September 2009 

Dear Reader: 

The United States Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) 2008 biennial Election 

Administration and Voting Survey included a Statutory Overview survey. This survey 

gathered qualitative information on State definitions, laws, processes, and procedures 

relating to the administration of election in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

four territories. The Statutory Overview was designed to help the EAC and its 

stakeholders better understand and analyze the quantitative data collected through the 

Election Administration and Voting Survey; this information served as the basis for the 

attached summary report. 

The Statutory Overview report was created by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), the 

contractor also responsible for the 2008 Election Administration and Voting Survey. 

Each of the States and territories were given an opportunity to review the information 

contained in the report and revisions to the draft report were made based on feedback 

received from the States. 

While the analyses contained in RTI’s report do not necessarily represent the views of 

EAC, we encourage the reader to review, in particular, the various compendium tables 

contained in the report and to directly contact a State with questions regarding this 

information. 

This report provides the reader with a good understanding of the variations in how States 

administer elections and how State statute determines how an election is administered. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas R. Wilkey 

Executive Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 
Executive Summary 

In 2008, the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for the first time 

sponsored a Statutory Overview survey as part of the data collection for the EAC’s biennial 

Election Administration and Voting Survey. The Statutory Overview was an attempt to gather 

qualitative information on State definitions, laws, processes, and procedures relating to the 

administration of elections the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and four territories. The 

Statutory Overview was designed to help the EAC understand and analyze the quantitative data 

collected through the survey, and provide the basis for the current summary report. 

 The Statutory Overview found both significant agreement and significant variation 

among the States on key terms. Terms such as “blank ballot,” “absentee voting,” and “early 

voting” lacked common agreement. In most other cases, States appear to be operating with 

common understandings of what they mean by the use of specific terms. Other terms defied 

categorization altogether: for example, while the Statutory Overview offered definitions of types 

of voter registration systems (“top-down,” “bottom-up,” and hybrid), in practice it is clear that 

most State systems are functionally hybrid, suggesting that common categorizations are 

oversimplifications. 

 

 Among the other key findings in this report: 

 States match their voter registration databases with a variety of other databases to assess 

the accuracy of their voter rolls. 

 States are only just beginning to use the Internet to allow voters to register, although most 

States use it in a more limited way to facilitate registration or to check registrations. 

 States are almost evenly split on whether they allow no-excuse absentee voting, or 

require an excuse (such as being out of town on Election Day). 

 The use of provisional ballots is triggered by different sets of causes, and States vary in 

whether they count provisional ballots cast in a different precinct. 

 Half of the States responding require some form of ID, although only two said they 

required photo ID of all voters. 

 About half of the States have laws requiring post-election audits or allowing local 

officials to audit their elections. 

Complete responses from the States are available at the website of the EAC, www.eac.gov. 

 

 

1 
 

 

Introduction

 The 2008 Election Administration and Voting Survey was distributed to all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and four territories prior to the November 2008 election. Unlike the 2004 

and 2006 Surveys, this version asked not only for statistical data, but also included a qualitative 

“Statutory Overview” section that asked about State election laws. The questions in this section 

of the Survey focused mostly on State statutory requirements, but also included questions 

regarding State election practices that are not necessarily defined by law. Therefore, while the 

Statutory Overview is primarily a review of State statutes, it also includes some information 

regarding administrative practices that are not dictated by any written law. 

 Forty-five States responded to the Statutory Overview in time for inclusion in the 

analysis, in addition to the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses from Maine and Tennessee did not arrive in time 

for inclusion in this report, but are available on the EAC website. The States of Georgia, New 

Mexico, and New Jersey, and the territory of Guam, did not respond to the survey.1

 States that 

responded to the Statutory Overview were provided an early draft of this report and the 

opportunity to correct or amend their responses, and make other suggestions on the content of the 

study. 

 The methodology for organizing and summarizing the results is as follows. First, the 

responses for all States and territories were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet so that 

they could be sorted easily and compared with one another. Second, trained legal analysts 

examined the responses and divided the responses for each question into categories that fairly 

represented the different approaches that States take in each area. Third, the analysts examined 

each response and decided how to label each one. In some cases, it was difficult to capture the 

diversity of approaches without some simplification, and other times ambiguities in the 

responses made it difficult to decide which label to apply, but care was taken to present the data 

in a way that is both simple and accurate.2

 The end result is a report that includes and explains a 

number of charts that list the various approaches to election law questions across the 49 

jurisdictions that responded to the Statutory Overview. 

 The report below is divided into nine parts: 

1. definitions that States have given to various common election law terms; 

 

1

 The States’ complete responses are available at the website of the U.S. EAC, www.eac.gov. 2

 In the process of coding and categorizing, the EAC recognizes that some precision may be lost. In many cases, the 

state laws summarized in this report are more complex than can be presented here. For a complete understanding of 

a particular state’s laws and policies, the State’s full response and the statutes of that state should be consulted. 

2 
2. State laws governing voter registration databases, including “matching” and list 

maintenance procedures; 

3. disenfranchisement of felons; 

4. State laws governing mail-in and in-person early voting and the methods that are used to 

count and report the counts of mail-in and in-person early voting ballots; 

5. provisional voting; 

6. voter identification; 

7. post-election audits; 

8. polling place operations, including laws governing poll worker training and observers at 

the polls; and 

9. a short analysis of other data collected, including prevention and record-keeping of 

residual votes (under- and over-votes) and procedures for reviewing complaints of 

violations of the Federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). 

1: Definitions 

 Questions A1a–A1j of the Statutory Overview survey asked States3

 to identify the 

definitions they use for various common election law terms. As summarized below, respondents 

were for the most part uniform or near-uniform in their use of these terms. Even where there 

were slight differences among States on a particular term, it was usually apparent that they were 

attempting to express the same idea. 

 There were, however, significant definitional differences with respect to the terms “blank 

ballot,” “absentee voting,” and “early voting.” Researchers and other members of the election 

administration community would be well advised to take note of these differences, to ensure that 

they are accurately describing both existing practices and proposed reforms. 

 In the summary that follows, the most commonly provided definition of each term comes 

first, followed by the next most common, and so on. Where multiple definitions of a particular 

term were given, each definition is followed by a number in parentheses that indicates the 

number of States and territories that offered that definition. Because some States provided more 

than one definition, and because some States did not give definitions for some terms, the 

numbers do not necessarily add up to the total number of responding States. 

 Over-vote (A1a): Most responding States defined an over-vote as a vote for more 

candidates than is permitted, or voting both for and against a ballot measure. The one exception 

 

3

 For purposes of simplicity, the term “States” is used to refer to both States and territories. 

3 
is American Samoa, which defined an over-vote has having more paper ballots than voters listed 

in the precinct poll book (a concept sometimes referred to in other States as “excess ballots”). 

Most States indicated that the term is explicitly defined in State statutes or administrative 

regulations, but some indicated that the term has no “official” definition. Indiana, Kansas, and 

Louisiana did not provide a definition per se, but quoted laws that referred to an over-vote in the 

manner defined above. Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virgin 

Islands, and Washington did not provide any definition.4

 

 Under-vote (A1b): All but three responding States defined an under-vote to mean one of 

two things: [1] a ballot on which fewer than the maximum number of allowed votes were cast in 

a race or there has not been a vote for a ballot measure (26 States); or [2] failing to vote at all in a 

particular race or question (16 States). Ohio reported using both definitions. The only exceptions 

are Rhode Island (a failure to “connect the tail and the head of the arrow [on the ballot] of the 

candidate”), Vermont (a “blank”), and American Samoa (having fewer paper ballots than voters 

listed in the precinct poll book). Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin did not 

provide any definition, generally because the term is not used or defined by statute. Montana, for 

example, has changed its law to eliminate a specific definition. 

 Blank ballot (A1c): States’ definitions of a “blank ballot” included the following: [1] a 

ballot deposited into the ballot box or otherwise voted that evidences a total failure to make any 

legally sufficient mark at all for any office or question (21 States); [2] a ballot that does not 

contain any marks that the applicable voting technology is capable of reading, while possibly 

containing some legally sufficient marks upon manual examination (5 States); [3] a ballot 

deposited into the ballot box or otherwise voted that evidences failure to make any legally 

sufficient mark at all for a particular race or question (3 States); [4] an unused ballot (2 States); 

[5] a special emergency write-in absentee ballot that is used only in a Federal election when for 

whatever reason regular absentee ballots have not been printed in time for mailing (1 State). The 

differences in States’ responses indicate there is no consensus definition of the term “blank 

ballot.” Arizona did not respond to this question, and Indiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, 

Oregon, and Washington stated this term has no meaning under State law or practice. 

 Void/spoiled ballot (A1d): Most responding States defined a void or spoiled ballot as [1] 

a ballot that a voter has accidentally damaged or marked in a way that does not satisfy the voter, 

in which case the voter may request a replacement (30 States). Other States define the term as [2] 

a ballot that is torn, bent, soiled, defaced, marked in a way that causes it to be unreadable, or 

otherwise uncountable (9 States); [3] a ballot that, while undamaged and containing marks 

sufficiently clear to count as votes, suffers from facial defects that make it uncountable under 

State law (e.g., marks that allow identification of the voter, failure of poll workers to place their 

initials on the ballot in States that require this, evidence of tampering) (3 States); [4] an unused 

ballot (5 States); [5] any over-voted ballot (5 States). Puerto Rico defines spoiled ballot in three 

different ways. Arizona did not respond to this question, while Washington and North Carolina 

indicated the term has no meaning under State law. 

 

4

 This may have been a failure to respond to the question, or could note the lack of any statutory definition: 

Missouri, for example, reported that over-vote and under-vote are not defined in State law. 

4 
 Provisional/challenged ballot (A1e): Most responding States defined a provisional or 

challenged ballot as [1] a ballot issued to a voter in various situations when it is not clear the 

voter is entitled to a regular ballot (e.g., name not in poll book, no ID, voter is challenged, etc.) 

(30 States). An alternative definition is [2] a ballot provided to a voter whose right to vote 

remains to be verified within a fixed period of time (6 States). Other terms are used to express 

these ideas in other States, including a “questioned ballot” (Alaska), “affidavit ballot” (New 

York), or “special ballot” (DC). In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, a provisional 

ballot is not the same thing as a challenged ballot, which is a sort of ballot that is issued in the 

polling place exclusively after a challenge to a voter’s eligibility (note that New Hampshire does 

not have regular provisional ballots). In Oregon, a challenged ballot is not issued to a voter, but 

rather a regular ballot that is held for further research because there is a question as to the voter’s 

eligibility. Idaho and Minnesota do not have provisional balloting systems and indicated that the 

term “provisional/challenged ballot” has no meaning in their States. 

 Absentee and early voting (A1f–g): With the increased use of early voting and the 

myriad ways voters now can cast their ballots via absentee voting, these terms have become two 

of the least clearly defined terms in elections. There is significant overlap in practice in how the 

terms are used. 

 States defined the term “absentee” to mean [1] A ballot issued at a voter’s request when 

the voter meets certain qualifications (14 States); [2] a person who meets the qualifications to 

cast an absentee ballot (9 States); and [3] an alternative method for casting a ballot outside the 

traditional polling place (4 States). The Statutory Overview asked States to define the term 

“absentee” by itself, rather than specifying “absentee voting” or “absentee ballots,” and it 

appears that States did not have a uniform understanding of what was being asked. Thus, some 

variations in the responses may reflect respondents’ interpretation of the question more than they 

reflect actual differences in how they define absentee voting. Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont do not use the term “absentee.” 

 States defined “early voting” to refer to no-excuse, in-person voting during a set time 

period prior to an election. Among the States employing this definition were Alaska, American 

Samoa, Arizona (refers to both mail-in and in-person early voting), Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, 

Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. 

States that do not permit or do not use the term “early voting” include Alabama, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

South Dakota, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, Washington, DC, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. However, note that some of these States do permit “early voting” under the definition 

supplied above (“no-excuse, in-person voting during a set time period prior to an election”).5

 Table 1 shows the terms that different States use to describe the underlying concepts of 

mail-in absentee voting and in-person early voting. Note that the table shows that many States 

did not indicate a phrase for the latter concept because they indicated that “early voting” does not 

occur in their States. 

 

5

 See the section on nonprecinct voting below for further information. 

