In all states except North Dakota, eligible voters must register to vote before casting a ballot in any election. Each state’s voter registration requirements vary, but most states retain voters’ name, date of birth, address, and party affiliation. While the 1993 Voter Registration Act (also known as the “Motor Voter” law) allowed eligible voters to fill out a voter registration form at the same time they sought or renewed their driver’s license, it was not until 2015 that some states adopted fully automatic voter registration. Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) is a process whereby eligible voters’ registration information is automatically submitted or updated when they interact with government agencies like the DMV or Department of Health. Essentially, AVR makes voter registration an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, process. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia currently use some form of AVR. 

How AVR Works

There are two main types of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR): front-end opt-out and back-end opt-out.

• Front-end opt-out: When eligible voters interact with a government agency, they can choose whether to register by filling out a form or checking a box. Some states confirm registration afterward with a notification.
• Back-end opt-out: Government agencies automatically register voters unless they decline. After the interaction, voters receive a notification giving them a chance to opt out within a certain timeframe.

Sixteen states and D.C. use front-end opt-out, while eight states use back-end opt-out.

Arguments in Favor of AVR

Supporters argue that AVR increases access to elections and ease of voting. They claim non-automatic voter registration procedures are inefficient and contribute to low voter turnout due to the need for potential voters to take an extra step before they vote. Moreover, proponents argue that by automatically updating voter addresses during interactions with government agencies, AVR decreases the likelihood that voters show up to an incorrect polling place due to outdated registration information. Supporters claim that up-to-date voter registration information not only reduces confusion on election day, but also prevents jurisdictions from misallocating resources across polling places based on outdated records. Those who endorse AVR also claim it significantly reduces costs associated with paper forms, postage, provisional ballots, and same-day registration. 

Moreover, proponents of AVR assert that it increases the number of registered voters compared to non-automatic registration. A case study conducted by the Center for American Progress found AVR to be an effective means of engaging voters. According to the study, Oregon’s AVR program registered 116,000 people who were otherwise unlikely to have registered. Moreover, it found that Oregon’s electorate became more representative of the state’s population after AVR was put into place. Another case study from Georgia found that AVR registered and updated voter information at a higher rate than other registration sources, increasing the state’s registered voter population from 78% in 2016 to 98% in 2020. 

Arguments Against AVR

Critics of AVR argue that as more agencies coordinate to access and update voter information, the risk of errors and security breaches increases. They cite one 2018 instance when the California DMV was overwhelmed by an influx of potential voters, resulting in errors such as duplicate registrations and incorrect information being input into voter records. Opponents argue inaccuracies like those in California may cause more work for election officials because duplicate registrations must be corrected individually. Critics also claim an electronic system is vulnerable to major security risks, citing an incident when California’s new DMV voter registration system appeared to have been targeted by foreign hackers. In light of the risk of data breaches, some opponents of AVR argue that the automatic collection of voter information puts citizens who intentionally do not register, such as domestic violence survivors, at risk. 

Opponents also question the extent of AVR’s impact on voter registration rates and voting behavior. They argue that the increased voter registration numbers cited by supporters of AVR fail to account for voters who would have updated their registration without AVR. Additionally, they claim that even if AVR increases the amount of registered voters, newly registered voters who typically do not vote are still unlikely to vote. 

Conclusion

AVR remains a key issue nationwide, with several states adopting or adjusting AVR policies. In 2023 Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania became the newest additions to the list of states that use AVR in some form. As the conversation over AVR’s pros and cons continues, costs, data security, and voter turnout are likely to remain central topics of debate.