Voter identification laws by state

Voter ID laws
Voting by state
Election dates
Election terms
Ballotpedia's sample ballot lookup
Eight quality benchmarks for sample ballot tools

In recent years, state legislatures across the country have implemented voter identification laws. These laws require voters to present some form of identification at the polls. In some cases, the required identification must include a photo.

HIGHLIGHTS

As of April 1, 2019, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 17 states required voters to present photo identification; the remainder accepted other forms of identification.

Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.

Note: The map below displays only those states that require already-registered voters to present identification at the polls on Election Day. Federal law requires a new registrant to provide either a driver's license number or the last four digits of his or her Social Security number at the time of registration.

Details by state

Voter ID laws in the United States
State	Summary	Links
Alabama	Beginning with the June 2014 primaries, each voter in Alabama was required to present a valid photo ID at the polls. A 2011 voter photo ID law went into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on June 25, 2013. A voter can obtain a free photo ID from the Alabama Secretary of State, a county registrar's office, or a mobile location, which changes daily. The mobile location schedule can be accessed here. On January 10, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a ruling upholding the state's voter ID law. The plaintiffs in the case (opponents of the state's voter ID law) claimed that the law violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court rejected these claims in its ruling. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which heard oral argument in the case on July 27, 2018.	Link
Alaska	Non-photo identification is required to vote on Election Day in Alaska.	Link
Arizona	To vote on Election Day in Arizona, a voter must present some form of identification at the polls. The identification does not necessarily need to include a photo. A voter can either present a photo ID that includes his or her name and registered address, or two forms of non-photo ID that include the voter's name and registered address. Proposition 200, approved by voters in 2004, required voters to present evidence of U.S. citizenship prior to voting. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot require proof of citizenship in cases of voter registration for federal elections unless the state receives federal or court approval to do so. The court ruled 7-2. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. On March 22, 2019, Governor Doug Ducey (R) signed into law legislation requiring voters to present identification at the polls if voting in person at an early voting center.	Link
Arkansas	On November 6, 2018, voters in Arkansas approved a constitutional amendment establishing a strict photo ID requirement for voting purposes. As enacted, the amendment requires individuals who are unable to present the requisite form of identification to cast provisional ballots.	Link
California	According to the Office of the California Secretary of State, "in most cases, California voters are not required to show identification at their polling place." A voter may be asked to provide identification at the polls if it is his or her first time voting (this requirement applies if the individual registered by mail without providing a driver's license number, state identification number, or the last four digits of a Social Security number). Acceptable forms of identification include driver's licenses, utility bills, or any document sent by a government agency. For a complete list of acceptable forms of identification, see this list.	Link
Colorado	Colorado voters must provide a valid form of identification if they choose to vote in person. The identification does not have to include a photo. For a full list of acceptable forms of identification, click here.	Link
Connecticut	Voters in Connecticut must present some form of identification the polls, though a photo is not required. A full list of acceptable forms of identification can be accessed here.	Link
Delaware	All Delaware voters are asked to provide identification at the polls. Valid identification includes a photo ID, a utility bill, a paycheck or any other government document featuring the voter's name and address. A photo is not required.	Link
Florida	Voters in Florida are required to present photo and signature identification on Election Day. If a voter's photo ID does not display his or her signature, he or she will need to supply a second form of identification that does.	Link
Georgia	Photo identification is required when voting on Election Day in Georgia. Valid forms of ID include driver's licenses, state ID cards, tribal ID cards, United States passports, employee ID cards, military ID cards, and voter ID cards issued by county registration offices.	Link
Hawaii	Voters in Hawaii must present a valid form of identification at the polls. This identification does not have to include a photo of the voter. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, valid forms of ID in Hawaii include driver's licenses, state ID cards, utility bills, bank statements, and other government-issued documents.	Link
Idaho	In order to vote in Idaho, voters must present valid photo identification or sign an affidavit. Valid photo ID includes an Idaho driver's license or ID card, a U.S. passport or federal ID card, a tribal photo ID card, or a student ID card, as long as the ID includes a photo and is issued by an institution in Idaho. If a voter is unable to present an acceptable ID, the voter is given the option to sign a Personal Identification Affidavit. On the affidavit, the voter swears to his or her identity under penalty of perjury. After signing the affidavit, the voter will be issued a regular ballot.	Link
