How did states verify voter eligibility and prevent noncitizen registration in 2024?

1. Federal baseline: HAVA’s architecture for verification

The Help America Vote Act set the baseline: states must collect key identifiers from applicants (driver’s license number or last four of SSN), assign unique voter identifiers in centralized registration databases, and enter into information-sharing agreements—particularly between state DMVs, state election officials, and the Social Security Administration—to enable automated matches that flag inconsistencies or ineligibility ^[1]. Those statutory building blocks shaped how nearly every state designed verification workflows in 2024, forcing registration systems to lean on government-held identity data rather than ad hoc checks ^[1].

2. State innovations: online, automatic, and same‑day registration

By 2024 most voters lived in states that had adopted at least one modern registration method—online registration, automatic voter registration at DMVs, or same-day registration at polling places—which both expanded access and increased real‑time verification opportunities by linking applications to existing government records ^[2]. Automatic registration frequently used DMV or other agency records to pre-fill and confirm citizenship claims; same‑day registration required identification at the polling place, allowing poll workers to consult the state registration database immediately and prevent ineligible or duplicate entries from being created on the spot ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Federal databases and SAVE: optional but growing tools

USCIS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) was available to states and local agencies as one means to verify citizenship or immigration status, though SAVE is a query service that returns a point‑in‑time response based on DHS, DOJ, and SSA source data rather than a standalone citizenship list ^[5]. Congressional activity in 2024, including bills like the Voter Eligibility Verification Act and proposals tied to the “SAVE Act,” sought to formalize or expand the role of SAVE in voter verification, reflecting partisan pressure to make federal immigration records more central to voter eligibility checks ^{[7] [3]}. Public materials note that SAVE is not the only verification path and that states may combine it with SSA/DMV matches ^[5].

4. On‑the‑ground verification and ballot handling

When doubts arose at the ballot box, states used established tools: ID checks where required, provisional ballots for voters with unresolved eligibility questions, and post‑election canvass and audit processes that compare returned ballots to registration files and signature or document evidence when applicable ^{[4] [1]}. Mail ballot systems generally require matching applicant data to voter files and sometimes signature checks; states vary in the strictness of these steps, so some eligibility questions are resolved before ballots are counted while others are handled after the fact through provisional or challenged‑ballot procedures ^{[1] [4]}.

5. List maintenance, removals, and the limits of verification

Routine voter‑list maintenance—cross‑checks against death records, felony rolls (where applicable), and inactivity notices—remains a core preventive tool, with statutes and NVRA‑based procedures governing notices and removals following nonresponse or prolonged inactivity ^[1]. However, the sources make clear that methods and thresholds differ by state, and while federal tools and interagency matches reduce certain risks, they do not constitute a perfect screen for every instance of noncitizen registration; scholarly and policy debates in 2024 focused on balancing accuracy, access, and civil‑rights safeguards even as legislators pushed to expand verification authorities ^{[1] [3] [2]}.