Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the 5 most populous states have overhauled their election systems

How the 5 most populous states have overhauled their election systems
whyframestudio/Getty Images

This is the first in a series of articles examining changes to voting laws in every state.

The ongoing election evolution in the United States, while in large part catalyzed by the Covid-19 pandemic, has been building momentum for years.

Many states were already undergoing major overhauls to their election systems leading up to the 2020 election, even before the pandemic gripped the nation. And in the aftermath of the presidential contest, states have doubled down on voting reforms.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the voting law changes in every state and Washington, D.C., since 2019, The Fulcrum compiled data from the Voting Rights Lab, the National Conference for State Legislatures, the Brennan Center for Justice, and state statutes and constitutions. This first installment focuses on the five most populous states.

In California and New York, where Democrats control the state legislature and the governorship, the adjustments largely eased access to the ballot box, whereas Republican-led Florida and Texas mostly focused on tightening the voting rules. And in Pennsylvania, where there's a divided government, compromise on voting changes has been hard to come by.


The chart below provides an overview of how voting practices have changed or remained the same in the five most populous states over the past two years. A more detailed explanation of each state's changes follows.

Made with Flourish

California

The country's most populous state is also one of the most accessible in terms of voting. Most of the election reforms enacted over the last two years were small and built upon the expansions already in place.

One significant change, though, happened last year when voters approved a ballot initiative to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions upon their release from prison. Previously, these individuals remained disenfranchised until they finished their probation or parole.

California also extended a temporary vote-by-mail expansion made for the 2020 election. All counties will continue to conduct primarily vote-by-mail elections until the end of this year. Then, in 2022, the state will revert back to allowing counties to decide how to conduct elections.

Other recent voting changes include:

  • Voters can now update their registration or change their party affiliation up until the close of polls on Election Day. Previously, the cut-off date was 15 days before an election.
  • The state government now pays the postage for mail ballots.
  • If a person is unable to return their mail ballot, they can designate someone else to do so. However, the designated person is prohibited from receiving any form of compensation for returning a ballot.
  • Los Angeles County established county-wide vote centers last year. Any county in California can opt in to using these types of polling places.
  • A law that could trigger removal from the voter rolls if a person had not voted within the last four years was rendered inoperative. It will be repealed in 2029.

Texas

The Lone Star State has garnered national attention this year for its ongoing partisan disputes over voting legislation. Republicans are pushing to tighten voting access and Democrats have twice fled Austin to thwart their efforts by preventing the required quorum.

Since 2019 Texas lawmakers have made significant changes to voting and elections, but not all of them have been restrictive. For instance, this year the secretary of state was authorized to maintain an online vote-by-mail tracking system, so voters can check the status of their applications and ballots. Interpreters are also now available for voters who require assistance reading or marking ballots at an in-person polling location.

However, there were a couple laws that did explicitly limit voting access. A month before the Nov. 3 election, GOP Gov. Greg Abbott issued an order limiting absentee ballot drop-off locations to just one per county.

And this past May, lawmakers tightened the language around what excuses are accepted to vote absentee. The following reasons are not considered valid: lack of transportation, a sickness that did not otherwise prevent the voter from leaving their residence or a requirement to appear at the voter's place of employment on Election Day.

The impacts of Texas' other recent voting changes are either mixed or unclear. For example, a 2019 law requires early voting sites to stay open for the entire early voting period. However, that law eliminates the possibility of mobile voting sites, a restriction that voting rights advocates said harms young and rural voters.

Earlier this year, the state's election rules were tweaked to clarify who is allowed to be in a polling place (e.g., voters, election workers, poll watchers and elected officials) from the time the presiding judge arrives on Election Day to make the preliminary arrangements until the precinct returns have been certified.

Two new laws also impose penalties for election violations. One makes it a felony to count votes that are considered invalid or to not count votes that are considered valid. Another allows voters to file complaints with the secretary of state about election clerks who fail to post the required daily roster of people who have cast early ballots.

Another recently enacted measure limits the use of private money by requiring election officials to get approval from the secretary of state before accepting donations of $1,000 or more for election administration. And the secretary of state must get unanimous approval from the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the state House before instructing election officials.

Texas made additional changes to the way voter rolls are maintained:

  • In March 2020, Texas joined the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, an interstate alliance to improve the accuracy and efficiency of voter registration lists.
  • In the same month, a law was enacted requiring local officials to provide information about deceased voters within seven days (rather than 10) of the monthly data preparation deadline.
  • In June, election officials were authorized to issue notices to voters who appear to be registered at a non-residential address. Once notified, voters must then take steps to prove it is their residential address.
  • Also last month, the secretary of state was authorized to withhold funds from any registrar that fails to perform mandatory voter roll maintenance.

Florida

Similar to Texas, Florida has been at the center of the voting rights debate following the 2020 election. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers passed, and GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis signed, an omnibus bill largely focused on tightening rules around voting by mail.

