The Ballot Bulletin: March 17, 2026
Welcome to Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia's Weekly Election Policy Digest. Every Tuesday, we deliver the latest updates on election policy around the country, including nationwide trends and recent legislative activity.
In this week’s edition, we cover 504 bills state legislatures acted on in the last week and look at trends in legislation regarding troop and law enforcement presence at the polls.
The state of election legislation in the U.S.
Lawmakers in 36 states acted on 504 election-related bills over the past week. Thirty-five state legislatures are in regular or special sessions. In the last week, nine bills were enacted, 84 bills passed both chambers of a state legislature, and no bills were vetoed.
Of the bills acted on this week, 186 (37%) are in states with Democratic trifectas, 240 (48%) are in states with Republican trifectas, and 78 (15%) are in states with divided government. The most active bill categories this week were campaign finance (131), ballot measures (108), and election types and stages (105).
Ballotpedia is currently tracking 3,975 election-related bills across the country. We are actively processing bills filed since Feb. 28 as legislative activity increases for 2026.
The chart below breaks down the status of those 3,975 bills by where they stand in the legislative process:
Note: In some states, legislators can file hundreds of bills per day. We are actively reviewing those bills to determine their relevance to election administration. As a result, during this period of heightened legislative activity, the newsletter may not yet account for all relevant bills introduced in 2026.
Enacted bills
On March 9, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed SB 264 into law. It creates state-level penalties for those who deploy troops or armed federal agents to a polling place or drop box site. It also prohibits a person from interfering with the conduct of an election or from interfering with an election official, voter, challenger, or watcher while they are discharging their duties. Read more about SB 264 in this week’s policy spotlight below.
On March 12, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) signed SB 17 into law. The bill prohibits a candidate from accepting contributions or loans from a foreign national, as defined in federal law. It also prohibits a candidate from accepting loans from a state, state agency, political subdivision, foreign government, foreign national, federal agency, or the federal government.
Seven other bills were enacted this week. They are:
- Connecticut (Democratic trifecta)
- Georgia (Republican trifecta)
- New Mexico (Democratic trifecta)
- South Dakota (Republican trifecta)
- West Virginia (Republican trifecta)
Bills passing both chambers
Two bills in Virginia and Alabama were sent to the respective governors of those states on March 10.
On March 2, Virginia HB 965 passed the Senate after passing the House on Feb. 12. Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) received the bill on March 10. The bill enters Virginia into an agreement among the states to elect the president by popular vote known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Members of the NPVIC agree to award their presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide. The agreement would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt legislation committing them to the compact. As of March 2026, 17 states and Washington, D.C. have adopted legislation to join the NPVIC. These states and D.C. together represent 203 Electoral College votes, 75 percent of the total needed for the compact to go into effect.
On March 5, the Alabama Senate passed HB 214, after the House passed it on Feb. 3. Gov. Kay Ivey (R) received the bill on March 10. It prohibits foreign nationals from making direct or indirect campaign contributions, donations, or promises of contributions or donations to a state or local candidate, a group involved in a non-candidate election, a state or local political party, a political action committee, or an independent expenditure or electioneering communication.
Eighty-two other bills passed both chambers this week. They are:
- Alabama (Republican trifecta)
- Arizona (Divided government)
- Florida (Republican trifecta)
- Hawaii (Democratic trifecta)
- Maine (Democratic trifecta)
- Mississippi (Republican trifecta)
- New Hampshire (Republican trifecta)
- Ohio (Republican trifecta)
- South Dakota (Republican trifecta)
- Tennessee (Republican trifecta)
- Utah (Republican trifecta)
- Virginia (Democratic trifecta)
- Washington (Democratic trifecta)
- West Virginia (Republican trifecta)
To see a full list of bills awaiting gubernatorial action, click here.
Vetoed bills
No election-related bills we are following were vetoed in the past week. For a list of all vetoed bills, click here.
All bills
The chart below shows all bills Ballotpedia is currently tracking, broken down by partisan sponsorship:
We are currently following 3,975 election-related bills, including bills carried over from the previous year.
- Trifecta status
- Democratic: 1,725 (43%)
- Republican: 1,476 (37%)
- Divided: 774 (19%)
- Partisan sponsorship
- Democratic: 1,753 (44%)
- Republican: 1,635 (41%)
- Bipartisan: 354 (9%)
- Other: 233 (6%)
In the news
Indiana lawmakers adjourned for the 2026 regular session on Feb. 27. During the session, legislators sent nine election-related bills to Gov. Mike Braun (R), who signed each one.
In addition to SB 12 banning the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV), covered in the March 3 Ballot Bulletin, Braun signed SB 256 on March 5. It requires agents acting on behalf of governments, political parties, or businesses based in hostile foreign nations to register with the Indiana Attorney General if they engage in political and lobbying activities in the state. Hostile foreign nations include China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and any other countries identified in federal law or designated by the governor.
The state Senate passed the bill 49-0 on Feb. 27. The state House approved it 82-13 the same day. Fifty-six Republicans and 16 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, 13 Democrats voted against it, four members were absent, and one member abstained. The law applies to individuals or groups engaged in “the formulation, adoption, or modification of the laws or policies of the state, or the election or opposition to the election of a candidate for state or local office.”
