a felony to vote. A9f does not apply in VT.”

[10] Wisconsin reported: “Voters are only included in these counts if they remain removed as of this data pull. Voters who were 

removed during the period and subsequently reregistered during the period are not included”
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 86 

Chapter 3. Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: 

UOCAVA 

Key Findings 

Section B of the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) collected data from states and 

municipalities on individuals covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

(UOCAVA) during the 2018 federal general elections. Election officials were asked a variety of 

questions relating to UOCAVA voting practices, including the total number of registered UOCAVA 

voters, the use of the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), the quantity and method of ballots 

transmitted to and returned by UOCAVA voters, and the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot 

(FWAB).1,2 Among the results of this section, notable findings include: 

• Two-thirds of all absentee ballots submitted by UOCAVA voters came from overseas civilians. 

• Nearly half of registered UOCAVA voters held legal voting residence in Florida, California, and 

Washington. 

• UOCAVA voters increasingly used electronic means to receive and return their absentee 

ballots, but rates differed by UOCAVA voter type, with more overseas civilians using electronic 

options than uniformed services members, who continue to rely primarily on postal mail. 

• The most common reason for UOCAVA ballot rejection was that the ballot was received after 

a state’s deadline for UOCAVA absentee ballot receipt.

• The volume of FWABs received by election officials in 2018 is more than four times that 

reported in the 2014 midterm election. 

Introduction 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) 

to collect data from states and report on absentee voting by uniformed services members and 

overseas civilians.3,4 Since 2014, the EAC has fulfilled this reporting mandate in partnership with the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), the agency designated to administer UOCAVA on behalf of 

the Department of Defense (DoD). Through a memorandum of understanding between the EAC and 

FVAP, Section B of the EAVS is administered on behalf of both agencies. This agreement allows both 

 

1 All but 23 local jurisdictions submitted responses to EAVS Section B (99.5 percent overall response rate); however, the 

response rate for individual items varies. Results reported in this chapter include only states for which data are available 

for a given question. State and national totals include all available jurisdiction-level data. 

2 Percentages are calculated using a case-wise deletion method, whereby states with missing data for relevant survey 

items are excluded. 

3 The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq. 

4 The EAC shall collect comprehensive data from the states on all of the ballots sent and received by voters covered under 

UOCAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff.
87 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

the EAC and FVAP to fulfill congressionally mandated requirements to study UOCAVA voting while 

reducing the data collection and reporting burden on state and local election officials. States are 

required to report certain election data to the EAC after each federal election.5

This chapter looks at UOCAVA data from the 2018 EAVS, including use of the FPCA by UOCAVA 

voters, ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters by states, ballots returned by UOCAVA voters, UOCAVA 

ballots counted by states, UOCAVA ballots rejected by states, and usage of the FWAB by UOCAVA 

voters. Where appropriate, information about state laws and procedures related to UOCAVA voting, 

collected as part of the EAC’s 2018 Policy Survey, is presented to provide context for EAVS results.

Federal Laws Regulating Military and Overseas Voting 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) 

UOCAVA protects the voting rights of members of the uniformed services who are stationed away 

from their voting residence, spouses and other eligible family of uniformed services members, as 

well as civilian U.S. citizens residing outside of the United States. It requires all states, territories, 

and the District of Columbia to allow these citizens to register to vote and to cast an absentee ballot 

for all federal elections.6 For the estimated 1.3 million service members and approximately 700,000 

military spouses stationed away from their legal voting residence, as well as the estimated 3 million 

voting age U.S. citizens living, studying, and working overseas, the absentee voting process is 

different from and can be more challenging than that for domestic civilian by-mail voters.7

Among the challenges UOCAVA sought to address was the wide variability in rules and procedures 

governing registration and voting across states, which made it difficult for uniformed services 

members and overseas civilians to navigate the voting process.8 UOCAVA established the FPCA, 

 

5 Section 703(a) HAVA amended section 102 of UOCAVA. 

6 Throughout this report, the term “uniformed services voter” refers to U.S. citizens who are active members of the 

uniformed services or a spouse or dependent family member thereof. “Overseas civilian” refers to non-military U.S. citizens 

who reside overseas. 

7 Federal Voting Assistance Program. 2016 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis. https://www.fvap.gov/info/reportssurveys/overseas-citizen-population-analysis. 

8 https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act 

Those citizens protected by UOCAVA include: 

• Members of the uniformed services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, 

United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Commissioned Corps) who are stationed away from 

their legal voting residence; 

• Members of the Merchant Marine; 

• Eligible family members of the above; and 

• U.S. citizens residing outside the United States. 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 88 

which serves as a registration and ballot request application accepted in all U.S. states and 

territories. In addition, the FWAB functions as a back-up ballot that can be cast by UOCAVA voters 

who make a timely request for, but do not receive, a regular absentee ballot.9 Although states and 

localities still maintain and administer elections according to their own laws and procedures for 

registration and absentee voting among uniformed services members and overseas civilians, the 

provisions of UOCAVA created some uniformity in the absentee voting process for these citizens. 

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2008 (MOVE) 

Historically, UOCAVA ballots were transmitted from election offices to voters primarily through the 

mail. Given long mailing times and high rates of mobility for this population of voters, this practice 

meant that many UOCAVA voters were unable to receive and return their absentee ballot before state 

ballot return deadlines. The MOVE Act amended UOCAVA to establish additional requirements to 

protect military and overseas civilians’ voting rights.10 These new rules required that all states and 

territories provide UOCAVA voters with an option to request and receive registration and absentee 

ballot request materials electronically and directed states to establish an electronic means of 

transmitting blank ballots to UOCAVA voters. Additionally, absentee ballots must be transmitted no 

less than 45 days before a federal election to all UOCAVA voters who submit an absentee ballot 

request before this deadline. These additional provisions aimed to ensure uniformed services 

members and overseas civilians not only had the right to vote, but that they had sufficient time to 

receive and return their absentee ballots ahead of state deadlines. 

The UOCAVA Voting Process 

Although the specific path may differ depending on the policies and procedures in one’s state of 

voting residence and a voter’s particular situation and preferences, in general, the UOCAVA voting 

process can be summarized in six basic steps, as illustrated in Figure 1.11,12

1. Register and request an absentee ballot: UOCAVA-eligible citizens can do this either by 

completing a state application form or an FPCA, the federal form which functions as both a 

registration and absentee ballot request and is accepted in all states and U.S. territories. 

2. Submit registration and ballot request: Completed applications must be submitted to the 

appropriate state or local election office by mail or by an electronic means permitted by a 

state. All states accept FPCAs by mail, whereas email and fax are the next most common 

submission methods—both email and fax are allowed in 95.0 percent of states. Forty states 

allow submissions through a state online voter registration portal. 

3. Application processing: Once received, registration and absentee ballot request applications 

are processed by the election office. If an application fails to meet any state requirements 

(e.g., the form is not completed correctly, is submitted after the registration deadline, or the 

 

9 Section 103 of UOCAVA provides a mechanism for uniformed services members and overseas civilian voters to cast a 

FWAB (see 52 U.S.C.§ 20303)

10 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2008 legislation can be found at 

https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Policies/moveact.pdf. 

11 For more detailed information about state policies related to UOCAVA, see Chapter 4 of this report. 

12 Adapted from an FVAP infographic.
89 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

Figure 1. The UOCAVA Voting Process 

applicant is deemed ineligible), then it may be rejected. If an application meets all 

requirements and is accepted, it remains valid as a registration and ballot request for the 

duration specified by state policy. FPCAs are most often valid for one calendar year, although 

in some states, they can remain valid for one general election cycle or until the voter moves 

from his or her residence. 

4. Ballot transmission: Election officials transmit absentee ballots to registered UOCAVA voters 

no later than 45 days before a federal election (ballots may be transmitted later if the ballot 

request is submitted by the state deadline but less than 45 days before an election). Ballots 

may be transmitted to a voter by mail or through some other state-approved electronic 

means of transmission, as requested by the voter. 

5. Complete and return absentee ballot: UOCAVA voters complete and return their absentee 

ballot to the appropriate election office for processing. Ballots may be returned and 

submitted for processing either by mail or through some other means allowed by a state. The 

FWAB may be used as a back-up ballot by UOCAVA voters who do not receive a regular 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 90 

absentee ballot, or if the ballot does not arrive in time to be completed and returned ahead 

of state deadlines. 

6. Ballot processing and counting: Completed absentee ballots that are returned and submitted 

for counting by an election office must be received by state deadlines and meet other state 

requirements. State policies regarding UOCAVA ballot deadlines vary widely. According to the 

2018 Policy Survey, the most common postmark and receipt deadline for UOCAVA ballots is 

Election Day. About 44.0 percent of states require ballots to be received by a specified 

number of days after Election Day, ranging from two to 20. 

Registration and Ballot Request 

The 2016 election was the first time that registered overseas civilians outnumbered registered 

uniformed services members covered by UOCAVA. This trend continued in 2018, with uniformed 

services members or eligible family members accounting for 42.1 percent of registered UOCAVA 

voters and overseas civilians for 56.6 percent of this population.13,14

Table 1. Eleven Jurisdictions Account for Nearly One-Fifth of All Registered UOCAVA Voters 

Jurisdictions with More than 10,000 UOCAVA Voters

Jurisdiction 

Number of Registered 

UOCAVA Voters 

Los Angeles County, CA 26,773 

King County, WA 25,288 

Pierce County, WA 18,586 

New York County, NY 16,520

Miami-Dade County, FL 13,288

San Diego County, CA 13,201

Hillsborough County, FL 12,637

Duval County, FL 11,833

Escambia County, FL 11,680

Broward County, FL 11,547

Kitsap County, WA 10,013

 

13 The number of registered and eligible UOCAVA voters is not available for five states and 74 jurisdictions. 

14 Another 9,952 registered and eligible voters were not classified as either uniformed services or overseas civilians. These 

percentages exclude the five states that did not report the number of registered UOCAVA voters as well as the one 

additional state that did not subdivide this number by UOCAVA voter type.
91 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

Registered UOCAVA voters disproportionately concentrate in a few geographic areas. States with the 

largest numbers of registered UOCAVA voters are Florida (146,343), California (121,756), and 

Washington (92,864). Together, these three states represent nearly half of all registered UOCAVA 

voters reported in the 2018 EAVS. Only 11 local jurisdictions report having 10,000 or more 

registered UOCAVA voters. These 11 jurisdictions account for 23.0 percent of all registered UOCAVA 

voters and are displayed in Table 1.

Conversely, of the 2,700 local jurisdictions for which the number of registered UOCAVA voters is 

available, more than 75.0 percent report fewer than 100 registered UOCAVA voters, including 253 

jurisdictions that reported having zero of these voters in 2018.15 Figure 2 shows the number of 

registered UOCAVA voters by jurisdiction. 

Figure 2. Most Jurisdictions Have Fewer than 50 Registered UOCAVA Voters 

 

15 Includes 2,700 jurisdictions at the county FIPS level. For states that report at the sub-county level, jurisdictions were 

collapsed into county-level units (see Chapter 5 of this report for more information on the sub-county aggregation process). 

Excludes Maine, which reports UOCAVA data at the state-level (3,069 registered UOCAVA reported in 2018), as well as five 

states and 64 local jurisdictions for which no data on this question were reported. One Arkansas County reported more 

than 10,000 registered UOCAVA voters; this was an obvious data error and has not been included in the analysis here. 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 92 

Election offices reported receiving 312,437 FPCAs ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. Overall, 

26.3 percent of these registration and absentee ballot requests came from uniformed services 

members and 72.3 percent were submitted by overseas civilians. States reported rejecting 2.3 

percent of FPCAs received, more than one-third of which (35.1 percent) were rejected because the 

election office received the form after their state’s absentee ballot request deadline. The FPCA 

rejection rate among uniformed services members was slightly higher than among overseas civilians, 

with 2.8 percent of military FPCAs rejected as compared to 2.0 percent of FPCAs submitted by 

overseas civilians. 

UOCAVA Ballots Transmitted 

In 2018, election offices in the 50 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia reported 

transmitting 655,409 ballots to UOCAVA voters.16 Figure 3 shows the number of ballot transmissions 

Figure 3. Ballot Transmissions Highest in States with Large UOCAVA Populations 

 

16 The number of ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters was reported by all but 36 jurisdictions.
93 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

for each state.17 The states colored in dark blue represent the states that distributed the most 

ballots to UOCAVA voters. The states colored in grey are the states that distributed the fewest ballots 

to UOCAVA voters. 

Of these UOCAVA ballots transmitted, 39.8 percent were sent to uniformed services members and 

60.0 percent were transmitted to overseas civilian voters.18 As shown in Figure 4, the percentage of 

ballots being transmitted to overseas civilians continues to rise steadily over the last several election 

cycles, increasing by 15.5 percentage points since 2012. 

Figure 4. Steady Increase in the Percentage of UOCAVA Ballots Transmitted to Overseas Civilians Relative to 

Uniformed Services Members 

 

17 For comparability, the number of ballots transmitted has been normalized by CVAP, an estimate of the number of U.S. 

citizens 18 years of age or older in the state. This report uses the 1-year ACS state estimate for 2017 instead of the 5-year 

estimate to ensure that the CVAP was as current as possible. The estimate for 2018 was not available by the time this 

report was finalized, Colors represent the number of ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters divided by a state’s total CVAP.

18 An additional 0.2 percent of transmitted ballots could not be classified by voter type.
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 94 

Figure 5. Seventeen States Transmitted More UOCAVA Ballots to Uniformed Services Members than to 

Overseas Civilians19

 

19 Some states do not sum to 100 percent in this figure because they reported ballots transmitted that were not 

categorized by UOCAVA voter type.
95 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

Although nationwide the percentage of ballots sent to overseas civilians was greater than the 

percentage sent to uniformed services members, the proportion of ballots sent to overseas civilians 

or uniformed services members varied by state. In Wisconsin, for example, UOCAVA ballots were split 

about evenly between uniformed services members and overseas civilian voters; in Massachusetts, 

94.5 percent of UOCAVA ballots were transmitted to overseas civilians. Figure 5 shows the 

percentage of ballots transmitted to uniformed services voters versus overseas civilian voters. 

Modes of UOCAVA Ballot Transmission 

Over the last several election cycles, the modes by which absentee ballots are transmitted to voters 

have changed substantially. Since the passage of the MOVE Act, transmission of ballots to UOCAVA 

voters has increasingly occurred electronically instead of through the mail. Email was the most 

Figure 6. Modes of Ballot Transmission Differ for Overseas Civilians and Uniformed Services Members20

 

20 Because percentages for each mode are calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode 

are included in analysis, percentages do not total to 100 percent. 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 96 

popular method of ballot transmission for the 2018 general elections, with 56.6 percent of absentee 

ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters via email, 42.2 percent transmitted via postal mail, and 5.2 

percent sent to voters through some other mode of transmission (e.g., fax or online systems).21 By 

comparison, during the previous midterm election in 2014, only 36.2 percent of UOCAVA ballots 

were transmitted via email.22 Figure 6 displays the percentage of ballots transmitted by mail, email, 

or other modes during the 2018 midterm election. 

Modes of ballot transmission differed based on UOCAVA voter type. The majority of ballots 

transmitted to uniformed services members were sent via mail (60.1 percent) and more than onethird were transmitted via email (37.9 percent). For ballots transmitted to overseas civilians, this 

pattern reverses, with 67.1 percent of ballots transmitted via email and 31.0 percent sent through 

postal mail. 

Overall, 4.3 percent of all ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters were returned as undeliverable, 

including mailed ballots returned to sender, emailed ballots that bounced back, and ballots 

undeliverable by other modes, such as an incorrect fax number.23

UOCAVA Ballots Returned and Submitted for Counting 

States reported 344,392 regular absentee ballots returned and submitted for counting by UOCAVA 

voters for the 2018 midterm election.24 The total UOCAVA ballot return rate was 53.2 percent.25

Figure 7 shows the UOCAVA ballot return totals by state. The states colored in dark blue represent 

the states that have the highest ballot return totals. The states colored in grey are the states that 

have the lowest ballot return totals. 

Of the ballots returned to by election offices, 34.8 percent were returned by uniformed services 

members and 64.1 percent were returned by overseas civilians. Overall, 67.5 percent of absentee 

ballots returned and submitted for counting by UOCAVA voters were returned to the election office 

via postal mail, 29.6 percent were returned via email, and 11.2 percent were returned through some 

other mode (e.g., fax or an online system).26 Although postal mail was the most common mode of 

 

21 All but three states reported ballots transmitted by mode. Two additional states did not report the number of ballots 

transmitted by email. These states are excluded from calculations of the percentage of ballots transmitted by a given 

mode. However, the percentages by mode do not change substantively when transmitted ballots from these states are 

included in analysis. 

22 In previous years, questions about modes of ballot receipt and return were asked in relation to the 45-day MOVE Act 

transmission deadline. Specifically, “How many UOCAVA absentee ballots did your jurisdiction transmit to UOCAVA voters 

using the following modes of transmission, before and after the 45-day deadline?” In 2018, the survey was updated so that 

mode questions did not include this distinction.

23 States and jurisdictions vary in the extent to which they are able to capture and report undeliverable ballots, overall and 

by mode of transmission. 

24 More than 98.0 percent of jurisdictions reported the number of ballots returned and submitted for counting. FWABs were 

reported separately from regular UOCAVA absentee ballots and are not included in these figures. 

25 This represents the number of ballots returned as a percentage of the number of ballots transmitted. Because more than 

one ballot may be transmitted to an individual voter (e.g., because the original was returned undeliverable or was spoiled 

and replaced), this rate likely underestimates the rate of ballot return by UOCAVA voters.

26 Nine states did not report the number of ballots returned by mode and are excluded from all mode analysis. In addition, 

12 states did not report ballots returned via email, and 14 did not report ballots returned by some any other mode. If all 

states are included in analysis, 64.1 percent of ballots were returned via mail, 22.3 percent via email, and 8.4 percent by 

some other mode. New Jersey is not able to separate regular UOCAVA ballots from FWABs; information on all of the UOCAVA 

ballots returned to this state in the 2018 election is available in the survey comments. 
97 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

Figure 7. Ballot Return Totals Highest in States with Large UOCAVA Populations 

ballot return for both uniformed services and overseas civilian voters, uniformed services members 

used email return at less than half the rate of overseas civilians, with just 14.4 percent using email 

to return an absentee ballot versus 37.4 percent of overseas civilians. Figure 8 displays the method 

of ballot return for UOCAVA voters by type. 

Overall, 338,271 regular absentee ballots returned by UOCAVA voters were counted in the 2018 

midterm election. Of these votes, 64.9 percent were cast by overseas civilians and 34.1 percent by 

uniformed services voters. The overall rejection rate for regular absentee ballots returned by UOCAVA 

voters was 5.7 percent and did not vary significantly across UOCAVA voter types. 

Figure 9 shows the number of rejected UOCAVA ballots returned and submitted by voters for 

counting in each state. The states colored in dark blue represent the states that have the highest 

number of rejected ballots, and states colored in grey have the lowest number of rejected ballots. 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 98 

Figure 8. Although Many UOCAVA Voters, Especially Overseas Civilians, Use Email to Return Their Completed 

Absentee Ballot, Postal Mail is the Primary Mode of Ballot Return27

Rejected ballots were divided into three reasons for rejection categories: missed deadline, problem 

with voter signature, and lacked postmark.28 By far the most common reason for rejection was that a 

ballot was received after a state’s deadline for UOCAVA absentee ballot receipt. Missed deadlines

were the cause of rejection for 8,945 absentee ballots—46.4 percent of all UOCAVA ballot rejections. 

Voter signature problems were responsible for 12.5 percent of all UOCAVA ballot rejections, 4.2 

percent of ballot rejections were the result of postmark issues, and 19.1 percent of rejections were 

caused by some other issue. 

 

27 Because percentages for each mode are calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode 

are included in analysis, percentages do not total to 100 percent. 

28 Three states did not report the number of ballots rejected. The number of ballots rejected was reported for approximately 

69.0 percent of jurisdictions nationwide. Most of these jurisdictions also subdivided rejected ballots by reason for rejection. 

