States already have a good way to ensure election integrity—and MAGA hates it

States Withdraw from ERIC Interstate Voter Data Program Citing Privacy and Governance Concerns

Several Republican-led states have withdrawn from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multistate nonprofit that facilitates sharing of voter registration and motor vehicle data among participating jurisdictions. The departures, which began in 2022, reduced the organization's membership from 31 states plus the District of Columbia to roughly two-thirds of that total by 2024. Officials in withdrawing states cited concerns over data security, the sharing of residents' information with an out-of-state entity, and program requirements to contact individuals identified as eligible but unregistered.

ERIC was established in 2012 by elections officials from seven states to cross-reference voter rolls with motor vehicle records and other data sources. Member states transmit encrypted files containing names, addresses, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers. The system identifies individuals who have moved within or between states, duplicate registrations, deceased voters, and people who may be eligible to register. After elections, participating states can request reports on possible multiple voting or voting by ineligible persons. States are required to review flagged cases and refer credible instances of potential illegal voting to law enforcement.

Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin announced the state's exit in January 2022. Alabama followed in January 2023 under Secretary of State Wes Allen, who stated that providing private information of Alabama citizens, including minors, to an out-of-state organization raised concerns. Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas subsequently withdrew. A smaller number of Republican-led states, including Alaska, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Utah, have remained members.

Former Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, who served until 2023, described the withdrawals as driven by political considerations rather than documented technical problems with the system. Merrill noted that Alabama had used ERIC alongside other tools, such as the Kansas Interstate Crosscheck System, to maintain voter rolls. He stated that no state had publicly identified a specific vulnerability or irregularity in ERIC's operations as the basis for departure.

David Becker, who helped establish ERIC but later left its board, has said the organization improved list accuracy and that departing states reduced their access to interstate move data and duplicate detection. In 2022, ERIC reported identifying 2.4 million interstate moves, 7.3 million intrastate moves, 203,210 duplicate registrations, and 65,437 deceased voters across member states. By 2026, with fewer participants, those figures had declined to approximately 604,000 interstate moves, 881,000 intrastate moves, 61,000 duplicates, and 17,000 deceased voters.

States that left have pointed to ERIC's governance structure and data-handling practices. Some officials expressed unease that the nonprofit required transmission of records on individuals not yet registered to vote and that the organization included both Democratic- and Republican-led states. Allen's announcement specifically referenced the transmission of data on minors. Other states have explored or implemented alternative data-sharing arrangements, including bilateral agreements or state-run systems for identifying movers and deceased voters, though comprehensive public comparisons of accuracy rates between ERIC and these alternatives remain limited.

Supporters of continued participation, including Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center, have described ERIC's core functions as improving roll accuracy and identifying potential ineligible voting. They note that member states must act on reports of possible double voting regardless of which party might benefit. Critics within state governments have countered that the mandatory use of eligible-but-unregistered lists effectively directs state resources toward expanding the electorate rather than solely maintaining existing rolls.

The program has faced additional scrutiny over its funding sources and board composition. Some departing officials referenced claims that external donors influenced operations, though ERIC has described its funding as coming from member state fees and private grants without direct partisan control. No federal audit has been cited by either side as conclusively resolving these disputes.

In the current Congress and administration, the Department of Justice has sought voter roll data from multiple states through litigation, prevailing in none of the 23 decided cases as of late 2026. Some states have resisted these requests on grounds of state sovereignty over election administration and concerns about federal retention of detailed voter files. Officials in both parties have noted that any large-scale data transfer carries risks of unauthorized access or subsequent use beyond the stated purpose.

Former participants have reported conducting their own voter list maintenance using state death records, postal service change-of-address data, and internal motor vehicle updates. The extent to which these methods replicate ERIC's interstate matching capabilities varies by state resources and legal authority. No comprehensive nationwide study has quantified the net effect on duplicate registrations or ineligible voting following the withdrawals.

The debate over ERIC reflects differing priorities among election administrators: one set emphasizes centralized data matching across jurisdictions, while another prioritizes limiting the scope of shared personal information and state discretion in outreach to unregistered residents. Both approaches operate within the framework of federal laws such as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, which require reasonable efforts to maintain accurate rolls without systematic disenfranchisement.

As midterm election preparations continue, states that remain in ERIC continue to receive its reports, while former members rely on internal processes and other data sources. The outcomes of these differing strategies on overall registration accuracy and fraud detection will depend on future audits and state-level reporting.