Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

State of Election Administration Legislation 2024 Year-End Report: Topics of note

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Election Admininstration Legislation VNT.png
State of Election Administration Legislation
2024 Year-End Report
Executive summary • Methodology • By the numbers • State highlights • Omnibus bills and other notable state activity • Vetoes and veto overrides • Topics of note • Looking ahead
More on 2024 election administration legislation
Enacted bills
Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Electoral systems • Voting rights for convicted felons • Private funding • Primary systems • Redistricting • Voter identification
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about election policy in that state.

December 12, 2024
By Ballotpedia staff

Topics of note

The landscape of election policy is vast. With 50 systems for administering elections in 50 states, legislation in each state necessarily responds to the unique needs of election administrators and the election systems in each locality. Nonetheless, the challenges, and vision for the future development of election administration are often shared across states or among groups of states.

Whether considering a change to electoral systems, such as opening or closing primaries, or preempting one, like banning RCV, Ballotpedia has tracked a number of policy subsets that drew attention from lawmakers around the country:

Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

Six states — Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma — passed laws banning the use of RCV, more than in any other year.

No state had a law prohibiting the use of RCV before 2022 when Florida and Tennessee became the first states to adopt bans. Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota joined them in 2023. Republicans controlled the legislature in all ten states to have passed an RCV ban.

No legislation to expand the use of RCV passed a state legislature this year, although voters in two states and D.C. did adopt RCV for some local elections. Since the beginning of 2023, Vermont was the only state to expand the use of RCV through legislation, adding several local offices to the list of elections that use RCV in Burlington.

Elsewhere this year, Alaska voters rejected an effort to repeal the use of RCV for statewide and legislative elections, while in five states — Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon — voters rejected statewide ballot measures that would have implemented RCV for certain elections. At the time of publication, the Alaska ballot measure election was undergoing a recount due to the close margin.

Earlier this year, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed SB 210, an omnibus elections bill that makes changes to several areas of election law, including adding provisions to state law that would make it more difficult to adopt RCV in statewide elections. The section of the bill related to RCV was added to the bill near the end of the state’s legislative session, and Polis said he did not approve of those portions but would sign the bill because it contained provisions to strengthen trust and security in elections.

Colorado voters ultimately rejected Proposition 131, which would have adopted RCV for some elections, but SB 210 would likely have delayed implementation if that ballot measure were to have passed, and may have implications for future attempts to establish RCV in the state.

In total, 45 bills introduced in 20 states this year would ban or repeal RCV, nearly double the number from 2023 and 2022 combined. In all three years, bans and repeals were adopted at a higher rate than new authorizations. In other words, there have been more RCV bans adopted in the last three years than new authorizations, despite half as many introduced bills.

Voter list maintenance

Ten states adopted 18 new laws related to maintaining accurate voter registration rolls, also known as voter list maintenance. Thirteen of these bills came from states with Republican trifectas, two from states with divided governments, and two from states with a Democratic trifecta.

New laws in eight states establish new data sharing procedures, or new requirements for reviewing available data from various state agencies or third-party sources to identify ineligible voters and remove them from registration lists.

  • In California, AB 2951 requires election officials to send a notice to a voter 15-30 days before cancelling their registration that includes a prepaid and pre-addressed return envelope with instructions for the voter to correct or update their voter registration.
  • In Hawaii, SB 2240 requires the state’s Office of Elections to submit an application to join the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) by June 30, 2025.
  • In Indiana, HB 1265 requires a state to review registration records at least once per year and identify those that do not contain a birth date, or contain a birth date making the voter 115 years old or older, and to send those identified names to the local officials for review. Indiana also enacted HB 1264, discussed above, which permits election officials to obtain commercially available data from a credit agency for voter address verification purposes and establishes a new verification procedure for voters identified as noncitizens by election officials.
  • In Kentucky, HB 580 authorizes the State Board of Elections to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies for voter list maintenance purposes. HB 44 requires the secretary of state to deliver, and publish publicly, an annual report on voter registration cleanup activity to the legislature.
  • As part of Minnesota’s Voting Rights Act, HF 4772 creates a new requirement for the secretary of state to identify deceased voters using the Social Security Death Index.
  • In South Dakota, SB 18 allows the secretary of state to share information from the statewide voter registration file with any other state, territory, or locality to identify duplicate registrations. Any agreement must provide that personally identifiable information cannot be shared or sold to any person who is not an election official in the jurisdiction.
  • West Virginia’s SB 624 directs county clerks to cancel the voter registration records of voters who are no longer West Virginia citizens and who, according to the DMV, have obtained a driver’s license in another state.

