Home About Us/Contact Archives Closed Polls Counting Gov't Acct Bd Legislation in Wis Madison Move Primary Online Reg Recall Recounts Redistricting in Wis

FAQ Online Registration

UW-Eau Claire Student Senate resolution

UW-Stout Student Senate Resolution

January 2011 Update from Brennan Center

Reference List from 9 states

NCSL on OLVR

PEW study on AZ and WA

Common Cause supports OLVR

Find your Reps here

This page: http://tinyurl.com/OLVRWI

Resources for Non-Profits

Things you can do online:

Register for Selective Service

Check your voter registration

Change your DL address

Apply for Social Security

Renew your professional license

Buy a Wis. hunting or fishing license

Register for organ donation

E-file your taxes

LRB on History of DL requirements

Letter to Editor August 2009

 Letter to editor March 2009

Madison Common Council passes resolution supporting OLVR

For information, contact Paul Malischke malischke@yahoo.com


AB-365 for Paperless Instant-Check Online Voter Registration was introduced November 9, 2011  Section by section analysis

Authored by Rep. Berceau and Senator Risser, and cosponsored by 21 others

This 7 minute movie explains how and why 


Online Voter Registration Will Help Clerks, Help Voters, and Save $$

Wisconsin should improve the voter registration system by offering paperless online real-time voter registration.  The direct financial payback will be immediate for municipalities, as it will save the clerk’s time by avoiding manual entry of data from a huge stack of paper forms.

Follow the successful model of other states

Arizona and Washington were first to successfully institute online voter registration (OLVR).   Arizona’s system has been in place since 2002, and in 2008, 39% of those who registered used the online systemWashington’s system has been in effect since January 2008, and is highly acclaimed by their Secretary of State (see FAQ and testimony and attachments to congressional committee).  Kansas, Oregon, Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, and Indiana also have working systems.  Nevada has a system for Clark County and plans to roll it out for the whole state.  North Carolina is developing a system.  California has passed enabling legislation and is developing a system.  To ensure an accurate and secure system, there are these limitations:

  • Only those with a driver’s license or state identification card can use the online system.
  • Most states require instant verification of information submitted before the application is completed
  • Online registration closes when open registration closes (20 days before the election in Wisconsin).

HAVA checks

In 2008, Wisconsin had a well-publicized suit on how to handle the “HAVA checks”, the comparison of voter registrations to the driver’s license database.  In contrast, the states that have online registration handle this automatically as part of the process.  This minimizes the extra effort needed on either the part of the voter or the election administrator for the matching process, and minimizes controversy.

Benefits for election administrators

The data submitted online is more complete and accurate than on paper forms.  Online registration significantly reduces the costly and heavy workload of entering data from paper forms, most of which are received when other election tasks are mounting.  In 2008, clerks struggled to process forms in time to get voters on the poll list.  If the bulk of registrations are handled automatically, our election administrators will be able to deal promptly with the paper forms from other voters. 

From a report from PEW Center on the States, August 2009:  In Maricopa County, Arizona, a paper registration form costs at least 83 cents to process, versus an average of 3 cents for a registration completed online.

Benefits for Voters

For voters, online real-time registration means a more timely, accessible, and reliable way to register, with immediate confirmation that the registration has been accepted.  This eliminates worries about not being on the poll list due to faulty handling of a paper form, or failing the HAVA check.

States that have systems or have passed bills, in order of activation

142 page report on Washington and Arizona's systems

State Status Bill or Act Comments
Arizona active since July 2002 "EZvoter" ARS 16-111    16-112 16-152.E SOS FAQ; summary; press release 2008.  Info on AZ from CA hearing Security
Washington Passed 91-6, 30-17 on April 9, 2007.   Active since 1/1/2008. HB 1528 29A.08.123; Rule 434-324-031 (both are short)   SOS FAQ. Same timelines as mail registration.  Cost to implement: $279,000 (see attachments below)

Testimony to congress & attachments PowerPoint

Kansas Launched by Sec. of State July 2009 appears to be accomplished w/o legislation Open to new & existing voters until 14 days before election.  Instant matching to come later.
Oregon passed by House 45-11, Senate 19-6, 6/23/09, signed by Gov. Aug. 6 2009.  Turned on March 1, 2010 by SOS H 2386, 3 pages.  Enrolled bill

