Automatic voter registration

Automatic voter registration, or AVR, integrates voter registration with transactions at designated government agencies. Unlike traditional opt-in systems, eligible individuals are registered or have their records updated unless they decline, although the exact process varies by state.

By making voter registration an “opt-out” rather than the traditional “opt-in” method, the usual barriers to registration are often alleviated or removed entirely. When eligible state residents interact with government agencies (such as the Departments of Health, Labor, or Motor Vehicles), they are automatically registered or have their registrations updated through AVR.

This explainer was last updated on August 7, 2026.

Overview

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act required states to provide voter registration opportunities at motor-vehicle offices and certain other public agencies. Those agency-based registration systems later provided much of the administrative infrastructure on which automatic voter registration (AVR) was built. AVR has since been adopted in 24 states and DC. Proponents have praised AVR systems for modernizing the registration process and expanding voting access to those who might not have otherwise been registered, while opponents argue that AVR could lead to inaccurate voter rolls with ineligible voters and that mailed opt-out procedures do not provide a meaningful opportunity to decline. The map below shows which states currently have AVR policies in place.

Map of the United States indicating which states do and do not have AVR. — This map of the U.S. denotes whether each state has an automatic voter registration policy in place. States colored in purple have an AVR policy, and states colored in gold do not. Data from NCSL. Graph by MEDSL.

This map of the U.S. denotes whether each state has an automatic voter registration policy in place. States colored in purple have an AVR policy, and states colored in gold do not. Data from NCSL. Graph by MEDSL.

History of AVR

The creation of AVR policies was preceded by a broader effort to make it easier for Americans to register to vote. In 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act, often called the “Motor Voter Act,” because it allowed individuals to register to vote while getting their driver’s license or otherwise interacting with the DMV. The NVRA was the first piece of federal legislation to institutionalize the practice of registering to vote while getting a driver’s license. Motor-vehicle offices are among the most common channels through which Americans register or update their registrations. The National Voter Registration Act later helped to facilitate a digital association between the DMV and election/voter registration databases, streamlining the process.

Oregon was the first state to implement AVR in 2016. Under the “Oregon model,” individuals with a DMV record were automatically registered without any additional paperwork, unless they chose to opt out. According to Oregon Governor Kate Brown in 2019, AVR increased the number of people of color in Oregon who are registered to vote. This claim has been supported by examining the racial demographics of AVR and non-AVR registrants; in 2016, 6% of non-AVR voters were people of color, but they made up 11% of first-time AVR voters and 15% of all voters registered by AVR. By 2026, nearly half of the 50 states have followed suit by implementing AVR. Delaware, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are the most recent states to enact AVR.

Different Types of AVR

AVR can be implemented via two distinct methods: back-end AVR and front-end AVR. Back-end AVR is when the state determines whether a person is eligible to vote through a state agency and then gives them the option to opt out later; this is the model Oregon used. In many instances, back-end AVR opt-out occurs when state officials send out a notice to an individual alerting them to their new registration status, and the individual responds and indicates that they do not want to be registered. In this case, if the potential eligible voter takes no action when they receive the mailer after their visit to the DMV or another eligible state agency, then they are registered to vote.

Alternatively, in a front-end system, the individual is given the opportunity to register or decline registration during the agency transaction. States differ in whether the customer must affirmatively choose registration or is taken through the registration process unless the customer declines.

The graphic below shows the states that have adopted AVR policies, and indicates which utilize front-end and which back-end AVR.

This map of the U.S. shows the type of automatic voter registration policy in place in each state. States colored in light blue have a front-end AVR policy, states colored in dark blue have a back-end AVR policy, and states colored in gold do not have any AVR policy. Data from NCSL. Graph by MEDSL.

For a more granular look at AVR across the US, the NCSL has a comprehensive overview of the states that have implemented AVR, including when each state's policy took effect and which government agencies serve as AVR access points. One takeaway from the NCSL’s research is that the majority of states use the front-end AVR method. Additionally, it is worth noting that a variety of state agencies facilitate AVR nationwide–not only DMVs.