5 
The States’ responses indicate that there are differences in how the terms absentee and 

early voting are used. Absentee voting originated as a way of allowing people such as soldiers to 

vote by mail when away from home on Election Day. In recent years, a number of States have 

adopted in-person early voting, and many of them have not adopted new terminology to 

distinguish this from traditional mail-in absentee voting. Ohio and some other States, for 

example, use the term “absentee voting” to describe both in-person and mail-in voting that 

occurs before Election Day. Kansas refers to both processes as “advance voting.” California uses 

the term “vote by mail” both for mail-in ballots and ballots cast at in-person satellite offices of 

local elections officials. 

 At the same time, there is significant variation across States in the terms they use to refer 

to mail-in voting that occurs before Election Day. In Colorado, a mail-in ballot is called just that: 

a mail-in ballot. However, Nebraska refers to mail-in voting as “early voting,” and Texas refers 

to it as “early voting by mail.” Rhode Island calls a mail-in ballot “voting by mail ballot,” while 

other States use the term “absentee ballot” to mean the same thing. 

 No-excuse, in-person early voting is likewise described using different terms. Illinois 

refers to it simply as “early voting,” but Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, Wyoming, and other States refer to it as “absentee voting.” North Carolina refers to it 

as “one-stop absentee voting,” and Kansas refers to it as “in-person advance voting.” 

Table 1: Absentee and Early Voting Terminology 

Term for mail-in voting Term for in-person early voting 

Alabama Absentee Absentee* 

Alaska Absentee Early voting and in-person voting 

American Samoa Absentee Early voting 

Arizona Early voting Early voting 

Arkansas Absentee Early voting 

California Vote-by-mail Vote-by-mail 

Colorado Mail-in Early voting 

Connecticut Absentee N/A 

Delaware Absentee Absentee* 

DC Absentee N/A 

Florida Absentee Early voting 

Hawaii Absentee Absentee 

Idaho Absentee Absentee 

Illinois Absentee Early voting 

Indiana Absentee Absentee 

Iowa Absentee Absentee 

Kansas Advance voting In-person advance voting 

Kentucky Absentee N/A 

Louisiana Absentee by mail Early voting 

Maryland Absentee Absentee* 

Massachusetts Absentee N/A 

Michigan Absentee N/A 

Minnesota Absentee N/A 

Mississippi Absentee N/A 

6 
Missouri Absentee N/A 

Montana Absentee Absentee 

Nebraska Early voting Early voting 

Nevada Absentee Early voting 

New Hampshire Absentee Absentee 

New York Absentee N/A 

North Carolina Absentee One-stop absentee voting 

North Dakota Absentee Early voting 

Ohio Absentee Absentee 

Oklahoma Absentee In-person absentee 

Oregon Absentee N/A 

Pennsylvania Absentee N/A 

Puerto Rico Absentee N/A 

Rhode Island Vote by mail N/A 

South Carolina Absentee Absentee* 

South Dakota Absentee In-person absentee 

Texas Early voting by mail Early voting 

Utah Absentee Early voting 

Vermont Early or absentee voting Early or absentee voting 

Virgin Islands Absentee N/A 

Virginia Absentee Absentee* 

Washington Absentee N/A 

West Virginia Absentee Early voting 

Wisconsin Absentee Absentee 

Wyoming Absentee N/A 

* Indicates a form of in-person early voting that requires an excuse. 

 Active and inactive voters (A1h–i): States defined “active voter” to mean a voter “in 

good standing” in the registration database (i.e., a voter who has not been listed as inactive 

because of questions over registration and/or eligibility and who has not been targeted for NVRA 

list maintenance/removal). This definition is uniform across all States that provided a definition. 

States defined the term “inactive voter” to mean a voter who has been marked “inactive” in the 

registration database―for example, one who has not voted in the last 4 years, who has failed to 

respond to address confirmation postcards, or who has been deemed inactive for other reasons 

under State law. Although States have different processes for putting voters on the inactive list, 

use of these terms seems to be reasonably uniform. An exception is Texas, which defined an 

inactive voter as a voter whose registration has been canceled. Idaho, Michigan, and New 

Hampshire do not use the active/inactive distinction in their registration databases. North Dakota 

does use the active/inactive distinction in its voter history database, but it does not have voter 

registration. 

2: Voter Registration 

 The Statutory Overview included seven questions relating to voter registration and voter 

registration databases (VRDs), some of which were compound questions. The most important 

responses are distilled into four columns in Table 2. The columns show the following 

information: [1] whether the VRD in each State is top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid; [2] for 

bottom-up and hybrid systems, how often the information contained in local databases is 

reconciled with information retained at the statewide level; [3] the types of information about 

7 
voters that each State’s VRD is able to check against outside databases; [4] events in each State 

that cause officials to tag the voter as inactive in the VRD; and [5] events in each State that cause 

officials to remove the voter’s registration from the VRD altogether. The following is a brief 

overview of the States’ responses in each of these areas. 

Top-down/bottom-up (B1). Question B16 asked whether each State had a top-down or 

bottom-up VRD. The question defined a top-down system as one in which the data is hosted on 

State hardware, and a bottom-up system as one in which the data is hosted on local hardware. 

Under these definitions, 34 of 49 States indicated a top-down system, 8 indicated a bottom-up 

system, and 7 indicated some sort of hybrid. However, some States expressed confusion 

regarding the meaning of the question. Michigan, for example, responded: “As the definition 

provided above relates the terms ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ to both the system and the data, it 

is difficult to respond to the question. Clarification is needed.” Other States, while not explicitly 

calling for clarification, gave answers that suggested they did not all understand the question in a 

consistent way. Unfortunately, it is difficult to judge the degree of confusion present because 

most States simply stated “top-down” or “bottom-up” without further explanation. 

 These terms are simply not sufficient to describe a VRD system without oversimplifying 

because, in practice, it appears that many State databases are hybrids. This is because there are at 

least three characteristics of a VRD system that may be deemed “top-down” or “bottom-up”: [1] 

entry of the actual voter registration records, which may be done by local officials or by the State 

(as in Alaska); [2] physical custody of the hardware, which may reside either with local officials 

or the State, and most typically a combination of both; and [3] control over the software 

programs that are installed to administer the VRD. The software in Michigan, for example, is 

“top-down” in the sense that the software is developed and maintained by State officials. The 

State also maintains a central database where the VRD resides. However, local officials also 

maintain local hardware that contains the registration records for their jurisdictions. Locals enter 

voter registration records into these local systems running State software, which later transmits 

that data to the central State VRD that is a compilation of all the local VRDs in the State. 

Top-down systems. States that seem to have a true top-down system under any definition 

include Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands. These are States where the VRD is hosted at the 

State level and officials enter information directly into the State’s system. Typically local 

officials perform this task, although in Alaska State employees do it exclusively. There is no 

local database, and therefore no need to reconcile a local database with the State database. Aside 

from the States listed above, many of the States that indicated there is no need to reconcile local 

data with State data probably have a top-down system under this definition. On the other hand, 

Arkansas indicated that there is a need in its jurisdictions to reconcile data at the State and local 

levels, indicative of bottom-up or hybrid systems. Nevertheless, Arkansas stated it has a topdown system. 

 

6

 Is your state’s voter registration database system best described as a bottom-up, a top-down, or a hybrid? (Note: A 

bottom-up system generally uploads information retained at the local level and compiled at regular intervals to form 

the statewide voter registration list. A top-down system is hosted on a single, central platform/mainframe and is 

generally maintained by the state with information supplied by local jurisdictions. A hybrid is some combination of 

both systems described above.) 

8 
Bottom-up and hybrid systems. States that indicated a bottom-up system include 

California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. Like 

top-down States, these States typically host the State VRD in a State facility, but it is nothing 

more than a compilation of data that is hosted in a series of local databases. When a new 

registration form comes in, local officials typically enter it into their local databases, not directly 

into the State database. However, after the information is entered, the local database will 

automatically update the State VRD with the new information on a periodic basis. Arizona, 

Mississippi, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin indicated that they have 

hybrid systems, but it is not clear that this means something substantially different than the 

bottom-up systems described above. 

Database matches (B4). HAVA requires State officials to enter into agreements to 

“match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in 

the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to 

verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration” (42 U.S.C. 

§ 15483). It also requires an agreement to use databases maintained by the Federal Social 

Security Administration (SSA) to verify registration applications. Id. States have integrated the 

SSA data into their own motor vehicles databases, and the SSA match is performed by matching 

the voter registration applications against that database. 

 Column 4 of Table 2 shows that many States did not indicate whether they perform motor 

vehicle or SSA matches at all. This could be because of an omission or because States are not 

performing these matches. States that did not indicate whether they perform either motor vehicle 

or SSA matches include American Samoa, DC, South Dakota, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia. 

There are also a number of States that indicated they perform a motor vehicle match but did not 

indicate whether they perform an SSA match. 

Other matching systems. In addition to matching against motor vehicle and SSA data, 

some States match voter information against other government records. Examples include 

records of deaths, felony convictions, or adjudications of mental incompetence. Some States also 

have the ability to track changes of address by matching the VRD against address changes in the 

motor vehicle database, or by matching the VRD against itself to identify duplicates. A few 

States indicated that they have the ability to track moves out of State, citizenship status, or 

changes of name. It is important to note that States may have other ways of tracking such 

information besides a database. For example, States that disenfranchise felons may use paperbased systems for tracking voters with felony convictions. 

Triggers―active to inactive (B2). Question B2 asked States to describe their process for 

moving voters from the active to the inactive list. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

authorizes States to remove voters from the rolls under certain limited circumstances. In some 

circumstances, the voter may be labeled as “inactive” in the VRD before he or she is removed. 

The “inactive” label usually does not have any immediate consequences from the voter’s 

perspective, although some States have special ID requirements for inactive voters, and voters 

should be permitted to go on voting as usual unless they are eventually removed. Idaho, 

Michigan, and Ohio indicated that they do not use the active/inactive distinction in their VRDs, 

9 
at least as understood in the survey. The rest of the States indicated two main ways in which 

voters may be labeled inactive. 

 [1] Nonvoting. Seventeen of 49 responding States indicated that they label voters inactive 

for failure to vote.7

 This often occurs only after failure to vote over any 4-year time period that 

includes two Federal elections, but in some jurisdictions, like DC, it occurs after each Federal 

election. After this time has passed, officials send the voter a postcard that asks the voter to 

confirm that he or she continues to reside at the address on file. If this postcard is not returned by 

the voter, or is returned by the Post Office as undeliverable, then the voter is labeled inactive in 

the database. In Alaska for example, voters are labeled as inactive after they fail to vote for 4 

years, but are not yet removed. Procedures in other responding States vary widely. 

 [2] Other postcard mailings. Officials sometimes send postcards asking voters to confirm 

that they continue to reside at the address on file. If the voter does not respond or the notice is 

returned undeliverable, the voter is labeled as inactive in the database. Nonvoting is not 

necessarily required for these postcard mailings to be sent out. In fact, many States send out 

these types of postcards to all voters, or to targeted segments suspected of having changed 

addresses, on a periodic basis (typically after Federal general elections, but not always). The 28 

States that indicated they use this type of mailing are indicated in column 5 of Table 2 with the 

notations “undeliv.” or “nonresponse.” The first notation indicates that officials send a 

nonforwardable postcard and make the voter inactive if it is returned undeliverable; the second 

notation indicates that officials send a forwardable postcard and make the voter inactive if the 

voter does not respond by completing it and returning it.8

 The numbers after each notation 

indicate the periodicity of the postcard mailings (the number of years that pass between each 

periodic mailing), if known. The period ranges from 1 to 4 years. The notation NCOA indicates 

that a postcard is sent if the U.S. Post Office’s National Change of Address service indicates the 

voter has moved. Idaho, Michigan, and Ohio indicated that they do not use the active/inactive 

distinction in their VRDs. Most States indicated that the same “inactive” procedures that apply 

generally also apply to UOCAVA9 voters, and only Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas 

affirmatively indicated that different procedures apply. 

Triggers―removal (B3). Under the NVRA, voters may be totally removed from a VRD 

only because of death, change of address outside the jurisdiction, criminal conviction or mental 

incapacity, or at the request of the voter. In addition, the NVRA permits voters to be removed for 

nonvoting if a prescribed procedure is followed. Specifically, the State may send mailings to 

voters asking them to confirm that they continue to live at their current address and, if the voters 

do not do so, the State may remove them from the VRD if they fail to vote in two consecutive 

Federal elections after receipt of the notice (in the interval, voters are typically listed as 

“inactive” in the VRD). Twenty-six of the 49 States that responded to the survey indicated that 

they currently remove voters based on such a program. Column 6 of Table 2 shows which States 

 

7

 Note that this process precedes, but is totally separate from, a similar 4-year process that is used to actually remove 

voters from the voter registration database. The way it typically occurs, the voter fails to vote for 4 years and is then 

sent a postcard and labeled inactive. If the voter fails to vote for an additional 4 years, the voter is sent a postcard 

and removed from the database altogether. 