Indiana currently prohibits foreign campaign contributions to candidates and ballot measure committees.
Other election-related bills enacted in 2026 include:
- HB 1033, which requires the Marion County judicial selection committee to determine whether a judge is suitable to stand for a retention election.
- SB 25, which changes how school board candidates are ordered on the ballot.
- SB 112, which establishes that whenever a candidate or nominee files a notice of withdrawal and lists an address that is different than the one on their voter registration records, the person is deemed to have authorized the county voter registration office to update the registration record with the address on the withdrawal notice.
- SB 113, which requires counties to provide the Indiana Elections Division with a computerized list of the votes cast for each candidate and public question in each precinct within 14 days of the election. The elections division is required to publish the list on its website.
Indiana's 2026 session began in December 2025. On Dec. 11, the state Senate rejected HB 1032, which would have made Indiana the fifth state to enact new congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The bill also would have established procedures for handling any lawsuits over congressional or legislative apportionment. It passed the House 57-41, but was defeated in the Senate 19-31, with 19 Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 21 Republicans and all 10 Democrats voting in opposition.
Indiana enacted 14 election-related bills in 2025, six bills in 2024, and six bills in 2023. Overall, lawmakers introduced 30 election-related bills in Indiana in 2026, 17 fewer than in 2025.
Here are other news stories from across the country:
- On March 12, the Florida Senate passed HB 991, with the House concurring in amendments the same day. The bill now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) desk for signature. If signed, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2027. Modeled after the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, HB 991 would require voters to prove citizenship status in order to vote and require candidate disclosure of dual citizenship. Supporters of the bill say that any fraud in state elections related to non-citizens voting merits a legislative response, while opponents say it could engender racially-motivated attacks based on citizenship status.
- On March 5, the Missouri House voted 107-36 in favor of HB 2592, sending it to the state Senate. HB 2592 would restore voting rights for individuals on probation or parole following conviction of a felony and release from confinement. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Melanie Stinnett (R), said it would help formerly incarcerated individuals “feel like they have representation for themselves” on issues affecting them, such as school board elections and local taxes.
- On March 5, the Kentucky House voted 53-40 in favor of HB 534, sending it to the state Senate. HB 534 would require the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts to give a list of individuals convicted of a felony to the state’s election board and permit the board to partner with the federal government to flag and remove noncitizens from the voting rolls. Supporters of the bill say it would increase the integrity of the state’s elections, while opponents say the bill is redundant, since noncitizens already cannot vote.
Policy spotlight: New Mexico enacts law prohibiting the deployment of troops to polling places
The story below is adapted from a recent Ballotpedia News story by Andrew Bahl.
On March 9, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed legislation prohibiting a person from bringing or ordering military troops or armed federal agents to a polling place or ballot drop box location.
Federal law prohibits the deployment of troops or United States servicemembers to a polling place “unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”
New Mexico SB 264 creates state-level penalties for those who deploy troops or armed federal agents to a polling place or drop box site. It also prohibits a person from interfering with the conduct of an election or from interfering with an election official, voter, challenger, or watcher while they are discharging their duties.
The new law also prohibits a person from attempting to impose a law, rule, or change to voter qualifications that violates New Mexico law. It also allows the attorney general, secretary of state, a county clerk, or a voter who experienced intimidation or was not able to vote due to a disruption at a polling place to bring a civil action in state court to enforce the law’s provisions.
New Mexico House Majority Leader Reena Szczepanski (D), one of the bill's sponsors, said, “There have been threats to nationalize our elections, contrary to the clear direction of the US Constitution, and this bill is before us today because we have a duty to act and prevent New Mexicans’ right to vote from being infringed upon.”
Speaking in opposition to the bill, Senate Minority Leader William Sharer (R) said, “I just cannot imagine the president, as much as you might dislike him, ordering federal troops to seize New Mexico elections by armed force.”
On Feb. 15, the state Senate passed SB 264 26-16, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans against. On Feb. 17, the state House passed it 41-26, with 41 Democrats voting in favor, 26 Republicans voting against, and three members not voting.
New Mexico is one of nine states where lawmakers have introduced legislation on law enforcement presence at polling places.
Legislators in California, Kansas, Virginia, and Washington have introduced bills prohibiting the enforcement of immigration laws near polling places, vote-counting locations, or other election sites. Illinois lawmakers introduced a resolution urging federal agencies not to conduct immigration enforcement near polling places. California, Illinois, Virginia, and Washington have Democratic trifectas, while Kansas has a divided government.
Legislators in Connecticut, a Democratic trifecta, have introduced a bill prohibiting federal agents from being within 250 feet of an election site except when they are responding to a serious threat to life or property, the officers give notice to the state and have a judicial order, or their presence is requested.
Democratic lawmakers in Georgia, a Republican trifecta, have introduced a bill that would prohibit the governor from deploying the National Guard with the intent of interfering with the right to vote.
Track more bills related to law enforcement at polling places, as well as other election-related topics, using Ballotpedia’s Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