Louisiana adopted two bills that change address verification laws. HB 114 requires the Department of State to develop an address confirmation notice that includes prepaid postage, a pre-addressed return envelope, and information about the voter’s rights. It also creates an annual sweep for inactive voters and describes these voters as those who have failed to engage in a voting activity for ten years, including voting, requesting an absentee ballot, updating registration, and signing a petition. HB 677 eliminates a requirement that election registrars must confirm a voter’s death with the office of vital records in order to cancel their voter registration file.

One bill that would have required application to ERIC was vetoed this year, Virginia’s HB 1177 / SB 606. Virginia was a founding member of ERIC in 2012 but resigned in 2023. In his veto message, Gov. Youngkin said, “Since leaving ERIC, Virginia established data-sharing agreements with numerous states incurring no additional costs.”

As of November 2024, 24 states were members in ERIC, including 14 Democratic trifectas, seven states with divided governments, and three states with Republican trifectas. Eight states have resigned from ERIC since 2021, including nine states with Republican trifectas and one state with a divided government at the time of resignation.

Noncitizen voting

Ten states have adopted laws related to the eligibility of noncitizens to vote.

Voters in eight states — Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin — approved legislatively referred constitutional amendments amending state constitutions to ban jurisdictions in their state from allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. Noncitizens were not previously authorized to vote in any of these states. Republicans held trifecta control of state government in five of these states, while three had divided governments.

Lawmakers referred six of the ballot measures through bills in 2024 legislative sessions while the remaining two passed legislatures in previous years. Read more about these ballot measures here.

Two states, Louisiana and New Hampshire, adopted laws requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Read more about these laws below.

At least two states — Indiana and Tennessee — have added new checks to remove noncitizens while conducting voter list maintenance activities.

The only new law related to noncitizen voting from a state with a Democratic trifecta comes from Minnesota. The state’s new Voting Rights Act, HF 4772, requires that a voter be a U.S. citizen to vote an absentee ballot.

As a result of the November elections, fifteen states explicitly prohibited noncitizen voting in state and local elections while no state constitutions explicitly allowed noncitizens to vote in state or local elections.

Under federal law, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in any federal election, including elections for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and presidential elections.

Voter registration

Two states with Republican trifectas — Louisiana and New Hampshire — passed laws requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Federal courts have limited enforcement of a similar law in Arizona and blocked one in Kansas. Alabama and Georgia also adopted proof-of-citizenship laws in 2011 and 2009, respectively, but neither law had been enforced. Click the state links above to read more about these laws and legal challenges.

The National Voter Registration Act (NRVA) of 1993, a federal law which courts have found to limit or block the implementation of proof-of-citizenship laws elsewhere, exempts the state of New Hampshire because it offered same-day voter registration at the time the law was adopted.

Louisiana was also among two states with a Republican trifecta to adopt a new law related to voter registration drives or third-party assistance for voter registration applications.

In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed HB 1955 / SB 2586 into law, which prohibits anyone from pre-filling information on another person’s voter registration application and makes it a crime for anyone convicted of a felony to handle another voter’s application. The bill also provides that the date an applicant signs a voter registration application will be assumed to be the date that a person or organization returning a voter registration application received the application. State law requires any person or organization collecting a voter registration form to deliver or mail the form to the county election commission within 15 days.

