Ballot Access: How State and Local Election Officials Are Shaping Voter Registration and Participation

COMMENTARY

The United States has long relied on a decentralized approach to elections, with state and local officials holding primary responsibility for voter registration and participation.

This structure became even more consequential after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which weakened federal oversight and gave states more leeway to set their own rules. Since then, voter registration has evolved into a complex patchwork — marked by innovation and expanded access in some areas, while facing new restrictions in others.

RELATED READ | Ballot Access: Federal and State Efforts on Voting Rights

Who Oversees Elections in America?

Elections in the United States are managed by a complex network of officials at both the state and local levels. The secretary of State is the chief election officer in most states. As of 2025, voters directly elect the secretary of State in 35 states; in 12, the position is appointed by either the governor or the state legislature. The office does not exist in Alaska, Hawaii and Utah, where other officials perform these duties. Secretaries of States by party affiliation include 27 Republicans and 23 Democrats.

At the local level, the United States has more than 10,000 election jurisdictions, the majority of which are managed by county clerks or similar officials. County governments are primarily responsible for administering elections in most states, with over 3,000 counties nationwide. In these counties, the county clerk or an equivalent office is responsible for managing voter registration, ballot preparation, recruiting poll workers and counting votes.

Recent State and Local Actions on Voter Registration and Participation

Secretaries of State are at the forefront of efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls, expand registration opportunities and protect the integrity of the process. Nevada offers a compelling example. Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar’s office collaborated with county clerks to debut a unified voter registration and election management system to streamline registration, improve accuracy and ensure uniformity across Nevada’s counties. It also prioritizes training and outreach to boost participation. Nevada’s bipartisan innovation shows how technology and cooperation can improve both security and access.

Legislative Trends and Policy Innovations: Voter Registration and Participation

According to Ballotpedia’s Spring 2025 report, hundreds of bills addressing voter registration and participation have been introduced across the country this year. The trends are mixed.

• Expansion Efforts: Some states are broadening registration options through automatic voter registration, online registration, and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. California continues to invest in language access and remote registration, with the goal of reaching more eligible voters.
• New Restrictions: Other states, such as Texas and Florida, are considering or implementing new documentation requirements, like proof of citizenship and more aggressive list maintenance practices. Supporters say these measures are meant to protect election integrity, but critics warn they may disproportionately impact minority and low-income voters.

A recent example of state-level activity on voter registration comes from Arizona, where lawmakers enacted H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, laws that imposed strict documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting by mail and in presidential elections, and empowered county officials to investigate the citizenship status of registered voters. Civil rights groups, led by Mi Familia Vota, challenged these measures, arguing that they violated federal protections under the Civil Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. In June 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that struck down key provisions of these laws, finding that they risked disenfranchising eligible voters and lacked evidence of widespread noncitizen voting. This decision highlights the pivotal role that state legislatures, local election officials and the courts play in shaping the rules governing voter registration and access.

Challenges and Safeguards

While some officials are expanding access and transparency, others are navigating new restrictions or combating misinformation. This is where the decentralized nature of U.S. elections shows its pros and cons. On the one hand, local officials can serve as safeguards, ensuring eligible voters are registered and informed. On the other, it can result in confusion when rules change rapidly or are unevenly enforced. Public education, professional audits and the certification of results remain essential tools for building trust and resilience in the system.

Broader Implications for Civic Participation

Administrative choices and legislative changes in voter registration and participation have real consequences, especially for marginalized communities and new voters. As states continue to debate technology, security and access, local adaptation and proactive outreach remain key to ensuring that all eligible citizens can participate fully in our democracy.

Reflecting on Democracy

As the landscape of voter registration and participation continues to shift, the actions of state and local election officials will determine whether our democracy grows more inclusive or more constrained. Their decisions, often made far from the national spotlight, are shaping who can participate and whose voices are heard.

These columns will publish the first week each month and can be found here.

Andres Ramirez is co-chair of the League of Minority Voters’ National Board of Trustees. With over 25 years of experience in public relations, advocacy and government relations, he has dedicated his career to addressing the challenges facing marginalized communities. The views and opinions expressed in this column belong to Ramirez and do not necessarily reflect those of the League of Minority Voters or its Board of Trustees.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this column are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the League of Minority Voters or its board of trustees.