No ID, No Proof, No Problem? Fixing HAVA’s Section 303 Voter Registration Blind Spot

OVERVIEW

Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was designed to ensure that voter registration records contain basic identifying information. When an applicant has neither a driver’s license nor a Social Security number, however, the statute permits the state to assign a unique identifying number for voter registration purposes. That administrative fallback was meant to keep the registration process moving, not to substitute for substantive eligibility verification. States should clarify in law that applicants assigned a HAVA unique identifying number may not be placed on the active voter rolls unless and until they provide documentary proof of United States citizenship.

BACKGROUND: HOW HAVA’S “SPECIAL RULE” CURRENTLY WORKS

For elections for federal office, HAVA provides that a voter registration application may not be accepted or processed unless it includes either the applicant’s current and valid driver’s license number or, for an applicant who has not been issued a driver’s license, the last four digits of the applicant’s Social Security number.

But what happens when an applicant has neither a current and valid driver’s license nor a Social Security number? That is when HAVA’s “special rule” applies. Under the “special rule,” the state must assign the applicant a unique number that identifies the applicant only for voter registration purposes. This number and process are an administrative fallback, a way to keep the registration process moving when the standard identification requirements cannot be met. The unique identifying number opens a door into the system. It does not, by itself, confirm the applicant is eligible to vote.

Critically, HAVA also says this: “The State shall determine whether the information provided by an individual is sufficient to meet the requirements of this subparagraph, in accordance with State law.” That clause sets the federal floor for identifying information while preserving state authority to decide what additional information is sufficient under state law. The state-law authority is what allows states to require documentary proof of citizenship before an applicant who receives a unique identifying number is placed on the active voter rolls. That approach is consistent with AFPI’s recommendation that states require proof of citizenship at registration and maintain voter rolls in a way that prevents ineligible registrants from entering or remaining on the active rolls.

THE PROBLEM: A NUMBER IS NOT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

The unique identifying number assigned under HAVA’s “special rule” was designed to serve one narrow purpose: identification within the voter registration system. It tells the state who the applicant is for record-keeping. It says nothing about whether the applicant is a United States citizen.

The problem is straightforward. Without requiring proof of citizenship, the HAVA “special rule” may incidentally allow individuals onto the rolls who are ineligible to vote. The applicant has provided neither a driver’s license nor a Social Security number and has not presented any document proving United States citizenship. The state has simply assigned an administrative number for record-keeping purposes and moved on.

AFPI has documented instances of non-citizen voter registration and has recommended proof-of-citizenship requirements and stronger voter list maintenance as key safeguards. This issue is a narrower extension of that same principle: HAVA’s administrative fallback was never intended to be a shortcut around substantive eligibility requirements. Yet without state action to close this gap, that is exactly what it becomes.

WHY STATES SHOULD ACT NOW

The risks created by gaps in voter registration verification are not abstract. Recent enforcement actions demonstrate what happens when identifying information required by HAVA is treated as optional or goes unverified.

In 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice sued North Carolina, alleging that the state used a voter registration form that did not require applicants to provide the identifying information mandated by HAVA, and that voters were added to the rolls without it. North Carolina’s State Board of Elections later approved a remediation plan to collect missing driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers from affected registrants. Under that plan, roughly 98,000 registered voters whose records appeared to lack the required information and who had not otherwise complied would vote provisionally unless and until they supplied it.

Separately, multiple states have used the federal SAVE database to audit their voter rolls and have identified potential non-citizens on active registration lists. Texas, for example, flagged over 2,700 potential non-citizens after running its entire voter file through SAVE in 2025. These findings reinforce what AFPI has consistently emphasized: that election integrity depends on objective verification, and that back-end remediation is harder, more costly, and more disruptive than getting it right at the front end.

The pattern is the same in every case: when required identification or eligibility verification is missing or treated as optional at the point of registration, states end up with voters on the rolls whose eligibility has never been fully confirmed. The longer the gap goes unaddressed, the harder it becomes to fix. States should act proactively rather than wait to clean up problems after tens of thousands of incomplete records are already on the rolls.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION

States should amend their election statutes to provide that any voter registration applicant who is assigned a HAVA unique identifying number may not be placed on the active voter rolls unless and until the applicant provides documentary proof of United States citizenship, as defined by state law.

HAVA already gives states the legal authority to adopt this approach. The statute expressly provides that states shall determine whether the information provided by an applicant is sufficient, in accordance with state law. The recommendation here is that states use that existing authority affirmatively, by codifying and implementing a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship before a unique-number applicant is activated on the rolls. No federal legislative change is required for a state to take that step.

AFPI’s election integrity work supports that front-end safeguard. AFPI has found that photo identification requirements strengthen confidence without suppressing turnout, and AFPI has recommended documentary proof of citizenship and stronger voter roll maintenance to prevent ineligible registrants from entering or remaining on the rolls. Requiring proof of citizenship for applicants who fall under HAVA’s “special rule” applies those same principles at the precise point where Section 303 leaves a vulnerability.

HAVA’s “special rule” should remain what it was designed to be: an administrative fallback to keep the registration process moving until identification requirements can be met. It should not serve as a bypass around the substantive safeguards that ensure only eligible American citizens are placed on the active voter rolls.