Illinois	Generally, Illinois state law does not require voters to present a form of identification at the polls on Election Day. New voters who did not provide proof of identity at the time of registration may be required to present identification at the polls.	Link
Indiana	Indiana law requires a voter to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day. Photo identification must include the voter's name. The identification, which must be issued by the state or U.S. governments, must also have an expiration date. The ID must either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last general election.	Link
Iowa	On May 5, 2017, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) signed into law HF 516, which established an ID requirement for voters. The law, which was scheduled to take full effect on January 1, 2019, requires voters to present one of the following forms of identification at the polls: driver's licenses, military IDs, passports, or state-issued voter ID cards. The legislation cleared the Iowa House of Representatives on April 10, 2017, by a vote of 56-40. The Iowa State Senate approved the bill on April 13, 2017, by a vote of 28-21. HF 516 also eliminated the straight-ticket voting option. Branstad said the following in support of the law's provisions: "Protecting the integrity of our election system is very important. And we're very proud that Iowa has a tradition and history of doing so, and this is going to strengthen our ability and make it more effective and efficient." Mark Springer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said the following in opposition to the bill: "Today, voting in Iowa just got more difficult and more complicated. With Gov. Branstad signing this outrageous voter suppression bill into law, tens of thousands of Iowa eligible voters will be harmed." For more information on subsequent legal challenges to HF 516, see below.	Link
Kansas	In order to vote on Election Day in Kansas, a valid form of photo identification is required. Valid documents include driver's licenses, concealed carry handgun licenses, U.S. passports, and government employee, military, student, public assistance, and tribal IDs. The Kansas Secure and Fair Elections Act was signed into law on April 18, 2011, by Governor Sam Brownback (R). Beginning January 1, 2012, Kansas voters were required to present photo ID when voting in person. Beginning January 1, 2013, persons registering to vote for the first time were required to prove U.S. citizenship. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was sued over the law by Arthur Spry and Charles Hamner, two elderly Kansas residents whose ballots were not counted in the November 2012 general election because they could not provide photo identification. The lawsuit stated that neither had a driver's license or access to the birth records needed to secure a photo ID. The federal trial was set for May 11, 2015. On April 23, 2014, the federal lawsuit was dismissed. Both Spry and Hamner asked to have the case dismissed when the trial was scheduled after the 2014 elections.	Link
Kentucky	Voters in Kentucky are required to present identification before voting. Valid identification includes photo and non-photo identification. Election officers can also confirm the identity of a voter by personal acquaintance.	Link
Louisiana	A Louisiana voter must present one of the following forms of identification at the polls: a driver's license, a Louisiana special ID, or another generally recognized photo ID that contains the voter's name and signature. If a photo ID is not presented, a utility bill, a payroll check, or another government document that includes the voter's name and address can be presented. However, such voters also must sign affidavits.	Link
Maine	A voter in Maine does not have to present identification at the polls unless he or she is registering on Election Day. In that case, the voter must present identification and proof of residence.	Link
Maryland	Only first-time voters who registered by mail and did not provide a valid form of identification are required to present identification at the polls on Election Day in Maryland. Most voters in Maryland do not have to present identification on Election Day.	Link
Massachusetts	Most voters in Massachusetts are not required to present identification at the polls. Only first-time voters who registered by mail are required to do so. Valid forms of identification include both photo and non-photo identification.	Link
Michigan	Each voter in Michigan must present photo identification at the polls. A voter's photo ID does not need to include an address. A voter without photo identification may sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is not in possession of photo identification.	Link
Minnesota	Identification is not required in order to vote in Minnesota.	Link
Mississippi	Mississippi voters are required to present photo identification in order to vote in person. A photo ID is not required to vote absentee. A 2011 voter ID amendment to the state constitution required an implementing statute and faced United States Department of Justice (DOJ) pre-clearance before it could take effect. In October 2012, the Department of Justice requested additional information about the law. Mississippi voters, therefore, did not have to show proof of identification to vote in the November 2012 general election. In January 2013, proposed administrative rules for the voter photo identification law were submitted to the Department of Justice for approval. These rules included a provision allowing for voters who lack an acceptable photo ID to obtain a free voter photo ID card by presenting the same identification materials accepted when a person registers to vote. Once the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, federal pre-clearance was no longer required. As a result, the voter ID law took full effect.	Link