New Jersey is not able to separate regular UOCAVA ballots from FWABs; information on all of the UOCAVA ballots rejected in 

this state in the 2018 election is available in the survey comments.
99 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

Figure 9. UOCAVA Ballot Rejection Rates Vary Significantly Because State Reasons for Rejection Vary

Although the overall rejection rate did not differ substantively, uniformed services members and 

overseas civilian UOCAVA ballots were rejected for somewhat different reasons. Deadlines were 

more of an obstacle for overseas civilians, accounting for 47.1 percent of rejections among these 

voters versus 39.7 percent of military ballot rejections. Signature issues were the cause of 19.0 

percent of ballot rejections for ballots returned by uniformed services members, more than the 

percentage of overseas civilian ballots rejected for this reason (12.7 percent). 

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs) 

If a regular absentee ballot does not arrive in time for an individual to vote, the FWAB functions as a 

back-up ballot that can be used to vote for all federal offices and, in some states, state and local 

offices as well. 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 100 

Although the 7,284 FWABs submitted in 2018 make up a relatively small proportion (2.2 percent) of 

all UOCAVA ballots returned, this volume of FWABs is more than four times that reported in the 2014 

midterm election.29 Despite the increase from previous midterm elections, FWAB usage remains a 

relatively small proportion of UOCAVA voting among both uniformed services members and overseas 

civilian voters. However, the FWAB resulted in 5,016 additional UOCAVA voters having their 

ballots counted in the 2018 midterm election: 31.4 percent of these additional voters were 

uniformed services members and 62.4 percent were overseas civilians. Twelve states reported that 

they received no FWABs during the 2018 midterm election. 

Of the 7,284 FWABs submitted in the 2018 midterm election, 31.1 percent were rejected. FWABs 

returned by uniformed services members were rejected at a much higher rate than those returned by 

overseas civilians—42.4 percent and 27.8 percent, respectively. The EAVS collects data on two 

reasons that FWABs can be rejected: because they were received after the ballot receipt deadline or 

because a voter’s regular absentee ballot was ultimately received and counted instead of the FWAB. 

Of all the FWABs that were rejected in the 2018 election, 27.5 percent were reported as rejected 

because they were received after the ballot receipt deadline and 26.0 percent were replaced by a 

voter’s regular absentee ballot. 

 

29 The total number of FWABs returned is based on 77.0 percent of jurisdictions for which this information is available. 

The Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) 

The FWAB is a special type of UOCAVA ballot that may be used as a back-up in the event that a 

voter’s regular absentee ballot does not arrive in time to vote. In most states, a UOCAVA voter 

must have registered and requested an absentee ballot in order to use the FWAB. 
101 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Appendix A: Changes to the EAVS Survey Instrument 

In 2014, the UOCAVA section of the EAVS was expanded to include questions from FVAP’s PostElection Quantitative Survey of Local Election Officials. The goal of combining the surveys was to 

reduce the survey burden on election officials by asking them to answer a single set of questions 

about UOCAVA voting. Although the questions from the two surveys were phrased differently and 

asked for different levels of specificity, they captured many of the same data points. 

After combining the surveys, the new EAVS UOCAVA section contained redundant questions. Based 

on recommendations from the Section B Working Group, such questions were removed for the 2018 

EAVS.30,31 These included questions on the number of ballots transmitted, returned, and counted 

before and after the 45-day deadline. Instead, jurisdictions were asked to report items by UOCAVA 

voter type and by mode, which created some new subitems in questions. 

Additionally, the questions were reordered to better follow the process of transmitting and receiving 

UOCAVA ballots at the jurisdiction level. Further information on the changes made to the 2018 

UOCAVA section can found in Chapter 5 of this report. 

 

30 The Section B Working Group was supported by FVAP, the Council of State Governments (CSG), and the Overseas Voter 

Initiative (OVI). The group consisted of 13 state and local election administrators from across the nation who met several 

times from late 2015 to late 2017 to discuss recommendations to improve Section B of EAVS. The recommendation report 

that resulted from these discussions is found at 

https://www.csg.org/OVI/documents/Improving_Military_and_Overseas_Election_Data_Collection.pdf. 

31 No changes were made to the survey instrument in 2016, but additions and edits were made to a supplemental 

instruction manual to clarify meaning. Additionally, nine questions were identified as being redundant and four contained 

subitems that most states could not report. Supplemental instructions directed states to skip these questions and they 

were grayed out in the data entry template in 2016.
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 102 

UOCAVA Appendix B: Descriptive Tables*

UOCAVA Table 1: Registered and Eligible UOCAVA Voters 

State 

Registered UOCAVA Voters 

All UOCAVA Voters 

Uniformed Services 

Members 

Overseas 

Civilians 

Not Categorized by Voter 

Type 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Alabama [1] - - - - - - - 

Alaska 4,216 2,939 69.71 1,277 30.29 0 0.00 

American Samoa 38 37 97.37 1 2.63 0 0.00 

Arizona 9,426 3,345 35.49 6,081 64.51 0 0.00 

Arkansas 1,373 901 65.62 490 35.69 -18 -1.31 

California 121,756 29,397 24.14 91,906 75.48 453 0.37 

Colorado 28,929 8,865 30.64 20,064 69.36 0 0.00 

Connecticut 2,805 642 22.89 2,163 77.11 0 0.00 

Delaware 1,182 344 29.10 838 70.90 0 0.00 

District of Columbia 1,624 206 12.68 1,418 87.32 0 0.00 

Florida 146,343 96,010 65.61 50,324 34.39 9 0.01 

Georgia 18,454 8,307 45.01 10,147 54.99 0 0.00 

Guam 190 116 61.05 74 38.95 0 0.00 

Hawaii 894 186 20.81 708 79.19 0 0.00 

Idaho 3,684 2,123 57.63 1,561 42.37 0 0.00 

Illinois 10,031 2,655 26.47 7,376 73.53 0 0.00 

Indiana 20,732 10,780 52.00 9,952 48.00 0 0.00 

Iowa 2,551 696 27.28 1,855 72.72 0 0.00 

Kansas 2,146 485 22.60 1,661 77.40 0 0.00 

Kentucky 3,106 1,492 48.04 1,614 51.96 0 0.00 

Louisiana [2] 6,971 3,640 52.22 3,331 47.78 0 0.00 

Maine [3] 3,069 561 18.28 2,508 81.72 0 0.00 

Maryland 9,518 2,194 23.05 7,324 76.95 0 0.00 

Massachusetts [4] 10,380 583 5.62 9,797 94.38 0 0.00 

Michigan 8,885 2,202 24.78 6,683 75.22 0 0.00 

Minnesota 8,365 1,957 23.40 6,408 76.60 0 0.00 

 

* Selected descriptive tables have been included in the printed version of this report. Additional descriptive tables are 

available on the EAC website (https://www.eac.gov/).
103 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Table 1: Registered and Eligible UOCAVA Voters 

State 

Registered UOCAVA Voters 

All UOCAVA Voters 

Uniformed Services 

Members 

Overseas 

Civilians 

Not Categorized by Voter 

Type 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. 

Mississippi [5] 143 - - - - 143 100.00 

Missouri [6] - - - - - - - 

Montana [7] 3,398 1,888 55.56 1,510 44.44 0 0.00 

Nebraska 970 260 26.80 710 73.20 0 0.00 

Nevada 3,534 1,353 38.29 2,181 61.71 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 2,552 913 35.78 1,639 64.22 0 0.00 

New Jersey 7,226 893 12.36 6,333 87.64 0 0.00 

New Mexico 1,874 1,265 67.50 609 32.50 0 0.00 

New York 63,555 8,534 13.43 55,021 86.57 0 0.00 

North Carolina 9,310 2,362 25.37 6,948 74.63 0 0.00 

North Dakota [8] - - - - - - - 

Ohio [9] - - - - - - - 

Oklahoma 5,419 3,338 61.60 2,081 38.40 0 0.00 

Oregon 14,091 4,612 32.73 9,479 67.27 0 0.00 

Pennsylvania 12,875 3,826 29.72 9,049 70.28 0 0.00 

Rhode Island 812 128 15.76 684 84.24 0 0.00 

South Carolina 3,311 1,435 43.34 1,876 56.66 0 0.00 

South Dakota 539 298 55.29 241 44.71 0 0.00 

Tennessee 5,907 3,266 55.29 2,641 44.71 0 0.00 

Texas 44,788 20,292 45.31 15,131 33.78 9,365 20.91 

U.S. Virgin Islands 20 1 5.00 19 95.00 0 0.00 

Utah [10] 5,154 2,478 48.08 2,676 51.92 0 0.00 

Vermont [11] - - - - - - - 

Virginia 21,111 7,330 34.72 13,781 65.28 0 0.00 

Washington 92,864 56,091 60.40 36,773 39.60 0 0.00 

West Virginia 835 414 49.58 421 50.42 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [12] 15,830 10,783 68.12 5,047 31.88 0 0.00 

Wyoming 556 289 51.98 267 48.02 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 743,342 312,712 42.08 420,678 56.60 9,952 1.34 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 104 

UOCAVA Table 1 Calculation Notes 

(1) Registered Voters – All UOCAVA Voters, Total uses question B1a. 

(2) Registered Voters – Uniformed Services Members, Total uses question B1b. 

(3) Registered Voters – Uniformed Services Members, Pct. uses question B1b divided by 

question B1a. 

(4) Registered Voters – Overseas Civilians, Total uses question B1c. 

(5) Registered Voters – Overseas Civilians, Pct. uses question B1c divided by question B1a. 

(6) Registered Voters – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Total uses question B1a minus the sum 

of questions B1b and B1c. 

(7) Registered Voters – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Pct. uses question B1a minus the sum 

of questions B1b and B1c, all divided by question B1a. 

UOCAVA Table 1 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states 

that provided data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation. For example, since 

Mississippi reported no data for uniformed services members registered to vote in their 

state, the state’s total reported registrations (B1a) was not used for the calculation of 

“Uniformed Services Members, Pct.” at the national level (i.e., U.S. Total). 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of registrations 

received by population account for more than the total number of registrations received 

reported by the state. 

 

[1] Alabama reported: “Voters do not register as UOCAVA in Alabama.”

[2] Louisiana reported: “The registrar sometimes transmits multiple ballots to voter (i.e. the voter did 

not receive the original ballot or the original ballot is returned as undeliverable).”

[3] Maine reported: “UOCAVA handled by state; not broken down by jurisdiction”

[4] Massachusetts reported: “Voter registration is waived for UOCAVA voters”

[5] Mississippi responded “Data not available” to the items breaking registrations down by 

population. 

[6] Missouri reported: “MO does not track a separate category of registered voters for UOCAVA 

voters”

[7] Montana reported: “Ballots issued may exceed voter registration due to replacement ballot 

issued.”

[8] North Dakota does not have voter registration. 
105 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

[9] Ohio reported: “As Ohio permits UOCAVA voters to register by several means other than a FPCA or 

FWAB, we cannot accurately provide the actual number of UOCAVA voters in our state.”

[10] Utah reported: “The B1 columns were data received through the state's department of 

technology services using the statewide voter database (subject to what the counties enter); the B5-

B23 columns are data reported by each county.”

[11] Vermont reported: “VT does not track UOCAVA voters. when a citizen registers we have no way 

of knowing if they are a UOCAVA voter.”

[12] Wisconsin reported: “Temporarily overseas voters are included in these counts due to recent 

law changes. They were not included in previous years' submissions.”
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 106 

UOCAVA Table 2: Federal Post Card Applications (FPCAs) 

State 

FPCAs Received FPCAs Rejected 

Total 

FPCAs 

Received 

Uniformed Services 

Members Overseas Civilians Not Categorized 

Total 

FPCAs 

Rejected 

Pct. of 

FPCAs 

Received 

Uniformed Services Members Overseas Civilians Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total 

Pct. of Received 

from Uniformed 

Services 

Total 

Pct. of Received 

from Overseas 

Civilians 

Total 

Pct. of Total 

FPCAs 

Rejected 

Alabama 779 426 54.69 353 45.31 0 0.00 47 6.03 27 6.34 20 5.67 0 0.00 

Alaska 1,140 776 68.07 364 31.93 0 0.00 50 4.39 36 4.64 14 3.85 0 0.00 

American Samoa 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 0 - 

Arizona 6,381 1,879 29.45 4,446 69.68 56 0.88 36 0.56 9 0.48 22 0.49 5 13.89 

Arkansas 229 110 48.03 120 52.40 -1 -0.44 3 1.31 6 5.45 1 0.83 -4 -133.33 

California 48,145 7,134 14.82 37,716 78.34 3,295 6.84 1,534 3.19 209 2.93 1,325 3.51 0 0.00 

Colorado [1] 6,889 1,064 15.44 5,825 84.56 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

Connecticut [2] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Delaware 1,182 344 29.10 838 70.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

District of 

Columbia 57 33 57.89 24 42.11 0 0.00 3 5.26 1 3.03 2 8.33 0 0.00 

Florida 25,082 13,483 53.76 10,870 43.34 729 2.91 864 3.44 528 3.92 276 2.54 60 6.94 

Georgia 739 400 54.13 339 45.87 0 0.00 44 5.95 18 4.50 26 7.67 0 0.00 

Guam 20 19 95.00 1 5.00 0 0.00 4 20.00 3 15.79 1 100.00 0 0.00 

Hawaii 894 186 20.81 708 79.19 0 0.00 292 32.66 40 21.51 252 35.59 0 0.00 

Idaho 781 361 46.22 420 53.78 0 0.00 28 3.59 9 2.49 19 4.52 0 0.00 

Illinois [3] 8,672 2,263 26.10 6,409 73.90 0 0.00 144 1.66 39 1.72 105 1.64 0 0.00 

Indiana 3,512 817 23.26 2,695 76.74 0 0.00 55 1.57 4 0.49 51 1.89 0 0.00 

Iowa 2,410 555 23.03 1,855 76.97 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

Kansas 2,146 485 22.60 1,661 77.40 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

Kentucky 3,106 1,492 48.04 1,614 51.96 0 0.00 195 6.28 100 6.70 95 5.89 0 0.00 

Louisiana [4] 293 - - - - 293 100.00 7 2.39 - - - - 7 100.00 

Maine [5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Maryland 9,441 2,188 23.18 7,253 76.82 0 0.00 18 0.19 4 0.18 14 0.19 0 0.00 

Massachusetts 10,003 544 5.44 9,459 94.56 0 0.00 64 0.64 6 1.10 58 0.61 0 0.00 

Michigan [5] 5,962 1,428 23.95 4,534 76.05 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

Minnesota 8,328 1,952 23.44 6,376 76.56 0 0.00 101 1.21 29 1.49 72 1.13 0 0.00 

Mississippi 1,208 - - - - 1,208 100.00 0 0.00 0 - 0 - 0 - 
107 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Table 2: Federal Post Card Applications (FPCAs) 

State 

FPCAs Received FPCAs Rejected 

Total 

FPCAs 

Received 

Uniformed Services 

Members Overseas Civilians Not Categorized 

Total 

FPCAs 

Rejected 

Pct. of 

FPCAs 

Received 

Uniformed Services Members Overseas Civilians Not Categorized 

Total Pct. Total Pct. Total Pct. Total 

Pct. of Received 

from Uniformed 

Services 

Total 

Pct. of Received 

from Overseas 

Civilians 

Total 

Pct. of Total 

FPCAs 

Rejected 

Missouri [2] 937 - - - - 937 100.00 - - - - - - - - 

Montana 2,832 1,371 48.41 1,461 51.59 0 0.00 3 0.11 3 0.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Nebraska 899 228 25.36 671 74.64 0 0.00 48 5.34 11 4.82 37 5.51 0 0.00 

Nevada 2,699 974 36.09 1,725 63.91 0 0.00 79 2.93 35 3.59 44 2.55 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 2,552 913 35.78 1,639 64.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

New Jersey [2] 3,913 371 9.48 3,542 90.52 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

New Mexico 775 177 22.84 598 77.16 0 0.00 394 50.84 37 20.90 357 59.70 0 0.00 

New York 63,555 8,534 13.43 55,021 86.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

North Carolina 6,432 1,583 24.61 4,849 75.39 0 0.00 272 4.23 73 4.61 199 4.10 0 0.00 

North Dakota 90 43 47.78 48 53.33 -1 -1.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

Ohio 9,251 2,656 28.71 6,595 71.29 0 0.00 220 2.38 75 2.82 137 2.08 8 3.64 

Oklahoma 1,247 734 58.86 513 41.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

Oregon [2] 8,096 - - - - 8,096 100.00 - - - - - - - - 

Pennsylvania 6,044 1,427 23.61 4,617 76.39 0 0.00 281 4.65 28 1.96 253 5.48 0 0.00 

Rhode Island [2] 812 128 15.76 684 84.24 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

South Carolina 

[2] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

South Dakota 291 172 59.11 119 40.89 0 0.00 3 1.03 3 1.74 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Tennessee 5,385 2,938 54.56 2,447 45.44 0 0.00 163 3.03 111 3.78 52 2.13 0 0.00 

Texas 29,070 13,107 45.09 15,908 54.72 55 0.19 1,191 4.10 647 4.94 494 3.11 50 4.20 

U.S. Virgin 

Islands 0 0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

Utah [6] 2,092 526 25.14 1,566 74.86 0 0.00 3 0.14 0 0.00 3 0.19 0 0.00 

Vermont [5] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Virginia 14,917 4,486 30.07 10,431 69.93 0 0.00 185 1.24 41 0.91 144 1.38 0 0.00 

Washington 2,006 592 29.51 1,414 70.49 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 - 

West Virginia 570 276 48.42 294 51.58 0 0.00 3 0.53 2 0.72 1 0.34 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [2] 394 92 23.35 302 76.65 0 0.00 - - - - - - - - 

Wyoming 177 97 54.80 80 45.20 0 0.00 8 4.52 4 4.12 4 5.00 0 0.00 

U.S. Total 312,437 79,366 26.29 218,404 72.34 14,667 4.69 6,342 2.26 2,138 2.84 4,078 2.04 126 1.99 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 108 

UOCAVA Table 2 Calculation Notes 

(1) Total FPCAs received uses question B2a. 

(2) FPCAs received – Uniformed Services Members, Total uses question B2b. 

(3) FPCAs received – Uniformed Services Members, Pct. uses question B2b divided by question B2a. 

(4) FPCAs received – Overseas Civilians, Total uses question B2c. 

(5) FPCAs received – Overseas Civilians, Pct. uses question B2c divided by question B2a. 

(6) FPCAs received – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Total uses question B2a minus the sum of questions B2b and B2c.

(7) FPCAs received – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Pct. uses question B2a minus the sum of questions B2b and B2c, all 

divided by question B2a. 

(8) Total FPCAs rejected uses question B3a. 

(9) Percent of FPCAs received that were rejected uses question B3a divided by question B2a. 

(10) FPCAs rejected – Uniformed Services Members, Total uses question B3b. 

(11) FPCAs rejected – Uniformed Services Members, Pct. uses question B3b divided by question B2b. 

(12) FPCAs rejected – Overseas Civilians, Total uses question B3c. 

(13) FPCAs rejected – Overseas Civilians, Pct. uses question B3c divided by question B2c. 

(14) FPCAs rejected – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Total uses question B3a minus the sum of questions B3b and B3c. 

(15) FPCAs rejected – Not Categorized by Voter Type, Pct. uses question B3a minus the sum of questions B3b and B3c, all 

divided by question B3a. 

UOCAVA Table 2 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states that provided data for the 

numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of FPCAs by population accounts for more than 

the total number of FPCAs reported by the state. 
109 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

[1] Colorado reported: “B3a-c rejected FPCAs - Colorado does not reject federal post card applications. If the application does not 

have sufficient or correct information it would be ‘incomplete’ or ‘pending’. Colorado does not have any incomplete or pending 

FPCAs to report for this reporting period. We are looking into the possibility that this a training opportunity for our users.”

[2] Responded “Data not available” to all or most items involved in the table.

• Missouri reported: “MO does not track a separate category of registered voters for UOCAVA voters, so we will not have any 

rejection status”

• New Jersey reported about Rejected FPCAs: “This information is not captured in the current system.”

• Oregon reported about FPCAs received: “Unable to separate uniformed services from non-military overseas.” And about 

FPCAs rejected: “Do not track.”

• Wisconsin reported: “Rejected FPCAs are not tracked in WI”

[3] Illinois reported: “Most use the move site, not the post cards.”

