Daily Brew: October 15, 2025
Welcome to the Wednesday, Oct. 15, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Ten states have amended their voter ID laws so far this year — here’s what each state currently requires
- U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether candidates can sue over election law
- Emily Dean and Andy Shirtliff to face off in election for Helena mayor
Ten states have amended their voter ID laws so far this year — here’s what each state currently requires
As November nears and voters head to the polls in 36 states, let’s review which states require voters to present identification when casting their ballots — and see where voter ID laws have changed in 2025.
Across the U.S., 36 states require voters to present identification to vote at the polls on Election Day. Of those states, 24 require voters to present photo identification, while the other 12 states accept identification that does not contain a photograph. The remaining 14 states do not require voters to present identification to vote at the polls on Election Day, in most cases.
Ten states have amended their voter ID laws so far in 2025. One state, West Virginia, moved from requiring non-photo identification to vote to requiring photo identification.
Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.
Some states requiring voters to provide identification may have exceptions allowing some people to cast a ballot without providing an ID. For instance, 15 states allow some or all voters to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity at the polls instead of presenting identification. Seven states allow another voter or an election official to vouch for the person’s identity in at least some cases. Four states allow voters who live and vote in state-licensed nursing homes or residential care facilities to vote without showing identification.
Three states — Alabama, New Hampshire, and Kentucky — require voters to provide a copy of their identification when requesting an absentee/mail-in ballot. Two states, Arkansas and North Carolina, require voters to provide a copy of their identification when returning an absentee/mail-in ballot.
Across the country, 10 states passed 10 bills related to voter ID for in-person voting or absentee/mail-in voting during 2025 legislative sessions. Some noteworthy laws states adopted this year include:
- Colorado SB 1 expanded the list of eligible forms of non-photo identification to include identification and cards issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or any other federal agency that includes an address in the state. Colorado has a Democratic trifecta.
- Georgia HB 296 required that driver’s licenses used as identification for voting purposes be in a physical format and issued by the Georgia Department of Driver Services. Georgia has a Republican trifecta.
- Montana SB 276 expanded the list of eligible forms of identification to include a student ID card issued by a school in the Montana university system or a Montana school that is a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Montana has a Republican trifecta.
- New Hampshire SB 287 required voters to include a copy of their identification or a notarized signature when requesting an absentee ballot by mail or to present their ID to an election official when requesting an absentee ballot in person. New Hampshire has a Republican trifecta.
- Utah HB 300 required voters to provide the last four digits of their driver's license, ID card, or Social Security number when returning a mail-in ballot, starting on Nov. 5, 2025. Until Dec. 31, 2028, election officials will attempt to match the voter's signature on the envelope affidavit to the signature on file for voters who do not provide an identification number. Starting on Jan. 1, 2029, voters must provide the last four digits of an identification number or include a copy of an acceptable ID when returning their mail ballot. Utah has a Republican trifecta.
- West Virginia HB 3016 required photo identification to vote, though driver’s licenses issued without a photograph remain valid for voting. The bill removed documents from the list of eligible forms of identification and allowed voters 65 years of age and older to use an expired ID if the document was valid when they turned 65. West Virginia has a Republican trifecta.
In addition, Wisconsin voters in April approved a constitutional amendment adding language requiring a photo ID to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution. The amendment allows the state legislature to define what qualifies as a valid photo ID and provide exceptions to the requirement. Wisconsin passed a statutory voter ID law in 2011. On Nov. 4, Maine voters will decide on a ballot measure that would make multiple changes to the state’s election laws, including changes to photo IDs.
Five states adopted five laws related to voter ID in 2024. Thirteen states adopted 14 such laws in 2023. Nine states adopted 10 such laws in 2022.
To learn more about voter ID legislation, check out Ballotpedia’s Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
Click here to learn about voter ID laws in each state.
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether candidates can sue over election law
On Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case over whether a candidate, U.S. Rep. Michael Bost (R), has the legal standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day.