Missouri	Voters in Missouri must generally present identification at the polls. Valid forms of identification include the following: a driver's license or state-issued ID card, a military ID, a U.S. passport, or a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck. If a voter lacks both photo and non-photo identification, he or she will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. On October 9, 2018, Richard Callahan, a state court judge, enjoined a section of the state's voter ID law requiring voters presenting non-photo identification to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. Callahan found that the affidavit's language was "contradictory and misleading," requiring signers to "swear that they do not possess a form of personal identification approved for voting while simultaneously presenting to the election authority a form of personal identification that is approved." Callahan ordered officials to desist from executing the affidavit for voters presenting non-photo ID at the polls. State officials appealed to the state supreme court, asking the high court to stay Callahan's order. On October 19, 2018, the state supreme court denied this request, allowing Callahan's order to stand in advance of the November 6, 2018, election.	Link
Montana	A voter in Montana is required to present identification prior to receiving a ballot. Valid identification includes photo and non-photo ID identification, including a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, voter confirmation notice, government check, or another government document that shows the voter's name and current address.	Link
Nebraska	Voters do not need to present identification in order to vote in Nebraska. A voter may be asked for identification if he or she is a first-time registrant who mailed in his or her registration application and did not provide identification at that time.	Link
Nevada	A voter in Nevada must sign his or her name in the election board register at his or her polling place. The signature is compared with the signature on the voter's original application to vote or another form of identification, such as a driver's license, a state identification card, military identification, or another government-issued ID.	Link
New Hampshire	Voters in New Hampshire must present photo identification at the polls. If a voter is unable to present a valid form of identification, a poll worker will take a photo of the voter and attach it to an affidavit, which must be signed by the voter. Exceptions are provided for those who object to being photographed for religious reasons.	Link
New Jersey	If a New Jersey voter does not provide valid identification at the time of registration, he or she must show identification at the polling place. Identification includes any valid photo ID or bank statement, car registration, government check, or another document. Otherwise, a voter is not required to present identification at the polls.	Link
New Mexico	A New Mexico voter must show identification at the polls only if he or she mailed his or her registration application and did not provide verification of his or her identity at that time. Valid forms of identification include photo and non-photo forms.	Link
New York	In New York, a voter does not have to present identification at the polls.
North Carolina	On November 6, 2018, voters in North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment establishing a photo ID requirement for voting purposes. Enacting legislation was approved by the state legislature in December 2018, overriding Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto. The requirement was set to take effect in 2020.	Link
North Dakota	On August 1, 2016, a federal court enjoined North Dakota's voter identification requirement, preventing state officials from enforcing the requirement in upcoming elections. Prior to this, the state required voters to present one of the following forms of identification at the polls: a state driver's license, a state identification card, a tribal-government identification card, or an "alternative form of ID prescribed by the secretary of state." On April 24, 2017, Governor Doug Burgum (R) signed into law HB 1369, which reestablished the state's voter ID requirement. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "the law permits those who do not bring ID to the polls to cast a ballot that is 'set aside' until the voter presents valid ID. ... The bill also allows voters to present alternative documents, such as utility bills or bank statements, if the ID presented does not contain all required information." On April 3, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota enjoined enforcement of sections of the state's voter ID law. The state appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, requesting that the court lift the injunction. On September 24, 2018, the Eighth Circuit granted the state's request for a stay of the district court's decision, allowing for enforcement of those sections of the state's voter ID law enjoined by the district court. On September 27, 2018, opponents of the state's voter ID law petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the Eighth Circuit's decision. On October 9, 2018, the high court voted 6 to 2 to deny this request.	Link
Ohio	On Election Day at the polling place, Ohio law requires that every voter announce his or her full name and current address. Additionally, voters must provide some form of identification. A photo ID is not required. If a voter is unable to present a form of valid identification, he or she can provide his or her driver's license number, state identification number, or the last four digits of a Social Security number and cast a provisional ballot.	Link
