HAVA’s Unfinished Work
By Justin Riemer, President, USGI, and Marshal Trigg, Junior Counsel, USGI
It has been more than twenty years since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and states are still working to get it right.
Take North Carolina. For years, the state’s voter registration form marked HAVA’s mandatory identification fields (driver’s license or partial Social Security number) as optional. A citizen complaint in 2023 finally surfaced the problem, and the state eventually corrected the form—but by then, somewhere in between 100,000 and 250,000 voters had been registered without providing the required information. The issue escalated into parallel litigation: the Republican National Committee sued, and the Department of Justice followed with its own enforcement action. Each case resulted in separate consent judgments. Together, those orders require the state contact affected voters, update records, use provisional ballots for those with missing information, and report to DOJ through 2027. This was also a central issue in an election contest for a razor thin state Supreme Court race in 2024.
HAVA’s voter registration identification requirement (distinct from but relevant to its separate ID rules for first-time voters) is relatively straightforward. A state cannot “accept” or “process” a registration without either the applicant’s driver’s license number or partial Social Security number (SSN), unless an applicant has neither. (And almost every voter has at least an SSN.)
HAVA also establishes a clear hierarchy: an applicant with a driver’s license must provide it. Only those without one may substitute their partial SSN. The driver’s license takes priority because it’s a unique identifier that can be matched against DMV records far more reliably than a partial SSN.
An investigation of states’ HAVA compliance by Grant’s sister organization Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) reveals North Carolina is not an isolated case. RITE found that multiple states’ registration forms, including New Mexico’s and New York’s, present the two identifiers as interchangeable options, ignoring the driver’s license priority structure entirely. New York’s form instructed applicants to “make 1 selection” between the driver’s license number and partial SSN, never communicating that the driver’s license number is mandatory. To its credit, New York corrected that this week, but other states, like New Mexico, have not.
New York has a second and more significant problem: a state regulation directing counties to process and approve applications missing HAVA’s required identification numbers altogether. Under this approach, applicants are registered first and asked for the missing information later, with no mechanism for rejection if they never respond. Is it any wonder that New York has the highest proportion of registered voters nationwide (23%!) lacking a driver’s license number or partial SSN?
HAVA reflects a familiar legislative compromise: it imposes certain baseline requirements while leaving key implementation details to the states. That is especially true regarding the ramifications when a state is unable to match the driver’s license or Social Security number listed on the application with corresponding government databases. HAVA is reasonably clear states must make some attempt to match the information but then defers to state law on whether they can or must reject the application when it doesn’t. And state law isn’t always so clear. That gap is now the subject of RITE-supported litigation challenging a Pennsylvania directive forcing counties to accept registrations when the applicant-provided information does not match.
Unlike the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), HAVA is generally understood not to provide a private right of action, leaving enforcement largely to the Department of Justice. DOJ, however, has historically brought relatively few HAVA suits. This helps explain why compliance failures have gone undetected for years. More recently, outside groups and citizen complainants have homed in on the law and should be credited for exposing compliance problems like in North Carolina that were hiding in plain sight for over two decades.
These may seem like small, technical issues, but they carry real significance. While HAVA addressed many aspects of voting, Congress placed particular emphasis on improving the accuracy of our registration lists. Lawmakers understood that registration flaws were large contributors to broader and persistent election administration problems, many of which surfaced in the 2020 Presidential Election. HAVA has undoubtedly helped address these shortcomings, but its aims won’t be fully realized until states fully comply with both the letter and spirit of the law.
Arizona
Attorney General Mayes and Secretary of State Fontes are urging county recorders to reject requests to hand over unredacted voter files to the DOJ, claiming it would violate state and federal laws.
The FBI subpoenaed records from the Arizona Senate related to the Senate’s audit of the election results from the 2020 Presidential Election for Maricopa County. Senate President Warren Petersen shared that he complied with the subpoena and supplied the requested information.
California
An advocacy group has garnered enough signatures to place a voter ID proposition on the ballot in the upcoming election.
Colorado
A woman was sentenced to three years in prison for fraudulently completing ballots in the name of her deceased ex-husband and her son.
Florida
Lawmakers in Tallahassee passed legislation that will require documentary proof of citizenship to vote. Governor DeSantis is expected to sign this legislation into law and take effect in January 2027.
After a machine and manual recount, Andy Thomson was declared the new mayor of Boca Raton. Thomson led by six votes on election night, one vote after the machine recount, and ultimately won by five votes.
Indiana
Governor Braun has signed nine election-related bills into law, including a bill that bans ranked-choice voting.
Maine
Attorney General Frey broke with Democratic lawmakers by telling the state Supreme Court that expanding ranked-choice voting to general elections for governor and the legislature would violate the state constitution’s requirement that those races be decided by a plurality of votes. The Republican National Committee also filed a brief with the court opposing the expansion.
Michigan
In a 110 page report, Attorney General Nessel announced that her office will not appeal a court ruling dismissing charges against the Republican electors from the 2020 election.
37 absentee ballots in Hamtramck’s mayoral election were left uncounted after unauthorized officials entered the city clerk’s office on election night. The officials entered the office after they saw a punching bag with a mayoral candidate’s face on it. The canvassers ultimately decided to exclude them from the results of a race decided by just 11 votes.
The Michigan Department of State wrote to county clerks and election directors cautioning against using jury list questionnaire responses for list maintenance purposes.
Montana
Secretary of State Jacobsen announced that a new federal citizenship-verification check identified 23 voter records flagged as potential non-citizens using the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE database. Secretary Jacobsen said the review indicated these individuals cast nearly 150 ballots in Montana elections.
Nevada
The FBI closed a voter fraud investigation where 38 noncitizens may have voted in the 2020 elections. Despite the findings, the FBI claims that the statute of limitations would have lapsed on any possible charges.