Proposed Benefits & Drawbacks of AVR

A handful of benefits are frequently cited in arguments in favor of implementing AVR. First, proponents argue that it is a more effective and efficient means of maintaining a state’s registration rolls because it helps keep those rolls up to date with voter information. New voters are added to the rolls with current information, and the automatic system can help keep information for previously registered voters up to date. By opting for AVR, states may even save money by spending less on staff time, paper processing, mailing, and other expenses related to registration and maintaining accurate voter rolls.

Some research has found that the policy increases registration and boosts voter turnout because it removes some of the barriers or pain points of registering. Registration—and problems with registration—can be one of the highest barriers to voting: in 2008, a Caltech/MIT report found that three million Americans tried to vote but could not because of issues with their voter registration. AVR proponents also highlight how the policy leads to the registration of citizens who would not have registered otherwise.

On the other hand, AVR opponents point to the policy’s drawbacks. One administrative risk is that inaccurate agency records or implementation errors may result in ineligible individuals being transmitted to the voter-registration system, particularly where eligibility screening and post-transaction notifications are inadequate. Between June 2023 and June 2024, a software error at the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission led to the registration of about 6,600 non-citizens, and about 400 of them voted in the 2024 presidential election. Opponents also dislike AVR because they believe the government should not strongly compel registration, and that this is especially egregious in states where voters can only opt-out by mail. Additionally, the evidence of AVR’s effect on turnout has been inconclusive, though recent studies suggest that AVR may help improve turnout rates.

In an unpublished paper, McGhee, Hill, and Romero find that AVR has a substantial effect on registration, but these new registrants are less likely to vote. However, enough new registrants often vote that the eligible turnout rate increases as a result. While it is difficult to ascertain political outcomes as a direct result of AVR implementation, preliminary evidence from these studies suggests that AVR may, at least marginally, increase turnout.

Finally, a study published in 2022 by Silvia Kim finds that automatic reregistration of existing voters who move increased turnout by 5.8 percentage points. Because this intervention updates the records of existing registrations, it should not be treated as an estimate of the effect of registering previously unregistered citizens through AVR.

The Effects of AVR

What does the existing research tell us about the broad impacts of AVR? In one study on AVR, researchers used a difference-in-differences approach to show that it had moderate effects on registration, and that these effects were larger for Hispanic voters. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, AVR increased the number of voters being registered, though the increases varied widely, ranging from 9 to 94 percent across states. These increases were found in states with large and small populations, and across party lines as well.

Most recently, a paper written by Eric McGhee and Mindy Romero demonstrates that the effects of AVR build gradually the longer the program is in place. Additionally, the paper argues that different AVR systems have varying effects on turnout. For example, back-end AVR is more likely to increase the overall volume of registrations, whereas front-end AVR might lead to fewer overall registrations but results in high-propensity voters (those already likely to vote) registering, which in turn has a greater impact on turnout.

Overall, the most significant distinction when making claims about the success of AVR is the difference between increased registrations as a result of AVR versus increased turnout. While many studies find an increase in the number of registrations after AVR is implemented, those increases may not translate to higher turnout. It is possible that while AVR is successful in registering voters who may not have otherwise registered, these new registrants may not vote.

Conclusion

Proponents of AVR claim that state agencies that collect relevant information about potential eligible voters can facilitate the registration process for voters and election officials by automatically registering individuals who may otherwise not have registered. They also praise the way the policy bolsters turnout by removing a significant barrier to casting a ballot. Opponents of AVR argue that AVR systems could lead to inaccuracies in voter rolls. They also contend that AVR reduces the intentionality of voter registration by automatically registering residents during unrelated transactions, especially in back-end AVR states. While some research finds the effects of AVR on turnout to be substantial, other studies are less conclusive. Research indicates that people newly added through AVR tend to vote at lower rates than people who were already registered. Nevertheless, some studies find that enough of the new registrants vote to produce a modest increase in turnout among the eligible population.

Search