Oklahoma	Oklahoma State Question 746, approved in 2010, requires every voter in Oklahoma to present proof of identity before receiving a ballot. Valid forms of identification include government-issued photo IDs and county election board voter identification cards (which do not include photographs). A voter who is unable to present a valid form of identification may cast a provisional ballot if he or she signs an affidavit attesting to the voter's identity. On May 8, 2018, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling in Gentges v. Oklahoma State Election Board, finding that Oklahoma's voter identification law did not violate the state constitution. The court's per curiam opinion noted the following: "[The] Oklahoma Voter ID Act is based on the State's attempt to prevent voter fraud and the lack of evidence of in-person voter fraud in the state is not a barrier to reasonable preventative legislation. Requiring voters to show proof of identity serves to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process and prevent in-person voter fraud." The case came to the state supreme court on appeal from the Oklahoma County District Court, which had similarly upheld the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law. The original suit was brought by Delilah Gentges, who alleged that the voter ID law was "unconstitutional as an interference with the free right to suffrage and equivalent to a poll tax."	Link
Oregon	Oregon is a vote-by-mail state. When registering to vote, a voter must provide his or her driver's license or state ID card number.	Link
Pennsylvania	A law requiring all Pennsylvania voters to present photo identification was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett in March 2012. On July 25, 2012, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard a challenge against the law from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other voting rights groups. On August 16, 2012, Judge Robert Simpson dismissed the challenge. Supporters and opponents next argued the validity of the voter ID law before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on September 13, 2012. On September 18, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 4-2 per curiam (unsigned) decision that sent the case back to the trial court. The state's high court asked the trial court "to ensure there is 'liberal access' to new voting-only IDs and there will be 'no disenfranchisement' of voters on Nov. 6." In response, a judge ruled that the Pennsylvania voter ID law could remain intact for the 2014 general election. However, an injunction permitted those without IDs to cast a ballot. The state's voter ID law was also not enforced for the May 2013 primary election. On January 17, 2014, Judge Bernard McGinley of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down the requirement that all voters must present photo identification, claiming that this part of the law was unconstitutional because it lacked a way to give voters liberal access to voter photo IDs. These photo IDs had to be obtained through Department of Transportation licensing centers, of which there were 71 across the state at the time, some with limited hours. Judge McGinley argued that this was an inconvenience to voters and could disenfranchise them. The ruling did not strike down the entire law, but it did prohibit the state from enforcing the photo ID requirement. On January 27, 2014, lawyers on behalf of Gov. Tom Corbett filed a request that Judge Bernard McGinley reconsider his ruling to strike down the voter ID requirement. McGinley denied the request. On May 8, 2014, Corbett announced that he would not be appealing the court ruling and would instead work with the Pennsylvania State Legislature to work on changes to the original law.	Link
Rhode Island	Photo identification is required at the polls in Rhode Island. If a voter is unable to present photo ID, a provisional ballot may be cast that will be counted if the signature given matches the one on the voter registration record.	Link
South Carolina	All voters are required to present photo identification at the polls in South Carolina. This includes a state driver's license, an identification card, a voter registration card that includes a photo, a federal military ID or a U.S. passport. A voter can receive a free photo ID from his or her county voter registration office by providing his or her name, date of birth and the last four digits of his or her Social Security number. South Carolina’s photo identification law was first submitted for pre-clearance to the United States Department of Justice in 2011 and was denied. Though the state applied for reconsideration, it was again denied pre-clearance on June 29, 2012. South Carolina then took the law to court, and in October 2012, a panel of federal judges blocked the law for the 2012 general election. The judges ruled that, given the short time remaining before the election, the law put a burden on minority voters that violated the Voting Rights Act. However, the judges also said there was nothing inherently discriminatory about the law and that it could be utilized in elections after 2012. South Carolina’s photo ID law took effect January 1, 2013.	Link
South Dakota	All voters in South Dakota must present photo identification at the polls. Approved forms of photo identification include the following: South Dakota driver’s license or nondriver ID card, U.S. government photo ID, U.S. military ID, student photo ID from a South Dakota high school or accredited institution of higher education, or tribal photo ID. If a voter does not have a photo ID, he or she can sign a personal identification affidavit.	Link