8

 Nonforwardable postcards are used to check addresses, because the Postal Service will not forward the cards to a 

new address. Forwardable postcards allow voters who have moved to respond. 

9

 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the federal law passed in 1986. 

10 
use this type of program, and also indicates States that operate other programs to remove 

registrations based on death, felony conviction, adjudication of mental incompetence, 

registration in another jurisdiction, other indicators of change of address (noted as “COA” in the 

table), or other factors. Almost all States indicated removal at the request of the voter, so that 

information was not included in the table. Comparison of columns 3 and 6 indicates whether 

States are using databases of deaths, felony convictions, or other records to conduct these 

removal programs, or whether they use some other type of method. Wisconsin and Wyoming 

indicated that they never fully remove voters from their VRDs, but instead merely mark them as 

inactive. Most States indicated that the same VRD removal procedures that apply generally also 

apply to UOCAVA voters, and only Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas affirmatively 

indicated that different procedures apply. 

Other removal triggers. A few States indicated additional removal triggers, generally 

removal as a consequence of a successful challenge to voter eligibility or other administrative 

determination that the voter is not qualified. It is possible that other States have similar 

procedures that they did not mention. 

 

Table 2: Voter Registration10

 

10 The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this table: DL (drivers license); SS (Social Security); 

NCOA (National Change-of-Address); COA (Change-of-address); undeliv (undeliverable); N/A (not applicable); 

11 
12

Bottomup/top 

down 

How often 

reconciliation 

occurs (for 

bottom-up 

and hybrid 

States)

Database 

matches*** 

Triggers―

active to 

inactive* 

Triggers―removal* 

Alabama Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv. 

Death, nonvoting (4), reg. 

elsewhere, felony, incomp. 

Alaska Top-down N/A DL#, SS# undeliv. (1) Nonvoting (4) 

American 

Samoa 

Top-down N/A None Nonvoting Death, reg. elsewhere 

Arizona Hybrid Real time death, DL#, 

incompetence, 

felons 

Undeliv., 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting , COA 

outside county, felony, 

incomp. 

Arkansas Top-down 5 days death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Undeliv. (2), 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting, reg. 

elsewhere, COA outside 

county, felony, incomp., 

not qualified 

California Bottomup Daily death, DL#, 

SS#, felons, 

change of 

address 

Undeliv. (2), 

NCOA 

Death, reg. elsewhere, 

COA outside county, 

felony, incomp. 

Colorado Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv.(1) 

Death, nonvoting (4), reg. 

elsewhere, COA, 

felony***** 

Connecticut Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Undeliv. Death, nonvoting, felony 

Delaware Top-down N/A DL# No info Death, reg. elsewhere, 

COA, felony, incomp. 

DC Top-down N/A None Nonvoting, 

undeliv. (2) 

Nonvoting 

Florida Bottomup Real time DL#, SS#, 

felons 

Undeliv. Death, reg. elsewhere, 

felony, incomp., not 

qualified 

Hawaii Top-down N/A DL# No info Nonvoting 

Idaho Top-down N/A DL#, SS# N/A Death, nonvoting, reg. 

elsewhere, COA, felony, 

challenge 

Illinois Bottomup 24 hours DL#, SS# Undeliv. Nonvoting (4) 

Indiana Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv., 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting COA 

outside county, felony 

Iowa Top-down N/A DL#, death, 

felons 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv. (1), 

NCOA 

Death, registered 

elsewhere, COA outside 

county, felony, incomp., 

voter request, challenge, 

nonvoting 

Kansas Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons, 

change of 

address 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv. , 

NCOA 

Death, reg. elsewhere, 

COA, felony 

Kentucky Top-down N/A DL#, change 

of address 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv., 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting, felony, 

incomp. 
Louisiana Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

NCOA, other Nonvoting (2), death, 

voluntary, COA***** 

Maryland Top-down N/A death, DL# NCOA, 

nonresponse to 

confirmation 

card 

Death, COA, felony, not 

qualified 

Massachusetts Top-down Real time death, DL#, 

SS# 

Nonresponse 

to 

confirmation 

card (1) 

Nonvoting 

Michigan Top-down Daily DL# N/A Death, COA 

Minnesota Top-down N/A DL#, SS# Nonvoting No info 

Mississippi Hybrid Real time DL# No info No info 

Missouri Top-down N/A DL#, SS#, 

death, felons 

Nonresponse 

to 

confirmation 

card 

Death, nonvoting (4), COA 

outside jurisdiction, 

incompetency 

Montana Top-down 

(listed as 

hybrid) 

Real time death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv., 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting, reg. 

elsewhere, felony, incomp., 

not qualified 

Nebraska Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

Undeliv., other Nonvoting, COA outside 

jurisdiction, death, felony, 

nonresponse 

Nevada Bottomup Daily Death, DL#, 

SS# 

Undeliv., other Death, felony, incomp. 

(records not removed but 

designated cancelled) 

New 

Hampshire 

Top-down N/A Death, DL#, 

SS#, felons 

N/A Death, nonvoting (10), 

COA outside State, felony 

New York Bottomup Near-real time DL#, SS# Undeliv., 

NCOA 

Not qualified 

North 

Carolina 

Top-down N/A DL#, SS# No info No info 

North 

Dakota** 

Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

name change 

Nonvoting No info 

Ohio Bottomup Varies by 

county 

DL#, SS# N/A Death, nonvoting, COA 

outside county, felony 

incarceration, challenge 

Oklahoma Hybrid Daily death, DL#, 

SS#, moves 

out of State 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv. (2) 

Death, nonvoting, reg. 

elsewhere, felony, incomp. 

Oregon Top-down N/A DL#, SS# Nonvoting, 

undeliv.  

Death, nonvoting, 

COA/registration outside 

of State, request of voter, 

Pennsylvania Top-down N/A DL#, change 

of address, 

change of 

name 

No info Death, nonvoting, COA 

Puerto Rico Hybrid Near-real time DL# Nonvoting (4) Challenge, other 

Rhode Island Bottomup Daily DL# No info Nonvoting 

South 

Carolina 

Top-down Daily DL# Undeliv., 

felons, death 

Death, nonvoting, COA, 

felony 

South Dakota Bottomup Daily death, felony Nonvoting, 

undeliv. (2), 

NCOA 

Death, reg. elsewhere, 

felony, incomp. 

13 
Texas Hybrid Daily DL#, SSN4 Undeliv. (2) Death, nonvoting, reg. 

elsewhere, COA, felony 

Utah Top-down Real time DL#, SS# Undeliv.** ** Death, nonvoting, COA 

Vermont Top-down N/A DL#, SS# No info Death, reg. elsewhere, 

COA 

Virgin Islands Top-down N/A Unclear No info Nonvoting 

Virginia Top-down N/A death, SS#, 

incompetent, 

felony, 

citizenship 

Nonvoting, 

undeliv., 

change of 

registration 

Death, felony, incomp., 

citizenship 

Washington Hybrid Near real-time DL#, SS# No info Death, nonvoting, COA 

outside State, felony, 

incomp. 

West Virginia Top-down N/A Unclear Nonvoting, 

undeliv. (1), 

NCOA 

Death, nonvoting, felony, 

incomp., challenge 

Wisconsin Hybrid Real-time death, DL#, 

SS#, felony 

Undeliv. (4), 

registration out 

of State, death, 

voter fraud 

conviction, 

incompetence 

N/A***** 

Wyoming Top-down N/A death, DL#, 

felony 

Nonvoting N/A***** 

*The numbers in parentheses after the words “undeliv.” or “nonvoting” indicate the number of years that pass 

between periodic uses of these two processes. For example, “undeliv. (2)” indicates that the State sends out 

nonforwardable postcards every 2 years to determine who has moved. By the same token, “nonvoting (4)” indicates 

that an inactive voter will be removed from the statewide voter registration database if he or she fails to vote for 4 

years after being labeled as inactive. Where no number is given, the number of years was not specified. 

**Note that North Dakota does not have a voter registration system (it is not possible to register to vote). However, 

the State does keep a central database of voters that would be considered top-down. Voters can be tagged as inactive 

and even removed from this database, but that is just for record-keeping purposes and has no effect on a person’s 

ability to vote. 

***Note that matching programs are listed only where the State affirmatively indicated that it has the subject type of 

program in place. It is possible that some States have additional matching programs that they omitted. It is possible 

that most States that indicated they are matching DL#s but did not indicate SS# matching are nevertheless indeed 

matching SS#s either through State departments of motor vehicles or directly through the Federal SSA. 

 Unlike many States, these do not send out nonforwardable postcards on a periodic basis to determine whether 

voters have moved. Instead, these States send postcards out only when records indicate the voter has moved or 

changed his or her registration to another address. 

** ***Colorado, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming reported that that they do not remove voters from their 

database, but only move them to “inactive/cancelled” status. 

National Change of Address Service (B5). Twenty-six States indicated they use the 

National Change of Address (NCOA) service available from the U.S. Post Office to help identify 

voters who have moved.11 A few States indicated that they review the NCOA data for accuracy 

before determining whether a voter has moved, but generally States did not go into the details of 

how they use the NCOA data after receiving them. Many States reported that they label a voter 

as inactive in the statewide voter registration database when NCOA indicates a change of 

 

11 They are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. 

14 
address, although many others did not specify the consequence of such an indication (see section 

titled “Triggers―active to inactive,” above). Seven States (Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, 

Mississippi, Texas, Vermont, and Washington) indicated that some counties in the State use 

NCOA, but others do not. All but a few States failed to give data regarding their degree of 

satisfaction with the NCOA service. Of the States that gave data, the general complaints were 

that the service is too expensive (Arkansas); it misidentifies voters as having moved when voters 

have changed their address for U.S. mail purposes but have not changed their actual residence 

(California); it misidentifies whole families as having moved when in actuality only one family 

member has moved (California and Pennsylvania); the NCOA data are sometimes older than the 

data in the registration file (Iowa); and it misidentifies voters as having moved in places where 

voters leave the State on a seasonal basis (Montana). Delaware, Nebraska, South Dakota, and 

Virgin Islands indicated general satisfaction with the service, while Louisiana and Vermont 

indicated general dissatisfaction. 

Internet-facilitated voter registration (B7). The Statutory Overview responses indicate 

that most States’ use of the Internet to facilitate voter registration is very limited. However, all 

States make printable voter registration applications available online except for North Dakota, 

which does not register voters. Only Arizona and Washington actually allow voters to complete 

the entire registration process online, although Kansas indicated its system for doing this should 

be online by December 2008. Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, 

Washington, and West Virginia indicated that voters may check their voter registration status 

online, as is the case in many other States, if not most. Missouri, Texas, and Montana allow 

voters to find their polling place online, and Texas allows voters to change their name and 

address and check registration status. 

3: Felon Disenfranchisement 

 Question B6 of the Election Administration and Voting Survey questionnaire asked 

States to report their laws regarding disenfranchisement of felons, and the results are summarized 

in Table 3 below. Forty-seven of the 49 responding States disenfranchise felons in some manner, 

with the exceptions being Vermont and Puerto Rico. The rest of the data are summarized below 

and in columns 2–4 of the table. 

Character of disenfranchising offense (B6). Forty of the 49 States that responded to the 

survey indicated that any felony is sufficient to trigger disenfranchisement. However, a few 

States require disenfranchisement only for certain felonies. For example, Alabama and Alaska 

disenfranchise only those who are convicted of felonies of “moral turpitude,” and Mississippi 

disenfranchises individuals who commit one of 21 enumerated crimes. The responses from 

Kentucky, Michigan, and the Virgin Islands indicate that these jurisdictions sometimes 

disenfranchise those convicted not only of felonies, but also of misdemeanors. 

Disenfranchisement period (B6). Many States―24 of the 49 States that responded to 

the survey―disenfranchise felons until the unconditional discharge of their sentences, including 

parole. The second most common approach, taken by seven States, is to disenfranchise felons 

only for the period that they are in actual physical confinement. Other States indicated that 

15 
restoration of rights occurs only after a waiting period following discharge (Nebraska and the 

Virgin Islands), or that the rights of felons are never restored short of an official pardon 

(Kentucky, Mississippi, and Virginia). 

