Which states currently require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and what documents do they accept?
Executive summary
A handful of states and local policies now require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (DPOC) to register or to remain on voter rolls, and the specific documents accepted vary by statute and implementation status (Ballotpedia; Voting Rights Lab) [1] [2]. Several states have laws on the books that are not implemented, others have recently tested or enforced DPOC at registration, and a patchwork of pending bills and ballot measures could expand DPOC rules in 2026 [1] [3] [4].
1. What “documentary proof of citizenship” means and the federal legal backdrop
Documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) policies require applicants to submit a document—commonly a U.S. passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, or certain military records—showing U.S. citizenship in order to register or to respond to a challenge; the specifics depend on each law or administrative rule (SAVE Act description; Brennan Center analysis) [5] [6]. Under current federal law, the national mail voter registration form asks applicants to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury but does not itself require documentary proof, and courts and federal agencies have repeatedly limited states’ ability to impose DPOC when it would conflict with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and administrative rules (Ballotpedia; CT report) [1] [7].
2. States that have implemented DPOC or had active enforcement episodes
New Hampshire provides the clearest recent example of an implemented DPOC regime: voters were turned away or sent home to retrieve passports or birth certificates in the first public tests of the state’s new documentary proof of citizenship law, illustrating that New Hampshire’s requirement obliges first‑time voters to show such documents (Voting Rights Lab) [2]. Arizona’s past effort to bifurcate registration—requiring additional documentary evidence for state-only registration—has been the focus of litigation and administrative rulings that treated DPOC as legally fraught; Arizona’s approach historically relied on adding state-specific documentary instructions to the federal form and accepting documents like passports or birth certificates when enforced (CT report; Voting Rights Lab) [7] [2]. The SAVE Act and similar proposals catalog acceptable documents in federal proposals, listing U.S. passports, certain military records indicating U.S. birthplace, and combinations of government-issued photo IDs with birth certificates as typical examples of what proponents consider proper DPOC (SAVE Act description) [5].
3. States with DPOC laws on the books but not implemented
Georgia and Louisiana are two states where statutes require proof of citizenship for registration but, according to Ballotpedia as of January 2026, those statutory requirements had not been implemented in practice—Georgia uses DMV and Social Security number cross‑checks rather than requiring document submission, and Louisiana’s law remained unimplemented as well (Ballotpedia) [1]. This distinction—statute versus practice—matters because enforcement, forms, and administrative guidance determine which documents are actually requested from applicants.
4. States making removals or conditional re‑registration contingent on DPOC
Several recent state laws and administrative practices condition removal from rolls or re‑registration on providing proof of citizenship: Kansas, Iowa, and Wyoming have enacted or proposed rules that trigger quick removals based on DMV comparisons and require “proof of citizenship” to rejoin, while Oklahoma’s law authorizes broad use of agency data to verify citizenship and gives secretaries discretion to demand documentary proof from challenged voters (Brennan Center) [4]. Tennessee’s recent episode in which thousands were threatened with removal—but largely reversed after voters produced documentation—underscores how database-driven DPOC enforcement can produce large‑scale risk of wrongful disenrollment (Brennan Center) [4].
5. Consequences, controversies, and reporting limits
Civil‑rights groups, voting‑rights researchers, and the Brennan Center warn that DPOC policies can exclude eligible voters because documents are costly or difficult to replace, and courts have found states must justify DPOC as “necessary” for registration when it diverges from the federal oath‑based system (Brennan Center; CT report) [6] [7]. The ACLU and litigation around a 2025 executive order show federal attempts to mandate DPOC faced judicial blocks, preserving the status quo that the federal registration form requires attestation rather than documentary proof while the legal fights continue (ACLU; Ballotpedia) [8] [1]. The sources assembled here document specific enacted laws, enforcement episodes, and legislative proposals but do not provide a single authoritative table of every state’s currently enforced document list; for a state‑by‑state compilation consult Ballotpedia and advocacy trackers for the most up‑to‑date accepted‑document lists and implementation notes (Ballotpedia; Voting Rights Lab; Movement Advancement Project) [1] [2] [9].