Tennessee	At polling places in Tennessee, voters must present government-issued photo identification at the polls. Valid forms of ID do not include student ID cards from state universities. On September 26, 2012, a judge ruled that Tennessee's voter ID law did not violate the state constitution. On October 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals also upheld Tennessee's voter ID law, though the court did issue an order requiring state officials to accept Memphis library cards as government-issued photo identification. State officials announced plans to appeal this part of the ruling, arguing that library IDs were not valid because they were not issued by the state government. On February 6, 2013, the Tennessee Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state’s voter ID law deprived citizens of the right to vote, whether safeguards should be implemented to prevent election fraud, and whether a city-issued photo library card could qualify as proper identification. On April 24, 2013, Governor Bill Haslam signed into law a bill that required voters to present photo identification issued by the state of Tennessee or the United States, which rendered library cards and photo identification issued by other states invalid. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court ordered that Memphis Public Library photo IDs be accepted until the court's final ruling. In August 2013, before the Tennessee Supreme Court issued its final ruling, the Tennessee Green Party filed a federal lawsuit challenging Tennessee's voter ID law. The Tennessee Green Party argued that the law was unconstitutional and unfair to minority voters. The Tennessee Supreme Court issued its final ruling on the voter ID law on October 17, 2013, upholding the law and allowing the legislature to block the use of library cards as identification.	Link
Texas	Texas requires voters to present a form of photo identification at the polls. If a voter does not possess the required form of identification, poll workers must ask the voter whether he or she "cannot obtain an acceptable form of photo ID." If the voter answers "yes" to this question, he or she can present a non-photo form of identification and complete a "Reasonable Impediment Declaration." Upon doing so, the voter may cast a regular ballot. For complete details, including a list of acceptable forms of photo and non-photo identification, see here. Texas' voter ID law is the subject of ongoing litigation. For further information, click "[Show more]" below. Show more Before Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was overturned on June 25, 2013, Texas' voter identification law, SB 14, required preclearance by the United States Department of Justice before taking effect. SB 14 required that every voter must present one of the following at his or her polling place: a Texas driver's license, a Texas Election Identification Certificate, a Texas personal identification card, a Texas concealed handgun license, a United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph, a United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph, or a United States passport. Preclearance was denied on March 13, 2012, and a lawsuit was subsequently filed by the state. On August 30, 2012, a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unanimously struck down the voter ID law. The court ruled that the law would negatively impact minority voter turnout and impose strict burdens upon the poor. The state filed a lawsuit against the ruling, and on December 17, 2012, a federal court deferred those proceedings until the United States Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of parts of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court overturned portions of the Voting Rights Act in June 2013, allowing the state's voter ID law to take immediate effect, as the state was no longer required to obtain preclearance for changes to election laws. On August 22, 2013, the United States Department of Justice sued Texas over its voter ID law, using a different section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to claim that the law would result in "denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” On October 9, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas struck down the law, ruling that it had been enacted "with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose." An emergency application was filed with the United States Supreme Court, which ruled on October 20, 2014, that Texas could implement its voter ID law for the 2014 general election. This decision applied only to the 2014 general election. On August 5, 2015, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas' voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, affirming in part the October 2014 decision of the district court. However, the Fifth Circuit panel did not find sufficient evidence to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the state legislature in passing the law. The appeals court remandedWhen a court remands a case, it is returning the case to a lower court for reconsideration. the case to the district court, ordering it to "re-examine its conclusion that Texas acted with discriminatory purpose." The appeals court panel wrote the following in its ruling: “ Accordingly, if on remand the district court finds that SB 14 has only violated Section 2 through its discriminatory effects, it should refer to the policies underlying SB 14 in fashioning a remedy. Clearly, the Legislature wished to reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud by strengthening the forms of identification presented for voting. Simply reverting to the system in place before SB 14's passage would not fully respect these policy choices. ” —United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit On August 28, 2015, Texas filed a petition requesting review by the full Fifth Circuit. On March 9, 2016, the full Fifth Circuit court agreed to re-hear the case. State Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision, saying, "Today's decision is a strong step forward in our efforts to defend the state's voter ID laws. Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is a primary function of state government and is essential to preserving our democratic process." In announcing its decision to hear the case, the court did not indicate when oral arguments would occur. Of the 15 judges on the Fifth Circuit, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents. On April 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued an unsigned order, declining to interfere with the state's photo ID requirement. However, recognizing "the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections in November 2016," the court did suggest it would be willing to intervene if the appeals court failed to rule on the matter by July 20, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas' voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Nine of the court's 15 members joined in the majority opinion. The court determined that the state's voter identification law had a discriminatory effect on minority voters who sometimes lack the required forms of identification. The court stopped short of striking down the law as a whole. Instead, the court ordered that election officials must "ensure that any remedy enacted ameliorates [the law's] discriminatory effect, while respecting the [Texas State Legislature's] stated objective to safeguard the integrity of elections by requiring more secure forms of voter identification." The appeals court also stopped short of saying whether the requirement was enacted with discriminatory intent, remanding that question to the lower court for further consideration. Texas Democrats applauded the court's decision. State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer (D) said, "The court got it right, recognizing the stink of discrimination." Meanwhile, Republicans, who controlled the state legislature at the time the requirement was enacted, defended the law. Governor Greg Abbott (R) said, "Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process. Texas will continue to make sure there is no illegal voting at the ballot box." On August 3, 2016, state officials and opponents of the state's voter ID requirement reached an agreement on how best to remedy the law in light of the Fifth Circuit's ruling. Under this agreement, voters are permitted to use the following forms of identification at the polls, provided their names appear on voter registration rolls: A form of identification specified in the original voter ID law (SB 14), including a Texas driver's license, a Texas identification certificate, a Texas personal identification card, a Texas concealed handgun license, a United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph, a United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph, or a United States passport A "valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and an address" Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said that the state would appeal the decision. On September 6, 2016, the United States government filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas a motion to enforce the temporary remedy described above. The motion read, in part, as follows: “ Despite the Remedial Order’s clarity, Texas’s voter education and poll worker training documents depart from it. Rather than educating voters and poll officials about opportunities tocast a regular ballot for those who 'do not possess SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably obtain it,' the State has recast that language to limit the opportunity to cast a regular ballot solely to those voters who present SB 14 ID or who 'have not obtained' and 'cannot obtain' SB 14 ID. That standard is incorrect and far harsher than the Court-ordered standard it would displace. By recasting the Court’s language, Texas has narrowed dramatically the scope of voters protected by the Court’s Order. ” On September 19, 2016, federal Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos sided with federal government, finding that state officials had violated the terms of the interim remedy. Danielle Lang, an attorney representing opponents of Texas' voter ID law, summarized Ramos' order as follows: "Going forward, the state of Texas is required to change important documents that were, in the court’s words, ‘misleading,’ including language on VoteTexas.gov, in the secretary of state’s press release, and in the poster that will go at the polling place locations." On September 23, 2016, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the United States Supreme Court to restore Texas' voter ID law. Paxton said, "Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is essential to preserving our democracy. Voter ID laws both prevent fraud and increase the public’s confidence in our elections. Texas enacted a common-sense voter ID law and I am confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately reinstate it." On February 27, 2017, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court seeking to dismiss the department's earlier claim that Texas' voter ID law had been enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The Justice Department did not seek to reverse its position that the law had a racially discriminatory impact. Opponents of Texas' voter ID criticized the move. Danielle Lang, an attorney for the Campaign Legal Center (one group that sued Texas over its voter ID law), said, "It's a complete 180. We can't make heads or tails of any factual reason