States maintain voter lists through ongoing processes that remove ineligible voters

Voter lists (also known as voter rolls) contain information about every person registered to vote in a given location. They are critical to the election process: they ensure election officials are prepared for voters to cast their ballots, and ensure that only eligible voters can vote.  

In addition to unsuccessful attempts to accumulate voter registration lists at the federal level, challenges to voter lists or the registration of individual voters have been a frequent tactic of the Trump administration, and it’s one they may use again ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

States maintain voter lists according to robust processes that are mandated by law and can be verified with public data — these processes are meant to ensure the accuracy of the voter lists and increase trust in election administration. As the Trump administration seeks to undermine trust in the process of list maintenance via its push for the use of the SAVE tool, it’s worth taking a broader look at how list maintenance usually works.

How are voter lists usually updated?

Regular list maintenance is a normal part of elections that takes place continuously over the several years before and after an election, not all at once. In addition to confirming eligibility for new voters added to the list and updating their information when requested, it involves removing voters who meet a number of criteria that signal to an election official they should be removed from the voter lists. 

You may also hear terms like “voter purges,” “cleaning the rolls,” or the idea that voter lists are “bloated” or “dirty.” These terms are often politically charged, and can be confused with regularly mandated list maintenance processes. Overall, list maintenance helps ensure that voter rolls contain the right people and can be trusted to run elections.

Why do voter lists need to be updated? Well, on an average day in the United States:

• about 75,000 people might move homes,¹
• about 10,000 people will turn 18,² and
• almost 9,000 people will pass away.³

These are just some examples of life events that affect voter eligibility and should be reflected in voter lists. Others include felony convictions and becoming a naturalized citizen.

Of course, the ideal voter file is both complete and accurate. Accuracy includes both ensuring that the information for each eligible voter is up to date, and removing ineligible individuals. With the frequency of changes described above, work towards that goal is never finished.

Because the process of making sure voter rolls are accurate is always ongoing, additional safeguards ensure the lists are at their most up-to-date during periods of voting or petitions. Aspects of the voting process also complement the voter registration process, such as when states require ID to request an absentee ballot or require voters to state their address at the polling place.

Voter list maintenance processes are transparent. States publish voter registration lists for public viewing, and many also publicize their process for maintenance. While details vary by state, election officials check registrations against various data sources, allowing them to remove voters who have moved or died, or are otherwise ineligible.

Sources used include the National Change of Address Database, the Social Security Death Master File, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) naturalization records, the Electronic Registration Information Council (ERIC) membership organization, state vital records databases, jury dismissal lists, motor vehicle agency data, estate administration records, and obituaries.

Lack of voting activity can also trigger a removal process, though the federal law requires a mailed notice and a waiting period before a voter can be removed for this reason. Strong processes are typically well-documented and ensure that officials are able to consult all data that is available to them.

What are the rules?

Several key pieces of federal law guide the process of voter list maintenance.

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)

The NVRA sets forth requirements for state voter registration and list maintenance programs. It requires states to provide opportunities to register to vote at the DMV and at certain state agencies as well as via mail. Section 8 of the NVRA lays out the requirements for list maintenance activities aimed at maintaining current and accurate voter registration lists.

The NVRA has two objectives: 1) to increase the number of eligible voters participating in our elections and 2) to maintain safe and accurate voter rolls. It seeks to achieve these goals by giving state officials broad discretion in how to maintain accurate rolls while providing guardrails to protect eligible voters. The NVRA divides the rules for list maintenance into two periods.

During all but the 90 days directly preceding a federal election, states can use a wide variety of tools and programs to systematically review and clean up the voter rolls so long as the program is uniform and nondiscriminatory. The NVRA made it illegal for election officials to remove voters solely for failure to vote. But they can reach out to a voter to confirm their status if they have failed to vote in multiple consecutive elections. If a voter does not respond to this mailed notice or if any mailed notice is undeliverable, the voter record can be marked as inactive. An inactive record can be removed from the voter list after two federal general elections have passed, if a voter has not voted or responded to a mailed notice in the interim. These protections help ensure that voters are not removed incorrectly.

