Errors in America’s Voter Rolls

The most important election integrity document is the voter roll. It tells election officials who is eligible to vote. It controls to who and where automatic vote by mail ballots are sent. Inaccurate voter rolls lead to chaos in elections. Our team at the Public Interest Legal Foundation has fought to secure the public’s right to inspect state’s voter rolls and take legal action against states who are violating federal law by not conducting effective voter list maintenance.

We have compiled the voter rolls from across the country into a database that allows us to know who is voting twice or from beyond the grave. We’ve used this data to sue states for failing to do effective list maintenance such as not removing deceased registrants, duplicate voter registrations, and voters who move to another state.

Click on the pin in each state to learn more information about the errors in its voter roll.







































































































Minnesota

Statistics

Deceased Registrants as of 2018: 816
2016 Duplicate Vote Credits: 4
Registrants Credited for Voting from Non-Residential Addresses in 2018: 199

Ongoing Litigation

In April of 2024, PILF filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon, to have the state’s exemption from the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) Public Disclosure Provision declared invalid. The Public Disclosure Provision of the NVRA requires election records, including the voter roll, to be available to the public. If applied, the NVRA would require Minnesota to make its voter roll available to the public at a reasonable cost regardless of the requestor’s residency.

Minnesota law prohibits out-of-state residents or organizations from purchasing the voter roll.

In 1993 when Congress passed the NVRA they gave six states, including Minnesota, special exemptions from the NVRA because they offered same-day voter registration. Now, same-day voter registration has expanded to many more states who are still subject to the NVRA. These special exemptions from the NVRA violate the principle of equal state sovereignty.

Legal Victories

Despite Minnesota’s exemptions from the NVRA, PILF attorneys innovatively found a way to bring a voter list maintenance claim against election officials in Minessota by using the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). In 2022, we filed six HAVA complaints in six different Minnesota counties to force the removal of duplicate voter registrations. Due to PILF’s litigation, all six counties have removed a total of 501 duplicate voter registrations.

The Foundation still has active litgation against Ramsey County to force election offiicials to implement procedures that do not allow duplicate registrations to get back on the voter roll.

South Carolina

Statistics

Deceased Registrants as of 2018: 14,351
2018 Duplicate Vote Credits: 3
2016 Duplicate Vote Credits: 8
Registrants Credited for Voting from Non-Residential Addresses in 2018: 528

Legal Victories

In March of 2024, PILF filed a federal lawsuit against the Executive Director of the South Carolina Election Commission, Howard Knapp, for violating Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) by refusing to disclose the state’s voter roll. The South Carolina Elections Commission denied PILF access to the voter roll because of a South Carolina law that prohibited out-of-state residents or organizations from purchasing the voter roll.

On September 16, 2024, PILF has oral arguments in the case at the South Carolina Law School (pictured to the right).

PILF President J. Christian Adams argued that South Carolina’s state residency requirement violated federal law. He asserted that the NVRA’s Public Disclosure Provision gives the public the right to inspect any state’s voter roll, no matter if they live in South Carolina. Further, he argued any South Carolina law that restricts who can access the voter roll is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

After hearing both sides oral arguments, the Judge issued an order from the bench that South Carolina must make its voter roll available to PILF.

JCA South Carolina Oral Arguements

This case was a victory for transparency in elections. It also served as an important precedent that states cannot add additional restrictions and requirements to voter roll access.

PILF has won access to the voter roll in Maryland, Illinois, Maine, and South Carolina. These cases have established an important precedent that the public has a right to inspect voters rolls.