Which 12–15 states have been listed as 'no ID required' across major trackers, and where do those trackers link to the enabling statutes?

1. What the user is actually asking and why it’s tricky

The reader seeks two things at once: first, the specific set of 12–15 states that major trackers label “no ID required” for in‑person voting; and second, where each tracker points to the state law that supposedly permits that practice — a straightforward factual query that is complicated in practice because trackers categorize states differently, update at different cadences, and often summarize statute provisions rather than linking to a single “no‑ID” enabling code section (Ballotpedia aggregates state rules but shows nuance and exceptions rather than a single tag; NCSL explains categories of laws rather than a fixed list; MAP maps variations in in‑person requirements) ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the major trackers say — broad agreement, not exact unanimity

Across the major trackers and explanatory outlets, there is common agreement that a minority of states permit voting without presentation of an ID in the ordinary case — either because the state has no statutory ID requirement or because statutory alternatives (affidavits, signature matching, other non‑photo IDs) allow ballots to be accepted absent ID — but the trackers classify such states under different labels (e.g., “no ID required,” “non‑photo ID acceptable,” or “ID requested but alternatives allowed”), producing lists that overlap but are not identical ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

3. Example outlet reporting and what it lists

News summaries that attempted a plain‑language list in 2024–2025 identified states where voters may be allowed to cast a regular or provisional ballot without presenting photo ID — The Hill and local outlets published state‑by‑state guides that list several states under “no ID required” or with affidavit alternatives — but those articles emphasize caveats (affidavits, provisional ballots, post‑vote verification) rather than citing a single statute per state that says “no ID required” ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Where trackers link (and where the reporting is thin)

When trackers document their state classifications, they generally link either to their own state‑by‑state pages (Ballotpedia’s state pages summarize statutes and cite specific code sections; NCSL provides explanatory summaries with bill links) or to state election office guidance rather than a single enabling statute; the sources provided here include Ballotpedia’s aggregated state pages and VoteRiders’ state rules page as the primary entry points but the extracted reporting does not include a compiled cross‑tracker roster with statute links for each state ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

5. Bottom line — what can be reliably stated from the supplied reporting

From the material supplied, it is reliable to say: (a) major trackers identify roughly a dozen states where in‑person voting can proceed without a required photo ID in at least some ordinary situations, (b) those trackers document their designations on state‑by‑state pages that cite statutes, administrative rules, or election‑office guidance, and (c) the current reporting set does not furnish a single reconciled list of “the 12–15 states” nor the full set of direct statute links for each listed state, so producing an authoritative consolidated list and link map would require consulting each tracker’s state pages and the cited state statutes one‑by‑one ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

6. How to get the precise answer (practical next step)

To close the gap definitively, cross‑check Ballotpedia’s “Voter identification laws by state” entries and the state pages on VoteRiders or Vote.org for a candidate list, then follow the citations on each tracker’s state page to the state election code or administrative guidance — that is the method the trackers themselves use to justify their classifications ^{[1] [5] [4]}. Alternative viewpoints: voting‑rights groups emphasize that affidavit or provisional routes still represent barriers; proponents argue these alternatives preserve access — both perspectives appear across the trackers and reporting ^{[5] [6]}.