Restoration process (B6). As summarized in Table 3, 17 States indicated that felons 

who have regained their eligibility to vote do not need to take any action to vote again except to 

reregister. Another 10 States indicated the restoration process is “automatic,” although it is not 

clear whether the voter must reregister in some of these States. In another 10 States, listed as 

“non-automatic,” a person who has regained eligibility may register but officials must make an 

affirmative determination of eligibility. Other States require voters to present discharge papers to 

reregister. 

Table 3: Felon Disenfranchisement 

Character of offense Disenfranchisement period Restoration process 

Alabama Felony of moral turpitude No info Non-automatic 

Alaska Felony of moral turpitude Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

American Samoa Unclear Unclear Unclear 

Arizona Any felony Until unconditional discharge Automatic after first offense 

only 

Arkansas Any felony Until unconditional discharge Non-automatic 

California Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Colorado Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Connecticut Any felony Until unconditional discharge 

(including fines) 

Must reregister 

Delaware Any felony Depends* Must reregister 

DC Any felony No info No info 

Florida Any felony No info Non-automatic 

Hawaii Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Idaho Any felony Until unconditional discharge Automatic 

Illinois Any felony No info No info 

Indiana Any felony During confinement only Must reregister 

Iowa Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Kansas Any felony Until unconditional discharge Non-automatic 

Kentucky Any felony, treason, 

elections crimes, high 

misdemeanors, others 

Only after executive pardon After pardon only 

Louisiana Any felony Until unconditional discharge Suspended until no longer 

under order of 

imprisonment** 

Maryland Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Massachusetts Any felony During confinement No info 

Michigan Any crime that results in 

confinement 

During confinement only Automatic 

Minnesota Any felony Until unconditional discharge Automatic 

Mississippi 21 enumerated crimes Until executive or legislative 

pardon 

After pardon only 

Missouri Any felony Until unconditional discharge Automatic*** 

Montana Any felony During confinement only Must reregister 

Nebraska Any felony Until 2 years after 

unconditional discharge 

Must reregister 

Nevada Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister** 

New Hampshire Any felony During confinement only Must reregister  

16 
New York Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

North Carolina Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

North Dakota Any felony During confinement only Automatic 

Ohio Any felony During confinement only Must reregister 

Oklahoma Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Oregon Any felony During confinement only Automatic 

Pennsylvania Any felony During confinement only Must reregister 

Puerto Rico N/A N/A N/A 

Rhode Island Any felony During confinement only Must reregister 

South Carolina Any felony or elections 

crime 

Upon unconditional discharge Must reregister 

South Dakota Felony of imprisonment Upon unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Texas Any felony Upon unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Utah Any felony During confinement only Automatic 

Vermont N/A N/A N/A 

Virgin Islands Any felony or crime of 

moral turpitude 

Until 1 year after unconditional 

discharge 

Must reregister**  

Virginia Any felony Until pardoned After pardon only 

Washington Any felony Until unconditional discharge Non-automatic 

West Virginia Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Wisconsin Any felony Until unconditional discharge Must reregister 

Wyoming Any felony No info No info 

*In Delaware, persons convicted of enumerated “disqualifying” felonies are permanently disenfranchised. Other 

disenfranchised persons may reregister after officials review their files and determine they have unconditionally 

discharged their sentences, paid all fines, and have not been convicted of a felony in the past 5 years. 

**In these States, to restore their rights, felons who have unconditionally discharged their sentences may reregister 

just like any other citizen, but they may be asked to show their discharge papers at the time of registration. 

***In Missouri, voting is not allowed after conviction of a felony or misdemeanor connected with the right of 

suffrage. 

 In New Hampshire, felons who are no longer confined to jail or prison may reregister, but may be asked to 

show discharge papers. Voting rights can never be restored for people convicted of certain election crimes. 

4: Non-Precinct Voting 

 Questions C1 through C4 focused on non-precinct voting, including in-person early 

ballots and mail-in ballots. The results are summarized below and in Table 4. 

Mail-in voting (C2). Twenty-five States indicated that they require an “excuse” (such as 

expecting to be out of town) to request a mail-in ballot. Twenty-three States indicated they do 

not require an excuse, but allow any person to cast a mail-in ballot who so desires. 

In-person early voting (C3). Twenty-six States indicated they allow in-person early 

voting (defined as casting a no-excuse, in-person ballot prior to Election Day). Some of these 

States referred to the practice as early voting, while others referred to it as in-person early voting 

or by some other term. Six States indicated they permit in-person early voting under their 

absentee voting laws, but only with an excuse. The rest of the States indicated they do not have 

early voting of any kind. It is possible that some of these States have early voting in the form of 

in-person absentee voting for people with a sufficient excuse, but did not consider this to be 

“early voting.” 

17 
Early/mail-in counting location (C1a). Eight States indicated that they count all early 

and mail-in ballots in the precincts themselves, while 21 States indicated central count for all 

these ballots. The remainder of the States indicated one of three things: 1) that mail-ins are 

counted with one method and in-person ballots the other, 2) that it depends on the type of 

technology used, or 3) that the question varies based on local practice. 

 It is possible that not all jurisdictions understood these questions (C1b, C1c, and C3) in 

the same way. The questions asked whether ballots were “counted” or “tabulated” centrally or in 

precincts, seeming to use these terms interchangeably. It is possible that some jurisdictions 

understood “counting” to mean the process of actually inserting a ballot into an optical scanner, 

while others understood it to mean compiling results of multiple machines off memory cards and 

aggregating the results. 

Redirection of central count ballots (C1b). Question C1b of the survey asked whether 

jurisdictions divide centrally counted ballots down to the precinct level for accounting purposes, 

rather than just counting them at the jurisdictional level. Twenty jurisdictions that do at least 

some central counting indicated that they do indeed track information at the precinct level, while 

10 indicated they do not. The rest of the States either do not count ballots centrally, leave the 

decision to “redirect” up to each local jurisdiction, or did not answer the question satisfactorily. 

Counting UOCAVA ballots (C1d). The survey asked States to indicate how they count

and report UOCAVA ballots. While States did answer this question, they generally did so in an 

abbreviated way, and did not give distinct answers to the two parts of the question (counting 

versus reporting). The result is that most States indicated they count UOCAVA ballots the 

“same” as other types of ballots (generally the same as absentee ballots), but there is no 

indication of what exactly this means. One interpretation is that if absentees are counted

centrally, then UOCAVA ballots are, too. Another interpretation is that if absentee ballots are 

accounted for in a separate column when precinct, county, and statewide results are reported, 

then that column represents not only regular absentee ballots, but also UOCAVA ballots (the 

totals are merged). Another interpretation is that if absentee ballots are accounted for in a 

separate column, then UOCAVA ballots are reported in another separate column and not merged 

with regular absentees. The States’ responses are summarized in the final column of Table 4. 

All vote-by-mail (C4). Question C4 of the survey asked respondents to describe whether 

any all vote-by-mail (AVBM) elections are conducted in their States. Only 12 States indicated 

that sometimes AVBM elections are permitted to occur, and the rest indicated AVBM is not 

allowed or at least not practiced anywhere in the State. Oregon conducts all elections by mail, 

and Washington conducts all of them by mail except in King (Seattle) and Pierce (Tacoma) 

counties.12 States that sometimes conduct AVBM elections are Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, and 

Utah. While most States that sometimes conduct AVBM elections did not give any further 

details as to their procedures for doing so, a few did. For example, Colorado indicated that 

AVBM elections can only be conducted in off-year (non-Federal) elections, although counties 

can designate specific precincts to be vote-by-mail in any election. Kansas and Missouri 

 

12 Since Washington responded to the Statutory Overview, King County has adopted all vote-by-mail elections. 

18 
indicated AVBM can only be used in issue-only elections. Idaho, Minnesota, and Nebraska 

indicated that AVBM is used only in very small municipalities or on a precinct-by-precinct basis 

for very small precincts. 

 

Table 4: Non-Precinct Voting 

 

Mail-in 

voting―

excuse 

required? 

In-person 

early 

voting 

Early/mail-in 

counting 

location 

Central 

ballots 

redirected? 

UOCAVA 

reporting 

methods 

Term for 

mail-in 

voting 

Term for in-person early 

voting 

Alabama Yes Only 

w/excuse 

Precinct N/A Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee** ***** 

Alaska No Yes Central No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Early voting and in person 

voting 

American 

Samoa 

Yes Only 

w/excuse 

Central Yes Depends on 

race 

Absentee Early voting******* 

Arizona No Local 

officials 

decide 

Central Yes Same as early 

votes 

Early 

voting 

Early voting 

Arkansas Yes Yes Central Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Early voting 

California No Yes Central* Yes ? Vote-bymail Vote-by-mail 

Colorado No Yes Depends** Yes Same as 

absentees/not 

reported 

separately 

Mail-in Early voting 

Connecticut Yes No Precinct N/A Reported 

separately by 

precinct 

Absentee N/A 

Delaware Yes Only 

w/excuse 

Central Yes “The same” Absentee Absentee******* 

DC Yes No Central Yes ? Absentee N/A 

Florida No Yes Precinct/central Yes Central 

count/not 

reported 

separately 

Absentee Early voting 

Hawaii No Yes Precinct/central No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee 

Idaho No Yes Depends*** Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee 

Illinois Yes Yes Depends  Yes Central count Absentee Early voting 

Indiana Yes** *** Yes Local officials 

decide 

Yes Same as other 

ballots/reported 

separately 

Absentee Absentee 

Iowa No Yes Central Yes Same as 

absentees/not 

reported 

separately 

Absentee Absentee 

Kansas No Yes Central Local 

officials 

decide 

Not reported 

separately 

Advance 

voting 

In-person advance voting 

Kentucky Yes No Central ? Same as Absentee N/A 

19 
absentees 

Louisiana Yes Yes Central Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee 

by mail 

Early voting 

Maryland Yes Only 

w/excuse 

Central No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee******* 

Massachusetts Yes No Precinct N/A Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

Michigan Yes No Local officials 

decide 

N/A Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

Minnesota Yes No Local officials 

decide (mostly 

precinct) 

Yes Precinct count Absentee N/A 

Mississippi No info No Central Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

Missouri Yes No Central Local 

officials 

decide 

Same as 

absentees 

Absentee In-person absentee******* 

Montana No Yes Local officials 

decide 

No Same as 

absentees/not 

reported 

separately 

Absentee Absentee 

Nebraska No Yes Central No Reported 

separately 

Early 

voting 

Early voting 

Nevada No Yes Central No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Early voting 

New Hampshire Yes No Precinct No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

New York Yes No Local officials 

decide 

Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

North Carolina No Yes Precinct/central ? Same as 

absentees 

Absentee One-stop absentee voting 

North Dakota No Yes County officials 

decide 

Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Early voting 

Ohio No Yes Central Varies by 

county 

Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee 

Oklahoma No Yes Central No, except 

for 

provisionals 

Same as 

absentees 

Absentee In-person absentee 

Oregon No No Central Local 

officials 

decide how 

to report 

Counted the 

same as other 

ballots 

Vote by 

mail 

N/A 

Pennsylvania Yes No Depends*** Yes Same as 

absentees, 

unless late 

Absentee N/A 

Puerto Rico Yes No Depends ? Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

Rhode Island Yes No Precinct N/A ? Vote by 

mail 

N/A 

South Carolina Yes No Central No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

South Dakota No Yes Central Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee In-person absentee 

Texas Yes Yes Depends****** Yes Same as early 

voting 

Early 

voting by 

Early voting 

20 
mail 

Utah No Yes Local officials 

decide 

Yes Same as 

absentees/report

ed separately 

Absentee Early voting 

Vermont No Yes Precinct Yes (only 

applies to 

vote-byphone 

ballots) 

Same as 

absentees/not 

reported 

separately 

Early or 

absentee 

voting 

Early or absentee voting 

Virgin Islands Yes No Central No Same as other 

ballots 

Absentee N/A 

Virginia Yes Only 

w/excuse 

Local officials 

decide 

No Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Absentee voting******* 

Washington No No Central ? Same as 

absentees/report

ed separately 

where possible 

Absentee N/A 

West Virginia Yes Yes Depends*** Yes Same as 

absentees 

Absentee Early voting 

Wisconsin No Yes Depends*** ? Same as 

absentees/report

ed separately 

Absentee Absentee 

Wyoming No No Precinct N/A Same as 

absentees 

Absentee N/A 

(Note: a “?” in a table entry means that the State’s response was either unclear or missing, or could not otherwise be 

succinctly summarized.) 