[4] Louisiana reported: “LA: the department of state only collects the data for the totals.”

[5] Responded “Does not apply” to all or most items involved in the table.

• Maine reported: “FPCAs not tracked in Maine”

• Vermont reported: “Clerks do not track FPCAs”

[6] Most jurisdictions responded “Data not available” to questions related to rejected FPCAs and reported: “County did not track 

or provide.”
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 110 

UOCAVA Table 3: UOCAVA Ballots Transmitted, Returned, Counted, and Rejected 

State 

Ballots 

Transmitted 

to UOCAVA

Voters 

Ballots 

Returned by 

UOCAVA 

Voters 

Returned UOCAVA Ballots, 

Counted 

Returned UOCAVA Ballots, 

Rejected 

Total 

Pct. Counted 

Ballots of those 

Returned 

Total 

Pct. Rejected 

Ballots of those 

Returned 

Alabama 924 628 620 98.73 8 1.27 

Alaska 4,173 3,504 3,416 97.49 88 2.51 

American Samoa 38 31 31 100.00 0 0.00 

Arizona 9,754 6,011 5,995 99.73 42 0.70 

Arkansas 1,540 755 899 119.07 91 12.05 

California 107,085 41,798 40,351 96.54 2,746 6.57 

Colorado 28,929 15,738 15,247 96.88 323 2.05 

Connecticut 2,805 2,805 1,797 64.06 32 1.14 

Delaware 1,182 731 721 98.63 10 1.37 

District of Columbia 1,273 642 642 100.00 18 2.80 

Florida 95,002 49,762 48,068 96.60 3,281 6.59 

Georgia 9,071 6,037 5,378 89.08 340 5.63 

Guam 190 117 102 87.18 10 8.55 

Hawaii 894 894 540 60.40 10 1.12 

Idaho 1,134 885 853 96.38 59 6.67 

Illinois [1] 8,168 5,882 6,645 112.97 - - 

Indiana 4,244 3,390 3,336 98.41 53 1.56 

Iowa [2] 2,551 1,937 1,937 100.00 44 2.27 

Kansas 2,146 1,924 1,918 99.69 10 0.52 

Kentucky 2,561 1,465 1,275 87.03 194 13.24 

Louisiana [3] 7,209 1,631 1,475 90.44 156 9.56 

Maine 3,034 2,419 2,406 99.46 72 2.98 

Maryland 9,760 6,637 6,425 96.81 197 2.97 

Massachusetts 9,766 8,019 7,956 99.21 53 0.66 

Michigan 9,102 6,859 6,690 97.54 109 1.59 

Minnesota 8,482 6,076 5,310 87.39 771 12.69 

Mississippi 1,208 847 847 100.00 0 0.00 

Missouri 5,278 3,448 3,373 97.82 219 6.35 

Montana [4] 3,573 2,914 2,685 92.14 10 0.34 

Nebraska 933 773 737 95.34 36 4.66 

Nevada 3,365 2,934 2,899 98.81 42 1.43 
111 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Table 3: UOCAVA Ballots Transmitted, Returned, Counted, and Rejected 

State 

Ballots 

Transmitted 

to UOCAVA

Voters 

Ballots 

Returned by 

UOCAVA 

Voters 

Returned UOCAVA Ballots, 

Counted 

Returned UOCAVA Ballots, 

Rejected 

Total 

Pct. Counted 

Ballots of those 

Returned 

Total 

Pct. Rejected 

Ballots of those 

Returned 

New Hampshire 2,552 2,131 1,993 93.52 138 6.48 

New Jersey [5] 7,226 - - - - - 

New Mexico 1,874 1,598 1,598 100.00 57 3.57 

New York 77,524 32,341 27,614 85.38 4,930 15.24 

North Carolina 9,310 7,643 7,609 99.56 34 0.44 

North Dakota 812 812 683 84.11 25 3.08 

Ohio 9,597 7,531 7,374 97.92 157 2.08 

Oklahoma 5,588 1,689 1,630 96.51 58 3.43 

Oregon 15,711 7,581 7,415 97.81 166 2.19 

Pennsylvania 12,875 3,392 9,316 274.65 383 11.29 

Rhode Island [1] 812 - - - - - 

South Carolina [6] 3,333 2,621 2,609 99.54 12 0.46 

South Dakota 870 763 625 81.91 14 1.83 

Tennessee 5,860 4,516 4,287 94.93 229 5.07 

Texas 31,823 21,132 21,376 101.15 1,515 7.17 

U.S. Virgin Islands [7] 20 8 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Utah 5,668 2,304 2,274 98.70 30 1.30 

Vermont 1,476 1,311 946 72.16 121 9.23 

Virginia 21,111 15,831 14,344 90.61 1,487 9.39 

Washington 89,248 38,952 41,623 106.86 587 1.51 

West Virginia 841 720 713 99.03 7 0.97 

Wisconsin 5,335 3,609 3,280 90.88 329 9.12 

Wyoming 569 414 388 93.72 25 6.04 

U.S. Total 655,409 344,392 338,271 98.22 19,328 5.71 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 112 

UOCAVA Table 3 Calculation Notes 

(1) Ballots Transmitted to UOCAVA Voters uses question B5a. 

(2) Ballots Returned by UOCAVA Voters uses question B9a. 

(3) Returned UOCAVA Ballots Counted –Total uses question B14a. 

(4) Returned UOCAVA Ballots Counted –Pct. of Returned uses question B14a divided by 

question B9a. 

(5) Returned UOCAVA Ballots Rejected –Total uses question B18a. 

(6) Returned UOCAVA Ballots Rejected –Pct. of Returned uses question B18a divided by 

question B9a. 

UOCAVA Table 3 Data Notes 

General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states 

that provided data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

[1] Responded “Data not available” to items left blank in the table. 

[2] Iowa reported: “System doesn't differentiate between FWABs and other UOCAVA votes. FWABS 

included.”

[3] Louisiana reported: “The registrar sometimes transmits multiple ballots to voter (i.e. the voter did 

not receive the original ballot or the original ballot is returned as undeliverable).”

[4] Montana reported: “Ballot numbers include reissued and/or voided”

[5] New Jersey was not able to break down regular UOCAVA ballots from FWABs, so they responded 

“Data not available” to these items, but provided the totals per jurisdiction in the comments, which 

can be consulted in the public EAVS dataset. 

[6] South Carolina reported: “Numbers show all UOCAVA ballots received. No breakdown available of 

FWAB and non-FWAB ballots.”

[7] U.S. Virgin Islands reported data on UOCAVA ballots transmitted to and returned by voters but 

reported “0” to items related to whether UOCAVA ballots were counted or rejected.
113 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Table 4: Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs) 

State 

FWABs Returned, Counted and Rejected 

Total FWABs 

Returned 

Counted Rejected Not Categorized 

Total Pct. of Total 

Received Total Pct. of Total Received Total Pct. of Total Received 

Alabama 18 7 38.89 7 38.89 4 22.22 

Alaska [1] 65 14 21.54 51 78.46 0 0.00 

American Samoa 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Arizona 95 61 64.21 34 35.79 0 0.00 

Arkansas 274 218 79.56 23 8.39 33 12.04 

California 1,064 906 85.15 486 45.68 -328 -30.83 

Colorado 3 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Connecticut [2] - - - 0 - - - 

Delaware 22 22 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

District of Columbia 6 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Florida 1,328 279 21.01 59 4.44 990 74.55 

Georgia [2] - - - 0 - - - 

Guam [3] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Hawaii [3] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Idaho 11 5 45.45 4 36.36 2 18.18 

Illinois [4] 774 774 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Indiana 84 62 73.81 3 3.57 19 22.62 

Iowa [5] 40 33 82.50 0 0.00 7 17.50 

Kansas 33 30 90.91 3 9.09 0 0.00 

Kentucky [6] 15 15 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Louisiana 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Maine [7] 35 35 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Maryland 192 82 42.71 38 19.79 72 37.50 

Massachusetts 229 228 99.56 1 0.44 0 0.00 

Michigan 179 169 94.41 10 5.59 0 0.00 

Minnesota 88 69 78.41 17 19.32 2 2.27 

Mississippi [3] 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Missouri 109 109 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Montana 19 18 94.74 1 5.26 0 0.00 
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 114 

UOCAVA Table 4: Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs) 

State 

FWABs Returned, Counted and Rejected 

Total FWABs 

Returned 

Counted Rejected Not Categorized 

Total Pct. of Total 

Received Total Pct. of Total Received Total Pct. of Total Received 

Nebraska 35 34 97.14 1 2.86 0 0.00 

Nevada 36 29 80.56 7 19.44 0 0.00 

New Hampshire 19 16 84.21 3 15.79 0 0.00 

New Jersey [2] - - - 0 - - - 

New Mexico 26 26 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

New York 203 184 90.64 19 9.36 0 0.00 

North Carolina 275 270 98.18 5 1.82 0 0.00 

North Dakota 20 20 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Ohio 129 92 71.32 24 18.60 13 10.08 

Oklahoma [8] 83 67 80.72 8 9.64 8 9.64 

Oregon [2] - - - 0 - - - 

Pennsylvania 442 438 99.10 1 0.23 3 0.68 

Rhode Island [9] - - - 0 - - - 

South Carolina [2] - - - 0 - - - 

South Dakota 5 4 80.00 0 0.00 1 20.00 

Tennessee 180 104 57.78 70 38.89 6 3.33 

Texas 819 288 35.16 322 39.32 209 25.52 

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Utah 53 36 67.92 1 1.89 16 30.19 

Vermont [2] - - - 0 - - - 

Virginia 35 35 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Washington 211 205 97.16 6 2.84 0 0.00 

West Virginia 9 6 66.67 3 33.33 0 0.00 

Wisconsin [10] 9 9 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 

Wyoming 10 6 60.00 1 10.00 3 30.00 

U.S. Total 7,284 5,016 68.86 1,208 16.58 1,060 14.55 
115 | Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA 

UOCAVA Table 4 Calculation Notes 

(1) FWABs Returned – All UOCAVA Voters, Total uses question B23a. 

(2) FWABs Counted, Total uses question B24a. 

(3) FWABs Counted, Pct. uses question B24a divided by question B23a. 

(4) FWABs Rejected, Total uses the sum of questions B25a and B26a. 

(5) FWABs Rejected, Pct. uses the sum of questions B25a and B26a, all divided by B23a. 

(6) Not Categorized FWABs, Total uses question B23a minus the sum of questions B24a, B25a 

and B26a. 

(7) Not Categorized FWABs, Pct. uses question B23a minus the sum of questions B24a, B25a 

and B26a, all divided by question B23a. 

UOCAVA Table 4 Data Notes 

 General Notes: 

• The percentage calculations at the national level (U.S. Total) only use data from those states 

that provided data for the numerator and denominator of the calculation. 

• Negative numbers in the “Not Categorized” column indicate that the sum of counted and 

rejected FWABs exceeds the total number of FWABs returned reported by the state. 

• The EAVS only listed two reasons for FWAB rejection. In some cases, this led to jurisdictions 

not being able to classify some of the FWABs they rejected, which would in turn be included 

among the “not categorized” FWABs. 

[1] Alaska reported: “B25: Reflects all rejected; including those rejected due to being received after 

state deadline”. 

[2] Responded “Data not available” to all or most items involved in the table.

• New Jersey reported: “UOCAVA ballot totals (UOCAVA+FWABS) were recorded in the 

comments sections for B9-B22”

• Oregon reported: “Do not track separate from UOCAVA.”

• South Carolina reported: “No data available to separate FWABs from regular UOCAVA ballots. 

FWABs are included in B9-B22.”

• Vermont reported: “Clerks do not track FWABs”

[3] Responded zero to all or most items involved in this table. 

• Guam reported: “Did not receive any FWAB”

[4] Illinois reported: “Some clerks do not record FWABs other than received and counted. Details are 

not retained.”

[5] Iowa reported: “FWABs included with other UOCAVA numbers. System reports does not 

differentiate. FWAB numbers reported directly from local offices. Rejection reasons unknown. Can be 

additional FWABs for each jurisdiction in items b14 to b22 per clarification question sent 3/5/19”
Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA | 116 

[6] Kentucky responded “Does not apply” to the reasons for rejection (items B25a and B26a) and 

reported: “Rejected reason not tracked.”

[7] Maine reported: “No FWABs were rejected”

[8] The eight not categorized FWABs for Oklahoma correspond to FWABs rejected for reasons other 

than those included in the survey. The state reported those FWABs were rejected “because duplicate 

FWAB was received.”

[9] Rhode Island responded “Does not apply” to all items involved in this table.

[10] Wisconsin reported: “Many jurisdictions track ballots that are received after election day, 

however they are not required to do so. Counts reported in B25 represent the ballots that have been 

tracked in this way.”
117 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Chapter 4. Election Law and Procedure in States: 

Policy Survey 

Key Findings 

The 2018 Election Administration Policy Survey asked states to identify the election laws and 

procedures that govern voter registration, voter eligibility, modes of voting, and election audits in 

their states. Notable findings from this survey include: 

• Nearly half of states have some kind of policy allowing for same day voter registration (SDR). 

• Three states conduct elections entirely by mail statewide whereas and four more states use 

all-by-mail voting in certain jurisdictions. Sixty percent of states allow no-excuse by-mail 

voting. 

• Almost one-third of states have vote centers or allow voters to cast ballots at any polling 

place in their jurisdiction. 

• When a Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) voter submits a 

Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), his or her voter registration is permanent in nearly 

three-quarters of states. 

• Nearly all states have some form of felon disenfranchisement. Two-thirds of these states 

automatically restore the voting rights of a person with a felony conviction once the period of 

disenfranchisement has passed, while the remaining states require some kind of 

reapplication process. 

• About half of states conduct election audits of voting machines every election. 

Introduction 

Although quantitative data from state and local election officials provide an important window into 

how the 2018 general elections were run, these data must be understood in the context of state 

laws and policies. In 2008, the Statutory Overview, the precursor to the Policy Survey, was 

introduced as a component of the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS). The Statutory 

Overview questionnaire consisted of 37 open-ended questions and focused on statutory 

requirements for various parts of the election process; states reported information on their election 

laws using descriptive phrases for each category. The open-ended question format provided a 

comprehensive overview of state statutory language that limited the usefulness of the data captured. 

In 2018, the Policy Survey used closed-ended questions to capture states’ broad policies. This 

allowed for greater ease in interpreting the results and creating comparisons across states. It is 

important to remember that state election laws are nuanced, and this report simplifies them for the 

purpose of providing an overview of election policies that offer important context to understanding 

EAVS data. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 118 

In this first iteration of the new survey, states were encouraged to forward caveats about the 

questions to the research team. This was done to ensure that the most accurate representation of 

state policies was reported. State comments will inform updates to question formatting and wording 

to better reflect state policy nuances in the 2020 Policy Survey.

The Policy Survey was also used to validate 2018 EAVS data prior to states certifying their data as 

final. Further information on this process is available in the Data Validation section of Chapter 5 of 

this report. 

This report provides an overview and summary of the Policy Survey’s findings. State responses are 

available in Appendix A of this chapter. 

Methodology 

Data were collected from all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.1 Fifty states completed the survey online and five states 

completed the survey using a paper instrument. Data were collected between July 2018 and March 

2019.

For a detailed overview of 2018 Policy Survey instrument design and data collection process, see 

Chapter 5, Survey Methodology and Process. 

Voter Registration 

The primary federal law governing voter registration in the United States is the National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA), which became effective in 1995.2 NVRA expands voter registration 

opportunities for voters by creating more standardized registration processes and by designating 

more places as voter registration agencies, and it requires that states conduct a uniform and 

nondiscriminatory general program to remove the records of individuals who are no longer eligible to 

vote from their lists. 

Congress also passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, requiring states to adopt a 

computerized statewide voter registration list.3 States use these registration lists to determine who is 

eligible to participate in elections. States also face the challenge of keeping these lists up to date, as 

voters commonly move to different jurisdictions or states, pass away, or become otherwise ineligible 

to vote. North Dakota is the only state that does not require voter registration.4

 

1 For ease of reading, this report uses the term “states” to refer to U.S. states and territories.

2 Six states–Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—are exempt from NVRA due to 

their lack of voter registration or for having Election Day registration for federal elections on and after August 1, 1994. 

NVRA does not cover the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

3 52 U.S.C. §21083. 

4 As a result, North Dakota did not respond to Policy Survey questions related to voter registration and registration 

databases. North Dakota’s election website states: “Precincts in North Dakota maintain a list of voters who have voted in 

previous elections. When a voter approaches a polling place they are asked to provide an acceptable form of identification. 

Then the election board will attempt to locate the voter’s name on the voting list. If the voter’s name is on the list, the 

voter’s name and address are verified and the voter is then allowed to vote.” 

(https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/votereg.pdf)
119 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Database Systems 

States responded to HAVA voter registration requirements in different ways. Some states adopted a 

single, central platform at the state level that connected to terminals in local jurisdictions. This type 

of system is typically referred to as a “top-down” voter registration system. Other states implemented 

a state voter registration database that gathers and aggregates information from their local 

jurisdictions’ voter registration databases. This type of system is typically referred to as a “bottomup” system.

5 If a system has a mix of top-down and bottom-up characteristics, then it is referred to 

as a “hybrid” system. The specific characteristics of hybrid systems vary state by state.6

Figure 1. Nearly Three-Fourths of States have Top-Down Voter Registration Databases 

 

5 For a bottom-up voter registration system to be considered a statewide system, the state database, the data, and the 

data flow must be defined, maintained, and administered by the state. See EAC’s “Voluntary Guidance on Implementation 

of Statewide Voter Registration Lists” (available at 

https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdf) for a more thorough 

explanation of the ideas of top-down and bottom-up voter registration systems. 

6 The 2016 Statutory Overview found that several Texas jurisdictions use the Texas statewide voter registration database to 

directly manage registration data, while other Texas jurisdictions manage their own voter registration data using a thirdparty vendor. The data from those “offline” jurisdictions are batch-processed with the state database every night so that all 

database changes between the state system and each jurisdiction can be reconciled.
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 120 

The Policy Survey asks states whether they have a top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid voter registration 

database and how frequently information is shared between states and local jurisdictions. Figure 1 

shows that a majority of states, 72.7 percent, have voter registration databases that function in a 

top-down manner, meaning that the state has a single platform that collects and stores all voter 

registration information from local jurisdictions. 

Only 14.5 percent of states have bottom-up registration systems that upload jurisdiction-level 

information at regular intervals to form the statewide voter registration list, and only 12.7 percent of 

states have a hybrid system that combines elements of both. 

In practice, these state registration system categories may be fluid. Some top-down states may 

implement processes of bottom-up states and vice versa. For example, although West Virginia is 

categorized as a top-down state, the state election office requests additional data from jurisdictions 

that did not enter the data into the state voter registration database. Oklahoma is categorized as a 

hybrid state due to similar follow-up processes with jurisdiction offices, but nevertheless accesses all 

information through the statewide system.7

Reporting Data to the State Database 

States that report having either a bottom-up or hybrid system were asked to report how often their 

jurisdictions transmit voter registration information to the statewide database. For both systems, 

real-time data transmissions were most common. Of the eight states with bottom-up systems, 

jurisdictions in Nevada and Tennessee transmit data daily while those in California, Mississippi, New 

York, Ohio, and Washington transmit data in real time. Illinois notes that its bottom-up voter 

registration system transmits information both in real time and daily. 

Of the seven states that use a hybrid system, Oklahoma and Texas report that their jurisdictions 

transmit data to the state daily and Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, Utah, and Vermont report that 

their jurisdictions transmit data in real time. 

Data Linkages 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) notes that election officials must accomplish two primary 

activities related to voter registration: adding individuals to the database who are eligible to vote and 

maintaining the accuracy of the database.8 A state accomplishes these goals by accessing or 

“linking” to other databases to verify the voter registration information in its database. NVRA also 

outlines steps that states are required to take to keep voter registration information current and to 

remove ineligible voters and duplicate registrations from the voter lists. This task requires comparing 

voter lists to records in other databases to prevent duplicate registration records and to avoid adding 

those who are ineligible to register.9

 

7 This information was gathered during EAVS Needs Assessment interviews. For more information, see the Needs 

Assessment section of the Survey Methodology and Process chapter. 

