Almost every guide gives you a number of years. Almost none tells you what day the counting begins, and that is the part that decides when you are free.
There is a reason the answer is hard to find, and it is structural rather than anyone's carelessness. Read the statutes and you will notice they are almost never durations. They are release rules. The typical section does not say "you must file for three years"; it says the department shall cancel the proof at any time after three years from a stated date, provided no qualifying conviction has been received in the window preceding your request. Then the agency's own web page translates that into "three years" — and in translating, drops the condition and often changes the anchor date.
That is why the same state can publish two different starting dates without anybody lying. Below are the anchors I could read in the statute itself, the five states where the state contradicts the state, and what the translation loses. If you are still working out what the filing is, what an SR-22 actually is comes first; if you want the periods rather than the anchors, that is how long SR-22 lasts by state.
Release rule, not duration: what the statutes actually say
Four sections, four states, one grammatical shape. Each was read at the linked source on 2 September 2026.
Iowa Code § 321A.29 is headed Duration of proof — when proof may be canceled or returned, and its operative paragraph reads:
"At any time after two years from the date such proof was required when, during the two-year period preceding the request, the department has not received record of a conviction or a forfeiture of bail which would require or permit the suspension or revocation of the license, registration, or nonresident's operating privilege of the person by or for whom such proof was furnished."
RCW 46.29.600 does the same in Washington, at three years:
"At any time after three years from the date such proof was required when, during the three-year period preceding the request, the department has not received record of a conviction, forfeiture of bail, or finding that a traffic infraction has been committed which would require or permit the suspension or revocation of the license"
A.R.S. § 28-4088 compresses it to a single clause — "At any time after three years from the date the proof was required" — and Cal. Veh. Code § 16480 uses the identical words in subdivision (a)(2). Two observations follow, and neither appears on any agency page I have read.
The anchor is the date proof was required, not your conviction and not your reinstatement. Those are three different dates, often months apart. In Alabama and California the statutory phrase is the same; in Washington and Arizona the same; in Iowa the same. A remarkably large share of American financial-responsibility law descends from one uniform act, and that phrase is its fingerprint.
Two of these four are not durations at all — they are permissions with a look-back. "During the three-year period preceding the request" means the clean stretch is measured backwards from the day you ask, not forwards from the day you started. So a qualifying conviction in month 30 does not add time to the end; it moves the earliest possible request date to three years after that conviction. The period is a stretch you have to complete, not a calendar you run down.
Not every state writes it that way, which is worth showing rather than smoothing over. 29-A M.R.S. § 1603, subsection 3, headed Minimum, is a genuine duration and anchors it late:
"After a conviction or adjudication of a person for a violation of a motor vehicle law and reinstatement of that person's license and registration, the person shall maintain proof of financial responsibility for at least 3 years."
In Maine, therefore, the three years begin after reinstatement, which means the real exposure is the suspension plus three years — strictly longer than in a state using the uniform phrasing. And K.S.A. 40-3118, subsection (d)(1), is the outlier on length rather than anchor: it directs that the division hold "evidence of such insurance for a period of one year", not three.
Five states where the state contradicts the state
This is the table this page exists for. In each row the left column is the state's own statute and the right is the state's own agency, and they do not say the same thing. The site's rule is that both are shown with their origin and neither is averaged away.
State
What the statute says
What the agency publishes
Status of each side
Washington
RCW 46.29.600(1)(a): three years "from the date such proof was required"
DOL: "In most cases, 3 years from the date you're eligible to reinstate your license." A second DOL page says only "Must file a proof of financial responsibility (SR-22), for 3 years" with no anchor at all
Both read 2026-09-02
Missouri
—
DOR publishes four formulations across two of its own pages (below)
Both read 2026-09-02
Florida
Fla. Stat. § 324.023 ties the exemption to "a period of 3 years from the date of reinstatement of driving privileges"
FLHSMV's manual states three years from the original suspension date of the FR case
Statute read 2026-09-02; flhsmv.gov returns 403 to this server, so the agency side is from an earlier reading here and is not re-verified
Arizona
A.R.S. § 28-4088(A)(3)(a): three years "from the date the proof was required"
ADOT publishes the date of suspension
Statute read 2026-09-02; azdot.gov returns 403, agency side not re-verified
Iowa
Iowa Code § 321A.29(1)(a): two years "from the date such proof was required"
Iowa DOT publishes two years from the first day of the revocation
Statute read 2026-09-02; iowadot.gov unreachable, agency side not re-verified
Table built for this page by reading each side separately; sources and dates as stated in the right-hand column. Where a host refused this server the row says so rather than presenting the claim as checked.