SOS Press Release

Oregonian on House vote.  Oregonian on Senate vote. Will use $217,000 (based on Washington's cost) of HAVA funds.  Uses  Captcha & VeriSign SSL
Colorado legislature passed 4/29/09, Signed into law 5/15/09, requires OLVR April 1, 2010 HB-09-1160.  Appropriation of $142,000 - See JBC Analysis link on top of bill's page Passed by the House 60 to 4, senate is unanimous.  Editorial.  Governor's Press release.  Denver Daily News.  With change of address, requires postcard to old address.  Closes 29 days before election.
Louisiana passed by legislature 6/21/09, signed by Governor 6/29/09; requires OLVR April 1, 2010 HB 520, becomes Act 187, 4 pages passed by House 67-23, & Senate 35-0,  Will use $300,000 from HAVA
Utah Launched May 2010. Passed by legislature 2/12/09, Gov. signed 3/20/09 S.B. 25 "will not require additional appropriations." senate 22-2, House 58-14.  Deseret News
Indiana Launched July 1 2010.  Passed 4/29/09, signed 5/11/09 HB 1346 becomes Act 1346 cost indeterminable, will use existing $$.  Closes 29 days before election.  PSA mp3.  Can use internet-enabled cell phone.
Nevada Available in Clark county Sept. 2, 2010 appears to be accomplished w/o legislation Includes instant matching with DL data.  Will expand to entire state.
California passed Sept. 30, 2008; 54-18, and 22-15. Scheduled for Dec. 2011, then delayed until 2014 SB 381 (2007-8 session), 3 pages Hearing Nov 2007; press release. Closes 15 days before election.  Requires immediate matching of DOB and ID#.
California passed  Oct. 2011 to allow counties to have OLVR until state is ready SB397  
Maryland Passed and signed by Governor, May 2011.  $250,000 available to implement. HB 740

Passed Senate 41-5, House 97-42.

limited to those with DL, except military and overseas may use SS#, and voters already registered may use voter #


States that have web-assisted fill, print, sign, & mail

Delaware active "Registration Wizard"                                            available to all - those without DL or state ID can use last 4 digits of SS#
Washington DC active   available to all (info from phone conversation with DCBoEE
Wisconsin Enhanced Mail-In Registration   see GAB agenda page 80, August 30, 2010

Bills that have been introduced but not passed, alphabetically

State Status Bill or Act Comments
Alabama Introduced Jan 26, 2010; reported out of committee 3/3 HB 424 "The Secretary of State shall use federal Help America Vote Act funds to implement and maintain secure Internet voting registration"
California Sent to Gov. July 2011 A-1357 Would allow counties to set up OLVR
Georgia Passed by Senate 33-20 SB 406 requires immediate confirmation of DL or ID#
Hawaii Introduced 1/13/2012 HB 1755 includes appropriation of $500,000
Hawaii Passed House and Senate unanimously and sent to Governor May, 2011.  Gov vetos since no $ were appropriated. HB 545 requires immediate confirmation of DL or ID #; uses digital signature
Michigan passed by House Dec 17, 2009, 68 aye, 36 no S 0347, same as H 4539 Those who do not have DL or state ID would be treated as registration by mail.  Detroit News
Minnesota bill submitted S.F. 661, sec. 2 & 4 SOS legislative proposals
Mississippi Introduced Jan 17, 2011 SB2549 limited to those with DL or state ID card
Montana Introduced Dec. 3, 2010 SB 33 limited to those with DL or state ID card
Nebraska Introduced Jan. 7, 2011 LB168 limited to those with DL or state ID.  Security clause at end
Nevada passed by Assembly; amended version passed by Senate; died at end of session June 2009 AB82, 72 pages, 3rd reprint.  See Section 20 Enabling legislation.  May be re-introduced in 2011.
New Jersey introduced Jan. 2011 A-1229  
New York Introduced Jan 4, 2012 S5237 Applicant could use SS# or DMV #.  Election Board shall get digital signature from DMV.
Ohio Passed by House Nov 19, 2009 HB 260 editorial
Texas Passed by House May 5, 2011.  Vote is 138 to 1. HB 2814 Estimated cost to implement $140,000
Wisconsin Died when session ended April 22, 2010.  Introduced March 25, 2010, public hearing March 31 AB-892 and SB-645 Section-by section analysis.  Madison passes resolution urging OLVR
Congress Oct 21 Hearing by House Committee on House Administration HR 1719 Lofgren.  AJR-36 resolution in California legislature to endorse 1719
Congress referred to House Committee on House Admin HR 4449 Republican Kevin McCarthy, CA.  Reimburse states for OLVR.
Congress May 4, 2010 referred to Senate Rules & Admin. Committee S.3301 Ron Wyden Oregon; John Kerry MA.  Reimburse up to $150,000 for OLVR

From testimony of Katie Blinn, Assistant Director of Elections on behalf of Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, to the Congressional Committee on House Administration, Oct 21, 2009:

“The online voter registration system has also been very popular with election administrators. It has reduced their workload because the information comes in electronically. They don’t have to spend so much time manually entering the information from paper forms. This also reduces the risk of mistyping a voter’s name, address, date of birth, etc.”

“If the applicant provides an incorrect or nonexistent driver’s license, the program will not allow the applicant to advance to the next screen and finish the application. While it might initially seem that this form of registration is more subject to fraud, it is actually less because it controls whether the user can advance through the application.”

Web page by Paul Malischke malischke@yahoo.com  Last updated January 23, 2012