8 National Research Council. 2010. Improving State Voter Registration Databases: Final Report. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12788. 

9 Ibid.
121 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Figure 2. Most States Link Voter Registration Databases with Government Entities that Maintain Death 

Records and Driver’s Licenses

As NAS notes, HAVA requires the chief election official in each state to attempt to verify the 

information on first-time voter registration applications against driver’s license numbers in that 

state’s motor vehicle licensing agency’s database or against the Social Security Administration’s 

database of Social Security numbers. If no match is found, election officials in most states attempt 

to contact the applicant for additional information, but they manage this process in various ways. 

HAVA requires that applicants who cannot be matched against one of these databases be allowed to 

vote on Election Day provided they present appropriate identification at the polling place.10

The Policy Survey asks states how they share information electronically with other state and federal 

government entities. These linkages are illustrated in Figure 2. 

Most states link their voter registration data with government entities that maintain death records 

(92.7 percent) and with the agency that handles their state’s driver’s licenses (90.9 percent). The 

other most common linkages are with entities that maintain felony or prison records, such as state 

courts and parole agencies (78.2 percent).11 Agencies that are less commonly linked to include 

public assistance agencies, disability agencies, entities that maintain records of individuals declared 

 

10 42 U.S.C. §15483.

11 Though North Dakota does not have voter registration, the state does share information electronically with other 

government entities and is included in these analyses.
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 122 

mentally incompetent, federal agencies, and other state agencies that are not required by NVRA. No 

states reported linking their voter registration databases with military recruiting offices. This question 

only allowed for one response, but states may share information electronically in more than one way 

with a particular entity. 

Online Voter Registration 

In 2002, Arizona became the first state to adopt online voter registration.12 Online voter registration 

generally mirrors the process of registering to vote using a paper form, but the form is completed 

and submitted electronically. 

Forty states (72.7 percent) reported having an online voter registration portal in which individuals 

can register on their own, fully online, without having to submit a paper form. In 67.5 percent of 

these states, only individuals with a valid driver’s license or state-issued ID card can use the online 

voter registration system. Figure 3 shows the prevalence of online voter registration across states. 

Figure 3. Most States Offer Online Registration 

 

12 https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/09/20/eavs-deep-dive-registering-to-vote/
123 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

The Policy Survey asked states to report whether they had an automated voter registration process 

allowing electronic record transfer between the state’s motor vehicles agency, the state’s tax office, 

or other agencies.13 More than two-thirds of states (70.9 percent) reported having automated voter 

registration as defined in the Policy Survey; all of those states reported having electronic transfer 

between the state and the motor vehicles agency. Although none of these states reported electronic 

transfer with the state tax office, six did report transfer with some other agency. 

Same Day Registration (SDR) 

Instead of requiring voters to register in advance of an election, some states allow individuals to 

register to vote and cast a ballot on the same day. Twenty-six states reported having SDR or a period 

Figure 4. Nearly Half of States Offer Same Day Voter Registration 

 

13 The intent of Q5 in the Policy Survey was to capture a broad range of state policies that meet the criteria for automated 

voter registration. For example, Nebraska has opt-in voter registration through the state motor vehicles agency website. 

However, due to ambiguous phrasing, states may have interpreted the item in different ways. Future versions of the Policy 

Survey will address this issue. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 124 

of overlap between early voting and the close of voter registration in which individuals can register 

and vote on the same day. Among states with SDR, it was most common to have SDR on Election 

Day (61.5 percent).

Guam, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Washington have SDR because of an overlap 

between the close of voter registration and the start of early voting; New Mexico explained that 

because voter registration closes and in-person absentee voting starts on the same day, New Mexico 

voters have the one day of overlap to both register and vote.14

Voter Eligibility 

NVRA establishes a process for states to keep their voter registration lists accurate. Under this law, a 

voter can be removed from the lists for the following reasons: 

• The registrant requests to be removed; 

• The registrant dies; 

• The registrant is declared mentally incapacitated, if a state law requires it; 

• The registrant is convicted of a specified crime, if state law requires it; or 

• The registrant changes residences outside of the jurisdiction, in which case the removal 

process must be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in NVRA. 

Under the process established by NVRA, when a registrant appears to have moved outside of his or 

her jurisdiction due to returned or undeliverable mail, the state must follow a specific process of 

verifying that the individual is no longer eligible to vote. An address confirmation procedure must be 

followed before removing the voter from the registration list. Further information about how states 

implemented these NVRA requirements for the 2018 elections can be found in Chapter 2, Voter 

Registration: NVRA and Beyond. 

Criminal Convictions and Voting 

The Policy Survey asks three questions about removing voters from registration lists due to 

disqualifying felony convictions and the restoration of voting rights, summarized below: 

• What is your state’s policy for removing individuals from voter rolls?

• For how long does a person with a felony lose his or her right to vote? 

• How can a person with a felony conviction become an eligible voter again? 

Although most states have similar standards for the nature of a crime that results in disqualification, 

there is variation in disqualification time periods and in processes to restore voting rights. Fifty-one 

states (92.7 percent) have some form of felon disenfranchisement, and 28 (54.9 percent) of those 

states disenfranchise individuals who have been convicted of any felony.15 Sixteen states (31.4 

 

14 Not all states that have an SDR policy were able to report the number of same day registrants in their EAVS data. 

15 Maine, Puerto Rico, and Vermont do not disenfranchise individuals on the basis of criminal convictions. Ohio did not 

provide a response to this item. 
125 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

percent) that have felon disenfranchisement revoke the right to vote during the period of 

incarceration only. Roughly half of states extend the period to cover probation and parole, while 

seven states (13.7 percent) have some time requirement beyond probation and parole.16

The Policy Survey also asks those states to indicate how disenfranchised individuals go about 

restoring their eligibility to vote. Thirty-four states automatically restore the voting rights of persons 

with felony convictions once the period of disenfranchisement has passed, either by becoming 

eligible to register anew (60.8 percent) or by having their previous registration restored (5.8 percent). 

One-third of states do not automatically restore voting rights to individuals disenfranchised because 

of a disqualifying felony conviction, instead requiring some kind of reapplication process. In nine 

states (17.6 percent), that process entails presenting documentation showing that an individual has 

completed voter registration requirements. In eight states (15.7 percent), voting rights must be 

restored by the state via gubernatorial restoration or some other formal administrative process.17

Voter Identification 

Under HAVA, Congress establishes minimum identification standards that an individual must meet in 

order to register to vote: 

• Individuals who register to vote at their state’s motor vehicle agency, another government 

agency, or using an online registration portal are typically authenticated by presenting 

appropriate documentation to the government agency and by the state matching the 

person’s driver’s license number or last four digits of his or her Social Security number to an 

existing state record. 

• Individuals who register by mail and who have not voted before for federal office in their 

state or residence are required to present, at some point before voting, either a current and 

valid photo identification or a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government check, 

paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address. 

• Individuals who are entitled to vote by absentee ballot under UOCAVA or entitled to vote other 

than in person under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act or other 

federal law are exempt from HAVA’s identification requirements.

The definition of voter identification varies by state. In some states it can mean a government-issued 

document with a photograph, whereas in another it can mean an affidavit affirming identity. For inperson, non- first-time voting (whether before or on Election Day), 26 states (47.3 percent) require 

voters to present government-issued photo identification as proof of identification during 

registration.18 Slightly fewer states, 43.6 percent, report that non-photo government-issued 

identification can be used, whereas 32.7 percent report that a non-government form of identification 

 

16 Mississippi did not provide a response to this item.

17 This question may be revised in future versions of the survey, as no response options apply to states that are currently 

considering felon re-enfranchisement legislation. 

18 In New Hampshire, a clerk, moderator, or supervisor of the checklist who is registered to vote in the same precinct or 

jurisdiction may vouch for a voter’s identity. Also, a voter may sign an affidavit and attach his or her photo.
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 126 

such as a lease or a power bill can be used. Seven states, 12.7 percent, did not respond to this 

item.19,20

Modes of Voting 

The traditional image of voting in America involves voters physically traveling to a polling location and 

casting their ballots in person. However, other modes of voting that allow voters to cast their ballots 

without showing up to a physical polling place on Election Day are now widely available. These 

modes include by-mail and early in-person voting. The process differs by state and by whether a voter 

is participating domestically or from overseas. 

UOCAVA Voters 

UOCAVA requires that all states offer uniformed services members, their eligible family members, 

and overseas civilians the ability to vote absentee in all federal elections. In addition, UOCAVAprotected citizens have the option of using the FPCA, which serves as both a registration and ballot 

request application and is accepted in all U.S. states and territories. All states accept FPCAs 

submitted by postal mail. In addition, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act 

amended UOCAVA, requiring that all states offer at least one electronic means for FPCA submission. 

UOCAVA voters may submit their FPCA by fax, online (either by email or through the state’s online 

voter registration portal), or by other modes, as allowed by state law. 

Email and fax are the most common methods that states report for accepting FPCAs; both modes are 

allowed in 52 states (94.5 percent). Twenty states (36.4 percent) accept FPCAs transmitted through 

the state’s online voter registration portal.21 Figure 5 illustrates these transmission methods. A voter 

registration submitted via FPCA is considered permanent in 72.7 percent of states and temporary in 

25.5 percent of states.22

States differ in the length of time that an FPCA absentee ballot request remains valid; that is, the 

period of time or number of elections for which a voter will retain UOCAVA status and have an 

absentee ballot transmitted to them. One calendar year is the most common response (45.5 

percent), followed by one general election cycle (20.0 percent) and until the voter moves from his or 

her residence (18.2 percent).23

 

19 Maryland does not have identification requirements for non- first-time voters. 

20 In Maine, registered voters who provided proof of identification at the time of registration do not need identification at 

the time of voting. However, voters who need to provide identification in order to complete the registration process are 

directed to the Registrar of Voters to complete that process; if no proof of identification is provided, then the voter must 

cast a challenged ballot.

21 Forty-one states (74.6 percent) reported allowing another method of UOCAVA submission; most states reported postal 

mail as this other source and four states reported allowing FPCAs to be submitted in person. Maryland commented that 

“[Email, fax, and online] are available if the voter is already registered and is using the FPCA to request an absentee ballot. 

If the individual is using the FPCA to register to vote, the FPCA must be submitted by mail or the use may use [sic] 

Maryland's Online Voter Registration Portal. If the voter uses the portal, the person will be designated as a UOCAVA voter 

but will not submit an FPCA.”

22 Oregon did not provide a response to this item. 

23 Twelve states (21.8 percent) did not provide a response to this item, possibly due to the restrictive nature of its format; 

five states commented that their policies were not reflected in the wording. Additionally, Vermont was the only state to 

provide answers for more than one of the response options. In the future, this item will require revision.
127 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Figure 5: Postal Mail, Email, and Fax are Most Commonly Offered FPCA Transmission Methods 

States also reported their postmark and receipt deadlines for UOCAVA by-mail ballots. In 41.8 

percent of states, the postmark deadline is Election Day, and in 50.9 percent of states, ballots must 

be received by Election Day. Additionally, 43.6 percent of states indicated that ballots must be 

received by a specified number of days after Election Day, with responses ranging from two to 20 

days after Election Day. 

Chapter 3, Military and Overseas Voting in 2018: UOCAVA, contains further information on UOCAVA 

voting in the 2018 general elections. 

By-Mail Voting 

All states allow some form of by-mail voting for domestic civilians, although states administer this 

process in different ways. For example, 40.0 percent of states require voters to provide a reason for 

why they are casting a by-mail absentee ballot and cannot vote in person on Election Day. In 43.6 

percent of states, voters can request to be on the permanent absentee list, from which they will 

automatically receive absentee ballots for all future elections. Fourteen states require special criteria 

for individuals to make this request, such as persons with disabilities or individuals over a specified 

age. For a full list of state requirements for permanent absentee status, see Appendix A. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 128 

In addition to reporting deadlines for UOCAVA ballots, the Policy Survey asked states to report 

deadlines for domestic civilian by-mail ballots. In 38.2 percent of states, the postmark deadline is 

Election Day, and in 63.6 percent of states, ballots must be received by Election Day. 

Figure 6 shows the seven states that have some system in which all registered voters are 

automatically sent a mail ballot. California, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Utah have some vote-by-mail 

jurisdictions. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have statewide all-vote-by-mail systems. 

In-Person Early Voting

All states allow some kind of in-person voting before Election Day. This can take two forms: 

• In-person early voting, in which a voter signs in at an early voting location, is given a ballot, 

and casts the ballot directly into the ballot box; or 

• In-person absentee voting, in which a voter receives, fills out, and casts an absentee ballot in 

one trip to an election office or satellite location. 

Figure 6. Three States have All-Vote-By-Mail Elections and Four States Allow Certain Jurisdiction to Conduct AllVote-By-Mail Elections 
129 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

All states reported having one or both of these voting modes, with 47.3 percent of states having inperson early voting and 52.7 percent having in-person absentee voting. However, there are some 

caveats to note.24 Puerto Rico, Alaska, and American Samoa commented that their states have both 

policies. Additionally, “early voting” specifically refers to in-person absentee voting in North Carolina. 

Fifteen states (27.3 percent) require an excuse to vote early in person.25

Vote Centers 

The EAC describes vote centers as centralized, consolidated polling sites that serve as alternatives to 

traditional polling places.26 Jurisdictions that use vote centers allow voters to cast their Election Day 

ballots at any vote center in their jurisdiction. The Policy Survey asks whether any states’ jurisdictions 

allow voters to cast ballots at any polling place or vote center in their jurisdiction, and to describe 

how vote centers operate. 

Almost one-third of states (30.9 percent) have vote centers or allow voters to cast ballots at any 

polling place in their jurisdiction. Colorado and Washington require this policy statewide, comprising 

3.6 percent of states; another 9.1 percent of states have vote centers only in certain qualifying 

jurisdictions and 18.2 percent of states have vote centers but allow jurisdictions the option to not 

implement them. 

Provisional Voting 

As the EAC states in its Best Practices on Provisional Voting report, 

“Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) creates the right for potential voters to 

cast provisional ballots in the event their names do not appear on the registration list or the 

voters’ eligibility is challenged by an election official. The issuance of a provisional ballot is 

best described as a safety net or fail safe for the voter, in that: 

• It maintains the person’s intent to vote and selections until election officials determine 

that the person does or does not have the right to cast a ballot in the election. 

• It allows the determination of the voter’s eligibility to be made at a time when more 

perfect or complete information is available either from the voter or from the election 

jurisdiction.”27

State and local election officials ultimately apply their policies, procedures, and state legal 

requirements when making a determination as to whether to count a provisional ballot. For example, 

a state that has a stricter standard for the identification of voters than is contained in HAVA would 

apply its standard to determine if a given provisional ballot meets the ID standard. The EAC 

 

24 During EAVS data collection, some states explained that in-person absentee voting could not be reported separately from 

regular absentee voting in their data submissions. 

25 Maine did not report requiring an excuse but notes that if an individual wishes to cast an absentee ballot within three 

business days of an election, then special circumstances are required. 

26 https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/11/15/eavs-deep-dive-poll-workers-and-polling-places/. 

27 https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/02/27/eac-best-practices-on-provisional-voting/.
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 130 

encourages states to develop provisional voting procedures that are fair, transparent, effective, and 

consistently applied to all voters in the state.28

Eleven percent of states reported that provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct would be fully 

counted, and 27.3 percent reported that they would be partially counted.29 Nearly half of states 

(49.1 percent) reported that these provisional ballots would be rejected.30,31 Seven states did not 

provide a response to this question. Among them, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and North Dakota 

explained that provisional ballots are not issued in their states.32 Ohio, another non-responding 

state, explained that policies related to provisional ballots are nuanced and require elaboration 

beyond the available response options. 

Post-Election Recounts and Audits 

Before local election officials certify the results of an election, they may take steps to verify that all 

established election procedures were followed and that all voting equipment functioned properly. 

Many states require additional post-election verification that the counting process is accurate. These 

additional verifications may take the form of a partial recount (in which ballots in randomly selected 

precincts are counted a second time to ensure that the initial tabulation of votes was accurate) or a 

more detailed audit (in which the entire voting process is reviewed and key steps are verified). In 

practice, both terms are referred to as audits.33

Post-election recounts of ballots are most often conducted at the request of a losing candidate or 

party (70.9 percent of states) or as the result of a court order (63.6 percent of states). Less common 

reasons are if the result of a race is within a specified margin (49.1 percent of states) or at the 

request of an interested person (34.6 percent). Oregon automatically conducts recounts in all 

elections for all races.34

Audit Requirements 

Most states (78.2 percent) require some kind of post-election audit.35 For example, 65.5 percent of 

states statutorily require post-election audits, whereas 12.7 percent require post-election audits by 

formal administrative rules or guidelines. An additional 21.8 percent of states do not require any 

post-election audits. Figure 7 illustrates these differences. 

 

28 Ibid.

29 Alaska partially counts ballots cast by voters who are out of precinct and in a different district. However, if a voter casts a 

ballot out of precinct but in the same house district, that ballot is counted in full. 

30 Although Indiana does not count or reject provisional ballots, county election boards may interpret state law differently. 

Indiana was advised to select the option that best fit state law. 

31 New York specifies that if a voter is in the correct polling place but is directed to the wrong precinct table to cast a ballot, 

the affidavit ballot would be counted. However, if a voter is in the wrong polling place entirely, the affidavit ballot would not 

be counted. 

32 These states are among those excluded from HAVA’s provisional ballot requirement because they are NVRA exempt due 

to not having Election Day registration as of August 1, 1994. 

33 For the purpose of the Policy Survey, all post-election reconciliations are considered audits. 

34 Mississippi did not respond to this item. 

35 Policies related to post-election audits vary widely by state. For example, Massachusetts only conducts post-election 

audits for presidential elections.
131 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Figure 7. More than 85.0 Percent of States Require Post-Election Audits 

The Policy Survey asked states to report how they conduct two types of post-election audits: 

• Audits conducted to determine if polling places followed the procedures required in the 

election. This includes the processes of ensuring that all forms are signed, all vote tabulation 

equipment is tested, all ballot materials are securely sealed, and the custody of key election 

materials is documented; and 

• Audits conducted to verify the accuracy of election results. This includes comparing handcounts of votes on paper records to corresponding vote counts originally reported by voting 

machines. 

Of states requiring audits of polling place procedures, 28.6 percent conduct the audit in every 

election, whereas 9.5 percent conduct the audit if certain conditions are met. Of states requiring 

voting machine audits, 67.4 percent conduct the audit in every election, whereas 4.7 percent 

conduct the audit if certain conditions are met. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 132 

Figure 8. Electronically Counted Paper Ballots are Most Common Type of Ballots Audited 

Figure 8 shows the type of ballots included in post-election audits. Thirty states that conduct 

audits to verify election results reported this information. Paper ballots cast in person on 

Election Day but counted electronically are the most common type (96.7 percent), followed 

by paper ballots cast by mail that were electronically counted (80.0 percent) and paper 

ballots cast during in-person early voting but electronically counted (70.0 percent).

Responding to the 2018 EAVS 

States were asked to describe how they answered the questions in the 2018 EAVS. Some states 

answered all sections centrally at the state election office, and some gathered all EAVS data from 

their jurisdictions. Many states answered certain sections at the state level and others at the 

jurisdiction level. On average, slightly less than half of states provided responses at the state level, 

whereas one-fifth were provided at the local level and one-third of responses were provided by both 

state and local officials. Figure 9 summarizes how states reported responding to each section of the 

2018 EAVS. 

The findings from this question illustrate the complexities that state and local election officials 

experience in answering the EAVS. Many states with a large number of jurisdictions (particularly 
133 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Figure 9. Both State and Jurisdiction Election Offices Contribute EAVS Data 

Florida and Texas) provide EAVS data entirely at the local level. Furthermore, some states are able to 

provide EAVS data for some sections at the state level while needing to rely on local officials for other 

sections of the survey. 

For Section A, which covers voter registration, 31 states (56.4 percent) provided responses entirely 

at the state level, nine states (16.4 percent) provided responses entirely at the local level, and 15 

states (27.3 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in part at the local level. 

For Section B, which covers UOCAVA voting, 27 states (49.1 percent) provided responses entirely at 

the state level, 11 states (20.0 percent) provided responses entirely at the local level, and 17 states 

(30.9 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in part at the local level. 