In Louisiana, Gov. Landry (R) signed HB 506 which requires organizations conducting a voter registration drive to register with the secretary of state, either directly or through a parish registrar. The new law makes an exception to this requirement if the organization is using the state's electronic voter registration application and not capturing applicant’s personal information. The new law also prohibits the pre-filling of personal details on a registration application.

At least seven states with Republican trifectas that have enacted laws related to voter registration drives since 2020.

Other new laws related to voter registration include:

  • Arizona’s HB 2482 requires the county recorder to notify a voter of any change to his or her registration record within 24 hours and requires the notice to include instructions on how the voter may make revisions to their registration.
  • Florida’s H 135 directs the state’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to ensure that a person’s party affiliation is not modified in their voter registration without signature and written consent and requires the department to provide a voter with a printed receipt after verifying his or her updated registration information and providing an electronic signature.
  • New Jersey's A 3690 allows pre-registered voters who are 17 year-olds to vote in a primary election if they will be 18 years old before the next general election.

Criminal penalties for threatening election officials or workers

In addition to bills in Virginia, Georgia, and Maryland mentioned above, six other states, including four with Republican trifectas, adopted laws that create new penalties for intimidating, interfering, or threatening election officials or workers.

  • Alabama’s HB 100 increased penalties for crimes committed against an election official, and added such a crime to the list of offenses for which a convicted individual never regains the right to vote.
  • California’s AB 2642 prohibits the intimidation or coercion of a person who is voting, aiding someone in voting, or administering any aspect of elections, thereby expanding the state’s electioneering laws.
  • Hawaii’s HB 1916 creates new rules related to the disclosure of personal information of certain public servants and establishes a new procedure for the removal of protected personal information from the internet.
  • Indiana’s SB 170 makes knowingly or intentionally interfering with or obstructing an election worker or a voter in the act of voting on Election Day or a day on which voting is permitted a Level 6 felony.
  • South Dakota’s SB 146 prohibits intentionally communicating a written or electronic threat to take the life of or to inflict serious bodily harm of a current or former judicial officer, a statewide officeholder, or an immediate family member.
  • Utah’s HB 538 creates a new procedure for removing the personal information of an official from the internet after that official has received a threat.

Absentee/mail-in ballot administration

Lawmakers continued to make changes to different parts of the absentee/mail-in voting process. Three states with Republican trifectas added new definitions of who may return another voter’s ballot.

  • Idaho adopted H 599 which stipulates that only election officials, postal workers, common carrier employees, a person paid by the voter, a relative of the voter or member of their household, or a caregiver may collect or deliver another voter’s voted or unvoted ballot. It also provides that collecting and delivering more than 10 absentee/mail-in ballots is a felony.
  • Mississippi’s SB 2425 adds definitions of “caregiver,” “family member,” and “household member.” These are the only individuals permitted by state law, other than election officials or postal carriers, to return another voter’s absentee ballot. Mississippi also prohibited the use of ballot drop boxes, changed where absentee/mail-in ballots are counted from the office of the circuit clerk to the county registrar’s office, and authorized anyone required to be on-call on Election Day to vote absentee through HB 1406.
  • In Louisiana, HB 476 prohibits anyone from submitting more than one marked ballot per election, with an exception for an immediate family member of a voter. Louisiana also adopted SB 155, which provides that only immediate family members or election employees may assist with more than one voter certificate required to be submitted with an absentee/ mail-in ballot. It also requires that a witness for such a certificate must be at least 18 years- old, and must provide a mailing address along with their signature.

Elsewhere in Republican trifecta activity, Alabama adopted SB 1 which bans anyone from distributing a prefilled absentee/mail-in application to another voter and prohibits a third-party from knowingly receiving a payment or gift for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering a voter’s application. And, Tennessee changed the deadline to request an absentee ballot from seven to 10 days before an election through HB 2294 / SB 1967.