*Five California counties tabulate early voting ballots at the satellite early voting location. 

**Early and absentee ballots are counted centrally, while ballots cast at Election Day vote centers may be counted in 

precincts, at the option of local officials. Provisional ballots are counted centrally. In Colorado, for Federal elections, 

early and mail-in ballot results are reported at the precinct level, while UOCAVA ballots are counted as part of the 

larger mail-in ballot results. 

***Whether early and mail-in votes are counted centrally or in precincts depends on the type of voting system used 

in the jurisdiction. 

 Vote center ballots cast on Election Day are counted in the precinct. Early and mail-in votes are counted 

centrally. 

** ***An excuse is required to cast a mail-in ballot, but not an in-person absentee. 

******Texas indicated that in local elections, “sometimes” early voting ballots are counted in the precinct, but in 

Federal elections early voting by mail ballots are always counted at a central location. 

*******Denotes a type of in-person early voting that can occur only with an excuse. 

5: Provisional Voting 

Triggers for provisional voting (C5). Table 5 identifies whether States require voters to 

cast a provisional rather than a regular ballot in various situations. The most common is when the 

voter’s name is not in the poll book, followed closely by when the voter fails to present sufficient 

ID. It was not feasible to capture in tabular form every possible reason that a voter might have to 

cast a provisional ballot because there are too many. In fact, many States did not indicate that 

they require provisional voting in situations where it is very likely that they actually do (e.g., 

voter’s name not in poll book, successful polling place challenge to eligibility, court-ordered 

extension of polling hours). For this reason, the chart only indicates the situations in which 

jurisdictions have affirmatively indicated that they require provisional voting, and otherwise 

21 
leaves the cell blank to indicate that the State did not provide information on this point.13 This 

may be an area for further study. States with an asterisk next to their names indicated additional 

reasons a voter may be required to cast a provisional ballot, most typically in the case of a 

primary election where a voter attempts to vote for candidates of a party of which he or she is not 

currently a member. 

 It is noteworthy that the States that identify in the most detail the potential reasons for 

provisional voting―Florida and Ohio―are traditional “battleground” States where election 

procedures are scrutinized and lawsuits often filed. It may be that a history of conflict motivates 

legislatures and other players to create provisional voting laws that are more detailed to reduce 

ambiguity and the possibility for conflict. 

Standards for counting provisional ballots (C6). Question C6 asked States to indicate 

whether they count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Twenty-six States indicated 

that they categorically do not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Eleven States 

indicated they count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct as long as they are cast in the 

correct county, parish, municipality, or other relevant district. Presumably this means the only 

votes that will count will be the ones for which the voter was eligible to vote, but 6 of these 10 

States did not mention this issue in their responses. Seven States indicated that they will count at 

least part of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct as long as they are cast somewhere in 

the State (meaning they will count some races but not others). Colorado and New York have 

unique rules on the wrong precinct issue, and Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, 

and Wisconsin indicated they either do not issue provisional ballots at all or do not issue them to 

voters in the wrong precinct. Future questionnaires may benefit from asking more specific 

questions regarding the provisional counting process. 

Table 5: Provisional Voting 

 

Triggers that require provisional voting 

Not 

in 

poll 

book 

Inactive 

voter 

COA Name 

change 

Chlngd No 

ID 

Poll 

extend.14

Rqst. 

Abs 

Counted if cast 

in wrong 

precinct? 

Alabama X X X X County-based 

Alaska X X X X X X Partial 

American Samoa* X No 

Arizona X Only 

w/in 

same 

county 

X County-based 

Arkansas X X X X No 

California X Only 

w/in 

same 

county 

X X Partial 

 

13 For example, Iowa reported that provisional ballots are required under certain conditions if a voter is not able to 

provide additional ID or find another registered voter in the precinct to vouch for their identity and residency. 

14 Under HAVA, 42 USC 15482(c), provisional ballots are required to be issued during extended polling place 

hours. Some state statutes also require provisional ballots during this time. 

22 
Colorado X X X Depends** 

Connecticut X X X No 

Delaware No 

DC No 

Florida* X X X X X X No 

Hawaii X No 

Idaho N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Illinois X X X X No 

Indiana X X No 

Iowa X X No 

Kansas* X X X X X Partial 

Kentucky X X X No 

Louisiana X Parishbased/partial 

Maryland* X X X X X X Districtbased/partial 

Massachusetts* X X X Munibased/partial 

Michigan* X X No 

Minnesota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Mississippi* X No 

Missouri X No 

Montana* X X X No 

Nebraska X X if 

outside 

precinct 

X X X No 

Nevada X X X X No 

New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New York* X X X Counted in split 

precincts 

only******* 

North Carolina X Partial 

North Dakota N/A**** 

Ohio* X N/A X X X X X No 

Oklahoma* X X No 

Oregon X X N/A N/A Partial 

Pennsylvania X X X X Countybased/partial 

Puerto Rico X Partial 

Rhode Island X X Fed. votes only 

South Carolina X No 

South Dakota X X No 

Texas X X X No 

Utah X X X Depends***** 

Vermont* No 

Virgin Islands* X ? 

Virginia X X X No 

Washington* X X X Partial 

West Virginia* X No 

Wisconsin N/A X N/A****** 

Wyoming X X No 

(Note: N/A=“not applicable.”) 

*These States indicated additional reasons that one might be required to cast a provisional ballot. 

23 
**Colorado has detailed rules concerning whether provisional votes cast in the wrong precinct will be counted. See 

Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 1-8.5-107, 1-8.5-108, 1-8.5-109. 

***In Louisiana, votes cast in the wrong precinct but in the correct parish will be counted for those races in which 

the voter was eligible. However, no votes cast outside the correct parish will be counted. 

 North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

** ***Utah will count a provisional ballot cast by a voter in a precinct other than the precinct of registration if the 

voter provides ID showing residence in the new precinct. Otherwise, the ballot will not count. 

******Wisconsin will not issue provisional ballots to voters who appear in the wrong polling place. 

*******A split precinct is a combined polling place that serves voters of more than one precinct. 

6: Voter Identification 

 The survey asked about identification requirements for four categories of voting 

activities: [1] registration, [2] in-person voting, [3] mail-in voting, and [4] UOCAVA voting. 

Table 6 illustrates(?) the responses to these four questions, showing considerable variation on 

whether ID is required and what forms of ID are accepted. 

 All States but one indicated that they require ID of first-time voters who register by mail, 

pursuant to HAVA.15 Voters are exempt from this requirement, however, if their registration 

information can be matched against information maintained by the State department of motor 

vehicles or the Federal Social Security Administration. Because this requirement is uniform, the 

table ignores this issue to focus on more general ID requirements applicable to all voters. This 

means that, when a cell in the table indicates that no ID is required, what it really means is that 

no ID is required beyond the minimum required of all States by HAVA. 

Registration ID (D2a). Nineteen States indicated that they require ID of individuals 

registering to vote. The other States either do not require ID at this time or did not provide 

sufficient information. Note that 11 of the 19 States do not require an actual ID document, but 

will accept simple provision of a driver’s license number, Social Security number, or other 

identification number. In fact, it is likely that many additional States require provision of these 

numbers, but they did not mention it because they did not interpret the question to call for it. 

None of the jurisdictions require photo ID for registration, although the Virgin Islands requires 

official documents such as driver’s license, birth certificates, or naturalization certificates. 

 One important question that remains unanswered is what these States mean when they 

indicate that these various forms of ID are “required.” The term suggests that those who do not 

supply sufficient ID will not be registered, but that is not necessarily the case. In New York, for 

example, although ID is “required” for registration, the registrant has the option of presenting ID 

later, at the time of voting. This is similar to the system under HAVA, which gives voters this 

option, except that New York requires all registrants to provide ID, not just first-time mail-in 

registrants. Alaska has a similar system, and it is likely that other States will register voters even 

though they do not present the “required” ID at the time of registration. 

 

15 Oregon officials believe they are exempt from this requirement of HAVA because of their all vote-by-mail voting 

system. See “Drop sites bulge with ballots,” Oregonian, Nov. 2, 2004.

 

24 
In-person ID (D2b). Twenty-four of the 49 responding States indicated that they require 

some form of ID beyond mere provision of signature or oral self-identification at the time of 

voting. Only two of these jurisdictions―Florida and Indiana―said that they require photo ID of 

all voters (Louisiana, Michigan, and South Dakota have a photo ID requirement that is waived 

upon signing an affidavit of eligibility). Puerto Rico indicated it requires presentation of an 

Electoral Identification Card prior to all in-person voting. 

 The remaining 18 States require some form of non-photo voter identification. One of the 

most common ID requirements is similar to that of HAVA, requiring voters to show one of the 

following: current and valid photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, government 

check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. 

HAVA requires one of these forms of ID at the time of voting from unverified first-time mail-in 

registrants, but many States that require ID of all voters use a similar list. The notation “standard 

HAVA ID” is included to describe these States (although in some cases the State requirement 

predates the passage of the Federal law). 

 As with registration ID, an important and unanswered question is what States really mean 

when they claim that ID is “required” at the time of voting―in other words, what are the 

consequences of failure to present acceptable ID? For example, Ohio “requires” standard HAVA 

ID at the time of voting from all voters for them to cast a regular ballot. However, the voter can 

still cast a provisional ballot without ID, and under Ohio law it will be counted without any 

further follow-up from the voter as long as the driver’s license number or SSN-4 contained on 

the provisional ballot paperwork matches with that on file. This stands in stark contrast to 

systems in many States, where provisional ballots cast by voters without ID will not be counted 

unless the voter returns with ID within a time period specified by law. 

 

 Another question is whether and to what extent States have ID rules that apply only in 

special circumstances. New York indicated that it generally does not require ID, but does require 

documentary ID of voters who have been marked as inactive in the VRD. Massachusetts 

indicated a similar system, and also indicated that it requires ID of those who claim at the time of 

registration to have been issued neither a driver’s license number nor Social Security number. It 

is possible that such wrinkles exist in other States, but were not mentioned. 

Mail-in voting ID (D2c). The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions do not require any 

ID beyond a signature to cast a mail-in ballot. Alabama and Arkansas require documentary ID. 

Virginia also asks for documentary ID, although voters can get out of this requirement by signing 

a sworn affidavit. Missouri and Oklahoma require mail-in ballots to be notarized. South Dakota 

gives voters the option of notarization or presentation of documentary ID. Wisconsin requires the 

signature of a witness who observed casting of the ballot. Louisiana requires the signature of two 

witnesses who observed the casting of the ballot (one under the Special Handicap Program). The 

rest of the States only require ID of small segments of mail-in voters or allow provision of nondocumentary ID such as driver’s license or the last four digits of the Social Security number.16

 

16 This section refers only to the ID required for voting; some states, such as Oregon, do not require ID for voting 

but do require it to register to vote. 

25 
UOCAVA ID (D2d). The forms of ID required of overseas and uniformed services 

voters are listed in column 5. Only a few States―Alaska, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah, 

Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin―require any forms of ID at all. Where ID is required, it is 

typically required only for certain groups (e.g., first-time voters). In Ohio, ID is not required for 

those registering or requesting a ballot using the Federal post card application, although those 

registering or requesting a ballot by other means must comply with the State’s ID requirements. 

UOCAVA voters must complete and return an absentee ballot envelope, which requires ID 

information. 

 One variation that emerged is whether States apply HAVA’s ID requirement for 

unverified first-time mail-in registrants to UOCAVA voters. Nevada interprets UOCAVA voters 

who register to vote by mail to be exempt from this requirement. On the other hand, Maryland, 

Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming specifically indicated that they do require HAVA ID of 

first-time UOCAVA voters. It is not clear whether other States do the same, but simply did not 

mention it in their response. 

 

 

26 
Table 6: Voter Identification17

 

17 The following acronyms are used in this table: ID (identification); DL (driver’s license); DOB (date of birth); 

EDR (election-day registration); SSN4 (last four digits of Social Security number); SS# (Social Security number). 

The ID requirements listed in this table are beyond those required by HAVA, which are assumed to be followed by 

all the states. 