For Section C, which covers domestic civilian by-mail voting, 27 states (49.1 percent) provided 

responses entirely at the state level, 12 states (21.8 percent) provided responses entirely at the 

local level, and 16 states (29.1 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in part at 

the local level. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 134 

For Section D, which covers in-person voting, 23 states (41.8 percent) provided responses entirely at 

the state level, 12 states (21.8 percent) provided responses entirely at the local level, and 20 states 

(36.4 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in part at the local level. 

For Section E, which covers provisional voting, 25 states (45.5 percent) provided responses entirely 

at the state level, 12 states (21.8 percent) provided responses entirely at the local level, and 18 

states (32.7 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in part at the local level. 

For Section F, which covers voter participation and election technologies, 26 states (47.3 percent) 

provided responses entirely at the state level, six states (10.9 percent) provided responses entirely 

at the local level, and 23 states (41.8 percent) provided responses in part at the state level and in 

part at the local level. 

Chapter 5, Survey Methodology and Process, details the data collected in different sections of the 

EAVS. Responses to the items above helped frame EAVS responses and provided context for 

helpdesk requests throughout EAVS data collection. 
135 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Appendix A: Descriptive Tables*

Policy Survey Table 1: Voter Registration Database Type 

State Top-down Bottom-up Hybrid If bottom up or hybrid: how often do jurisdictions 

transmit registration information? 

Alabama ✓ - - - 

Alaska ✓ - - - 

American Samoa ✓ - - - 

Arizona - - ✓ Real-time 

Arkansas ✓ - - - 

California - ✓ - Real-time 

Colorado ✓ - - - 

Connecticut ✓ - - - 

Delaware ✓ - - - 

District of 

Columbia ✓ - - - 

Florida ✓ - - - 

Georgia ✓ - - - 

Guam ✓ - - - 

Hawaii ✓ - - - 

Idaho ✓ - - - 

Illinois - ✓ - Daily and real-time 

Indiana ✓ - - - 

Iowa ✓ - - - 

Kansas ✓ - - - 

Kentucky ✓ - - - 

Louisiana ✓ - - - 

Maine - - ✓ Real-time 

Maryland ✓ - - - 

Massachusetts ✓ - - - 

Michigan ✓ - - - 

Minnesota ✓ - - - 

Mississippi - ✓ - Real-time 

Missouri ✓ - - - 

Montana ✓ - - - 

Nebraska ✓ - - - 

Nevada - ✓ - Daily 

 

* Selected descriptive tables have been included in the printed version of this report. Additional descriptive tables are 

available on the EAC website (https://www.eac.gov/).
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 136 

Policy Survey Table 1: Voter Registration Database Type 

State Top-down Bottom-up Hybrid If bottom up or hybrid: how often do jurisdictions 

transmit registration information? 

New Hampshire ✓ - - - 

New Jersey ✓ - - - 

New Mexico ✓ - - - 

New York - ✓ - Real-time 

North Carolina - - ✓ Real-time 

North Dakota ✓ - - - 

Ohio - ✓ - Real-time 

Oklahoma - - ✓ Daily 

Oregon ✓ - - - 

Pennsylvania ✓ - - - 

Puerto Rico ✓ - - - 

Rhode Island ✓ - - - 

South Carolina ✓ - - - 

South Dakota ✓ - - - 

Tennessee - ✓ - Daily 

Texas - - ✓ Daily 

U.S. Virgin Islands ✓ - - - 

Utah - - ✓ Real-time 

Vermont - - ✓ Real-time 

Virginia ✓ - - - 

Washington - ✓ - Real-time 

West Virginia ✓ - - - 

Wisconsin ✓ - - - 

Wyoming ✓ - - - 

Policy Survey Table 1 Calculation Notes 

(1) Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid use question Q2. 

(2) Frequency of registration information transmission uses question Q2a. 
137 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 2: Electronic Information Sharing with Government Entities 

State Motor vehicles 

agency 

Agencies for 

people with 

disabilities 

State 

public 

assistance 

agencies 

Other state 

agencies 

Federal 

agencies 

Military recruiting 

offices 

Entities that 

maintain death 

records 

Entities that 

maintain felony 

records 

Entities that 

maintain records 

of individuals 

declared mentally 

incompetent 

Alabama One-way - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Alaska One-way - - One-way - - - - - 

American Samoa - One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way 

Arizona Direct linkages - - - - - One-way One-way One-way 

Arkansas Direct linkages One-way One-way - - - One-way One-way - 

California Real-time - - - - - One-way One-way One-way 

Colorado One-way - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Connecticut One-way - - - 

Direct 

linkages Direct linkages One-way One-way - 

Delaware Real-time One-way One-way Real-time - - One-way Real-time - 

District of Columbia One-way - - - - - One-way - - 

Florida One-way - - - - - One-way Direct linkages - 

Georgia Direct linkages - - One-way Direct 

linkages Direct linkages One-way One-way - 

Guam - - - - - - - - - 

Hawaii One-way - - One-way - - One-way One-way One-way 

Idaho Real-time - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Illinois Direct linkages One-way One-way - Real-time Real-time Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

Indiana Direct linkages - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Iowa One-way - - One-way - - One-way One-way - 

Kansas One-way - - One-way - - One-way One-way - 

Kentucky Real-time Direct linkages Direct 

linkages - - - One-way One-way One-way 

Louisiana Direct linkages - - - - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

Maine One-way - - - - - One-way - - 

Maryland Real-time One-way One-way One-way - - One-way One-way - 

Massachusetts Direct linkages - - - - - Real-time - - 

Michigan Direct linkages - - - - - Direct linkages - - 

Minnesota Direct linkages - - - - - Direct linkages Real-time Real-time 

Mississippi Direct linkages - - - - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

Missouri - - - - - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 138 

Policy Survey Table 2: Electronic Information Sharing with Government Entities 

State Motor vehicles 

agency 

Agencies for 

people with 

disabilities 

State 

public 

assistance 

agencies 

Other state 

agencies 

Federal 

agencies 

Military recruiting 

offices 

Entities that 

maintain death 

records 

Entities that 

maintain felony 

records 

Entities that 

maintain records 

of individuals 

declared mentally 

incompetent 

Montana One-way One-way One-way One-way Direct 

linkages Direct linkages Direct linkages One-way One-way 

Nebraska One-way - 

Direct 

linkages Direct linkages - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

Nevada Direct linkages - - Real-time - - Direct linkages - - 

New Hampshire One-way - - - - Direct linkages One-way - - 

New Jersey Direct linkages One-way One-way One-way Direct 

linkages Direct linkages One-way One-way - 

New Mexico Real-time - - - - - One-way One-way - 

New York One-way - - - - - One-way One-way One-way 

North Carolina Direct linkages - - One-way - - One-way One-way - 

North Dakota Direct linkages - - - - - One-way One-way One-way 

Ohio Direct linkages - - - - - One-way - - 

Oklahoma One-way - One-way - - - One-way - - 

Oregon Real-time - - - - - Direct linkages One-way One-way 

Pennsylvania [1] Direct linkages One-way One-way N/A - - Direct linkages - - 

Puerto Rico - - - - - - - One-way - 

Rhode Island One-way One-way One-way One-way Direct 

linkages Direct linkages One-way One-way One-way 

South Carolina One-way One-way One-way - - - One-way One-way - 

South Dakota Real-time - - Direct linkages - - Direct linkages Direct linkages Direct linkages 

Tennessee One-way One-way One-way N/A - - One-way One-way - 

Texas Direct linkages - - - - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

U.S. Virgin Islands - - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Utah Real-time One-way One-way - - - One-way One-way - 

Vermont One-way - - - - - - - - 

Virginia Direct linkages One-way One-way One-way - - Direct linkages Direct linkages Direct linkages 

Washington Real-time Direct linkages Direct 

linkages - - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 

West Virginia One-way - - - - - One-way One-way - 

Wisconsin [2] Direct linkages - - - - - One-way Direct linkages - 

Wyoming Direct linkages - - Direct linkages - - Direct linkages Direct linkages - 
139 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 2 Calculation Notes 

(1) Motor vehicles agency, agencies for people with disabilities, state public assistance agencies, other state agencies, 

federal agencies, military recruiting offices use question Q3. 

(2) Entities that maintain death records, entities that maintain felony records, entities that maintain records of individuals 

declared mentally incompetent use question Q4. 

Policy Survey Table 2 Data Notes

[1] The Pennsylvania Department of State maintains both one-way data sharing from agencies to the Election Office and 

paper/manual data exchange with government entities. Since December 2017, the Department has connected the online 

voter registration API with three state agencies covered under NVRA. With the API, these agencies can build voter registration 

into their online services in an almost real-time fashion. The agencies submit data directly to the Department, where it is 

distributed to county election offices for processing. The API is also available to private organizations wishing to conduct voter 

registration drives. 

[2] Wisconsin comments that motor vehicles agencies can fit into multiple categories of how state databases share 

information electronically with government entities. 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 140 

Policy Survey Table 3: State Vote-By-Mail Policies 

State 

State requires an 

excuse for bymail (absentee) 

voting 

State or 

jurisdiction uses 

an all-vote-bymail-system 

Does the state 

allow some or all 

voters to request 

to be a permanent 

absentee voter? 

Who can be a permanent 

absentee voter? 

Alabama ✓ - - - 

Alaska - - - - 

American Samoa - - Any registrant - 

Arizona - - Any registrant - 

Arkansas ✓ - - - 

California - ✓ Any registrant - 

Colorado [1] - ✓- used statewide - - 

Connecticut ✓ - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities 

Delaware ✓ - Certain individuals 

Persons with disabilities, persons 

providing care for a disabled 

spouse or child, overseas citizen, 

or military voters 

District of Columbia - - Any registrant - 

Florida - - - - 

Georgia - - - - 

Guam ✓ - - - 

Hawaii - - Any registrant - 

Idaho - - - - 

Illinois - - - - 

Indiana ✓ - - - 

Iowa - - - - 

Kansas - - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities 

Kentucky ✓ - - - 

Louisiana ✓ - Certain individuals Individuals over a specified age, 

persons with disabilities 

Maine - - - - 

Maryland - - - - 

Massachusetts [2] ✓ - Certain individuals Doctor’s note required

Michigan ✓ - Any registrant - 

Minnesota - ✓ - - 

Mississippi ✓ - Certain individuals Persons with a permanent physical 

disability and a doctor’s note

Missouri ✓ - Certain individuals 

Persons providing care or 

assistance to persons with 

disabilities 
141 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 3: State Vote-By-Mail Policies 

State 

State requires an 

excuse for bymail (absentee) 

voting 

State or 

jurisdiction uses 

an all-vote-bymail-system 

Does the state 

allow some or all 

voters to request 

to be a permanent 

absentee voter? 

Who can be a permanent 

absentee voter? 

Montana - - Any registrant - 

Nebraska - ✓ - - 

Nevada - - Certain individuals Individuals over a specified age, 

persons with disabilities 

New Hampshire ✓ - - - 

New Jersey - - Any registrant - 

New Mexico - - - - 

New York ✓ - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities or a 

permanent illness 

North Carolina - - - - 

North Dakota - - - - 

Ohio - - - - 

Oklahoma - - - - 

Oregon - ✓- used statewide - - 

Pennsylvania ✓ - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities or a 

permanent illness 

Puerto Rico ✓ - - - 

Rhode Island - - Any registrant - 

South Carolina ✓ - - - 

South Dakota - - - - 

Tennessee ✓ - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities, persons 

with a doctor’s note

Texas ✓ - - - 

U.S. Virgin Islands ✓ - Certain individuals Individuals over a specified age, 

persons with disabilities 

Utah - ✓ Any registrant - 

Vermont - - - - 

Virginia ✓ - - - 

Washington - ✓- used statewide - - 

West Virginia ✓ - Certain individuals 

Persons with disabilities, Address 

Confidentiality Program 

participants 

Wisconsin - - Certain individuals Persons with disabilities, reasons 

related to age, illness, or infirmity 

Wyoming - - - - 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 142 

Policy Survey Table 3 Calculation Notes 

(1) By-mail excuse uses question Q8. 

(2) All-vote-by-mail uses questions Q9 and Q9a. 

(3) Permanent absentee voter uses questions Q10 and Q10a. 

Policy Survey Table 3 Data Notes 

[1] Colorado state law requires jurisdictions to mail ballots to all active voters; permanent 

absentee does not apply. 

[2] Massachusetts allows for no-excuse, early by-mail voting. 
143 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 4: In-Person Voting Prior to Election Day 

State In-Person Early Voting In-Person Absentee Voting Excuse is Required 

Alabama - ✓ ✓

Alaska ✓ - - 

American Samoa [1] ✓ - ✓

Arizona ✓ - - 

Arkansas [1] ✓ - - 

California ✓ - - 

Colorado ✓ - - 

Connecticut - ✓ ✓

Delaware - ✓ ✓

District of Columbia ✓ - - 

Florida - ✓ - 

Georgia ✓ - - 

Guam - ✓ ✓

Hawaii ✓ - - 

Idaho ✓ - - 

Illinois ✓ - - 

Indiana - ✓ - 

Iowa - ✓ - 

Kansas ✓ - - 

Kentucky - ✓ ✓

Louisiana ✓ - - 

Maine [2] - ✓ - 

Maryland ✓ - - 

Massachusetts ✓ - - 

Michigan - ✓ ✓

Minnesota - ✓ - 

Mississippi - ✓ ✓

Missouri - ✓ ✓

Montana - ✓ - 

Nebraska ✓ - - 

Nevada ✓ - - 

New Hampshire - ✓ ✓

New Jersey - ✓ - 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 144 

Policy Survey Table 4: In-Person Voting Prior to Election Day 

State In-Person Early Voting In-Person Absentee Voting Excuse is Required 

New Mexico - ✓ - 

New York - ✓ ✓

North Carolina [3] - ✓ - 

North Dakota ✓ - - 

Ohio - ✓ - 

Oklahoma - ✓ - 

Oregon ✓ - - 

Pennsylvania - ✓ ✓

Puerto Rico [1] ✓ - ✓

Rhode Island - ✓ - 

South Carolina - ✓ ✓

South Dakota - ✓ - 

Tennessee ✓ - - 

Texas ✓ - - 

U.S. Virgin Islands ✓ - - 

Utah ✓ - - 

Vermont - ✓ - 

Virginia - ✓ ✓

Washington ✓ - - 

West Virginia ✓ - - 

Wisconsin - ✓ - 

Wyoming - ✓ - 
145 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 4 Calculation Notes 

(1) In-Person Early Voting and In-Person Absentee Voting use question Q12.

(2) Excuse Required uses question Q12a. 

Policy Survey Table 4 Data Notes 

[1] State allows both in-person early voting and in-person absentee voting. 

[2] Maine has no-excuse-required absentee voting up to three business days before an election, 

but within three business days of an election special, circumstances are required. 

[3] North Carolina does not distinguish between in-person early voting and in-person absentee 

voting.
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 146 

Policy Survey Table 5: Adjudication of Provisional Ballots Cast in the Wrong Precinct 

State Fully Count Partially Count Reject 

Alabama - - ✓

Alaska [1] - ✓ - 

American Samoa [2] - - ✓

Arizona - - ✓

Arkansas - - ✓

California - ✓ - 

Colorado ✓ - - 

Connecticut - - ✓

Delaware - - ✓

District of Columbia - - ✓

Florida - - ✓

Georgia - ✓ - 

Guam ✓ - - 

Hawaii - - ✓

Idaho - - - 

Illinois - ✓ - 

Indiana [3] - - ✓

Iowa - - ✓

Kansas - ✓ - 

Kentucky - - ✓

Louisiana - ✓ - 

Maine - ✓ - 

Maryland - ✓ - 

Massachusetts - ✓ - 

Michigan - - ✓

Minnesota [4] - - - 

Mississippi - - ✓

Missouri - - ✓

Montana ✓ - - 

Nebraska - - ✓

Nevada - ✓ - 

New Hampshire [4] - - - 

New Jersey - ✓ - 
147 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 5: Adjudication of Provisional Ballots Cast in the Wrong Precinct 

State Fully Count Partially Count Reject 

New Mexico - ✓ - 

New York [5] - - ✓

North Carolina - ✓ - 

North Dakota [4] - - - 

Ohio [6] - - - 

Oklahoma - - ✓

Oregon ✓ - - 

Pennsylvania - ✓ - 

Puerto Rico - - - 

Rhode Island - - ✓

South Carolina - - ✓

South Dakota - - ✓

Tennessee - - ✓

Texas - - ✓

U.S. Virgin Islands ✓ - - 

Utah - ✓ - 

Vermont - - ✓

Virginia - - ✓

Washington ✓ - - 

West Virginia - - ✓

Wisconsin - - ✓

Wyoming - - - 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 148 

Policy Survey Table 5 Calculation Notes 

(1) Fully Count, Partially Count, and Reject use question Q18. 

Policy Survey Table 5 Data Notes 

[1] Alaska jurisdictions fully count provisional ballots if an individual votes out of precinct but in 

the same house district. If an individual votes out of precinct and in a different district, then the 

ballot is partially counted. 

[2] American Samoa has systems in place that make it impossible to cast a ballot in the wrong 

precinct. 

[3] Indiana does not count or reject provisional ballots, but the question might be interpreted 

differently by some jurisdictions. 

[4] Minnesota, New Hampshire, and North Dakota do not issue provisional ballots. 

[5] In New York, an affidavit ballot would be counted if an individual was in the right poll location 

but went to the wrong table. It would not be counted if an individual went to a different poll 

location entirely. 

[6] If an individual appears in the wrong precinct but casts a ballot in the correct polling location, 

Ohio will count the ballot unless the following conditions apply: 1) an election official advised the 

voter that casting the ballot in the wrong precinct would result in partial or full ballot rejection; 2) 

an election official directed the voter to the correct precinct; 3) an election official completed a 

form attesting to the fact that he or she advised and directed the voter; and 4) an election official 

attached the form to the voter’s provisional ballot envelope.
149 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 6: Criminal Convictions and Voting 

State 

For how long does a person with a felony conviction lose 

his or her right to vote? 

Requirements to become 

During the eligible again 

period of 

incarceration 

During the period of 

incarceration/any 

period of probation 

and parole 

During the period 

of incarceration, 

probation/parole, 

plus additional 

time 

Alabama - ✓ - 

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Alaska - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

American Samoa [1] - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

Arizona - ✓ - 

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Arkansas - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

California - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Colorado [2] - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Connecticut - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Delaware - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

District of Columbia ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Florida - - ✓

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Georgia - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Guam ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Hawaii ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Idaho - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Illinois ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 150 

Policy Survey Table 6: Criminal Convictions and Voting 

State 

For how long does a person with a felony conviction lose 

his or her right to vote? 

Requirements to become 

During the eligible again 

period of 

incarceration 

During the period of 

incarceration/any 

period of probation 

and parole 

During the period 

of incarceration, 

probation/parole, 

plus additional 

time 

Indiana ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Iowa - - ✓

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Kansas - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Kentucky - - ✓

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Louisiana - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

Maine - - - - 

Maryland ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Massachusetts ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Michigan ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person's previous 

registration is automatically restored 

Minnesota - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Mississippi - - - 

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Missouri - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Montana ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Nebraska - - ✓

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Nevada ✓ - - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

New Hampshire - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

New Jersey - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 
151 | Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey 

Policy Survey Table 6: Criminal Convictions and Voting 

State 

For how long does a person with a felony conviction lose 

his or her right to vote? 

Requirements to become 

During the eligible again 

period of 

incarceration 

During the period of 

incarceration/any 

period of probation 

and parole 

During the period 

of incarceration, 

probation/parole, 

plus additional 

time 

New Mexico - - ✓

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

New York - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

North Carolina - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

North Dakota ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person's previous 

registration is automatically restored 

Ohio - - - - 

Oklahoma - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Oregon ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Pennsylvania ✓ - - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

Puerto Rico - - - - 

Rhode Island ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person's previous 

registration is automatically restored 

South Carolina - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

South Dakota - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Tennessee - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

Texas - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

U.S. Virgin Islands - ✓ - 

A person must present 

documentation showing that he/she 

has completed requirements 

for registering 

Utah ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Vermont - - - - 
Election Law and Procedure in States: Policy Survey | 152 

Policy Survey Table 6: Criminal Convictions and Voting 

State 

For how long does a person with a felony conviction lose 

his or her right to vote? 

