What states have to have identification to vote

1. What the counts mean: how many states and what “require” actually covers

Two widely used trackers show the landscape differently because they categorize requirements in distinct ways: WorldPopulationReview reports that 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show ID at the polls ^[1], while the University of Maryland’s CDCE notes 38 states have some kind of ID law as of recent years ^[2]; Ballotpedia’s breakdown notes that, as of January 2026, 21 states required a photo ID for in‑person early voting and 12 required non‑photo ID for early voting — an illustration of how counting methods differ ^{[4] [1]}.

2. The practical differences: photo ID, non‑photo ID, strict vs. non‑strict rules

States fall into categories: strict photo‑ID states that demand specific government‑issued photo identification before a ballot will be counted without remediation; non‑strict photo‑ID states that request photo ID but allow alternatives such as affidavits or provisional ballots with a cure period; non‑photo‑ID states that accept documents like utility bills or bank statements; and states that verify identity by other administrative checks rather than by requiring a document at the polling place ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Advocacy groups and legal trackers explicitly flag that “strict” rules require extra steps after Election Day for a provisional ballot to be counted, while “non‑strict” regimes permit a regular ballot or easier cure processes ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Where rules have changed recently and examples that illustrate variation

Several states amended laws in recent election cycles: Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment to require photo ID (Ballotpedia notes this change), and states such as Nebraska, Arkansas, North Carolina and Ohio passed tighter rules since 2020 — a pattern that has pushed more states into the ID‑required column in the last few years ^{[7] [2]}. At the other extreme, Alaska’s law permits election officials who personally know a voter to waive ID in certain circumstances, showing how localized exceptions can operate ^[6].

4. Why the distinction matters: impact, contested claims and where sources disagree

Supporters argue ID rules prevent impersonation and election fraud, a rationale cited by conservative policy voices and often reported in state legislative debates ^[6]. Opponents — including civil‑rights groups and the Brennan Center — say strict photo‑ID rules disenfranchise millions, with estimates that as many as 11% of eligible voters lack required IDs in the most restrictive states and that impacts are concentrated among seniors, people of color, low‑income and young voters ^[8]. Academic and policy outlets underscore that empirical findings are mixed: some studies show minimal turnout impacts while others document measurable barriers, and journalists note the ongoing legislative activity and litigation that continue to reshape state rules ^{[9] [2]}.

5. What to do with this: how to know the rule for a particular state

Because “has to have identification” differs by state and by situation (first‑time voters, absentee/UOCAVA voters, people with disabilities or religious objections), federal and state guidance recommends checking the state’s official election office or consolidated trackers like the National Conference of State Legislatures, VoteRiders, Ballotpedia and USA.gov for the exact acceptable IDs and cure procedures before voting ^{[10] [11] [4] [3]}. These sources show the nuance: some states accept non‑photo ID or affidavits, others allow provisional ballots with a deadline to produce ID, and federal exemptions apply to certain overseas and military voters ^{[1] [3]}.