How has the Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA) been received by state election officials and which states have adopted similar protections?
Executive summary
The voting-rights-act-of-2018">Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA) has been embraced by voting-rights advocates and some state officials as a targeted remedy for long-standing, place-based barriers that suppress Native turnout, and at least Washington State has enacted a law modeled on NAVRA with bipartisan support [1]. State election leaders in a few jurisdictions — notably New Mexico’s Secretary of State office — have publicly promoted NAVRA-style protections and resources for tribal voters, while many other state officials remain silent or have pursued election laws that advocates say exacerbate those barriers; comprehensive national adoption beyond Washington is not documented in the available reporting [2] [1] [3].
1. How state election officials have publicly received NAVRA — pockets of endorsement
A number of state election officials and offices have framed NAVRA as a practical set of fixes for real, documented obstacles facing Native voters, with New Mexico’s Secretary of State providing dedicated guidance on Native American voting rights that aligns with NAVRA principles [2]. Washington State’s legislature passed a version of the Native American Voting Rights Act with deep bipartisan support and the Brennan Center and other advocates characterized that passage as a model of constructive engagement between state officials and tribes, including measures to accept tribal IDs, improve communications with tribes, and create pathways for federal observers [1]. National organizations that monitor election administration — the Leadership Conference, NARF, the Brennan Center, League of Women Voters, and Human Rights Watch — have publicly urged state and federal officials to adopt NAVRA’s reforms, signaling a broad civil-society push that many sympathetic state officials have not resisted [4] [5] [1] [6] [7].
2. Where state officials have resisted or failed to act — a countervailing pattern
At the same time, reporting by the Native American Rights Fund and the Brennan Center documents a pattern of state-level practices and laws that have either ignored tribal realities or created new burdens — from restrictive ID and ballot-collection rules to address requirements that uniquely affect reservation residents — and those changes often originated in state legislatures or local election practices rather than in tribal engagement [3] [8]. The Supreme Court’s post‑2013 and post‑Brnovich jurisprudence has made federal challenges harder, effectively shifting the battleground to state law and administration where some officials have enacted policies critics say NAVRA would reverse or mitigate [8] [3]. Where state election officials have not adopted NAVRA principles, advocates report ongoing litigation and complaints rather than cooperative policy-making [3].
3. Which states have actually adopted NAVRA-like protections
Washington State is the clearest example of a state that has enacted NAVRA-style legislation, passing a Native American Voting Rights Act in its legislature with bipartisan backing and including provisions such as accepting tribal ID and increasing communication channels with tribes [1]. New Mexico’s Secretary of State maintains a Native American Election Information Program and public guidance that reflects NAVRA priorities, indicating administrative adoption of similar protections at the state election office level [2]. Beyond those two examples, the available reporting documents state-level bills, lawsuits, and advocacy but does not provide a definitive list of additional states that have adopted full NAVRA-equivalent statutes; national groups continue to press Congress for a federal baseline because state adoption remains patchwork and inconsistent [4] [9] [10].
4. Stakes, incentives and the political landscape shaping state responses
State election officials’ responses reflect competing incentives: officials in states with high Native populations or proactive secretaries of state have greater motivation to engage with tribes and adopt NAVRA-style fixes, while other states have pursued broader election-law changes that can unintentionally or intentionally magnify Native disenfranchisement, leaving advocates to litigate or lobby for federal standards [3] [8]. Civil-rights groups and researchers argue that federal NAVRA would provide consistent protections and reduce the reliance on variable state action, a claim those groups support with studies showing persistent turnout gaps on tribal lands [11] [9].
5. Bottom line and limits of current reporting
The reception of NAVRA among state election officials is mixed: clear statutory adoption exists in Washington and administrative alignment is visible in New Mexico’s Secretary of State materials, while many other states either have not acted or have implemented laws and practices that activists say NAVRA would correct [1] [2] [3]. The sources reviewed document advocacy, selective state adoption, and ongoing legal battles, but they do not provide a comprehensive, up-to-date inventory of every state action on NAVRA-like protections, so a definitive national tally is not available in this reporting [4] [10].