Registration ID In-person ID Mail-in voting ID UOCAVA ID 

Alabama None Standard HAVA 

ID or copy 

required of all 

voters (not just 

first-timers) 

Standard HAVA 

ID or copy 

required of all 

voters (not just 

first-timers) 

None 

Alaska *State ID/DL, 

passport, milit. ID, 

hunt/fish, birth 

cert., current and 

valid photo ID 

Standard HAVA 

ID or copy, voter 

registration card, 

birth cert., 

passport, hunt/fish 

Witness, DL#, 

DOB, SSN, SSN4, 

voter#, 

None 

American Samoa govt. ID w/ photo, 

birth cert., SS#, 

passport with SS# 

govt. ID w/ photo, 

birth cert., SS#, 

passport with SS#, 

voter registration 

card 

Signature only Signature only 

Arizona State ID#/DL#, 

birth cert. (copy), 

passport (copy), 

naturaliz. doc or 

doc#, tribal ID or 

ID card #, others 

State ID/DL, photo 

tribal ID or two of 

the following: 

utility bill, bank 

statement, vehicle 

registration, Indian 

census card, 

property tax 

statement, 

nonphoto tribal ID, 

vehicle ins. card, 

recorder’s 

certificate, 

nonphoto gov’t ID, 

registration card 

None None 

Arkansas None Standard HAVA 

ID required of all 

voters (not just 

first-timers) or oral 

confirmation of 

name, address and 

DOB 

Standard HAVA 

ID or copy 

required of all 

voters (not just 

first-timers) 

Signature only 

California None Provision of name 

and address 

Signature only Signature only 

Colorado State ID#/DL# or 

SSN4, unless 

neither of these 

have been issued 

Standard HAVA 

ID, State ID, 

passport, gov’t 

employee ID 

w/photo, pilot’s 

license, milit. ID 

w/ photo, 

Signature only Signature only 

27 
medicare/aid card, 

birth cert., 

naturaliz. cert., 

student ID w/photo 

Connecticut None Social security 

card, pre-printed 

ID w/ name and 

one of the 

following: address, 

signature, or 

photo. Sworn 

affidavit also 

accepted. 

None None 

Delaware State ID/DL, work 

ID w/ photo & 

address, “U.S. 

postal material” 

Some ID required 

(unspecified). 

Sworn affidavit 

also accepted. 

Signature only Signature only 

DC None None None None 

Florida Matching DL# or 

SSN4, unless 

neither of these 

have been issued 

State ID/DL, 

passport, credit 

card, military ID, 

student ID, 

retirement center 

ID, neighborhood 

association ID, 

public assistance 

ID. All forms 

require signature 

or supplementary 

ID w/ signature. 

Signature only Signature only 

Hawaii None Standard HAVA 

ID required of all 

voters (not just 

first-timers) 

Signature only None 

Idaho None None Signature only Signature only 

Illinois None ? Signature only Signature only 

Indiana None Unexpired US or 

Indiana photo ID 

with name 

Signature only Signature only 

Iowa None, except for 

late registration 

and EDR 

None, except 

inactive voters, 

pending voters and 

EDR voters. 

Inactive voters 

must show 

standard HAVA 

ID. 

Signature only Signature only 

Kansas None None Signature only Signature only 

Kentucky No info DL, social security 

card, credit card, 

photo ID. ID also 

provided by 

personal 

acquaintance with 

poll worker. 

Signature only Signature only 

28 
Louisiana None State ID/DL, other 

photo ID 

w/address and 

signature. Sworn 

affidavit also 

accepted. 

Two witness 

signatures (except 

Special Handicap 

Program -- one 

signature) 

Signature & 

witnesses 

Maryland None Oral provision of 

name, address and 

DOB. 

None None (except for 

unverified first-time 

mail-in registrants, 

who must comply 

with HAVA’s ID 

requirements) 

Massachusetts ? Generally only 

required of 

inactive voters and 

unverified firsttime mail-in 

registrants 

(including those 

with neither DL or 

SS#) 

Generally only 

required of 

inactive voters and 

unverified firsttime mail-in 

registrants 

(including those 

with neither DL or 

SS#) 

None 

Michigan None State ID/DL, gov’t 

ID, passport, 

military photo ID, 

student ID 

w/photo, tribal ID 

w/photo. Sworn 

affidavit also 

accepted. 

None None 

Minnesota None, except for 

EDR 

None, except for 

EDR voters 

None, except for 

EDR voters 

Passport #, State 

ID#/DL# 

Mississippi None None None None 

Missouri Birth cert., tribal 

document, other 

proof of 

citizenship, DL or 

personal ID 

ID issued by 

Missouri, US 

gov’t, Missouri 

postsecondary ID, 

standard HAVA 

ID, State ID/DL 

from another State. 

Personal 

acquaintance of 2 

poll workers also 

sufficient 

w/affidavit. 

Notarization of 

ballot required 

(with unspecified 

exceptions) 

None 

Montana State ID/DL; if 

none, SSN4; if 

neither, photo ID 

or HAVA ID 

Standard HAVA 

ID (required for all 

voters, not just 

first-timers) 

Signature only Signature only 

Nebraska None None None None 

Nevada State ID/DL, 

SSN4, standard 

HAVA ID 

None Signature only Signature only. 

Nevada exempts 

from HAVA’s ID 

provisions unverified 

first-time mail-in 

registrants who vote 

29 
under UOCAVA. 

New Hampshire Many forms 

accepted. 

Approved photo 

ID preferred. 

None Signature only Signature only 

New York **State ID/DL, 

SSN4, all standard 

HAVA ID forms 

accepted 

Signature 

comparison 

sufficient unless 

poll book marked 

“ID required” 

None None 

North Carolina None None None None 

North Dakota N/A (State does 

not register voters) 

ID with address 

and DOB 

(including State 

ID/DL and tribal 

ID). Personal 

acquaintance 

w/poll worker or 

sworn affidavit 

also acceptable. 

Signature only Signature only 

Ohio DL#, SSN4, or a 

copy of any 

standard HAVA 

ID form 

Standard HAVA 

ID, military ID 

DL#, SSN4, 

standard HAVA 

ID or copy, 

military ID 

DOB and DL#, 

SSN4, standard 

HAVA ID or copy, 

military ID 

Oklahoma None None Notarization of 

ballot generally 

required 

Signature only 

Oregon DL#, SSN4; if 

none, signature 

Signature 

comparison only 

Signature only Signature only 

Pennsylvania DL#, SSN4 Standard HAVA 

ID (required of all 

voters, not just 

first-timers) or 

voter registration 

confirmation. 

These forms of 

photo ID also 

acceptable: 

Passport, military 

ID, student ID, 

military ID. 

None None 

Puerto Rico Only for mail-in 

registrants 

Electoral 

Identification Card 

None (except for 

unverified firsttime mail-in 

registrants, who 

must comply with 

HAVA’s ID 

requirements) 

Same as regular 

absentee 

Rhode Island None None None None 

South Carolina SSN only State ID/DL, voter 

registration card 

None None 

South Dakota DL#, SSN4 State ID/DL, 

Federal photo ID, 

passport, tribal 

photo ID, student 

Notarization of 

signature or copy 

of voter 

registration card 

None 

30 
photo ID. Sworn 

affidavit also 

acceptable. 

Texas State ID#/DL# or 

SSN-4, unless 

neither of these 

have been issued 

Standard HAVA 

ID, any photo ID, 

birth cert., 

citizenship cert., 

passport, others 

None None 

Utah Many forms 

accepted 

Many forms 

accepted 

None, unless voter 

did not show ID at 

time of 

registration. Many 

forms accepted. 

Same as regular 

absentee 

Vermont None None None None (except for 

unverified first-time 

mail-in registrants, 

who must comply 

with HAVA’s ID 

requirements) 

Virginia None Voter registration 

card, social 

security card, State 

ID/DL, employee 

photo ID. 

Voter registration 

card, social 

security card, State 

ID/DL, employee 

photo ID. Sworn 

affidavit also 

acceptable. 

Same as regular 

absentee 

Virgin Islands Passport, birth 

cert., naturaliz. 

cert., baptismal 

cert., military 

discharge form 

None Sworn affidavit Signature only 

Washington State ID#/DL# or 

SSN4. If neither of 

these has been 

issued, standard 

HAVA ID or tribal 

ID required** 

Standard HAVA 

ID, student photo 

ID, tribal photo ID, 

voter ID card. 

Only required if ID 

not presented at 

point of 

registration. State 

ID#/DL# or SSN4 

acceptable. If 

neither of these has 

been issued, 

standard HAVA 

ID or tribal ID 

required 

Signature only 

West Virginia None None None None (except for 

unverified first-time 

mail-in registrants, 

who must comply 

with HAVA’s ID 

requirements) 

Wisconsin State ID#/DL# or 

SSN4, unless 

neither of these has 

been issued. 

Additional 

requirements for 

late registration 

None, except for 

EDR voters. 

Signed witness 

statement. 

Additional 

requirements if late 

registration or 

EDR was used and 

ID not provided at 

Adult US citizen 

must witness 

31 
(Note: a “?” in a table entry means that the State’s response was either unclear or missing, or could not otherwise be 

succinctly summarized.) 

and EDR. that time. 

Wyoming Standard HAVA 

ID required by all 

mail-in registrants 

(not just firsttimers) 

None None None (except for 

unverified first-time 

mail-in registrants, 

who must comply 

with HAVA’s ID 

requirements) 

*Alaska also allows the following additional forms of ID for mail-in registrants only: military earnings statement 

that shows Alaska residence, proof of employment in Alaska, Alaska student loan/tuition statement. 

**If registrants in these States do not present acceptable ID at the time of registration, they may also do so at the 

time of voting. This is similar to the system under HAVA, except that HAVA requires ID only of unverified firsttime mail-in registrants.

7: Post-Election Audits 

About half of the responding States either require audits or have laws that enable officials 

to conduct audits at their discretion. Table 7 shows that States differ greatly in not only whether 

they conduct audits, but also in how they define an audit. Most States require 1 to 10 percent of 

ballots to be audited. This amount is achieved either by requiring that a percentage of ballots in 

each precinct be audited, or by requiring that 100 percent of ballots in a set percentage of 

precincts be audited. States also differ in the methods that they use to conduct an audit: Some 

count the ballots by running them through a tabulating machine again, while others require a 

hand count either of the ballots or of a paper record of votes cast electronically. 

 While audit scope and method seem to be relatively well defined, one area that is not as 

well defined is what happens when an audit indicates a discrepancy. The election codes of some 

States prescribe remedies for when the audit count differs too greatly from the original count. For 

example, in Alaska, a discrepancy of more than 1 percent between the original count and the 

audit count will trigger an additional manual hand recount in the affected jurisdiction. In 

Connecticut, a difference of more than 0.5 percent gives the Secretary of State the right to order 

certain ballots recanvassed. A few States have more nuanced requirements, under which a 

discrepancy can trigger additional audits that expand in scope until the discrepancies no longer 

persist (Minnesota) or significant discrepancies no longer exist (California). A few States have a 

general rule that simply says officials should determine the source of the error and correct it. 

Most States do not prescribe any consequence at all to the discovery of a discrepancy, but this 

may be a deliberate choice. Legislators may have decided that the information provided by the 

audit justifies conducting the audit, and remedies for discrepancies should be left up to the courts 

or other decision-makers. 

 Audits Required (C7). Of the 49 States that responded, 24 require audits after elections. 

Twenty-three do not require audits and two jurisdictions, Hawaii and Louisiana, gave no 

response. Some jurisdictions are not required to perform audits but have discretionary procedures 

in place or are developing them. Indiana conducts post-election audits as a part of the recount 

process. Iowa has established a Post Election Audit Task Force and is in the process of 

developing a procedure for audits, while Virginia law provides for a pilot program for audits that 

32 
can be used at the discretion of local election officials. Vermont law authorizes the Secretary of 

State to conduct random post-election audits on a discretionary basis. 

 Audit scope (C7). The scope of an audit for States that perform them is a set percentage 

of the original vote or a designated number of precincts. Table 7 shows a wide range of specific 

approaches within this broader approach. A few jurisdictions tailor the scope of the audit 

depending on the size of the county (Minnesota and Nevada) or the margin of victory (California 

and Oregon). 

 Audit method (C7). Thirteen of the 49 responding jurisdictions perform audits where 

they hand count some small number of ballots to confirm the accuracy of the original count. One 

jurisdiction, North Dakota, performs a machine audit. Six jurisdictions did not clearly specify 

their audit methods while two jurisdictions, Nevada and Washington, use both hand and machine 

recounting to audit the original result. Twenty-three of the jurisdictions do not perform audits 

and therefore did not specify a method, while eight jurisdictions may perform some type of 

auditing but provided no information on the method. 

