The polarized election season of 2024 brought actions from many states to adjust their rules pertaining to voting and elections. States with Democratic governance tended to focus on more peripheral issues, such as firearms restrictions at polling places. States under Republican control tended to seek stronger protection against election interference or fraud. Across the political divide, however, there was broad agreement on the need to address challenges posed by AI generated media and on protecting election workers from harassment.

Here’s our take, drawing on a recent summary from the National Conference of State Legislatures.¹

Bipartisanship

One area in which laws were passed on a seemingly bipartisan basis was artificial intelligence. Sixteen states from across the political spectrum passed laws prohibiting AI generated, lifelike videos or photos that are defamatory for a candidate when presented without appropriate disclaimers (so-called “deepfakes”). Platforms publishing them or users posting them could face a criminal or civil complaints under the new statues.

Another area of bipartisanship was the safeguarding of election workers from interference or harassment, or related issues. The states of Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, and Virginia, plus the District of Columbia strengthened protections around election workers (or the penalties for violations). Alabama also established that felonies committed against election workers could result in voting rights being stripped.

Red states

The bulk of new election security measures were introduced in Republican controlled states. Alabama made it illegal to knowingly fill out or submit someone else’s ballot (subject to certain exceptions involved authorized assistance), which leaves one wondering why the state had waited until only last year to do so.

Georgia passed measures to make the process of scanning and counting mail-in ballots more secure, abandoning the use of QR codes and placing watermarks on scanned ballots. The state also made it the law to count all absentee and mail-in ballots before 8 p.m. on election day, increasing efficiency.

Idaho enacted voter identification measure such that an identification issued less than 30 days before the election is invalid. Idaho also updated its election cybersecurity laws, making it a felony to tamper with electronic voting machines or vote tally systems. Additionally, Idaho passed a measure that made it illegal to willfully destroy or tamper with another’s ballot–here again, somewhat surprising that this had previously not been illegal.

The state of Louisiana passed security measures to bolster the integrity of mail-in voting. Louisiana explicitly defined the punishments for forgery of a mail-in or absentee ballot — a fine of up to $2,000 or a prison sentence of up to two years for a first-time offense, and up to $5,000 or five years for a subsequent violation. The state also enshrined in law a requirement to write one’s proper address on the ballot envelope and prohibited minors and non-family members from signing as witnesses.

Notably, not all red state measures were aimed at fraud prevention–some sought to expand the accessibility of voting. Tennessee authorized early voting at nursing homes to begin 27 days before an election. Georgia allowed for use of the county registrar’s office as a mailing address for election purposes for homeless persons in a county.

Nebraska authorized newly naturalized citizens to register after the general registration deadline. Nebraska also restored voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals as of completion of their sentences (eliminating a two-year waiting period.) 

Divided-control states

Eight states have a governor from one party with the other major party controlling one or both chambers of the legislature.² These states as a group were somewhat less active in enacting changes to their election rules and procedures.

One such state, New Hampshire, led by a Republican governor and Democratic legislature, saw lawmakers focus on tightening voter identity requirements. The state passed a bill that requires first-time voters to present proof of citizenship, eliminates any exceptions for proof of voter identification, and removes voter affidavits as proof of identification.

Another divided-control state, Arizona, which is led by a Democratic governor and Republican legislature, is noteworthy for what it did not do. Although it has been notoriously plagued by delays in finalizing election results, the state did not address this issue prior to the 2024 election.

The entire nation waited until weeks after election day for the 2024 Arizona results, prompting action from the legislature. In February of 2025, the governor vetoed a landmark voting bill to address this and other weaknesses of Arizona’s voting procedures . We will discuss the controversy surrounding this veto in-depth separately in a future blog post.

Another such state, Pennsylvania, marked its fourth straight year, since the state’s introduction of no-excuse mail-in voting in 2020, without any significant legislative updates to voting rules or procedures. For context, the state has seen a plethora of disputes involving mail ballot issues that have had to be adjudicated in state courts.³ Arguably, at least some of these disputes could have been avoided or more aptly dealt with through legislative updates and clarifications.

Registration database maintenance

Two red states (Indiana and Tennessee) and two divided-control states (Arizona and New Hampshire) each enacted changes to their voter registration data systems or processes. These changes were implemented to help assure accurate record maintenance, including to better detect ineligible voters and eliminate them from the voter rolls, thus mitigating risk of election misconduct.

Indiana and Tennessee came up with novel, supplementary ways of culling noncitizens from their voter roles, which other states may wish to take note of. Indiana directed the state to notify county registration officials about voters who have been disqualified from state court jury service for being a noncitizen. Tennessee legislated that the coordinator of elections compare the statewide voter registration database with the department of safety database to ensure noncitizens are not on the registration list.

Also notably, Indiana addressed the potential for fraudulent voter registration using nonresidential addresses. The statewide voter registration system was authorized to implement a feature that identifies registrations with a potential nonresidential address.

New Hampshire legislated that city and town supervisors of voter registration lists meet at least every 90 days for periodic list maintenance activities. New Hampshire also directed the executor of an estate or a personal representative to provide local election offices an official notice of death of any person over age 18, for the purpose of voter list maintenance.

Arizona addressed the integrity of registration records from a different angle, seeking to protect against records being mistakenly deleted or changed, or from being breached and tampered with. Arizona legislated that county officials must notify voters of any changes made to their registration record by sending the affected voter a text or email within 24 hours of making the changes.

Blue states

Connecticut and Rhode Island stand out among blue states for introducing notable measures in 2024 to strengthen election security. Connecticut passed a drop box security measure requiring security cameras with video recording at drop boxes, something that multiple other states had established in previous years.⁴ Rhode Island legislated that state ID cards issued to those unable to establish legal presence in the U.S. may not be used as voter ID.

California, on the other hand, implemented anti-voter identification laws, declaring it illegal to mandate a voter show identification at a polling place in order to cast an official, non-provisional ballot.

Multiple Democratic states established “gun-free zones” at polling places. The state of California banned open-carrying firearms, ruling it intimidation unless proven otherwise. The state of Colorado passed a similar measure banning firearms for civilians altogether, classifying it as a misdemeanor. The states of Michigan and New Mexico also established firearm restrictions. Michigan prohibited firearms within 100 feet of polling centers, early voting centers, ballot drop boxes and clerk’s offices. New Mexico prohibited firearms within 100 feet of polling sites and 50 feet of a security ballot container, making it a petty misdemeanor.

Finally, in a measure that some might see as more politically motivated (as a swipe at Donald Trump) than substantive, Colorado formulated a law assigning new criminal penalties for false electors. Trump had been accused by his critics of presenting a false slate of electors after his campaign contested the certified result in Georgia in 2020. A criminal case was opened by Fulton County, Georgia but remains in limbo following disqualification of the County prosecutor for actions deemed to have damaged public trust through appearance of impropriety.

1. National Conference of State Legislatures, “2024 Election Enactments” ↩︎
2. See Ballotpedia, “State government trifectas and triplexes” for a complete taxonomy. ↩︎
3. See, for example, NBC News, “Thousands of ballots are at stake as the Supreme Court considers Pennsylvania voting rules” (October 21, 2024). ↩︎
4. Connecticut also updated the statute of limitations regarding election crimes, lengthening the applicable amount of time. In addition, it is worth noting that Washington passed a law (that seems long overdue) requiring county election offices to install full-time cyber-security software and to notify the secretary of state of any intrusions that might occur. ↩︎