for the change. There has been no evidence that's come to light." Lang characterized the development as an "extraordinary disappointment." Meanwhile, proponents of the state's voter ID law praised the Justice Department's decision. J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (a self-described "public interest law firm dedicated entirely to election integrity"), said, "We are seeing early reminders of what a Justice Department looks like when it drops the ideological pet projects and follows the law." On April 3, 2017, The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Justice Department's motion. However, the court indicated that it would still address the question of discriminatory intent in its ruling: "The Court intends to issue its new opinion on whether SB 14 was passed with discriminatory intent in violation of the Voting Rights Act at its earliest convenience and in due course."\ On April 10, 2017, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state's voter ID law had been enacted with discriminatory intent. Ramos wrote the following in her ruling: “ Upon reconsideration and a re-weighting of the evidence in conformity with the Fifth Circuit's opinion, the Court holds that the evidence found 'infirm' did not tip the scales. Plaintiffs' probative evidence–that which was left intact after the Fifth Circuit's review–establishes that a discriminatory purpose was at least one of the substantial or motivating factors behind passage of SB 14. Consequently, the burden shifted to the State to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without its discriminatory purpose. ... The State has not met its burden. Therefore, this Court holds, again, that SB 14 was passed with a discriminatory purpose in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. ” —Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos According to The New York Times, "lawyers involved in the case said the ruling effectively strikes down the law, although the judge did not issue a separate order doing so." Marc Rylander, a spokesman for Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, said, "We're disappointed and will seek review of this ruling at the appropriate time." On June 1, 2017, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 5 into law, amending the state's voter identification requirements. For those voters lacking the requisite photo ID, the law established an affidavit option requiring voters to sign a form stating that he or she was unable to obtain photo identification for one of the following reasons: lack of transportation lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain identification work schedule lost or stolen identification family responsibilities required identification has been applied for but not received These provisions were scheduled to take effect January 1, 2018. However, on August 23, 2017, federal Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued an order barring implementation of SB 5, finding that the revised legislation was not "an adequate remedy for the findings of [racially] discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect in SB 14." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said that he would appeal Ramos' decision: "Today's ruling is outrageous. Senate Bill 5 was passed by the people's representatives and includes all the changes to the Texas voter ID law requested by the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Department of Justice is satisfied that the amended voter ID law has no discriminatory purpose or effect. Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy. The 5th Circuit should reverse the entirety of the District Court’s ruling." On August 25, 2017, Paxton petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to grant a stay of Ramos' ruling pending appeal proceedings. On September 5, 2017, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit voted 2-1 to stay Ramos' ruling, authorizing Texas to enforce the provisions of its voter ID law for elections taking place in November 2017. Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod formed the panel's majority and wrote the following in the court's order: “ The State has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. SB 5 allows voters without qualifying photo ID to cast regular ballots by executing a declaration that they face a reasonable impediment to obtaining qualifying photo ID. This declaration is made under the penalty of perjury. As the State explains, each of the 27 voters identified—whose testimony the plaintiffs used to support their discriminatory—effect chain–can vote without impediment under SB 5. ” —Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod Judge James Gray dissented, arguing that it was not clear that the state was likely to succeed on the merits and that, therefore, the request for a stay should have been denied. On September 8, 2017, opponents of Texas' voter ID law filed a motion requesting en banc review of both the September 5 stay order and the full case. On September 11, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied the request for a stay of the September 5 order. On October 10, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied the request for en banc review. The court voted 4-10 on the matter, with four judges favoring en banc review and 10 judges opposing it. On April 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling reversing the earlier district court order that had barred the state from enforcing the provisions of its voter ID law. Judge Edith Jones wrote the following in the court's opinion: “ That Plaintiffs’ factual critique boils down to speculation demonstrates the prematurity of the court’s decision to invalidate SB 5 in 2017, well before the law took effect in 2018. Nothing we conclude today