Requirements to become 

During the eligible again 

period of 

incarceration 

During the period of 

incarceration/any 

period of probation 

and parole 

During the period 

of incarceration, 

probation/parole, 

plus additional 

time 

Virginia - - ✓

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Washington ✓ - - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

West Virginia - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Wisconsin - ✓ - 

Nothing, a person is automatically 

eligible again 

Wyoming - - ✓

A person must have his/her voting 

rights restored by the state through a 

formal administrative process 

Policy Survey Table 6 Calculation Notes 

(1) Period during which voting rights are lost uses question Q23. 

(2) Requirements to become eligible again uses question Q24. 

Policy Survey Table 6 Data Notes 

[1] In American Samoa, a person with a felony conviction must both present documentation 

showing proof of completion of registration requirements and have his or her voting rights 

restored by the state through a formal administrative process. 

[2] In Colorado, the period of disqualification is the period of incarceration and parole. 

Individuals on probation are eligible to register and vote. 
153 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Chapter 5. Survey Methodology and Process 

Since 2004, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has conducted the Election Administration 

and Voting Survey (EAVS). The EAVS asks all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories 

questions about voter registration, voting by individuals covered by the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), by-mail voting, in-person voting, poll workers and polling 

places, provisional voting, election technology, and turnout. The EAVS helps the EAC meet its 

mandate under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource 

for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of 

federal elections. The sections of EAVS related to voter registration and UOCAVA voting allow states 

to satisfy their data reporting requirements established, respectively, by the National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA) and UOCAVA. 

The EAVS collectively consists of two surveys administered separately. The Policy Survey, which 

collects data on state election policies and procedures, was administered from July to December 

2018. The longer EAVS survey, which collects data about registrations, voters, and ballots in the 

2018 general election, was administered from December 2018 to March 2019. 

This report relies on EAVS data submitted and certified by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

three U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).1 Puerto Rico provided 

data for the Policy Survey, but not for the EAVS because it did not conduct a federal election in 2018. 

Data for each state were collected at the jurisdiction level, with 6,458 of the 6,459 jurisdictions 

nationwide (99.9 percent) submitting at least partial data in 2018.2 Appendix A of this chapter shows 

the number of jurisdictions and the response rate by state (overall and for each section of the EAVS). 

In administering the 2018 EAVS, the EAC had three interrelated goals: 1) to make the EAVS easier 

for state and local officials to complete, 2) to improve data quality and completeness, and 3) to 

make EAVS data more accessible and useful to the election community. These goals shaped all 

aspects of the data collection procedures. 

Survey Questionnaire Outline 

The 2018 EAVS consisted of 331 questions (262 required and 69 optional “other” categories or 

optional comments boxes). Of these questions, 249 were fill-in-the-blank with a numerical response, 

 

1 The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has not yet participated in the EAVS. At the time HAVA was enacted, 

this territory did not have representation in Congress. 

2 What constitutes a jurisdiction is defined by each state. Most states reported data on the level of the county (or county 

equivalent, such as parishes for Louisiana). Illinois, Missouri, and Virginia reported data for independent cities in addition 

to counties. The territories, District of Columbia, and Alaska each reported as one jurisdiction. Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin reported data on the level of individual townships. 

Maine also reported its UOCAVA data in Section B as a separate jurisdiction because this information is only collected at 

the state level. See Appendix A in this chapter for a breakdown of the number of jurisdictions reported in each state. In 

2018, one Texas county did not provide any EAVS data. Kalawao County in Hawaii is not included as a separate jurisdiction 

because its elections are administered by Maui County; all data from Kalawao County are included with Maui’s data.
Survey Methodology and Process | 154 

35 were fill-in-the-blank with a text response, 35 were multiple choice questions asking for one 

option to be selected, and 12 were multiple choice questions that allowed multiple options to be 

selected. The content of the questions in the EAVS has largely been unchanged since the 2008 

survey, although questions are periodically removed, modified, or reordered. In 2018, the 

Supplemental Instruction Manual that had been used in previous years was eliminated and all 

instructions were incorporated directly into the questionnaire. The full set of EAVS questions can be 

found in Appendix D of this chapter.3

The EAVS is divided into six sections, each of which collects data on a different aspect of voting and 

election administration. The following sections detail data collected and changes made from 

previous iterations of the survey. The primary changes in the 2018 EAVS involve: 

• Reordering survey questions and clarifying instructions to make completion easier for 

election officials and improve data quality. 

• Clarifying for election officials when zeroes, “Data not available,” and “Does not apply” 

should be reported. This was done to strengthen data quality and improve data 

interpretation. 

• Reducing the number of questions that allowed “other” as a response, as in previous years 

these categories created data comparison challenges. 

Section A: Voter Registration 

Section A of the EAVS collects data on voter registration. This includes the number of persons 

registered and eligible to vote in the November 2018 general election, active and inactive voters, 

voters who used same day registration, registration forms processed for the November 2018 general 

election, confirmation notices sent pursuant to NVRA, and voters removed from the registration rolls. 

Changes to this section in 2018 included the removal of policy-based questions on active voters, 

inactive voters, and same day registration. These questions were moved to the Policy Survey; as a 

result, the remaining questions in Section A of the EAVS were renumbered. In addition, the 

definitions of active and inactive voters were clarified, and instructions of where to report same day 

registrations and preregistrations were explained. The number of questions that allowed “other” as a 

response was reduced. 

Section B: UOCAVA 

Section B of the EAVS collects data on voters covered by UOCAVA. This includes the number of 

registered UOCAVA voters; Federal Post Card Applications (FPCA) received, accepted, and rejected; 

UOCAVA ballots transmitted, returned, counted, and rejected; and Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots 

(FWAB) received, counted, and rejected. Most questions in Section B were divided by type of voter 

 

3 In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EAC submitted the questions for the 2018 EAVS for review by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and public comment. Public comments were collected between September 6, 

2017, and November 6, 2017. The questions were approved under OMB Control No. 3265-0006, expiration date March 

31, 2021.
155 | Survey Methodology and Process 

(uniformed services members and overseas civilians) and by method of sending the ballot (postal 

mail, email, and other). 

In 2014, the UOCAVA section of the EAVS was expanded to include questions from the Federal 

Voting Assistance Program’s (FVAP) Post-Election Quantitative Survey of Local Election Officials. The 

goal of combining surveys was to reduce the burden on election officials by asking them to answer a 

single set of questions about UOCAVA voting rather than answering two surveys that captured many 

of the same data points. The current format of Section B is the result of a memorandum of 

understanding between EAC and FVAP that allows both agencies to collect, share, and evaluate data 

on the voting experiences of citizens covered under UOCAVA and to fulfill their congressionally 

mandated requirements to study UOCAVA voters. 

For 2018, the recommendations from the Section B Working Group supported by FVAP, the Council 

of State Governments (CSG), and the Overseas Voter Initiative (OVI) were fully implemented.4 Several 

questions were fully removed from the survey in 2018, including questions on the number of ballots 

transmitted, returned, and counted before and after the 45-day deadline. Instead, jurisdictions were 

asked to report items by UOCAVA voter type and by mode, which created some new subitems within 

questions. 

The questions were also reordered to better follow the process of transmitting and receiving UOCAVA 

ballots at the jurisdictional level. All FWAB questions were moved to the end of Section B, and the 

instructions were clarified that FWABs should not be reported with other UOCAVA ballots. The 

instructions on what should be considered a “returned ballot” were clarified. The number of 

questions that allowed “other” as a response was reduced, resulting in renumbering for many

Section B questions in the 2018 survey. 

Section C: Domestic Civilian By-Mail Voting 

Section C of the EAVS collects data on domestic civilian by-mail voting. This includes the number of 

by-mail ballots transmitted, returned, counted, and rejected, as well as the number of ballots sent to 

permanent by-mail voters. 

In previous years, this section of the EAVS had been called “Domestic Civilian Absentee Voting.” In 

2018, this section was updated to use the term “by-mail” voting to reflect that many states no longer 

require a voter to be absent from his or her voting location to cast a by-mail ballot. In particular, 

using the language of “absentee” ballots in all-vote-by-mail states or jurisdictions does not accurately 

capture the circumstances under which these voters cast their ballots; it also created challenges for 

respondents in these states and jurisdictions on how to properly report their data. 

In the 2018 EAVS, a policy-related question on permanent absentee voting was moved to the Policy 

Survey. The instructions were clarified to specify that “returned ballots” refers to any mail ballots 

received by a jurisdiction, whether or not they were ultimately counted or rejected (and subsequently, 

language about “returned and submitted for counting” was removed from this section). In order to 

 

4 The Section B Working Group consisted of 13 state and local election administrators from across the nation who met 

several times from late 2015 to late 2017 to discuss recommendations to improve Section B of EAVS. The 

recommendation report that resulted from these discussions is found at 

https://www.csg.org/OVI/documents/Improving_Military_and_Overseas_Election_Data_Collection.pdf. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 156 

better capture by-mail activity, a response category for by-mail voters who voted in person with a 

provisional ballot was added, and the number of potential “other” responses available across 

various questions was reduced. This resulted in renumbering for some Section C questions and 

subitems in the 2018 survey.

Section D: Total Votes Cast and In-Person Voting

Section D of the EAVS collects data on total votes cast and in-person voting. This includes votes cast, 

in-person voting before and on Election Day, precincts and polling places, and poll workers. This 

section was previously called “Election Administration” and was renamed in 2018 to better align with 

the section’s focus on in-person voting, not election administration more broadly.

The questions in this section were renumbered, and new questions on total votes cast and total 

number of poll workers were added. In addition, an option to report in-person voting at an election 

office was removed and the number of “other” response categories across questions was reduced.

Section E: Provisional Ballots

Section E of the EAVS collects data on provisional voting, including provisional ballots submitted, 

provisional ballot adjudication, and reasons for rejection.

The number of “other” response categories across questions was reduced in this section. The 

questions were not renumbered in this section.

Section F: Voter Participation and Election Technologies

Section F of the EAVS collects data on voter participation and election technologies. This includes 

total participation in the 2018 election, the source of participation data, use of electronic and paper 

poll books, voting equipment used, and location where votes are tallied. Respondents were also 

provided the opportunity to share general comments regarding their state’s or jurisdiction’s Election 

Day experiences, noteworthy successes, and challenges overcome in administering the November 

2018 general election.

In 2018, a question on how many first-time voters were required to show identification was removed, 

as historically, jurisdictions had a difficult time interpreting and responding to the question. The poll 

book questions were simplified to focus on how jurisdictions used paper and electronic poll books. 

The voting technology section was revised to improve data quality on voting equipment usage. A 

close-ended list of voting equipment makes and models for each equipment type (Direct-Recording 

Electronic [DRE] with voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT), DRE without VVPAT, ballot marking 

device [BMD], scanner) replaced the open-ended self-reporting option used in previous years. 

Jurisdictions also had the option to report multiple make and models for each equipment type. The 

vote tally question was revised to focus on where the votes were tallied according to equipment 

usage, not according to equipment type, and was placed into a separate question rather than 

incorporated into the questions on equipment type and usage. This caused the items to be 

renumbered from previous years.
157 | Survey Methodology and Process 

How States Completed the EAVS

As part of the 2018 Policy Survey, states described who in their election infrastructure is responsible 

for providing EAVS data for each section—the state election office, local election offices, or both. On 

average, slightly less than half of states provided responses at the state level, whereas one-fifth 

provided answers at the local level and one-third at the state and local levels.

The findings from this question illustrate the complexities that state and local election officials 

experienced in answering the EAVS. Many states with a large number of jurisdictions (particularly 

Florida and Texas) provided EAVS data entirely at the local level. Furthermore, some states were able 

to provide EAVS data for some sections (particularly Section A) at the state level while needing to rely 

on local officials for other sections (especially Sections D and F). Figure 9 in Chapter 4 of this report 

displays the source of states’ answers for each section of the EAVS.

Data Collection Procedures

The 2018 EAVS survey questions were made available on the EAC website on June 25, 2018. 

Targeted communications with state points of contact (POC) responsible for completing the EAVS 

began on July 24, 2018, and continued regularly throughout the data collection period. These 

targeted communications aimed to keep states aware of data collection deadlines and resources 

available to assist them with completing the survey.

For the 2018 EAVS, states provided data via the Excel Data Aggregation Template that was 

introduced for the 2016 survey. In addition, an Online Template was introduced to facilitate the 

collection of data from local jurisdictions. The EAC provided these templates to the states on 

December 10, 2018.

The deadline for initial, complete submissions was February 1, 2019. After submission, each state’s 

data was examined for completeness and checked to ensure internal and external validation. 

Potential errors, questions about missing data, or other data quality concerns were outlined in a 

memo sent to states for review and correction as appropriate. The final data certification deadline 

was March 1, 2019. All chief state election officials certified that their 2018 EAVS submission for 

their state was true and accurate to the best of their knowledge.

The following sections describe each aspect of the EAVS data collection process in more detail.

Policy Survey

Since 2008, the EAVS has been accompanied by the Statutory Overview, a state-level survey used to 

provide greater context for the jurisdiction-level data collected through the EAVS. The Statutory 

Overview consists of 37 open-ended questions and focuses on statutory requirements for various 

parts of the election process, asking states to report information on their election laws and policies. 

However, this open-ended format makes it difficult to interpret states’ statutory language, identify 

patterns in election practices, and draw meaningful comparisons between states.

For the 2018 EAVS, the Statutory Overview was significantly redesigned and renamed the Policy 

Survey. The new survey uses closed-ended questions and is intended to capture states’ broad 

policies rather than to represent a comprehensive overview of state statutory language. This allows 
Survey Methodology and Process | 158 

for greater ease in interpreting the results, creating comparisons across states, and providing 

context in understanding EAVS data. 

The Policy Survey questions were designed to map onto the EAVS data questions so that the two 

surveys could be used in concert. Response options were devised based on coding of statutory 

language from previous Statutory Overview surveys. The redesigned instrument was presented to the 

CSG OVI Section B Working Group and the Standards Board EAVS Committee in April 2017 for 

feedback on question structure, instructional language, and survey flow, and the instrument was 

finalized in July 2018. During the data collection period, states were encouraged to provide 

comments on policy nuances not captured by the survey to provide context to their responses and 

offer notes for potential future improvements. These comments were systematically logged and are 

included as footnotes throughout this report. 

States were asked to complete the Policy Survey via an online survey or a paper instrument.5 Both 

were made available to state POCs on July 25, 2018. States were asked to submit their data by 

September 30, 2018, and the data collection period closed on December 31, 2018. Guam was 

invited to participate in February 2019 and submitted its response in March 2019. All 50 U.S. states, 

the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands submitted 

responses.6 The Policy Survey data are collected in advance of EAVS data to reduce respondent 

burden and to allow the EAC to create data validation rules for EAVS data. 

The 2018 Policy Survey consisted of 29 single-response and six multiple-response questions about 

state election policy and administrative practices. The first section of the survey asked states about 

the way they answer sections of the EAVS. The next section asked about the structure and linkages 

of state voter registration database systems. Next, the survey asked a series of questions about 

policies concerning modes of voting, including by-mail voting, in-person voting before Election Day, 

vote centers, UOCAVA voters, and provisional voting. The next section asked states how they conduct 

election audits and recounts. Finally, the survey closed with questions about voter identification and 

state policies on voting rights for those with disqualifying felony convictions. A copy of the Policy 

Survey questions is available in Appendix E of this chapter. 

Needs Assessment 

To better understand how state-level officials responded to the EAVS and where they needed 

support, and to reinforce EAC’s three goals for the EAVS (as mentioned earlier in this chapter), the 

 

5 Fifty states completed the Policy Survey via the online instrument. Five states completed the survey via the paper 

instrument. One state requested a new password and restarted the survey after its submission was complete; the original 

record for that state was removed from final results. 

In February 2019, New Hampshire sent a second data submission with updated responses for items related to electronic 

information sharing with other government agencies to maintain the accuracy of the voting rolls, deadline for domestic 

civilians to return by-mail ballots, period of validity for FPCAs submitted by UOCAVA voters, the adjudication of provisional 

ballots cast in the wrong precinct, audits and recounts, and policies on registration removal and re-enfranchisement for 

persons with disqualifying felony convictions. In response, EAC corresponded with the state office to determine which 

responses best reflected state policy. In March 2019, several of New Hampshire’s responses were updated and comments 

were added to provide additional context to the responses. 

In March 2019, New Mexico asked to append a comment to its response about same day voter registration to provide 

context on the circumstances under which same day registration could occur. 

6 Five states uploaded survey responses as PDF documents to their state EAVS portals. In those cases, the PDF versions 

were used for analysis and reporting.
159 | Survey Methodology and Process 

EAC called election officials in August and September 2018 to assess their EAVS-related needs. All 

states and territories were invited to join and 38 states and territories participated. Topics of 

discussion included the state’s EAVS reporting process, data collection templates, the state’s use of 

technical assistance resources in previous surveys, ways that the state uses EAVS data in its own 

work, past challenges and concerns, and anticipated issues the state could encounter during the 

data collection period. 

The information collected helped the EAC’s outreach plan design, shaped the training opportunities 

provided to each state, and identified states that needed specialized support to complete the EAVS. 

Data Collection Templates 

Given the diversity in how states respond to the EAVS, creating data templates that accommodate 

the needs of all states and local jurisdictions is especially challenging. For the 2018 EAVS, data were 

collected using two data collection templates.7 The first was the Excel Data Aggregation Template. 

This template was introduced for the first time in the 2016 EAVS and designed as a mechanism for 

both data collection and data submission. States that provided all EAVS data through the state 

election office (generally those with centralized, top-down voter registration database systems) could 

query their databases and copy and paste the data for each of their jurisdictions into the Excel Data 

Aggregation Template. The template was designed to allow a variety of copy/paste functions—states 

could paste in data for a single jurisdiction, a single variable, or in larger quantities as they desired. 

The Excel Data Aggregation Template used macros programmed through Visual Basic for 

Applications to perform validation checks on data submissions (these validation checks are 

described further in the Data Validation section of this chapter). Once data entry was complete, state 

officials used the Excel Data Aggregation Template to submit their data for review by the EAC. 

In addition, a new template, the Online Template, was developed for use in the 2018 EAVS. The 

Online Template allowed respondents to enter in their data item by item, to easily navigate between 

sections of the survey, and to save their progress between sessions. The template also included all 

the data validation functionality of the Excel Data Aggregation Template. All jurisdictions used unique 

login credentials that provided access to the Online Template and once completed, data 

automatically ported into a version of the Excel Data Aggregation Template available to state 

officials. State officials were able to review and check for errors in jurisdictional data submissions 

before submitting their statewide data to the EAC. 

Both data collection templates were made available to states on December 10, 2018. A variety of 

instructional materials and training videos were made available to state and local officials to assist 

them in using the data collection templates. 

Resources for EAVS Respondents 

In 2018, the EAC continued its efforts to assist survey respondents in providing complete and correct 

data by making a variety of written and video training resources available for state and local EAVS 

 

7 Two counties (one from Arkansas and one from Texas) printed the version of the EAVS survey questions available on the 

EAC website, hand-wrote their responses, and mailed it to the EAC. However, these counties’ data were also provided via 

the Excel Template submitted by the state election offices. The data provided by the state office was the version used in 

the final, certified data set. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 160 

respondents. A website was established to house training resources and to provide a secure place 

for state EAVS POCs to upload data submissions for the EAC to review.

Between October 2018 and January 2019, six EAVS newsletters were posted to the EAVS website. 

These newsletters covered aspects of the EAVS process, such as changes to the survey questions, 

data validation, how state POCs could use the EAVS website to manage data submissions from local 

jurisdictions, the data collection templates, and the resources available to assist with data collection. 

An extensive user guide for the templates was also made available on this site when the data 

collection templates were released, and in January 2019 a list of frequently asked questions was 

made available.

Eleven videos were also posted to this website. Two webinars, one filmed in late November 2018 

and another filmed in early January 2019, featured panel discussions of the EAVS process and 

common questions. Three videos demonstrated the use of the Excel Data Aggregation Template, the 

Online Template, and the data upload features on the EAVS website. Six videos walked through each 

section of the EAVS question by question, explaining the meaning of the question and the type of

data that should and should not be included in the reported numbers.