In states with Democratic trifectas, only Connecticut has adopted a significant change to absentee/mail-in ballot laws. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed HB 5498. The bill requires video recording of ballot drop boxes beginning in 2025, adding a requirement that election clerks record the method by which all absentee/mail-in ballots are received and submit this information to the secretary of state, and prohibiting the distribution of more than five absentee/mail-in ballot applications to any individual more than 90 days before the start of an election. Connecticut also adopted HB 5308 which allows voters confined in a nursing home to designate someone to deliver them an absentee/mail-in ballot. Both bills had bipartisan support. Connecticut also adopted HB 5308 which allows voters confined in a nursing home to designate someone to deliver them an absentee/mail-in ballot. Both bills had bipartisan support.

At the November election, Connecticut voters approved the No-Excuse Absentee Voting Amendment which allows the Connecticut General Assembly to pass legislation adopting no-excuse absentee voting by removing language in the state constitution that stipulated that the legislature may only provide for absentee voting for voters who are absent “from the city or town of which they are inhabitants or because of sickness, or physical disability or because the tenets of their religion forbid secular activity.”

Finally, in New York, S 610 authorizes boards of elections to establish ballot drop boxes and requires the state board of elections to create rules related to the “location, chain of custody, pick-up times, proper labeling, and security” of the drop boxes.

Primary elections

Only one state, Louisiana, adopted legislation to make some state primaries more closed, while one state, Rhode Island, moved the other direction and passed legislation to make primaries more open to unaffiliated voters.

In Louisiana, HB 17 makes changes to Louisiana’s majority-vote system and creates closed primaries for elections for Congress and several state offices, including state supreme court, beginning in 2026. While in Rhode Island, considered legislation that would have changed the state’s primary type, but ultimately adopted H 7662 which allows unaffiliated voters to vote in a partisan primary without affiliating with that party. Affiliated voters would still need to change their status before the voter registration deadline to vote in a different party’s primary.

Legislation introduced in at least six other states would have created more open primaries for at least some offices, including:

  • Bills in Utah and Wisconsin that would have created a top-two or top-five primary system;
  • Bills in Pennsylvania and New Mexico that would open up closed primaries for certain offices, and a bill in North Carolina that would create open primaries;
  • And, a bill in Tennessee that would have removed a requirement to affiliate with a political party before voting in that party’s primary election.

Elsewhere, bills in at least six states would have created more closed primaries:

  • Alaska considered three bills that would have repealed the state’s open, top-four primary system, including HB 1. Alaska voters ultimately rejected a ballot measure at the November election that would have repealed the system.
  • Three bills in Iowa would have required voters to affiliate with a party at different points before an election or caucus to participate. Under current law, voters may change their affiliation at the polls on primary election day. None of these bills passed.
  • Missouri’s HB 1410 / SB 1140 would have created closed primaries in the state. The bill would require voters to change their affiliation by the 23rd Tuesday before the election to vote in a party’s primary. An unaffiliated voter would need to register and affiliate with a party by the fourth Wednesday before a primary to vote in that election.
  • South Carolina's H 3685 would have required a voter to be registered as a member of a political party to vote in that party's primary, unless the party decided otherwise. South Carolina has open primaries.
  • Tennessee’s [https://legislation.ballotpedia.org/elections/bill/7725 HB 1616[ would have stipulated that a voter may only vote in a primary election when the voter is affiliated with the party according to their voter registration. Currently, Tennessee has open primaries.

Bills in at least two states, Kansas and Virginia, would have permitted political parties to decide if unaffiliated voters can participate in their primary each year. Neither bill passed. Virginia has open primaries, while in Kansas, unaffiliated voters can declare an affiliation with a political party on the day of the election and vote in that party's primary, and previously affiliated voters cannot change their affiliation on the day of the election.