Missouri deserves its own paragraph, because it is the only one of the five where both sides are the agency and both were readable today. The Department of Revenue's insurance information page gives three anchors depending on how you got there: for accident-related suspensions, "It must be kept for three years from the date you are eligible to reinstate"; for non-accident cases, "Proof of insurance must be maintained and filed with the Department of Revenue for a period of three years following the end of the suspension"; and for an unsatisfied court judgment, "file and maintain proof of liability insurance (SR-22 form) for two years from the starting date of the suspension".
Then its reinstatement requirements page sorts the same question by violation type and produces a fourth pairing: "File and maintain proof of insurance (SR-22 form) for three years from eligible reinstatement date" for mandatory-insurance offences, against "File and maintain proof of liability insurance (SR-22 form) for two years from the starting date of your suspension or revocation" for most others — including, on that page, accident judgments.
Set those side by side and the gap is not academic. Two years from the start of a suspension and three years from the end of it can differ by well over a year for the same driver, and the only thing separating them is which category the department assigned. The same page also draws a line that costs people money: "Submitting your insurance card is sufficient proof of insurance only for Mandatory Insurance Suspensions that do not involve accidents." Everywhere else, the insurer has to file.
What the translation loses, in one sentence
Here is the finding that ties the two tables together, and I have not seen it stated anywhere else: the statutes are release rules with a clean-window condition, and the agency pages are durations without one.
Compare the two halves of Washington. The statute conditions cancellation on the department having received no qualifying record "during the three-year period preceding the request". The DOL page says "3 years from the date you're eligible to reinstate your license." Everything about the condition has vanished — and the condition is the part that can extend your obligation. A driver who reads only the agency page learns a length; a driver who reads the statute learns that the length is contingent, that the contingency is measured backwards from the day they apply, and that the application is a step they have to take rather than an event that happens to them.
That is also why "when does it end" and "when does it start" are not mirror questions. In a release-rule state nothing ends by itself. The proof is cancelled when the department consents, and the department consents on request — which is the same structural point made about leaving the obligation on our Alabama page, where the operative end date is written by hand on a form rather than computed from a statute. Florida is the reverse of that: Fla. Stat. § 324.023, headed Financial responsibility for bodily injury or death, states the period as an exemption test — "Such higher limits must be carried for a minimum period of 3 years", with the exemption arriving if you have not been convicted "for a period of 3 years from the date of reinstatement of driving privileges" — so the statute makes it a duration and anchors it at reinstatement, which is the opposite pattern from the uniform-act states.
One practical consequence, and it is the reason to care about any of this: if you cancel the policy on the anniversary you calculated from an agency page, and your state is a release-rule state that has not yet consented, you have created a lapse. And if you are also moving, the two problems compound — see moving to another state with an SR-22 for what does and does not cross the line with you.
What to ask, and of whom
One question, put to the body that imposed the requirement rather than to your insurer: "what date does my filing period start from, what date can I first apply to have the proof cancelled, and is there a clean-window condition I have to satisfy?" Three parts, because a state that answers only the first has told you the least useful third of it.
Ask in writing if you can. The failure mode here is not dramatic — it is cancelling two months early because you counted from the wrong day, and the state recording that as a lapse. And if the state's answer differs from what its own website says, you now know that is normal and which one governs: the statute is the law, the agency is the one that processes your request, and getting the agency's version in writing is what protects you in practice.
What I could not verify
The agency side of Arizona, Iowa and Florida, today.azdot.gov, iowadot.gov and flhsmv.gov all refuse or reject requests from this server, and web.archive.org is not reachable from it either, so I could not re-open the pages those three rows rest on. Their statutory halves were read today; their agency halves are marked in the table as not re-verified rather than restated as checked.
Illinois. 625 ILCS 5/7-305 does publish an anchor — it ties the three years to the date proof is first filed, which would make Illinois unusually clear — but ilga.gov refuses connections from this server at the network layer, so that reading is not re-verified here and no quotation of it is offered.