Technical Assistance for EAVS Respondents

Technical assistance was provided throughout the entire EAVS process to assist state and local 

respondents with the survey instructions, using the data collection templates, and preparing their 

data for submission. During the busiest data collection period—from January through March 2019—

an additional team of trained technical assistants was available to answer inquiries via email and 

phone. In total, the team provided support to more than 600 assistance requests over the data 

collection period from all 54 states and territories that submitted EAVS data. The most common 

inquiries related to website and survey credentials, assistance in using the data collection templates, 

reporting registration applications in Section A, interpreting error check messages in the templates, 

and questions about items listed in states’ data validation memos.

Data Validation

One of the key issues associated with any data collection project is ensuring that the data collected 

are as accurate as possible. Given the number, complexity, and granularity of the EAVS survey 

questions and variety in how state and local jurisdictions provide responses, it can be easy to make 

data entry mistakes or report data in an incorrect survey item. Both the Excel Data Aggregation 

Template and the Online Template included built-in internal validation checks that flagged specific 

types of potential errors within a state’s data set. In addition, once a state submitted data for review 

by the EAC, additional external data validations were conducted to check that the data were within 

the range of expected values based on the jurisdiction’s previous EAVS submissions, jurisdictions 

with similar characteristics, and other governmental sources of data.

The validation checks were designed to flag common data issues so that before submission, 

respondents were aware of when their data did not fit expected patterns and could provide context 

to the EAC. A number of false positive items were flagged by the validation checks, and not all 

validation messages indicated an error or inaccuracy in a state’s data submission. In response to the 

internal and external validations, states and jurisdictions were encouraged to review their data, 
161 | Survey Methodology and Process 

correct data if needed, and use the comments fields to explain any peculiarities and give context to 

the data they reported. 

Internal Validations 

Internal validations were built into the EAVS data collection templates to flag potentially erroneous 

data based on other data points entered within the templates. In the Excel Data Aggregation 

Template, users selected an “Error Check” button that color coded data cells based on the type of 

error found and generated a tab that listed potential internal validation errors, organized by 

jurisdiction. In the Online Template, internal validations were triggered when a respondent selected 

the “Continue” button on each page to proceed to another part of the survey. Flagged data points 

generated an alert asking the respondent to review and address the item before proceeding. 

All internal validation checks in both templates were “soft prompts.” If a data point did not fit 

validation patterns, then respondents could proceed with their data entry and still be able to certify 

their data submission as complete and accurate to the best of their knowledge. This is because, in 

many circumstances, state or jurisdiction election practices may not lead to alignment with internal 

data validations.8

The internal validations checked for four types of issues. The complete list of all internal validations 

is included in Appendix B of this chapter. 

Confirmation Validations 

To ensure data quality, responses of zero, “Does not apply,” and “Data not available” were 

automatically flagged. Respondents were asked to review the response to ensure it was reported 

correctly. The error flag text noted that zeroes should be reported when the jurisdiction collects data 

for the item (but no such occurrence happened for the 2018 general election), “Does not apply” 

should be reported when the election policy or practice in question did not exist in the jurisdiction, 

and “Data not available” should be reported when the item is applicable but the jurisdiction did not 

have the data necessary to provide an answer. The instructions within the survey questions noted 

that zeroes should not be reported when “Does not apply” or “Data not available” represented a 

more accurate response. 

This type of validation represented a change from how validations had worked in previous EAVS 

iterations and it was done with the intent of making the data easier to interpret. In past surveys, it 

has been difficult to interpret the meaning of items left blank or marked as zero because standard 

rules on what respondents should have done when they did not have data to report for an item did 

not exist. By clarifying these rules and providing the option to report as “Does not apply” or “Data not 

available,” the EAC anticipates that users of EAVS data will be able to better interpret the data.

 

8 For instance, the state of Washington, which is an all-vote-by-mail state, automatically transmits by-mail ballots to all 

registered voters and also transmits additional by-mail ballots upon request, such as when voters spoil their by-mail ballot 

and request a replacement; thus, the number of by-mail ballots transmitted on a statewide level in Washington often 

exceeds the number of registered voters. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 162 

Missing Items 

When required item were left blank, the validation process automatically flagged it. Respondents 

were encouraged to use “Does not apply” or “Data not available” instead of leaving items blank.

Math Validations 

Many items in the EAVS asked respondents to report a total and then divide that total into 

subcategories. Math validations within the templates checked that the sum of the subcategories 

equaled the reported total of the overall category. For example, if the total number of voters 

participating in the 2018 election did not match the sum of the number of voters who used different 

modes of voting, then the respondent was asked to review the numbers reported for total 

participation in the 2018 election.9

Logic Validations 

Logic validations identified when a value in the survey was incompatible with a response provided in 

another related question in the survey. For example, if the number of domestic civilian by-mail 

ballots counted by a jurisdiction exceeded the number of domestic civilian by-mail ballots returned 

by voters, then the respondent was asked to review the number of by-mail ballots returned and 

counted.10

External Validations 

After each state submitted its data, external validation checks were performed to highlight 

discrepancies between expected values for certain items and the data reported by the state. These 

checks served as an additional way to flag potential errors in either data entry or data collection 

procedures. External validations flagged jurisdictions if the value reported in the 2018 EAVS was 

significantly higher or lower than what might be expected based on the responses from all other 

reporting jurisdictions as well as those with similar characteristics (such as population size, 

urbanization, and demographic characteristics). The sources for these external validations included 

EAVS data from previous surveys and data from other federal agencies, including the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Election Commission, the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, and FVAP. A complete list of external validations and their sources is included in Appendix 

C, Table 4, of this chapter. 

Although the external validations sometimes incorrectly captured outliers—for example, jurisdictions 

with large military populations were sometimes flagged by external validations in relation to UOCAVA 

voting—they were particularly effective in identifying cases in which data had been entered into the 

wrong column and other data layout issues affecting accuracy. Based on the initial use of these 

validations, the EAC learned how these checks can be improved to better detect true data errors. 

 

9 The total number of voters participating in the 2018 general election is reported in item F1a in the EAVS. The number of 

voters who participated using different modes of voted are items F1b through F1h. 

10 The number of domestic civilian by-mail ballots counted by a jurisdiction is reported in item C3a in EAVS. The number of 

domestic civilian by-mail ballots returned by voters is reported in item C1b.
163 | Survey Methodology and Process 

An additional source of external validation was the Policy Survey. State data were checked for 

consistency against responses submitted through the Policy Survey. If an EAVS response was 

inconsistent with a Policy Survey response—for instance, if a state reported not having an online 

registration portal in the Policy Survey but reported data on registration forms received via a webbased online registration system—then the inconsistency was flagged for the state to review.11 A 

complete list of these Policy Survey validations can be found in Appendix C, Table 5, of this chapter. 

Data Reporting and Calculations 

Most EAVS data are reported at the local jurisdiction level. For purposes of this report, state totals 

have been calculated by summing the data from all jurisdictions within a state, and national totals 

were calculated by summing the state-level totals. 

Whenever possible, this report uses percentages and rates, rather than raw numbers, for 

comparative purposes. For these calculations, items are combined as necessary to create the 

numerator and denominator and produce a percentage or rate. For example, the following formula 

was used to calculate the turnout as a percentage of registered voters for the 2018 general election: 

[Total Voters (item F1a) / Registered Voters (item A1a)] x 100 

Percentages at the national level were calculated using case-wise missing data deletion at the state 

level; only states that had data for both the numerator and denominator for a calculation were 

included when reporting percentages at the national level. Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data 

not available” were considered as missing for calculation purposes. This decision rule means that 

there are instances in which the percentage reported at the national level for a given calculation 

does not use data from every state. Those cases in which data are not available for every state to 

calculate the percentage at the national level are noted in the footnotes of the report.12

 

11 Information on states’ same day voter registration policies is collected in Q7 and Q7a of the Policy Survey. The total 

number of all registration forms received from individuals submitting forms via a web-based online registration system is 

reported in item A4c. The number of new, duplicate, and invalid registration forms submitted via an online registration form 

is reported in items A5c, A6c, and A7c, respectively. 

12 A very limited number of items were changed from the original responses provided by states. Yell County in Arkansas 

provided a very high response for the number of registered UOCAVA voters in B1; based on the comments the jurisdiction 

provided for that item, the response was changed to “Data not available.” A total of three invalid negative values were 

found in the survey. As negative responses were not allowed in the EAVS, these responses were turned to missing. These 

values were changed for St. Landry and Cameron Parishes in Louisiana in items A7a and A7f respectively, and Colebrook 

00 in New Hampshire for item A8e. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 164 

Methodology Appendix A: Survey Response Rates 

Survey Response Rate Overall and by Section, A-B 

State 

Total 

Jurisdictions 

EAVS Section A Section B 

Jurisdictions 

Reporting 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Alabama 67 67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Alaska 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

American Samoa 1 1 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Arizona 15 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Arkansas 75 75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 

California 58 58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Colorado 64 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Connecticut 169 169 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Delaware 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

District of 

Columbia 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Florida 67 67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Georgia 159 159 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Guam 1 1 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Hawaii [1] 4 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Idaho 44 44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Illinois 108 108 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Indiana 92 92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Iowa 99 99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Kansas 105 105 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Kentucky 120 120 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Louisiana 64 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maine 499 499 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maryland 24 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Massachusetts 351 351 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Michigan 83 83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Minnesota 87 87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Mississippi 82 82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Missouri 116 116 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Montana 56 56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Nebraska 93 93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
165 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Survey Response Rate Overall and by Section, A-B 

State 

Total 

Jurisdictions 

EAVS Section A Section B 

Jurisdictions 

Reporting 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Nevada 17 17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New Hampshire 320 320 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New Jersey 21 21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New Mexico 33 33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New York 62 62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

North Carolina 100 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

North Dakota 53 53 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 

Ohio 88 88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Oklahoma 77 77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Oregon 36 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Pennsylvania 67 67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Rhode Island 39 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

South Carolina 46 46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

South Dakota 66 66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Tennessee 95 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Texas 254 253 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.98 

U.S. Virgin Islands 1 1 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Utah 29 29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Vermont 246 246 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Virginia 133 133 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Washington 39 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

West Virginia 55 55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wisconsin 1850 1850 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wyoming 23 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

U.S. Total 6458 6457 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 
Survey Methodology and Process | 166 

Survey Response Rate by Section, C-F 

State 

Section C Section D Section E Section F 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Alabama 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Alaska 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

American Samoa 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Arizona 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Arkansas 0.83 0.90 0.84 0.90 0.81 0.76 0.81 0.88 

California 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Colorado 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Connecticut 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Delaware 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

District of 

Columbia 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Florida 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Georgia 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Guam 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Hawaii [1] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Idaho 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 

Illinois 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Indiana 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.91 1.00 1.00 

Iowa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Kansas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Kentucky 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Louisiana 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Maine 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 

Maryland 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Massachusetts 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Michigan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Minnesota 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 

Mississippi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Missouri 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Montana 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Nebraska 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Nevada 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New Hampshire 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 
167 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Survey Response Rate by Section, C-F 

State 

Section C Section D Section E Section F 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

Response 

Rate % CVAP 

New Jersey 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New Mexico 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

New York 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

North Carolina 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

North Dakota 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 

Ohio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Oklahoma 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Oregon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Pennsylvania 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Rhode Island 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

South Carolina 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

South Dakota 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Tennessee 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Texas 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.98 

U.S. Virgin Islands 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 - 

Utah 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Vermont 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 

Virginia 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.73 1.00 1.00 

Washington 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

West Virginia 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wisconsin 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Wyoming 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

U.S. Total 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.99 
Survey Methodology and Process | 168 

Response Rate Calculation Notes 

(1) Response Rate is calculated as the percentage of jurisdictional responses within a state 

that were either non-zero (a number greater than or equal to 1) or a valid zero (data were 

reported as zero because no instance of the variable occurred within the jurisdiction). 

Undefined subitems ("other" categories) and non-numeric questions (categorical, text, 

comment boxes, etc.) were excluded from calculations. Jurisdictions for which a question or 

series of questions were not applicable were excluded from calculations and appear as 

missing in the table when a survey section does not apply to any jurisdiction within a state. 

(2) CVAP Response Rate is calculated as the percentage of the state’s Citizen Voting Age 

Population (CVAP) represented by reporting jurisdictions. CVAP information was not 

available for American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, therefore, registration rates 

as a percentage of CVAP could not be calculated for these U.S. territories. 

Table Data Notes 

General Note: 

• The Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is an estimate of the number of U.S. citizens 18 

years of age or older in the state. This report uses the 1-year ACS state estimate for 2017 

instead of the 5-year estimate to ensure that the CVAP was as current as possible. The 

estimate for the year 2018 was not available by the time this report was finalized. 

[1] Hawaii: Information for one county, Kalawao, was reported with Maui County. In keeping with 

previous years, the total jurisdiction count for this state was adjusted down by one (to four 

jurisdictions) to account for this. 
169 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Methodology Appendix B: Validation Rules

Table 1: Math Validation Rules 

Math Validation Rule Error Text

The sum of A1b + A1c should 

equal A1a.

The sum of active (A1b) and inactive (A1c) registered persons 

should be equal to the total number of persons who are 

registered to vote (A1a). Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why these subitems don't 

add up.

The sum of A3b-j should equal 

A3a

The amounts you report in A3b-j should equal the total 

number of registration forms you report in A3a. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up.

The sum of A4a-l should equal 

A3a

The amounts you report in A4a-l should equal the total 

number of registration forms you reported in A3a. Please 

correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up.

The sum of A5a-l should equal 

A3b

The amounts you report in A5a-l should equal the total 

number of new valid registration forms you reported in A3b. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up.

The sum of A6a-l should equal 

A3d

The amounts you report in A6a-l should equal the total 

number of duplicates of existing registration forms you 

reported in A3d. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up.

The sum of A7a-l should equal 

A3e

The amounts you report in A7a-l should equal the total 

number of invalid or rejected registration forms you reported 

in A3e. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up.

The sum of A5a + A6a + A7a 

should not exceed A4a.

The amounts you report in A5a, A6a and A7a should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms received by 

mail, fax, or email you reported in A4a. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up.

The sum of A5b + A6b + A7b 

should not exceed A4b.

The amounts you report in A5b, A6b and A7b should not 

exceed the total number of registrations in person at the 

election/registrar’s office you reported in A4b. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up.

The sum of A5c + A6c + A7c 

should not exceed A4c.

The amounts you report in A5c, A6c and A7c should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms submitted 

online you reported in A4c. Please correct your responses or 

use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up.
Survey Methodology and Process | 170 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of A5d + A6d + A7d 

should not exceed A4d. 

The amounts you report in A5d, A6d and A7d should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms received from 

motor vehicle offices you reported in A4d. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of A5e + A6e + A7e 

should not exceed A4e. 

The amounts you report in A5e, A6e and A7e should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms received from 

public assistance offices you reported in A4e. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of A5f + A6f + A7f 

should not exceed A4f. 

The amounts you report in A5f, A6f and A7f should not exceed 

the total number of registration forms received from statefunded agencies you reported in A4f. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of A5g + A6g + A7g 

should not exceed A4g. 

The amounts you report in A5g, A6g and A7g should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms received from 

armed forces recruitment offices you reported in A4g. Please 

correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of A5h + A6h + A7h 

should not exceed A4h. 

The amounts you report in A5h, A6h and A7h should not 

exceed the total number of registration forms received from 

other agencies designated by the state but not mandated by 

NVRA you reported in A4h. Please correct your responses or 

use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 

The sum of A5i + A6i + A7i 

should not exceed A4i. 

The amounts you report in A5i, A6i and A7i should not exceed 

the total number of forms received from registration drives 

from advocacy groups or political parties you reported in A4i. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of A5j + A6j + A7j 

should not exceed A4j. 

The amounts you report in A5j, A6j and A7j should not exceed 

the total number of forms received from “Other” sources you 

reported in A4j. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of A5k + A6k + A7k 

should not exceed A4k. 

The amounts you report in A5k, A6k and A7k should not 

exceed the total number of forms received from “Other” 

sources you reported in A4k. Please correct your responses or 

use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 
171 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of A5l + A6l + A7l 

should not exceed A4l. 

The amounts you report in A5l, A6l and A7l should not exceed 

the total number of forms received from “Other” sources you 

reported in A4l. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of A8b-h should equal 

A8a 

The amounts you report in A8b-h should equal the total 

number of confirmation notices sent to registered voters you 

report in A8a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of A9b-j should equal 

A9a 

The amounts you report in A9b-j should equal the total 

number of voters removed you report in A9a. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B1b-c should equal 

B1a 

The amounts you report in B1b-c should equal the total 

number of registered and eligible UOCAVA voters you report in 

B1a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B2b-c should equal 

B2a 

The amounts you report in B2b-c should equal the total 

number of FCPAs received from UOCAVA voters you report in 

B2a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B3b-c should equal 

B3a 

The amounts you report in B3b-c should equal the total 

number of rejected FPCAs from UOCAVA voters you report in 

B3a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B5b-c should equal 

B5a 

The amounts you report in B5b-c should equal the total 

number of absentee ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters you 

report in B5a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B6b-c should equal 

B6a 

The amounts you report in B6b-c should equal the total 

number of absentee ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters by 

postal mail you report in B6a. Please correct your responses 

or use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 

The sum of B7b-c should equal 

B7a 

The amounts you report in B7b-c should equal the total 

number of absentee ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters by 

email you report in B7a. Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why these subitems don't 

add up. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 172 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of B8b-c should equal 

B8a 

The amounts you report in B8b-c should equal the total 

number of absentee ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters by 

other methods you report in B8a. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B6a, B7a and B8a 

should equal B5a 

The amounts you report in B6a, B7a and B8a should equal 

the total number of ballots transmitted to all UOCAVA voters 

you report in B5a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B6b, B7b and B8b 

should equal B5b 

The amounts you report in B6b, B7b and B8b should equal 

the total number of ballots transmitted to all uniformed 

services voters you report in in B5b. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B6c, B7c and B8c 

should equal B5c 

The amounts you report in B6c, B7c and B8c should equal the 

total number of ballots transmitted to all civilian overseas 

voters you report in B5c. Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why these subitems don't 

add up. 

The sum of B9b-c should equal 

B9a 

The amounts you report in B9b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots returned to your office you report in 

B9a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B10b-c should equal 

B10a 

The amounts you report in B10b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots returned to your office by postal 

mail you report in B10a. Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why these subitems don't 

add up. 

