title: Factbox: How U.S. states responded to Trump panel's voter data request
text: (Reuters) - Most U.S. states have rejected full compliance with requests for voters’ private information by President Donald Trump’s commission investigating possible election fraud. The following is a rundown of how states responded to the requests for information such as names, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, political affiliations, felony convictions and voting histories: Alabama: Will release publicly available data if “convinced that the overall effort will produce the necessary results.” Alaska: Will provide public information, not including voters’ dates of birth, Social Security or driver’s license numbers. Arizona: Refused to comply. The secretary of state has “serious privacy concerns.”  Arkansas: Will produce public information, not including Social Security or driver’s license numbers, military or felon status. California: Refused to provide “sensitive voter information.” The Secretary of State called effort “a waste of taxpayer money.” Colorado: Will provide publicly available information, but not Social Security numbers and full dates of birth. Connecticut: Refused to immediately comply with an “overly broad” request and has asked for clarification on commission’s intent. Delaware: Refused to comply. District of Columbia: Refused to comply. The mayor said commission’s request “serves no legitimate purpose.”  Florida: Will release public information, which does not include Social Security numbers. State records lack felony status.  Georgia: Will provide basics like name, address, polling place and party preference for $250 fee, but not sensitive voter data.  Hawaii: Still awaiting formal request, but based on news reports governor stated, “I don’t think we should share these records.”  Idaho: Reviewing request, but the Secretary of State noted limits to public data, which does not include Social Security numbers. Illinois: Refused to comply. State elections board said law limits the release voter data, which is not generally public. Indiana: Will provide names, addresses and congressional districts, which are publicly available, but not other private information.  Iowa: Willing to supply publicly available information, but highlighted a formal request process needed under state law.  Kansas: Will provide publicly available information, which does not include Social Security numbers, according to local media. The Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is vice chair of Trump’s commission.  Kentucky: Refused to comply.  Louisiana: Refused to comply, but has limited public information available for purchase. Maine: Refused to comply due to state law protecting data.  Maryland: Refused to comply, found state law prohibited release. Massachusetts: Refused to comply because voter data is not public record. Michigan:  Will supply publicly available information which does not include date of birth, social security or driver’s license numbers. Minnesota:  Refused to comply, said commission “risks becoming a partisan tool to shut out millions of eligible American voters.”  Mississippi:  Refused to comply. The Secretary of State told commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”  Missouri:  Will release limited public information, which does not include Social Security numbers, felon or military status. Montana: Will provide public information, does not include birth dates or Social Security numbers.  Nebraska: Reviewing. The Secretary of state will provide public information if law permits and once assured of data security. Nevada: Will provide publicly available information, but not Social Security numbers and other private data.  New Hampshire: Will produce publicly available information, according to local media reports.  New Jersey: State officials are reviewing the request but say they will not release information that is not public.  New Mexico: Refused to comply. Secretary of State not convinced data is not to be used for “nefarious or unlawful purposes.” New York: Refused to comply. The governor said it would not “perpetuate the myth voter fraud played a role in our election.” North Carolina: Will provide public information, including names, addresses, political affiliation and voter history. North Dakota: Refused to comply, because state law does not permit. Only state without voter registration.  Ohio: Will provide publicly information, but not confidential data such as Social Security numbers. Oklahoma: Will provide publicly available information, but not Social Security numbers. Oregon: Will provide public information for a $500 fee. This does not include Social Security and driver’s license numbers. Pennsylvania: Refused to comply but will supply limited, public data for $20 fee.  Rhode Island:  Will provide public information, not including Social Security numbers and felon status. South Carolina: Refused to comply because the state does not have authority, according to its elections office. The state Republican party chair offered to purchase the data for the commission, according to local media reports.  South Dakota: Refused to comply, local media reported. Tennessee: Refused to comply because state law does not allow. Texas: Will release public voter information, including birth dates and voter history, according to local media reports.  Utah: The state will only provide public information, which does not include Social Security numbers.  Virginia: Refused to comply with request based on “specious and false notion” of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election. Vermont: Refused to comply, after not receiving a response to initial concerns raised about providing publicly information.     Washington: Will provide public information, including birth dates and addresses, but not Social Security numbers.  West Virginia: Will provide public information for a $500 fee, not including sensitive data. Voter history available for another $500. Wisconsin: Will provide public information for $12,500 fee, which does not include birth dates and social security numbers. Wyoming: Refused to comply, concerned about “federal overreach.”  Sources: State elections officers, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. 