Bost, who represents Illinois’s 12th District, filed the lawsuit along with two presidential electors in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires a person suing to prove they have a real stake in the case and will suffer a concrete wrong as a direct result of the unlawful action they are suing over.
Bost argued that the law effectively extends the election by two weeks, forcing him to expend resources to monitor those ballots. And he said that any reduced margin of victory by improperly cast votes could harm a candidate’s future fundraising and campaign activities.
These facts, the plaintiffs contend, should give them the legal ability to sue. And they argued the court should expand the ability of all candidates to sue over election laws.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case on July 26, 2023, stating Bost and the electors did not have proper standing, or a legal right to sue over the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on August 21, 2024. Bost then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 2, 2025.
Paul Clement, who represented Bost and the electors, said during oral arguments on Oct. 8 that limiting standing for candidates would require federal courts to wait until the last minute before an election to take up the case once candidates can prove they would be harmed by a particular law or rule. Clement served as U.S. Solicitor General from 2005 to 2008.
And Clement said some candidates, such as one representing a minor party, would never have standing to challenge a law if they were unlikely to win and could not prove a harm.
“Everybody would like the elections to be conducted lawfully and in compliance with federal law, including the voters, but the injury is visited more specifically on the candidate,” Clement said.
The state of Illinois has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling, arguing the previous decision was consistent with past precedent and that Bost’s claims are too speculative.
Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz said during oral arguments that expanding the ability to sue would allow any candidate to challenge any election rule they wanted, requiring election officials to spend more time dealing with litigation.
The definition of standing proposed by Bost, Notz said, would “cause chaos for election officials while saddling federal courts with resolving abstract policy disputes. This Court should hold candidates to the same standing requirements as every other plaintiff.”
As of Oct. 3, the Bost case was one of 40 cases the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear in its 2025-2026 term. It is one of two cases the Supreme Court took on appeal from the Seventh Circuit.
Click here for more on the Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term.
Emily Dean and Andy Shirtliff are running in the Helena mayoral election
Emily Dean and Andy Shirtliff are running in the general election for mayor of Helena, Montana, on Nov. 4. Shirtliff and Dean advanced from the Sept. 9 primary election after receiving 48.3% of the vote and 36.5% respectively. This election was the first since 2001 in Helena to require a mayoral primary. According to KTVH’s Jonathon Ambarian, state law "requires local governments to hold primaries if at least five candidates are running for any single position."
According to Montana Free Press, "While the race is nonpartisan, both Dean and Shirtliff have worked for elected Democrats, and Shirtliff made an unsuccessful bid for Montana's utility regulation board, the Public Service Commission, as a Democrat in 2018."
KTVH's Jonathon Ambarian wrote that since incumbent Mayor Wilmot Collins, who is a Democrat, is not running for re-election, this will be the first "mayoral race without an incumbent on the ballot in more than 20 years."
Dean has served on the Helena City Commission since 2020 and currently serves as mayor pro tem. She is also the director of engagement for the Montana School Boards Association. Dean's priorities include:
- Increasing affordable housing
- Investing in emergency services
- Modernizing city infrastructure
Shirtliff has served on the Helena City Commission since 2022. He is also the executive director of the Montana Building Industry Association. Shirtliff's priorities include:
- Improving city services and communication
- Addressing affordable housing
- Encouraging entrepreneurship
Thirteen of the 50 U.S. state capitals, including Helena, will hold mayoral elections this year. So far, a general election has happened in one city—Jackson, Mississippi. That election did not result in a partisan change.
The partisan breakdown of the mayors of the 50 U.S. state capitals is 35 Democrats, seven Republicans, one independent, and two nonpartisans. The partisan affiliations of five mayors are unknown.
To read more about the nonpartisan primary for mayor of Helena, click here. Also, if you're a Helena voter, check out our Sample Ballot Lookup here to prepare for Election Day.