Texas and Alabama section text.statutes.capitol.texas.gov now serves a JavaScript application and returns no statutory text to a plain request; Alabama publishes its code through a search application with no stable per-section address. Both states use the uniform "date such proof was required" phrasing on the readings recorded on their own pages here, and neither is quoted in this page's tables for that reason.
Whether a coverage gap, as opposed to a new conviction, restarts anything. Every release rule I read conditions cancellation on convictions, forfeitures or infractions received in the look-back window. None of them says what a lapse in the filing itself does to the window. Several agencies say a lapse restarts the period; no statute I read says so. That is a real gap and I am not going to fill it by inference — ask your state.
The other states this site covers. Only the anchors above were read in the statute for this page. A state's absence from these tables means it was not read here, not that it publishes nothing.
Frequently asked questions
Does the SR-22 clock start at conviction or at reinstatement?
Usually neither, in the states whose statutes descend from the uniform financial-responsibility act. Iowa, Washington, Arizona and California all use the same phrase — the period runs from "the date such proof was required", which is a third date, typically earlier than reinstatement and later than the conviction. Maine is the clear counter-example: 29-A M.R.S. § 1603(3) starts the three years after reinstatement of the licence and registration, so the total exposure there is the suspension plus three years. Florida's § 324.023 also anchors at reinstatement. Get your own date from the agency, in writing, and ask which of these three it means.
Why does the starting date matter if the period is the same?
Because the dates can sit a year or more apart on the same facts. An eighteen-month suspension means that in a state anchored on the date proof was required, half the filing period has already run before you get your licence back; in a state anchored on reinstatement, it has not started. Missouri shows the spread inside one state: its Department of Revenue publishes both "two years from the starting date of your suspension or revocation" and "three years from eligible reinstatement date", and which applies to you depends on the category the department assigned rather than on anything you can see.
Can a lapse restart the clock?
The statutes do not say, and that is the honest answer. What they do say is that cancellation of the proof is conditional on the department having received no qualifying conviction, forfeiture or infraction "during the three-year period preceding the request" — Washington's RCW 46.29.600(1)(a) is the model, and Iowa's § 321A.29(1)(a) is the two-year version. So a new conviction inside the window plainly moves your earliest release date. Whether a gap in the filing itself does the same is asserted by several agencies and not written in any statute I read. Treat continuity as the thing to protect and get your state's position in writing.
Where can I get the definitive date for my case?
The body that imposed the requirement — the DMV, DOL, DOR, DPS, BMV or Secretary of State — and not your insurer. The insurer knows when it filed; only the state holds the date proof was first required and the record of what has landed in your look-back window since. Ask three things in one request: the start date, the earliest date you may apply for the proof to be cancelled, and the condition attached to that application. If the answer contradicts the agency's own website, you have discovered the same thing this page did, and the written answer is the one to keep.
Sources for this guide
This guide is not about a single state, so its sources are the statutes, agency pages and company pages that state each thing it claims, each with the date I read it. Comparison sites are not listed here: where this guide reports a figure one of them published, the text names it as a reported figure rather than presenting it as evidence.
One of five states covered here whose own material states a period but never states the date it starts counting from. The other seven of the twelve undocumented anchors are states with no SR-22 at all, where there is no period to anchor.
Alonso Pinar Jiménez writes ClearRoad Guide. He is a web developer, not an insurance agent or a lawyer. On the state guides, legal requirements come from the state agency that sets them, linked to the page that says it and dated. Every dollar amount on this site is a statutory limit or a fee the agency itself publishes; no premium figures appear here, because no insurer publishes a rate for an individual record. Where two sources disagree, both are shown with their origin instead of averaged into a number nobody confirmed. See the Editorial Policy for how this site is researched, verified, and updated, and How This Site Is Made for how it was written.
Published July 31, 2026 · Last updated September 2, 2026
Corrections and withdrawn figures on this site are recorded, dated, in the corrections log.
A non-owner SR-22 is an operator's policy. What five state laws say it covers, what it will not let you register, and the one condition only Iowa prints.
FR-44 exists in Florida and Virginia only. Florida hard-codes 100/300/50; Virginia writes a multiplier. The statutes, and what Virginia's guide misprints.