disposes of any potential challenges to SB 5 in the future. Plaintiffs may file a new lawsuit, and bear the burden of proof, if the promise of the law to remedy disparate impact on indigent minority voters is not fulfilled. They did not challenge SB 14, for instance, for several years after its effective date. As a remedy for the deficiencies found by this court in Veasey II, however, there is no evidentiary or legal basis for rejecting SB 5, and the district court was bound not to take the drastic step of enjoining it. Further, because SB 5 constitutes an effective remedy for the only deficiencies testified to in SB 14, and it essentially mirrors an agreed interim order for the same purpose, the State has acted promptly following this court’s mandate, and there is no equitable basis for subjecting Texas to ongoing federal election scrutiny under Section 3(c) [of the Voting Rights Act]. ” —Judge Edith Jones Judge Patrick Higginbotham penned a separate concurring opinion. Judge James Graves concurred in part and dissented in part, writing the following in his opinion: “ The scant changes implemented through S.B. 5 do not alter the district court's finding that S.B. 14 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. Instead, S.B. 5 merely carries forward the discriminatory strain of its predecessor, and for that reason it should be quarantined. I would therefore find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining both S.B. 14 and S.B. 5. Because the majority does not do so, I respectully dissent. ” —Judge James Graves In a statement, Paxton praised the court's ruling: "The court rightly recognized that when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 5 last session, it complied with every change the Fifth Circuit ordered to the original voter ID law. Safeguarding the integrity of our elections is essential to preserving our democracy. The revised voter ID law removed any burden on voters who cannot obtain a photo ID." State Representative Rafael Anchia (D), chairman of the Mexican American Legislature Caucus (a plaintiff to the suit), said, "Our view today is the same as it has been since the first day of this litigation — Texas' voter ID law is discriminatory. We are undeterred by today's decision, and we will continue to fight against laws that aim to suppress the vote." On June 19, 2018, the Fifth Circuit dismissed a further appeal, allowing Texas' voter ID law to stand. As of April 1, 2019, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 17 states required voters to present photo identification; the remainder accepted other forms of 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.	Link
Utah	At the polling place, a Utah voter can either present a form of identification that bears his or her name and photograph or two forms of identification that bear his or her name and address.	Link
Vermont	Only first-time voters who registered by mail are required to present identification at the polls.	Link
Virginia	Every voter in Virginia must present identification at the polls or else cast a provisional ballot. Valid identification includes the following: Virginia driver's license; Virginia DMV-issued photo ID; United States passport; employer-issued photo ID; student photo ID issued by a school, college, or university located in Virginia; other U.S. or Virginia government-issued photo ID; tribal enrollment or other tribal photo ID; and Virginia voter photo ID card. On May 20, 2012, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed legislation to require a voter without identification to vote provisionally. This eliminated the "Affirmation of Identity" that had been used previously. Before it could be implemented, the new legislation had to be approved by the United States Department of Justice. On August 20, 2012, the changes were approved. On February 20, 2013, the Virginia House of Representatives approved a strict photo identification bill by a vote of 65-30. The bill required all voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot. Voters without photo identification would be required to cast a provisional ballot that would only be counted if proper identification was displayed by noon on the Friday following the election. On March 26, 2013, McDonnell signed the bill into law. The new law went into effect on July 1, 2014.	Link
Washington	Washington is a vote-by-mail state; as such, identification is generally not required of voters.	Link
West Virginia	A voter in West Virginia is required to present identification at the polls. Acceptable forms of identification include government-issued IDs (both those with and without photographs), bank cards, bank statements, and insurance cards.	Link
Wisconsin	Voters in Wisconsin are required to present photo identification at the polls. A bill requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was introduced in the Wisconsin State Legislature in January 2011. Governor Scott Walker signed the bill into law on May 25, 2011. A series of legal challenges followed. These are discussed in greater detail in this article. Ultimately, on March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a challenge against the law, allowing the photo identification requirement to take full effect. The law was enforced in all elections following the April 7, 2015, primary.	Link
Wyoming	First-time voters in Wyoming may be asked to present valid identification at the polls, but photo ID is not necessary. Identification is not otherwise required.	Link

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "State+voter+ID"

State voter ID news feed

See also

• 

  Election coverage on Ballotpedia

• 

  Election policy on Ballotpedia

• 

  Presidential election, 2016

• Sample Ballot Lookup
• Early voting
• Absentee voting
• Online voter registration
• Same-day voter registration