The sum of B11b-c should equal 

B11a 

The amounts you report in B11b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots returned to your office by email you 

report in B11a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B12b-c should equal 

B12a 

The amounts you report in B12b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots returned to your office by other 

methods you report in B12a. Please correct your responses or 

use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 

The sum of B10a, B11a, and 

B12a should equal B9a 

The amounts you report in B10a, B11a, and B12a should 

equal the total number of UOCAVA ballots returned to your 

office you report in B9a. Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why these subitems don't 

add up. 
173 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of B10b, B11b and 

B12b should equal B9b 

The amounts you report in B10b, B11b and B12b should 

equal the total number of transmitted ballots returned by all 

uniformed services voters you report in B9b. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B10, B11c and B12c 

should equal B9c 

The amounts you report in B10, B11c and B12c should equal 

the total number of transmitted ballots returned by all civilian 

overseas voters you report in B9c. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B13b-d should equal 

B13a 

The amounts you report in B13b-d should equal the total 

number of ballots returned undeliverable you report in B13a. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B14b-c should equal 

B14a 

The amounts you report in B14b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots counted by your office you report in 

B14a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B15b-c should equal 

B15a 

The amounts you report in B15b-c should equal the total 

number of counted UOCAVA ballots returned by postal mail 

you report in B15a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B16b-c should equal 

B16a 

The amounts you report in B16b-c should equal the total 

number of counted UOCAVA ballots returned by email you 

report in B16a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B17b-c should equal 

B17a 

The amounts you report in B17b-c should equal the total 

number of counted UOCAVA ballots returned by other methods 

you report in B17a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B15a, B16a, and 

B17a should equal B14a 

The amounts you report in B15a, B16a, and B17a should 

equal the total number of UOCAVA ballots counted by your 

office you report in B14a. Please correct your responses or 

use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 

The sum of B15b, B16b and 

B17b should equal B14b 

The amounts you report in B15b, B16b and B17b should 

equal the total number of uniformed services voters’ ballots 

counted by your office you report in B14b. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 174 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of B15c, B16c and 

B17c should equal B14c 

The amounts you report in B15c, B16c and B17c should 

equal the total number of civilian overseas voters’ ballots 

counted by your office you report in B14c. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B18b-c should equal 

B18a 

The amounts you report in B18b-c should equal the total 

number of rejected UOCAVA ballots you report in B18a. Please 

correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B19b-c should equal 

B19a 

The amounts you report in B19b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots rejected because they were 

received after the deadline you report in B19a. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B20b-c should equal 

B20a 

The amounts you report in B20b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots rejected because of a problem with 

the voter signature you report in B20a. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B21b-c should equal 

B21a 

The amounts you report in B21b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots rejected for lack of a postmark you 

report in B21a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B22b-c should equal 

B22a 

The amounts you report in B22b-c should equal the total 

number of UOCAVA ballots rejected for other reasons you 

report in B22a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B19a, B20a, B21a, 

and B22a should equal B18a 

The amounts you report in B19a, B20a, B21a, and B22a 

should equal the total number of rejected UOCAVA ballots you 

report in B18a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B19b, B20b, B21b 

and B22b should equal B18b 

The amounts you report in B19b, B20b, B21b and B22b 

should equal the total number of rejected ballots from 

uniformed services voters you report in B18b. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B19c, B20c, B21c 

and B22c should equal B18c 

The sum of the amounts you report in B19c, B20c, B21c and 

B22c should equal the total number of rejected ballots from 

civilian overseas voters you report in B18c. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 
175 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of B23b-c should equal 

B23a 

The amounts you report in B23b-c should equal the total 

number of FWABs returned by UOCAVA voters you report in 

B23a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B24b-c should equal 

B24a 

The amounts you report in B24b-c should equal the total 

number of FWABs counted you report in B24a. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B25b-c should equal 

B25a 

The amounts you report in B25b-c should equal the total 

number of FWABs rejected because they were received after 

the deadline you report in B25a. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B26b-c should equal 

B26a 

The amounts you report in B26b-c should equal the total 

number of FWABs rejected because the voter’s regular 

absentee ballot was received and counted you report in B26a. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B24a, B25a, and 

B26a should not exceed B23a

The amounts you report in B24a, B25a, and B26a should not 

exceed the total number of FWABs returned by UOCAVA voters 

you report in B23a. Please correct your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why these subitems don't add 

up. 

The sum of B24b, B25b and 

B26b should not exceed B23b 

The sum of the amounts you report in B24b, B25b and B26b 

should not exceed the total number of FWABs returned by 

uniformed services voters you report in B23a. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of B24c, B25c and 

B26c should not exceed B23c 

The sum of the amounts you report in B24c, B25c and B26c 

should not exceed the total number of FWABs returned by 

civilian overseas voters you report in B23c. Please correct 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of C1b-i should equal 

C1a 

The amounts you report in C1b-i should equal the number of 

total domestic by-mail ballots transmitted you report in C1a. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of C4b-r should equal 

C4a 

The amounts you report in C4b-r should equal the total 

number of domestic civilian by-mail ballots rejected you report 

in C4a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 176 

Math Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of D4b–c cannot exceed 

D4a. 

The sum the amounts you report in D4b–c cannot exceed the 

total number of physical polling places for Election Day in your 

jurisdiction you report in D4a. Please correct your responses 

or use the comments section to explain why these subitems 

don't add up. 

The sum of D5b–c cannot exceed 

D5a. 

The sum of the amounts you report in D5b–c cannot exceed 

the total number of physical polling places for Early Voting in 

your jurisdiction you report in D5a. Please correct your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why these 

subitems don't add up. 

The sum of D8b-g should equal 

D8a 

The numbers you report in D8b-g should equal the total 

number of poll workers in your jurisdiction you report in D8a. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of E1b-e should equal 

E1a 

The amounts you report in E1b-e should equal the total 

number of voters who submitted provisional ballots you report 

in E1a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of E2b-m should equal 

E2a 

The amounts you report in E2b-m should equal the total 

number of rejected domestic civilian by-mail ballots you report 

in E2a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 

E1d should be equal to E2a 

The amount you report in E1d should equal the total number 

of rejected domestic civilian by-mail ballots you report in E2a. 

Please correct your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why these subitems don't add up. 

The sum of F1b-h should equal 

F1a 

The amounts you report in F1b-h should equal the total 

number of voters participating in the election you report in 

F1a. Please correct your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why these subitems don't add up. 
177 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Table 2: Logic Validation Rules

Logic Validation Rule Error Text

A2a cannot exceed A1a The amount you report in A2a cannot exceed the total number 

of registered voters you report in A1a. Please review your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why the 

value in A2a exceeds the value in A1a.

B3a should not exceed B2a The number of rejected FPCAs you report in B3a should not 

exceed the total number of FPCAs received you reported in 

B2a. Please review your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why the value in B3a exceeds the value in 

B2a.

B4a should not exceed B3a The amount you report in B4a should not exceed the number 

of rejected FPCAs you report in B3a. Please review your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why the 

value in B4a exceeds the value in B3a.

B9a should not exceed B5a The amount you report in B9a should not exceed the number 

of ballots transmitted to UOCAVA voters you report in B5a.

Please review your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why the value in B9a exceeds the value in B5a.

B13a cannot exceed B5a The total number of undeliverable ballots you report in B13a 

should not exceed the number of ballots transmitted that you 

report in B5a. Please review your responses or use the 

comments section to explain why the value in B13a exceeds

the value in B5a.

B14a cannot exceed B5a The total number of UOCAVA ballots counted you report in 

B14a should not exceed the number of ballots transmitted 

that you report in B5a. Please review your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why the value in B14a 

exceeds the value in B5a.

B18a cannot exceed B5a The total number of UOCAVA ballots rejected you report in 

B18a should not exceed the number of ballots transmitted 

that you report in B5a. Please review your responses or use 

the comments section to explain why the value in B18a 

exceeds the value in B5a.

C2a cannot exceed C1a The amount you report in C2a cannot exceed the total number 

of domestic civilian by-mail ballots transmitted you report in 

C1a. Please review your responses or use the comments 

section to explain why the value in C2a exceeds the value in 

C1a.

The sum of C3a and C4a cannot 

exceed C1b.

The sum of the amounts you report in C3a and C4a cannot 

exceed the number of by-mail ballots returned by voters and 

submitted for counting you report in C1b. Please review your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why the 

sum of C3a and C4a exceed the value in C1b.
Survey Methodology and Process | 178 

Logic Validation Rule Error Text 

The sum of D2a–b should not 

exceed D1a. 

The sum of the number of people who voted in-person in your 

jurisdiction, as reported in D2a and D2b, should not exceed 

the total votes cast in your jurisdiction as reported in D1a. 

Please review your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why the sum of D2a and D2b exceed the value in D1a. 

If D2b>0, D5a>0 If you reported in D2b that your jurisdiction had voters who 

voted in-person at an early voting location, then you should 

record the number of early voting locations in your jurisdiction 

in D5a, D5b, and D5c. Please correct your responses or use 

the comments section to explain your answers. 

F1a cannot exceed A1a The amount you report in F1a cannot exceed the total number 

of registered voters you report in A1a. Please review your 

responses or use the comments section to explain why the 

value in F1a exceeds the value in A1a. 

F1d cannot exceed C1a The amount you report in F1d cannot exceed the total number 

of by-mail ballots transmitted you report in C1a. Please review 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

the value in F1d exceeds the value in C1a. 

F1e cannot exceed E1a The amount you report in F1e cannot exceed the total number 

of provisional ballots received you report in E1a. Please review 

your responses or use the comments section to explain why 

the value in F1e exceeds the value in E1a. 

F1f cannot exceed D2b The amount you report in F1f cannot exceed the total number 

of votes cast in an early vote location you report in D2b. 

Please review your responses or use the comments section to 

explain why the value in F1f exceeds the value in D2b. 
179 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Table 3: Confirmation Validations 

Response Confirmation Text 

Does Not Apply Please review your response for item [insert item number here]. Please 

make sure this item does not apply to you and explain in the comments 

section. If you do not have information to respond this item, please 

change your response to “Data not available”

Data Not Available Please review your response and make sure that you do not have data for 

this item. If you collect the information but no response fits in this 

category, please enter "0". If this question does not apply to you, please 

select "Does not apply" and explain in the comments section. 

0 (Zero) Please make sure that your response is a "true zero" (the calculated 

amount is 0). If you do not have information to respond to the item, 

please change your response to "Data not available." If this item does not 

apply to your jurisdiction, please change your response to "Does not 

apply". 

Blank/Missing Please respond to item [insert item number here]. If you do not have the 

information to respond, please enter "Data not available". If you collect 

the information but no response fits in this category, please enter "0". If 

this question does not apply to you, please enter "Does not apply" and 

explain in comments section. 
Survey Methodology and Process | 180 

Methodology Appendix C: External Data Validations 

Introduction 

The major limitation of using only other items within a complete survey to identify data errors is that 

response items may be perfectly consistent with each other, but still subject to substantial 

measurement error. For example, the number of by-mail ballots may be lower than the total number 

of registrants, and thus not be flagged in an internal validation check, but the number of registrants 

may be multiple times the size of the eligible population of the jurisdiction. 

To account for this, the EAC used external data to form an expectation for what jurisdictions should 

have reported based on the jurisdiction’s geography and demographics. Responses with the highest 

probability of having errors are those with substantially higher- or lower-than-expected values for that 

item in 2018 based on the average (logged) count for the jurisdictions with similar characteristics 

(e.g., similar population, urbanization, median household income). Each jurisdiction is unique, so 

differences between what the jurisdiction reports and what value is expected does not always 

represent inaccuracies in the data that is reported by the jurisdiction, but rather limitations in 

external data sources or in the jurisdiction’s ability to report data in the categories listed in the EAVS. 

Consequently, the EAC only identified items as potentially mistaken if the discrepancy between what 

the jurisdiction reported and the value that was expected based on similar jurisdictions was large 

relative to discrepancies for other jurisdictions in 2018. 

Technical Approach 

If it is assumed that the probability of an item in the EAVS being subject to measurement error 

increases with the difference between what one would expect from a jurisdiction and what EAVS 

data indicate the count is, a simple decision rule for identifying suspect entries can take the 

following form: 

Error = Yes if |ŷ − y i i

| > 7Mi

 and No Otherwise

In which yi

is (the logit of) the relevant metric:13

yi = Ln(

c

s

(c

T − cs)

)

In which c

s

is the count for the relevant subpopulation (e.g., participants, by-mail ballot returners) and 

c

T

is the count of the larger population (e.g., registrants, by-mail ballot requesters). For instance, the 

number of ballots cast is to a large degree a function of the number of registrants. In this case, the 

outcome of interest may be a (the logit of the) rate (e.g., registration rate, participation rate, ballot 

return rate), and the outcome of interest can be expressed as Mifor jurisdiction i: 

1) M1 = med(|(ŷ − y i i

) − med(ŷ − y i i)|)

 

13 The logit is used rather than the rate because the rate is bound between 0 and 1, and is thus unlikely to follow a normal 

distribution. One limitation of the logit is that it is undefined for rates that are 0 or 1. For jurisdictions that report such 

values, they were automatically flagged as potentially being errors. 
181 | Survey Methodology and Process 

In other words, an entry for a jurisdiction would be identified as being subject to measurement error 

due to mis-entry if the absolute difference between the (logit of the) ratio and the expected (logit of 

the) ratio for that jurisdiction, from now on referred to as the residual, exceeded 7 times the median 

absolute deviation from the median residual. This standard thus flags jurisdictions by the relative 

size of their residual, accounting for misspecification of the model. The choice of 7 is largely arbitrary 

and can be smaller or larger based on whether one wants to be more conservative or lenient with 

respect to identifying entries as being subject to measurement error.

The expected outcome ŷiis either the mean of yi across all jurisdictions or varies based on the 

characteristics of the jurisdiction. For example, one may expect jurisdictions with high rates of 

college-educated residents to have higher rates of voter registration and participation. The expected 

(logit of the) rate can be modeled as follows:

2) ŷi

̂ = βXi

In which Xiis a vector of determinants of the “true” number of ballots being counted, but which is 

assumed to not be systematically related to measurement error. Table 4 describes all variables used 

in these external validations and their source.

Table 4: Variable Descriptions and Sources

Variable Source

Examples of the Outcomes

Registration Rate (A1b/Citizen Voting Age Population) 2016 EAVS/2017 5-year 

American Community Survey 

(ACS)

Voting Rate (D1a/ Citizen Voting Age Population) 2016 EAVS/2017 5-year ACS

Participation Rate (F1a/ Citizen Voting Age Population) 2016 EAVS/2017 5-year ACS

Inactive Registrant Rate (A1c/A1a) 2016 EAVS

Registration Rejection Rate ((A3e+A3d)/(A3a) 2016 EAVS

Registration Removal Rate (A9a/ (A1a + A9a)) 2016 EAVS

UOCAVA Ballot Request Rate (B1a/A1b) 2016 EAVS

Domestic Ballot Request Rate (C1a/A1b) 2016 EAVS

UOCAVA Ballot Return Rate (B9/B1a) 2016 EAVS

UOCAVA Returned Ballot Count Rate (B14/B19) 2016 EAVS

UOCAVA Ballot Reject Rate (B18/B19) 2016 EAVS

FPCA Applications as % of UOCAVA (B2a/B1a) 2016 EAVS

Domestic Ballot Transmission Rate (C1a/A1a) 2016 EAVS

In-person Absentee Ballot Vote Rate (C1e/C1a) 2016 EAVS

Voting Rate of Active Registrants (D1a/A1b) 2016 EAVS

In-Person Voting Rate of Active Registrants (D2a/A1b) 2016 EAVS
Survey Methodology and Process | 182 

Variable Source 

Polling Places per Precinct (D4a/D3) 2016 EAVS 

Inverse Polling Place Density (County Land Area /D4a) Census Tigerline Shapefiles, 

2016 EAVS 

Population per Polling Place (CVAP/D4a) 2017 5-year ACS, 2016 EAVS 

In-Person Voters per Polling Place (D2a/D4a) 2016 EAVS 

In-Person Voters per Poll Worker (D6/D4a) 2016 EAVS 

Provisional Ballot Rate (E1a/A1b) 2016 EAVS 

Participation Rate of Active Registrants (F1a/A1b) 2016 EAVS 

In-Person Participation Rate of Active Registrants (F1b/A1b) 2016 EAVS 

Predictors 

Ln (Voting-Age Population) 2017 5-year ACS 

% of Population which is Foreign Born 2017 5-year ACS 

Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (Metro >1 million; 250K–1 

million; <250K; non-Metro) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/rural-urbancontinuum-codes/

Census Division Census 

Ln (Median Household Income) 2017 5-year ACS 

Two-party Vote Difference in 2012 Presidential Election Federal Election Commission 

Mean of Highest Vote Share for Congressional Districts which 

intersect with EAVS jurisdiction 

Federal Election Commission, 

Census Crosswalk, imputed 

using other predictors for 

missing 

Electronic Ballot Policies (Accepts By-Mail Ballots by 

Email/Web) 

FVAP 

Automatic Registration Policies FVAP 

Ln (Total Population) - Ln (Land Area) 2017 5-year ACS, Census 

Tigerline Shapefiles 

Military Employment as % of Total Employment, 2017 Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Local Income and Employment 

Tables 

Age (% 25–34; 35–44; 45–64; 65+) 2017 5-year ACS 

% Female 2017 5-year ACS 

Race/Ethnicity (% Black; Native American; Asian; Hawaiian; 

Other; Two or More Races; Hispanic) 

2017 5-year ACS 

Education (% Some College; College Graduate; Graduate) 2017 5-year ACS 

The challenge in estimating β to generate the expected outcomes is that we do not observe the 

expected or true outcomes, but rather only what is reported in the EAVS. To the degree that there is 
183 | Survey Methodology and Process 

substantial measurement error in the data reported in the EAVS, β̂ estimated via Ordinary Least 

Squares (OLS) will reflect the relationship between Xi and the measurement error and not just the 

average marginal effect of Xi on yi − yi, resulting in a biased estimate for ŷi. To mitigate this issue, 

Equation 2 can be estimated using robust regression (rreg in Stata), which iteratively re-estimates 

Equation 2, down-weighting observations based on residuals in the previous iteration.14 This 

procedure mitigates the influence of measurement error on the final model. 

The deviation from the expected (logit of the) rate (ŷ − y i i

) is calculated, and jurisdictions that are in 

error for a given response item are flagged using the decision rule above. Because some of the 

predictors (Xi) will be measured with error, a relatively conservative decision rule should be applied. 

The Auditing Process 

The following steps were taken for each response in each completed survey: 

1. Calculated two absolute difference between the actual 2018 (logit transformation of the) 

metric and the expected (transformed) item, in which the expected is both based on the 

mean across all jurisdictions and similar jurisdictions. 

2. Divided the absolute differences by M.

3. If the response for the specific jurisdiction exceeded either the mean for all jurisdictions or 

the mean for similar jurisdictions, then the item was flagged as having a potential error and 

the state was asked to review the item. 

Table 5: Policy Survey Validation Rules (Post Submission) 

Policy Survey 

Question 

Validation Rule 

Policy Survey 

Response 

Expected EAVS Response 

q6: Does your state 

have online 

registration? 

q6 = No A4c, A5c, A6c and A7c = Does not apply 

*Items A4c, A5c, A6c and A7c report data on online registration

q6 = Yes A4c, A5c, A6c and A7c > 0 

q7: Does your state 

have same day 

registration (SDR)? 

q7 = No A2a = Does not apply 

*Item A2a reports data on same day registrations

q7 = Yes A2a > 0 

 

14 Technical documentation about the rreg command can be found at http://www.stata.com/manuals13/rrreg.pdf.
Survey Methodology and Process | 184 

Policy Survey 

Question 

Validation Rule 

Policy Survey 

Response 

Expected EAVS Response 

q9: Do you use an allvote-by-mail system? 

If q9 = Yes, q9a: Is that 

at the jurisdiction or 

the state level? 

q9 = No F1g = Does not apply 

*Item F1g reports data on ballots cast in all-vote-by-mail 

jurisdictions

q9 = Yes F1g > 0 (at least in some jurisdictions if vote-by-mail 

is not at the state level – see response to q9a) 

q10: Does your state 

allow people to be in a 

permanent absentee 

voter list? 

q10 = No C2a = Does not apply 

*Item C2a reports data on ballots sent to permanent absentee 

voters

q10 = Yes C2a > 0 

q12: Does your state 

allow for in-person 

early voting or inperson absentee voting 

before Election Day? 

q12 = No D2b, D5 & F1f = Does not apply 

*Items D2b, D5 and F1f report data on in-person early/absentee 

voting before Election Day.

q12 = Yes D2b, D5, & F1f > 0 

q18: Does your state 

count provisional 

ballots cast in wrong 

precincts? 

q18 = Fully 

Count 

E2d = Does not apply 

*Item E2d reports data on provisional ballots rejected because 

they were cast in the wrong precinct

q22: Are convicted or 

incarcerated 

individuals removed 

from voter rolls? 

q22 = No one A9d = Does not apply 

*Item A9d reports data on voters removed from voter rolls 

because of a disqualifying felony conviction
185 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Methodology Appendix D: EAVS Survey Questions 
Survey Methodology and Process | 186 
187 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 188 
189 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 190 
191 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 192 
193 | Survey Methodology and Process 
| 194
195 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 196 
197 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 198 
199 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 200 
201 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 202 
203 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 204 
205 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 206 
207 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 208 
209 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 210 
211 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 212 
213 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 214 
215 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 216 
217 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 218 
219 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 220 
221 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 222 
223 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 224 
225 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 226 
227 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 228 
229 | Survey Methodology and Process 

Methodology Appendix E: Policy Survey Instrument 
Survey Methodology and Process | 230 
231 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 232 
233 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 234 
235 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 236 
237 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 238 
239 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 240 
241 | Survey Methodology and Process 
Survey Methodology and Process | 242