Table 7: Post-Election Audits 

Audits 

required 

Audit scope Audit 

method 

Re-audit 

trigger 

Re-audit scope 

Alabama No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Alaska Yes One precinct per 

district that has 

more than 5% of 

the total votes 

cast in the 

district 

No info 1% Hand recount of 

ballots in affected 

jurisdiction 

American 

Samoa 

Yes No info No info No info No info 

Arizona Yes 2% of precincts Hand count No info No info 

Arkansas Yes No info Unclear No info No info 

California Yes 1% of precincts 

(10% if margin 

of victory is less 

than 0.5%) 

Hand count No info 10% audits escalated 

by additional 5% if 

significant 

discrepancies found. 

Escalation process 

repeats in 5% blocks 

until significant 

discrepancies no 

longer persist. 

Colorado Yes 5% of precinctcount ballots, 5% 

of one central 

count 

scanner/vote 

center, and 5% 

of DRE* 

Unclear No info Officials will 

investigate and 

perform manual 

recounts as necessary 

until discrepancy 

eliminated. 

Connecticut Yes 10% of precincts Hand count 0.5% SoS will investigate 

and may order 

recanvass in close 

33 
races. 

Delaware No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

District of 

Columbia 

Yes No info No info No info No info 

Florida Yes 2% of precincts’ 

votes in 1 

randomly 

selected race 

Hand count No info No info 

Hawaii No info No info No info No info No info 

Idaho No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Illinois* Yes 5% of precincts Unclear Ballots shall be 

retabulated and 

returns corrected. 

Indiana No No info N/A N/A N/A 

Iowa No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Kansas No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Kentucky No N/A Unclear N/A Voting machines are 

checked and ballots 

are recanvassed. 

Louisiana No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Maryland Yes Two audits: 10% 

of precincts for 

voting system 

verification and 

all precincts for 

post-election 

audit 

Manual**** N/A In case of 

discrepancy, local 

board required to 

report to the State 

and find cause of 

error, and resolve 

Massachusetts No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Michigan No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Minnesota Yes Depends on 

county size. 2-3 

precincts for 

smaller counties. 

For larger 

counties, 4 

precincts or 3% 

of precincts, 

whichever is 

greater. 

Hand count 0.5% An audit of additional 

precincts is required 

if there is a 

discrepancy in one of 

the precincts. If 

discrepancies persist, 

it can lead to 

countywide audit, or 

even a statewide 

audit. 

Mississippi No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Missouri Yes At least 5% of 

precincts 

Hand count N/A N/A 

Montana No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Nebraska No No info N/A N/A N/A 

Nevada Yes Depends on 

county size; 2-

3% of precincts 

Both No info No info 

New 

Hampshire 

No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New York Yes 3% of machines Hand count No info No info 

North 

Carolina 

Yes No info No info No info No info 

North Dakota Yes 1 precinct in 

each county 

Machine If the 

machines do 

not return 

Cause of error must 

be determined and 

corrected if possible 

34 
the expected 

results 

and must contact 

Secretary of State if 

tabulation 

discrepancy is found. 

Ohio*** No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Oklahoma No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Oregon Yes Depends on 

margin of 

victory; 10%, 

5%, or 3% of 

ballots 

Hand count 0.5% Second hand count of 

same ballots 

Pennsylvania Yes In each precinct, 

fewer of 2% of 

the ballots or 

2,000 ballots 

No info No info No info 

Puerto Rico No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Rhode Island No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

South 

Carolina 

No No info N/A N/A N/A 

South Dakota No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Texas Yes 1% of precincts 

or 3 precincts, 

whichever is 

greater 

Hand count No info No info 

Utah Yes 1% of DRE* and 

PCOS** 

machines 

statewide 

Hand count No info No info 

Vermont No Discretion of the 

Secretary of 

State 

Hand count No info No info 

Virgin Islands No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Virginia No 1 or more optical 

scan tabulators in 

1 or more 

precincts in 1 or 

more localities 

(discretionary) 

Unclear N/A N/A 

Washington Yes 4% of the 

DRE’s* or 1 

DRE per 

jurisdiction, 

whichever is 

greater 

Combinatio

n 

No info No info 

West Virginia Yes 2% of ballots Hand count 1% Entire jurisdiction 

must be recounted. 

Wisconsin Yes 50 jurisdictions Hand count Any 

difference 

Voting machine must 

explain discrepancy 

or face suspension of 

voting system. 

Wyoming No N/A N/A N/A N/A 

*DRE refers to “direct recording electronic” voting machines, most typically touchscreens. 

**PCOS refers to “precinct count optical scan” voting machines, where completed ballots are fed into an optical 

scanner in the precinct where they are voted. 

35 
***Ohio law does not require audits, but in 2008 the Secretary of State required boards of election to conduct audits 

of the Presidential election. It is anticipated that post-election audits will be required in the future. 

****Maryland reports that its voting system verification audit is a “manual verification of the results from the voting 

units compared with the results from the central database,” and the post-election audit is a “manual audit of polling 

place documents to reconcile turnout with votes cast.” 

8: Polling Place Operations 

 The Statutory Overview asked States to describe any requirements for poll worker 

training and access for elections observers to the polls. In both of these areas, responses varied 

widely. With respect to poll worker training, some jurisdictions require training of all poll 

workers before every election, while others do not require training at all. With respect to 

observers, most States allow observers to be appointed to polling places by local political parties, 

but access for individuals not appointed by political parties is limited. Seven States allow any 

member of the public to observe. A handful of other States allow observers only at the discretion 

of elections officials. Puerto Rico and West Virginia stated they do not allow observers at all. 

 Frequency of poll worker training (C8). The frequency of poll worker training varies 

from State to State and in some cases from locality to locality. Seventeen of the 49 States that 

responded train their poll workers before each election. Three States―Arkansas, Colorado, and 

Missouri―train their poll workers annually. Six States train poll workers every 2 years, while 

one State, Mississippi, trains them every 4 years. Seven States do not require training, but do not 

prohibit local election administrators from conducting it. Three of these States―California, 

Kansas, and Pennsylvania―indicated that State officials issue guidance on the voluntary training 

(California requires training before elections of its polling place (chief) inspectors). 

 Which poll workers are trained (C8). Twenty-seven States train all of their poll 

workers, while four train only the chief poll workers. One State, Virginia, trains the chief and 

assistant chief poll workers, but no others. Arkansas requires that only one poll worker per 

polling place receives training. California (which requires training of its chief inspector), Kansas, 

and Pennsylvania leave the decision up to local officials. Eight States have no requirements for 

poll worker training, although locals may perform training at their discretion. Oregon has no 

need for Election Day poll workers in its vote-by-mail elections. Five States did not specify in 

their answers who must be trained. In the three States that leave poll worker training to local 

discretion, respondents indicated that State officials issue guidance on such training. 

 Observers (D3). Of the 49 States that responded, 42 expressly allow observers at the 

polls. Twenty-seven allow some number of observers who must be appointed by a party, 

candidate, advocacy group, or ballot issue group. One of these, Iowa, allows challengers from 

each party but reserves the term “observer” to describe representatives of non-party political 

groups and nonpartisan candidates. Eight allow any member of the public to observe. Five States 

allow observers, but did not provide details on how many are allowed or any limits on access. 

One State, Oregon, does not have polling places, but allows observers at ballot processing offices 

in numbers determined by the counties. 

36 
Seven of the responding States either do not allow observers or failed to indicate that they 

do. Only two respondents, Puerto Rico and West Virginia, clearly stated that they do not allow 

observers at all. Two States, Delaware and Minnesota, specified that they allow challengers at 

the polls but did not mention observers in their answers (the difference between challengers and 

observers is that challengers may question a voter’s eligibility to vote, while observers generally 

must remain passive). It is unclear whether Nebraska allows observers at the polls during actual 

voting, but nonpartisan observers may watch the counting of ballots. Two jurisdictions, 

American Samoa and Kansas, leave it to the discretion of local officials whether to allow 

observers. 

Table 8: Polling Place Operations 

Frequency of 

training 

required 

Who is required 

to be trained 

Number of 

observers allowed 

Authorization to 

be observer 

Alabama Before each 

election 

All One per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

Alaska Every 2 years All One per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by political party, 

candidate, or issue 

group 

American Samoa No info No info Local discretion Permission from 

“Chief Election 

Officer” 

Arizona Before each 

election 

All One per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

Arkansas Annually One worker per 

polling place 

No limit specified No info 

California Annually Polling place 

inspectors 

No limit specified Open to public as 

long as rules are 

obeyed 

Colorado Annually All One per party or 

issue 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

chairperson, 

candidate, or issue 

group 

Connecticut Before each 

election 

All No limit specified Must be requested 

by candidate 

Delaware Before each 

election 

All Challengers 

allowed - one per 

party on ballot 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

District of Columbia Before each 

election 

All No limit specified Must be requested 

by candidate 

Florida Before each 

election 

All One per political 

party, candidate, or 

issue position 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

chairperson, 

candidate, or issue 

group 

Hawaii No info All One per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

Idaho Before each 

election 

All One per political 

party, candidate, or 

issue position 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

chairperson, 

candidate, or issue 

37 
group 

Illinois No State 

requirement 

No State 

requirement 

Two per political 

party or candidate 

and one per group 

No info 

Indiana Before 

each election 

Chief poll 

workers only 

No limit specified No info but 

observers are 

allowed 

Iowa Before each 

election 

All One per non-party 

political group and 

per non-partisan 

candidate; 

Challengers also 

allowed - up to 3 

per political party 

Observers must be 

appointed by the 

groups or 

candidates 

Challengers must be 

appointed by 

political party 

Kansas Local discretion Local discretion Local discretion Local discretion 

Kentucky Before each 

election 

All Two per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by candidate groups 

from party 

Louisiana Before each 

election 

All One per candidate 

or issue for each 

precinct 

Must file with Clerk 

of Court 

Maryland Before 

presidential and 

gubernatorial 

primaries, and 

before the 

general election 

All No limit specified, 

but poll workers 

may limit under 

certain 

circumstances 

Must be appointed 

by respective 

groups 

Massachusetts No State 

requirement 

No State 

requirement 

No limit specified Observers are 

allowed 

Michigan Every 2 years All Unlimited Open to public* 

Minnesota Before each 

election 

All Challengers 

allowed 

N/A 

Mississippi Every 4 years All No limit specified No info but 

observers are 

allowed 

Missouri At least annually All poll workers No limit specified Unclear but 

observers are 

allowed 

Montana Every 2 years All One per political 

party; more from 

candidates and 

groups if space 

Permission by 

election 

administrator 

Nebraska Before each 

election 

No info One partyappointed observer. 

Unlimited 

nonpartisan 

observers at 

officials’ discretion 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

Nevada Before each 

election 

Members of 

election board 

Any person – no 

limit specified 

Must sign form 

swearing to obey 

rules 

New Hampshire No State 

requirement 

No State 

requirement 

Open to public Open to public 

New York Annually All No limit specified Must be appointed 

38 
by political party or 

candidate 

North Carolina No info No info No limit specified Must be appointed 

by political party 

North Dakota Before each 

election 

All One per political 

party 

Must be appointed 

by political party 

Ohio Every three 

years 

All (presiding 

judges every two 

years) 

One per political 

party or candidate 

group. Issue 

committees can 

appoint up to 6. 