Vote-by-mail changes enacted through the omnibus bill include:

  • Floridians who wish to vote absentee must provide their driver's license number, state ID number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
  • Absentee ballot drop box availability is limited to when voting centers are open.
  • Drop boxes must be supervised by an election worker while in use.
  • Drop box locations must be announced 30 days before an election and cannot be changed unless they violate the rules. This eliminates mobile drop boxes.
  • State officials are expressly prohibited from sending out mail ballots without the voter's request.
  • The printing of party affiliation or other partisan information on a ballot return envelope is prohibited.
  • Voters can sign up to receive absentee ballots for every election in a general election year. However, Florida does not offer a permanent voting list.
  • A person cannot return more than two absentee ballots in addition to their own and a ballot belonging to an immediate family member, which tamps down on so-called "ballot harvesting." Violations of this rule are punishable as a misdemeanor.

New rules are also in place for in-person voting. "Engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or the effect of influencing a voter" at voting sites, including drop boxes, is prohibited. Violations of this rule are punishable as a misdemeanor. The "no electioneering" zone around polling places and drop boxes was extended from 100 feet to 150 feet as well.

Election officials who violate the rules around drop boxes could be fined up to $25,000, in accordance with the recently enacted law. The measure also prohibits election officials from accepting private funding or other support for election-related expenses, voter education or voter registration programs.

The omnibus bill also makes slight changes to the voter registration process, requiring in some circumstances that voters present identification when updating their information. The measure also allows political parties and campaigns to oversee the canvassing process and challenge ballots for potential issues.

Another major voting change was made two years ago when lawmakers approved a requirement that people with felony convictions pay all outstanding fines and fees before their voting rights could be restored. This rule was approved after voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 restoring voting eligibility to people who had completed their sentence including probation or parole.

However, voting rights advocates have fought this requirement in court, arguing that mandating former felons pay fines and fees before being allowed to vote is equivalent to imposing poll taxes on Black people in the South after the Civil War.

On the other hand, Florida took a small step to help the recently released: Voter registration forms must include information on how formerly incarcerated individuals can register to vote.

Also in 2019, Florida joined ERIC to improve the accuracy and efficiency of its voter rolls.

New York

Over the last two years, New York has seen several voting easements, including the adoption of online voter registration and early in-person voting. The state also recently started allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote.

Last year, state lawmakers approved automatic voter registration, which is expected to start being implemented statewide in 2023. This year the State University of New York system was designated as an official registration agency for AVR.

In May, the requirement that people with past felony convictions complete their probation or parole before regaining the right to vote was eliminated. The measure also includes provisions to ensure adequate voter education about this change.

And more expansions could be on the horizon. Earlier this year, lawmakers approved a ballot initiative to adopt no-excuse absentee voting, which voters will decide on this November. This comes on the heels of temporarily expanding the accepted excuses to vote absentee during last year's pandemic-era election.

Another measure on the ballot this fall could eliminate the voter registration deadline. Currently, the deadline to register to vote is 10 days before an election.

Other recent voting changes include:

  • Voters now have more time to apply for absentee ballots. (Previously, voters could apply no more than 30 days before an election.) Mail ballot applications must be received by election officials at least 15 days before an election.
  • Election officials must notify voters about a change in polling location by posting a sign at the old location with information about the relocation.
  • For special, primary or runoff elections in which there are no eligible voters in the most populous municipality, election officials can relocate the voting site to the next largest jurisdiction with eligible voters. This creates an exception to the rule that the voting site must always be in the largest municipality.

Pennsylvania

As a swing state with a Democratic governor and Republican-majority Legislature, Pennsylvania has also been at the forefront of the voting reform debate. Earlier this year, Gov. Tom Wolfe vetoed GOP-backed legislation that would have overhauled the state's election system.

While no compromise has been reached yet on this year's proposed voting changes, the state did enact a series of expansive measures in 2019. Perhaps the biggest one was the adoption of no-excuse mail voting. (The state still has absentee voting, which does require an excuse.)

The state also established a permanent mail voting list, so voters can sign up once to receive mail ballots for any election that year, as well as mail ballot applications for every year following.

The recently enacted law also gives voters more time to request and submit a mail ballot. Vote-by-mail applications can now be sent starting 50 days before an election. The voter registration deadline was also extended to 15 days before an election, giving Pennsylvanians another two weeks to register.

The 2019 election package also authorized the governor to allocate a $90 million bond to counties to reimburse 60 percent of the costs to replace voting equipment. The new machines allowed Pennsylvania's elections to have a paper backup, which bolstered security.

Two years ago, Pennsylvania also eliminated straight-ticket voting, an option on the ballot that allows voters to check one box to vote for all candidates of a certain party. Proponents of straight-ticket voting say it cuts down on voting time and ensures down-ballot candidates aren't skipped over. But opponents say the voting method is antiquated and disincentivizes voters from researching candidates.

Additionally, lawmakers approved a handful of small adjustments to the election system last year, including:

    • Allowing partisan poll watchers to be in the room while mail ballots are being processed and counted.
    • Marking as void any ballots with text, marks or symbols indicating the elector's identity, party affiliation or candidate preference.
    • Permitting voters who requested a mail ballot but wish to vote in person to return their ballot at a polling place, thereby "spoiling" it so they can cast a regular ballot in person.
    • Lowering the penalty for attempting to vote more than once in an election from a first degree misdemeanor charge to a third degree. The fine for such a charge was lowered from $10,000 to $2,500 and the sentence from five to two years.

    Read More

    AI chip
    a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
    Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

    We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

    The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

    China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

    The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

    A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

    The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

    Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

    INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

    Getty Images, uschools

    Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

    From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

    The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

    Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

    Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

    On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

    Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

    Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

    Keep ReadingShow less