Since 1980, most states have granted voting rights to citizens living abroad. Although cross-national research focuses on when and where emigrant enfranchisement occurs, there has been little systematic attention to the variation in how enfranchisement occurs (for example, by constitutional amendment) and who extends these rights (international actors, for example). We argue that the variation in legal modalities and political actors is important for understanding why enfranchisement occurs and helps to account for the subsequent institutional inclusion—and exclusion—of emigrant voters. Using an original dataset which documents every extension of non-citizen voting rights (n = 153), we uncover variations in legal processes, regionally and over time. Although legislation is the most common enfranchisement pathway, judiciaries have become increasingly involved since 2000, particularly in Asian and African countries. Furthermore, emigrant enfranchisements involving constitutional reforms or plebiscites tend to be the most durable, whereas enfranchisements by international agreement are most prone to policy reversals.

自1980年以来，大多数州都向居住在国外的公民授予投票权。尽管跨国研究重点关注移民选举权发生的时间和地点，但很少系统地关注选举权如何发生（例如通过宪法修正案）以及谁扩展这些权利（例如国际行为者）的变化。我们认为，法律模式和政治行为体的变化对于理解选举权发生的原因很重要，并有助于解释随后对移民选民的制度包容和排斥。使用记录非公民投票权每一次扩展的原始数据集（n = 153），我们发现了法律程序在区域和时间上的变化。尽管立法是最常见的公民权途径，但自 2000 年以来，司法机构的参与越来越多，特别是在亚洲和非洲国家。此外，涉及宪法改革或公民投票的移民选举权往往是最持久的，而通过国际协议获得的选举权最容易出现政策逆转。