Must be appointed 

by political party, 

candidate group, or 

issue committee 

Oklahoma Every 2 years All One per candidate 

and political party 

Unclear – must be 

“commissioned in 

writing” 

Oregon N/A N/A No polling places – 

Number allowed at 

ballot processing 

office determined 

by counties 

Anyone may be an 

observer; no 

specific 

authorization 

needed 

Pennsylvania Local discretion Local discretion No limit specified Must be appointed 

by political parties 

or candidates 

Puerto Rico Unclear Unclear None N/A 

Rhode Island No info All No limit specified Open to public; 

must sign form 

swearing to obey 

rules 

South Carolina One time All Watchers – Two 

per party for every 

1,000 registered 

voters; at primaries 

and in non-partisan 

races, candidates 

can have watchers, 

too 

Public observers - 

No limit except 

space constraints 

Open to public 

South Dakota Before each 

election 

Chief poll 

workers only 

No limit Open to public 

Texas No State 

requirement 

No State 

requirement 

No limit specified Must be appointed 

by political party or 

candidate 

Utah No State 

requirement 

No State 

requirement 

Three per political 

party and per issue 

position 

Must be appointed 

by political party or 

issue group 

Vermont Every 2 years Chief poll 

workers only 

Two per political 

party, candidate, or 

issue position 

Must be appointed 

by political party, 

candidate, or issue 

group 

Virgin Islands Not required No State 

requirement 

Two per candidate 

at primaries; three 

per political party 

at generals 

Must be appointed 

by candidate or 

political party 

39 
Virginia Before each 

election 

Chief poll 

workers + 

assistant chief 

poll workers 

One per political 

party or 

independent 

candidate (local 

discretion to allow 

up to 3) 

Must be appointed 

by political party or 

candidate 

Washington Before each 

election 

All No limit specified Must be appointed 

by political party or 

other committee 

West Virginia Before each 

election 

All None allowed N/A 

Wisconsin Every 2 years All No limit Open to public 

Wyoming Before each 

election 

All No limit specified Must be appointed 

by political party 

* Michigan allows any interested individual to observe from the “public area” of the polling 

place. “Challengers,” appointed by the political parties, ballot issue groups, ballot integrity 

groups, and incorporated organizations can observe from the voter processing area of the polling 

place. 

9: Other Data

Capturing under- and over-votes (D1). Question D1 of the survey asked States to 

identify methods used to “capture” residual votes (under- and over-votes). The responses seem to 

indicate that States interpreted this question in two different ways: Some States interpreted it to 

ask how the States collect statistical data regarding residual votes, while others interpreted it to 

ask whether and how States prevent residual votes from occurring in the first place. 

 Despite the confusion, the responses yielded some useful results. Twenty-seven States 

indicated that the voting technology in use in their States collects statistics regarding residual 

votes: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho (in some 

jurisdictions), Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas (in some jurisdictions), Vermont, 

Washington, West Virginia (in some jurisdictions), and Wyoming. A few of these States reported 

that the residual voting statistics are reported on a statewide level, but most did not speak to the 

issue. California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New York (for now), 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin specifically indicated that they do not 

collect residual voting statistics on a statewide level. 

 Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas (in some jurisdictions), Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, 

the Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin (in some jurisdictions) indicated that their voting technology 

prevents over-votes, and Arkansas specifically indicated that the technology there does not 

prevent under-votes. In Colorado, the technology for audio ballots warns the voter of both overand under-votes before they occur. In Delaware and some parts of Kansas, the voting technology 

does not prevent over- or under-votes at all. 

Revision of HAVA administrative complaint procedures (E1). Question E1 of the 

survey asked States whether they have revised their procedures to allow individuals and entities 

40 
to file complaints regarding HAVA procedures. Only four States have revised their procedures. 

Maryland indicated that it revised its complaint hearing procedures to give better notice of the 

evidence to be presented at the administrative hearing and make the proceedings more efficient 

and easier to administer. Montana indicated that it revised its procedures “to clarify that the 

presiding officer is not required to be the Secretary of State and to expand the areas of law that 

are covered by the complaint process while removing a requirement for a special review panel.” 

Virginia made minor changes to allow a designee of the State Board of Elections, rather than the 

Deputy Secretary of the State Board, to preside over these hearings. Washington revised its 

proceedings, but did not specify how. New York is still developing its procedures. 

Conclusions 

 The decentralized nature of American election administration has created a patchwork of 

terms and definitions that reflect the diversity of laws and procedures in use across the country. 

In most of the important areas of contemporary reform, from early voting to absentee voting to 

balloting by overseas citizens, common understandings of terms may be shared by many States, 

but in almost all cases, there is no uniform definition applied. Some areas of rapid change, such 

as the increasing use by States of voting prior to Election Day, has led to wide divergence and 

overlap in terms such as “early voting” and “absentee voting.” 

 The information collected in the Statutory Overview portion of the 2008 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey will play an invaluable role in helping the EAC and its 

stakeholders understand the quantitative data States report in other sections of the Survey. This 

report will serve as a detailed guide to that database and as a reference for policymakers, 

advocates, journalists, and voters. Used in this way, the Statutory Overview promises to reduce 

the confusion and error in the quantitative portion of the Survey. 

 This report’s broader utility will come in the contribution it makes toward cataloguing 

and understanding the very different laws in place across the country. The diversity of laws and 

procedures reflects local customs and contexts, political histories, and voter preferences. While 

this flexibility allows for local control over balloting, the diversity represents a challenge both 

for election administrators and for voters. The descriptions above of how election laws vary 

across the country should serve as a reminder that more needs to be done to provide clear and 

accessible information to voters, particularly those changing their registration as they move from 

State to State. It is a safe conjecture that few voters appreciate the important ways election 

administration varies between States, and confusion over prevailing laws and procedures leads to 

voter registration problems, confusion at the polls, and lost votes. 

 This diversity also creates challenges for advocates, scholars, and journalists analyzing 

and reporting on important election reform topics. Comparisons of voting statistics across States 

need to be done with extreme care. This report will be a useful reference to these stakeholders, 

and a warning that caution should be used in making such comparisons. 

 It may not be necessary to ask States to complete the full Statutory Overview in every 

biennial survey. The Statutory Overview may be omitted, or offered in a greatly abbreviated 

version that would track important changes and allow for the updating of the statutory data 

41 
underlying this report. In any case, studying and understanding the diversity of American 

election laws will remain an important part of the EAC’s role as a national clearinghouse for 

election data. 

42 
Section B

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

 2008 Election Administration & Voting Survey 

43 

Statutory Overview

In order to better understand state laws governing federal elections, the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission, as part of its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey, 

is collecting information on state election laws and procedures. These answers will help us 

to better understand the quantitative data relating to the 2008 general election that we are 

collecting from all U.S. states and territories. 

We understand that responding to this Statutory Overview may require significant staff 

time on the part of your office. Please be assured that we have attempted to minimize the 

burden, and we appreciate your cooperation in this very important project. 

Information Supplied By 

Name 

Title 

Office/Agency Name 

Address 1 

Address 2 

City 

State 

Zip Code 

Email Address 

Telephone (area Code and number) 

Fax Number (area code and number) 
 SECTION A: GENERAL 

A1. How does your state define the following terms related to votes and ballots? Please provide 

your state’s legal citation defining these terms, where applicable.

a. Over-vote 

b. Under-vote 

c. Blank ballot 

d. Void/Spoiled ballot 

e. Provisional/Challenged ballot 

f. Absentee 

g. Early voting 

h. Active Voter 

i. Inactive Voter 

j. Other terms (please specify) ________________ 

A2. Please provide the legal citation for any significant changes to election laws or procedures 

that have been enacted or adopted since the previous Federal election. By “significant,” we do 

not mean routine or technical changes (such as changes to election district boundaries or polling 

place changes). However, we would like to learn about any new identification requirements for 

voters or registrants; changes in eligibility for voting or registering; adoption of alternative 

voting methods; and other changes that you believe represent a significant change in the way 

your state runs its elections. 

OMB Control No. 3265-0006 44 Expiration Date: 3/31/2009 
SECTION B: VOTER REGISTRATION 

B1. Is your state’s voter registration database system best described as a bottom-up, a top-down, 

or a hybrid? (Note: A bottom-up system generally uploads information retained at the local level 

and compiled at regular intervals to form the statewide voter registration list. A top-down system 

is hosted on a single, central platform/mainframe and is generally maintained by the state with 

information supplied by local jurisdictions. A hybrid is some combination of both systems 

described above.) 

If your state has a bottom-up or hybrid system, how often do local jurisdictions transmit 

registration information to the state list? 

B2. Please describe the process used in your state to move voters from the active list to the 

inactive list, and from the inactive list to the active list. Is a different process used for UOCAVA 

voters? 

B3. Please describe your state’s process for removing voters from the voter registration rolls 

(not merely moving them from active to inactive). Please include information regarding notices 

and confirmations. Are these procedures the same for UOCAVA voters? 

B4. Can your state’s voter registration database (or equivalent) share information electronically 

with your state’s drivers license agency (for example, to match records or trace changes in 

address)? Can your voter registration database be similarly linked with databases in any other 

state or federal agencies? Please describe these links, including any use of database matching to 

verify voter registration applications. 

B5. Please describe how your state uses National Change of Address (NCOA). What has been 

your state’s experience with using NCOA? 

B6. Please describe your state’s voting eligibility requirements as they relate to individuals with 

a felony conviction. (For example, are convicted felons allowed to vote while in prison or while 

on parole or probation? Are voting rights automatically restored or does the individual have to 

apply for a pardon, certificate of eligibility or other similar certificate? Does an individual whose 

voting rights have been restored have to produce documentation of his/her status when 

registering to vote?) 

B7. Does your state currently use the Internet in any way to facilitate voter registration? If yes, 

please describe how your state allows voters to use the Internet in the registration process (e.g., 

entire registration completed online; completed online but then must be printed, signed, and 

mailed by voter, etc.). 

OMB Control No. 3265-0006 45 Expiration Date: 3/31/2009 
SECTION C: ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 

 

C1. Please describe how all votes cast at a place other than the voter’s precinct of registration are 

tabulated (for example, please include descriptions of such votes as absentee ballots, mail-in 

ballots, votes cast at vote centers, provisional ballots, early voting locations, etc.). 

a. Are the votes counted centrally or at the precincts? 

b. If centrally tabulated, are the votes redirected to the appropriate 

 precinct for reporting in the canvass? 

c. Are the absentee, mail, etc., votes reported separately for each precinct, 

 or are they added to the in-precinct results and reported as just a single 

 number? 

d. How are UOCAVA ballots counted and reported? 

C2. Does your state require a reason for voting absentee, or does your state allow no-excuse 

absentee voting? (If a reason is required, please provide the legal citation.) 

 

C3. Does your state provide for in-person early voting? If so, how is early voting defined? When 

early voting is used, are the ballots counted at the precinct or at a central location? How are these 

votes reported? 

C4. Do any jurisdictions in your state use a vote-by-mail system to replace (and not merely 

supplement) at-the-precinct voting in any elections? 

C5. Please list each of the situations that require a provisional ballot in your state. Please 

provide the relevant legal citation for each situation. 

C6. Does your state count provisional ballots of voters who are registered in different precincts, 

or are those ballots automatically rejected? Please describe the process used by local election 

officials in determining whether to count a provisional ballot. 

C7. Please describe your state’s laws regarding post-election audits, if any. 

C8. Please describe any state requirements for poll worker training. 

OMB Control No. 3265-0006 46 Expiration Date: 3/31/2009 
OMB Control No. 3265-0006 47 Expiration Date: 3/31/2009 

SECTION D: ELECTION DAY ACTIVITIES 

D1. Please describe your state’s process for capturing “over-vote” and “under-vote” counts. 

D2. What identification does your state require from voters in the following situations: 

a. registering to vote; 

b. casting an in-person ballot; 

c. casting a mail-in or absentee vote; 

d. casting a ballot under UOCAVA; 

e. any other stage in registration or voting process in which identification is 

 required (please specify). 

D3. Please describe your state’s laws regarding access to the polling place for election 

observers. Election observers are people allowed inside the polling place who are not poll 

workers, election officials or voters. If decisions on access to observers are left to local 

jurisdictions, please explain. 

SECTION E: OTHER 

E1. Under HAVA, Section 402, states are required to have in place administrative complaint 

procedures to remedy grievances. Has your state revised its administrative complaint procedures 

since they were first implemented? If so, how? 

E2. Please add any additional comments or information about your state’s election 

administration processes that would help to inform the EAC’s interpretation of your data. 

* The information collection associated with the Election Administration and Voting Survey is required for the EAC 

to meet its statutory requirements under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301), the 

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 et seq.), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voters Act (UOCAVA) (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1). Respondent’s obligation to reply to this information 

collection is mandatory as required under NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 et seq.) and UOCAVA (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1). 

This part of the information collection is being requested to help the EAC to better understand state laws governing 

federal elections. Respondents include the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories. This 

information will be made publicly available on the EAC website (www.eac.gov). According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is OMB Control No. 3265-0006 (expires 3/31/09). The time required to complete this 

information collection is estimated to average 59 hours per state response. This estimate includes the time for 

reviewing the instructions, gathering information, and completing the form. Comments regarding this burden 

estimate should be sent the U.S. Election Assistance Commission – 2008 Election Administration and Voting 

Survey, 1225 New York Avenue, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.