Hand counting and voting equipment

Several states considered legislation related to voting equipment, including bills in 10 states that would permit or require the elimination of tabulating equipment and adopt the hand-counting of ballots.

In total, 14 bills would permit or require hand-counting, none of which have advanced. Two states with divided governments–Arizona and Kentucky–adopted laws requiring some form of hand-to- eye post-election audits. In South Dakota this year, three counties rejected local ballot measures that would have required the hand counting of ballots.

Other notable new laws related to voting equipment not mentioned elsewhere in the report includes Idaho’s S 1394 which requires new testing for voting machines and prohibits any part of the vote tally system–defined as the total combination of equipment used to define or read ballots and verify accuracy; mark, scan, and count ballots; report or produce election results; and maintain and produce any audit trail information–from being connected to the internet or receiving or transmitting data through wireless communications.

In New Hampshire, HB 154 authorizes city or town officials to use electronic ballot counting devices so long as they are approved by the state’s Ballot Law Commission. The legislation also created a requirement that electronic ballot counting devices be stored and sealed in a location specified by the secretary of state. Finally, in Louisiana, HB 962 prohibits filming or otherwise recording the preparation, inspection, testing, sealing, and locking of early voting machines or the canvass of absentee/mail-in ballots.

Voting rights for individuals convicted of a felony or while incarcerated

Two states with Republican trifectas passed laws that more quickly return voting rights to certain individuals convicted of a felony.

In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed HB 1629 on May 13, restoring voting rights to people convicted of a felony after receiving a pardon or commutation of their sentence. Oklahoma already restored voting rights to people convicted of a felony after completion of their sentence, including prison time, parole and probation, but individuals who received a pardon or commutation of their sentence were still ineligible to register or vote until the completion of time prescribed for incarceration, parole, and probation under their original conviction.

Under the new law, individuals convicted of a felony regain the right to vote immediately upon receiving a pardon or a commutation reducing their sentence, including parole or probation, regardless of the sentence length or terms of their original conviction. The law also accounts for sentences stemming from a crime that has been reclassified from a felony to a misdemeanor, and allows individuals convicted of these crimes to immediately regain the right to vote when they are no longer in prison, on parole, or on probation for such an offense.

In Nebraska, LB 20 became law without the signature of Gov. Jim Pillen (R), the first bill to become law in Nebraska without a governor’s signature since 2001.

The bill changed the timeline for restoring voting rights to people convicted of a felony by removing a two-year waiting period after the completion of a sentence before rights are restored. Under the new law, voting rights are restored to an individual convicted of a felony immediately upon the completion of their sentence, including prison time, parole, and probation.

The law was ultimately challenged by the state attorney general but upheld by the state supreme court. Read more about that process here.

Two other states — Minnesota and New Mexico — have adopted similar laws since 2022.

Elsewhere, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Virginia made changes to voting rules for incarcerated eligible voters. See above for mention of new laws in Colorado and Virginia. Kentucky and Mississippi adopted laws that allow eligible voters that are incarcerated to request an absentee/ mail in ballot. In California, Gov. Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have established a pilot program for in-person voting by incarcerated voters in three counties.

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Election tracker site ad.png


State election laws are changing. Keeping track of the latest developments in all 50 states can seem like an impossible job.

Here's the solution: Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker.

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Tracker sets the industry standard for ease of use, flexibility, and raw power. But that's just the beginning of what it can do:

  • Ballotpedia's election experts provide daily updates on bills and other relevant political developments.
  • We translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries written in everyday language.
  • And because it's from Ballotpedia, our Tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.

About the authors

Joe Greaney is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team.

Ballotpedia Editor in Chief Geoff Pallay reviewed the report and provided feedback, as did Managing Editor Cory Eucalitto and Marquee Team Lead Janie Valentine.

See also

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=State_of_Election_Administration_Legislation_2024_Year-End_Report:Topics_of_note&oldid=10186931"