Want to check who’s on Alabama’s voter rolls? It will cost you around $37,000 a pop. 

That’s more than two-thirds of the annual salary of the average Alabama worker. 

The Cotton State’s hefty price tag on election transparency — the highest in the nation— is not only wrong, it’s illegal, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). 

The election integrity watchdog detailed the burden of the costly requirements in a formal letter informing Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen that his office is violating the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. PILF asserts Alabama’s current system makes it “practically impossible” for the public to obtain voter registration records. 

And the foundation warns it is prepared to sue if changes aren’t made. 

Allen’s office says the secretary of state’s hands are tied. 

‘A Forest of Legal-Size Pages’

States must make their voter databases available for public inspection and offer photocopy reproduction at a “reasonable” cost, according to the NVRA. Alabama charges nearly $37,000 for a digital copy of its voter rolls — 1 cent per voter — and now claims it can no longer provide paper copies, the warning letter states. The office does not have to provide the data electronically. 

“Failure to offer photocopy reproduction is a violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and applicable holdings by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,” notes the communication, referring to Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec’y of State, the 2024 ruling that, among other findings, backed up the NVRA’s photocopy and “reasonable” cost requirements. 

But the ruling also found that states are not required to distribute requested voter roll information in electronic form. The NVRA does not include such language. Congress updated electronic requirements in the Freedom of Information Act, but has yet to include an electronic provision in the Voter Rights Act, U.S. Circuit Judge Britt C. Grant wrote in the majority opinion. 

So, that leaves the photocopy option. A “forest of legal-size pages would be required to complete the job, approximately 2.5 tons-worth, PILF estimates. 

While the court ruling found that Alabama doesn’t have to provide records electronically, it doesn’t say that the state can’t go digital. 

“Again, perhaps we might reassess the fixation on not providing electronic records? The actual costs to your office to provide these records in electronic form might be less than the rib plate at Dreamland. ($16.99, and $19.99 if you get center cut),” wrote PILF Research Director Logan Churchwell in the pithy warning letter to Allen. 

Costly and Cumbersome

The secretary of state’s office quickly realized the photocopy route was untenable. In early April, Candace Payne, a voter registration specialist in Allen’s office, informed the foundation that she was “having some difficulty” with the size of the data file and that print jobs were failing, the letter states. She estimated that the tally for Mobile County alone would be approximately 30,000 legal-size pages relative to its total count of registered voters. 

By May, Elections Director Jeff Elrod officially denied PILF’s request, citing technology limitations. In fact, the size of PILF’s request apparently forced the secretary of state’s office to update its request form and related policy.

“Your request for a printed copy of the statewide file with all available data fields is not available in print form because any attempt to print it would be extremely costly and the result would likely be an unusable or at least extremely cumbersome product,” Elrod wrote in his response denying the records request.

While PILF acknowledged a “productive” working relationship with the Alabama election office over the past decade, the foundation said the secretary of state “did not offer the Foundation any workable solution to obtain the data it is entitled to under the NVRA.” PILF noted that just because something is burdensome to a government agency doesn’t mean that agency gets a pass from following public records laws. 

“It seems the post Greater Birmingham Ministries world of NVRA compliance is noncompliance. It just cannot be done, according to your own staff,” the letter explained.

PILF President J. Christian Adams said transparency under the law is not optional.

“Charging tens of thousands of dollars or offering no workable alternative is clearly not in compliance with the NVRA,” Adams said in a statement. “The NVRA was designed to guarantee transparency in how voter rolls are maintained. Alabama’s practices effectively shut down public oversight.”

Lanie Rawls, communications director for the secretary of state’s office, said the price of the Alabama state voter list, including electronic voter records, is based on Alabama law and decades of precedent. 

“Secretary Allen is currently evaluating whether to approach revising the current fee schedule during the next session of the Alabama Legislature,” Rawls told The Federalist. 

‘Obscene’ 

Alabama’s pricing structure is nearly three times as high as the second-most expensive state, Wisconsin, which charges $12,500 per copy of the full statewide voter registration list. The records are available electronically. Several states, including Florida, New York and Ohio provide the information free of charge. 

Douglas Blair, director of communications at the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said this isn’t a red state/blue state issue. It’s about upholding election integrity and transparency. 

“Charging $37,000 for a voter roll is obscene. It shouldn’t cost more to access federally mandated voter rolls than to buy a new car,” Blair told The Federalist. “Alabama needs to get with the program and start charging a reasonable amount for their rolls.”

Earlier this year, the foundation reached a settlement agreement with New Mexico Secretary Maggie Toulouse Oliver in which the elections office agreed to reduce the cost of the state’s voter rolls from $5,000-plus to $600. That lawsuit, too, alleged violations under the “reasonable cost provision” the NVRA. 

PILF’s letter encourages Allen to take the foundation up on its suggestions to resolve the issues, maybe over ribs. 

“An hour of time, a plate of BBQ, and good conversation — isn’t this a better way to help us help you find dead registrants and those voting in other states?” Churchwell wrote.