North Carolina
State Senate leader Phil Berger has formally requested a recount in Guilford and Rockingham Counties, citing a 23-vote margin. On Wednesday, the State Board of Elections denied Berger’s request for a hand-to-eye recount of 220 votes that machines flagged as under or overvotes. State law only provides for a hand-to-eye recount for a small, random sample of ballots. Wednesday’s machine recount in Guilford led to each candidate losing one vote leaving the margin unchanged.
In a parallel election protest, Berger alleges that at least eight Guilford County voters were issued the wrong ballot style that omitted the SD-26 race, effectively preventing them from voting in the contest and potentially warranting remedial action under state law.
Ohio
On March 17, 2026, Governor DeWine signed legislation that largely bans ranked choice voting in the state and withholds funding from local governments that use it.
Oklahoma
A citizen-led effort to place State Question 836 on the ballot failed after the Secretary of State determined the petition did not meet the required 172,993 valid signatures threshold, despite more than 200,000 signatures being submitted. The initiative would have placed all candidates on a single primary ballot, with party affiliated listed, and allowed every registered voter to participate in any contested race regardless of party.
Pennsylvania
Federal prosecutors charged a Mauritanian national with illegally voting in several federal elections including in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential primary and general elections while unlawfully present in the United States.
Matthew Laiss, a former resident of Bucks County, was found guilty for voting twice in the 2020 election. Laiss faces up to five years in prison.
Texas
During the March 3, 2026 primary election, at least 13,000 Dallas County voters showed up at the wrong polling location, following confusion over recent rule changes.
Washington
Governor Ferguson has signed legislation that clarifies the prohibition against double voting in the state, specifically stating that any person who intentionally votes or attempts to vote more than once in the same election or in both Washington and another state during the same election is guilty of a felony.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin election officials are claiming that federal efforts to obtain 2020 election materials could potentially expose how individual Milwaukee residents voted, due to state law requiring absentee ballots at central count locations to be traceable to poll book entries. Federal officials have made no attempt to subpoena or seize ballots, and Governor Evers has said he would resist any attempt to do so.
Arizona
Mussi v. Fontes, No. 2:24-cv-01310 (D. Ariz.)
On March 17, the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal from a group of Arizona Republican voters regarding alleged failures to remove ineligible voters from the state’s registration rolls. The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege Article III standing based on vote dilution.
District of Columbia
Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. United States Dep’t. of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-825 (D.D.C.)
On March 10, the Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit seeking to compel the Trump administration to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding any plans to deploy federal agents or military personnel at polling places or election offices.
Indiana
Count Us In v. Diego Morales, 1:25-CV-00864-RLY-MKK (S.D. Ind.)
On March 6, the state Attorney General’s Office urged a federal court to deny a request to block the state’s ban on using student IDs for voting ahead of the 2026 election.
Iowa
Selcuck v. Pate, No. 4:24-cv-00390 (S.D. Iowa)
On March 16, a federal court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice and adopted the parties proposed settlement agreement in a lawsuit challenging the state’s pre-election directive flagging over 2,000 registered voters as potential noncitizens based on data from the state Department of Transportation.
Kentucky
United States v. Adams, 3:26-cv-00019-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
On March 10, the State Board of Elections moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the DOJ seeking access to the state’s unredacted voter rolls.
Michigan
United States v. Benson, No. 1:25-cv-01148 (W.D. Mich)
On March 11, the Sixth Circuit granted in part the DOJ’s request for an expedited briefing schedule in its case seeking access to the state’s voter rolls. The DOJ’s principal brief is due March 23, and the state’s principal brief is due April 13.
New York
Serratto v. Mt. Pleasant, Index No. 55442/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cnty)
On March 10, the Mount Pleasant Town Board voted to enter into a settlement agreement in a suit brought by five Hispanic voters who believed their votes were diluted by the town’s current at-large voting system. Under the settlement agreement, the town will pay over a million dollars in the plaintiff’s legal fees and shift the voting system to a district-based system.
North Carolina
Hogarth v. Bell, 5:24-cv-481 (E.D.N.C.)
On March 9, a federal court upheld North Carolina’s ban on ballot selfies, rejecting a First Amendment challenge and finding that polling places are a nonpublic forum where reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech are permitted.
Pennsylvania
Rossman v. Schmidt, No. 516 MD 2024 (Pa. Comm. Ct.)
On March 17, a county election official urged the state Supreme Court to invalidate the state’s directive requiring counties to accept voter registration applications despite lacking identifying information required by law. This case is sponsored by RITE.
Virginia
King v. Youngkin, No. 3:23-cv-00408 (E.D. Va.)
On March 9, a federal court reaffirmed an earlier ruling that a felon’s right to vote cannot be permanently removed after the completion of the sentence.
Click here for more on RITE’s active litigation
The MacArthur Foundation announced a $100 million commitment to support democracy-focused initiatives in the United States.
The Senate voted 51-48 on Tuesday to begin debate on the SAVE America Act, clearing an initial procedural hurdle for the GOP-backed bill.
On March 11, the National Association of Secretaries of State wrote to the White House emphasizing the need for effective and consistent communication between the federal government and state election offices as we approach the midterm elections.
Richard Bernstein argues that the legal challenge to counting mail ballots received after Election Day rests on a fundamental misreading of federal law. His core claim is that federal statutes set a uniform day for voting not for receipt of ballots and therefore do not prohibit states from accepting ballots that arrive after Election Day if cast on time. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the RNC v. Watson case on this issue March 23, 2026.
This Bipartisan Policy Center analysis finds no clear, consistent partisan advantage from documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirements.
This analysis from the John Locke Foundation breaks down the end game of the contested Berger-Page race in North Carolina.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resume to info@grantdemocracy.org.