The table below summarizes what this process might look like in practice:

Date	Event
November 6, 2018	Voter fails to cast a ballot
November 30, 2018	Voter does not respond to a mailing, marked inactive
November 3, 2020	Voter fails to cast a ballot
November 30, 2020	Voter does not respond to a mailing, remains inactive
November 8, 2022	Voter fails to cast a ballot
November 9, 2022	Record eligible to be removed from voter list

During the 90 days immediately prior to a federal election, referred to as the “Quiet Period,” the NVRA has much tighter restrictions. During this crucial window, states may not engage in systematic maintenance of the voter rolls and are limited to making individualized updates. For example, officials may update the registration of a voter who reports that they have changed their name or moved, or remove a voter who is confirmed to be deceased.

This Quiet Period is essential for voters. In many states, early voting starts weeks if not months prior to the election, so it is important for voters to be able to check and rely upon their registration information. Moreover, if there are errors in a systematic removal process there would be very little time to contact voters and remedy those errors immediately preceding an election. 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)

UOCAVA, first enacted under President Reagan, provides the rules and regulations for voting by the nearly 3 million U.S. citizens residing outside the United States – including U.S. military personnel and their families. UOCAVA requires election officials to send ballots to eligible overseas voters in advance of the election and creates special procedures for these voters, for example allowing them to register and request an absentee ballot simultaneously. States are required to verify the identities and eligibility of UOCAVA voters as they are all voters.

Why have I been hearing so much about this?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that states could use the deeply problematic SAVE database to check voter records, a move that could inadvertently remove voters from the rolls who should not be removed. The ruling came inside of the 90-day quiet period mandated by the NVRA, however, which means that states cannot use the tool for “mass purges.” 

What the quiet period has no control over, however, is what states or the federal government might claim about election results they don’t like. Because the SAVE database is not designed to be used in relation to elections and the federal government has admitted it is error prone, we are likely to see more misleading or unsubstantiated claims that rolls are filled with ineligible voters. What the evidence has shown is that voter list maintenance is already working: 

• Utah reviewed roughly 1.8 million active registered voters and found one noncitizen registered. The state passed a proof-of-citizenship law anyway.
• Louisiana’s Republican secretary of state reviewed voter rolls going back to the 1980s and concluded that noncitizen voting is not a systemic problem in the state.
• Kansas enacted a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement and blocked roughly 31,000 eligible American citizens from registering before abandoning it.
• A federal review of Nevada’s voter list initially raised 16,000 possible noncitizens, but that estimate was later revised to 185, and finally arrived at the conclusion that none of those identified were in fact non-citizens

The goal of many of these misleading tactics is to create uncertainty about voter list maintenance, as part of a broader strategy to deceive, disrupt, and deny legitimate election results. 

It’s also important to remember the Constitution gives states the power to run elections, not the federal government. The law is on the side of protecting voters, and the process will withstand the challenges it faces. Last minute changes have been and will again be successfully challenged in court. “Zombie” lawsuits are meritless and many have already been rejected. Mass challenges have thus far proven to be ineffective.

Why Americans can feel confident in voter lists

Our voter lists are safe and secure, and there are numerous levels of checks to ensure that only eligible voters participate in our elections. State and local election officials have been diligently working to maintain and update the voter rolls since the last election. In addition to the laws, regulations, and resistance to the third-party tactics we covered above, the system has additional layers of assurance built in.

On top of these examples, there are a few things Americans can do to remain confident in registration lists:

• Check your own registration, especially if you’ve moved recently, and encourage others to do the same. In many states, you can confirm your registration online in minutes.
• Learn more about the specific voter list maintenance practices in your state by looking to trusted resources such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, or reaching out to your local election officials.
• Remember that VoteShield analyzes public records on a regular basis, weekly for many states, and identifies any changes that might require a second look. Things we look for include neutrality in terms of party, age, race, and other factors, which are required by the NVRA.

Our work has shown us that, on the whole, election officials are superb at accomplishing the difficult task of maintaining accurate registration lists while also protecting each individual’s right to vote, and following federal law. You can put your trust in them.