Minnesota allowed nearly 19,000 people to register to vote or update their registrations on Election Day 2024 using a system called “vouching,” where another person confirms a voter’s address in lieu of standard proof of residence. This finding is based on records obtained by legal advocates.
The total figure is 18,898. Of those, 5,457 were new Election Day registrations and 13,441 were updates to existing registrations. Both categories relied solely on vouching for residency verification.
Legal advocates requested detailed breakdowns by vouching method, residential facility totals, certified lists of authorized employees, and any reports of suspicious or unlawful activity. Minnesota’s response indicated it does not record such data or has no responsive records for many categories.
The records show 18,898 vouched registrations in 2024, up from 10,278 in the 2022 midterms and 17,616 in the 2020 presidential election. Specifically, 5,457 were new registrations and 13,441 were updates in 2024—compared to 12,547 updates and 5,069 new registrations in 2020, and 8,063 updates and 2,215 new registrations in 2022.
The records reveal a significant gap: Minnesota does not maintain data distinguishing between general registered-voter vouching (where one voter may sign for up to eight people) and residential-facility staff vouching (with no cap). The state also lacks facility-specific totals, certified lists of authorized employees, or reports of suspicious activity.
Minnesota officials have defended the practice, noting it has been part of state law for over 50 years and accounted for less than 0.6% of all votes cast in the 2024 general election. They emphasized that vouching confirms residency but requires voters to provide a driver’s license or ID card number, or last four digits of a Social Security number, for identity verification.
However, the state’s 0.6% figure is technically accurate but irrelevant to the core concern: whether Minnesota can verify the integrity of nearly 19,000 vouched transactions. Based on the records obtained by legal advocates, the answer appears to be no.
The state itself acknowledges two distinct vouching pathways. Yet, without breakdowns by method or facility-level data, and without reports of suspicious activity, the only safeguard is the oath signed under penalty of perjury. This safeguard remains meaningful only if investigations occur.
With 2026 midterms approaching and Minnesota expected to be competitive in key races, the volume of vouched registrations—18,898—should have the same level of documentation and transparency as other parts of the state’s electoral system. The inability to produce data verifying these transactions is the critical issue.