Here is another way of looking at state compulsory insurance laws; how justice is served when someone drives without insurance and thus another way to rank the states based upon the economic impact of restitution when the states interests supercede that of injured parties:
Let's create a scenario where you are driving in state X and suddenly, you are rear-ended by a driver of an pick-up truck. The police immediately come to the scene and see that you appear to be in good condition except for the air- bag marks on your forehead. The police get information from the other driver and begin writing a report. Your car looks totaled while the old pick-up of the guy who hit you looks like it may have lost some rusted chrome off the front bumper. Being the self-reliant kind of person that you are, you are legally self-insured up to $13,000 with a surety bond that acts as a deductible rider on your insurance policy and you begin hoping that this guy has good insurance, because the damage to your car is going to be at least $13,000. The police come back and give you the bad news: the guy has no insurance. He is a construction contractor on his way home from work, he said he forgot to send-in his last deductible payment but he was on his way to do it right now. Now, let's say that this guy has a few points on his record and he is more than a little quarelsome and contentious with the judge and gets on the judge's bad side and incurs the maximum penalty.
Let me sum-up the scenario above as such: you incur losses of 13,000 in an accident because of this guy's negligence and he has no insurance. This will come out of your pocket unless you can get something from him.
If this scenario happened in
New Hampshire, the state would work with you to get this guy to pay you, and that is pretty-much the extent of the state's involvement if he quickly works something out and starts making restitution to avoid losing his driving priveleges.

If this scenario happened in
Idaho, the state would be there to take this guy to court to help you get some money, much like in New Hampshire, only not until after they had first extracted $75 from him as a first priority and forced him to file proof of insurance with the state.
If this scenario happened in
Vermont, the state would do about the same as Idaho except demand $100 from the guy first.
If this scenario happened in
Wyoming, the state would do about the same as in Vermont except demand a whopping $750 from the guy first.
If this scenario happened in
Delaware, the state would do about the same as Wyoming except demand a mere $120 from the guy first. One problem in no-fault Delaware is that you, as the harmed party would have to go to the state first to find out how much the state allows you to reclaim from the guy and not just your actual damages.
If this scenario happened in
North Dakota, the state would first take $150 from the guy then take away his license and registration until the state determined that he was worthy to drive again by his filing his proof of insurance with the state and getting some insurance that is now even more unaffordable, forcing the guy to have to find another way to get to work in order to begin paying you off. If you wanted to sue the guy, you would also have to do what North Dakota requires and you would not be able to sue under regular tort laws allowed in other states.
If this scenario happened in
Maine, the state would first skim $500 from him and then punish him for 30 days by taking away his license and registration forcing him to have to get a ride with his buddies, but for only a month.
If this scenario happened in
South Dakota, the state would make this punishment last for a whole year, hopefully he has a good network of responsible friends with wheels to help him get to jobsites for a whole year so he can pay you off. They would also assess a fine, unknown how much, but having to pay to re-register his car is about the same as a fine.
If this scenario happened in
Montana, the state which the insurance association, NAIC ranked as the 4th least profitable no-fault state in the nation due to an abundance of insurance fraud, there is a little hell to pay: not only would our beligerent little man get the full insults from the state that the other states asess, including a $250 fine, he might forget about his primary responsibility to you the injured party as he sits in jail for 10 days. The chance of this man getting insurance again, meeting all of his regular bills including his mortgage payment is getting smaller. He is not thinking about your problems right now, in fact, having to pay you $13,000 is the least of his concerns right now as he sits next to a man named Howard in his stinking jail cell.
If this scenario happened in
Alaska, you had better just forget about trying to get any money from this guy at all. He just lost his license, his vehicle registration, $500 and now he sits in jail for 90 days. He is going to lose his clients, who are probably going to sue him for breaking his contracts with them. His home is quickly going into foreclosure, and his family will be forced into a trailer on the edge of town, his wife is going to have to walk through the blizzards, leaving the children unattended so she can make it to her meeting to receive food stamps while the family waits for the man who used to provide for them to get out of jail.
Also, from the stated mandatory minimum amount of insurance that insurance providers have to offer, the theoretical chance of being able to afford insurance, (assuming all other factors being equal) would be less with Bodily injury and & Pproperty damage minimums being split 50,000/100,000/25,000 in Alaska. In maine, the theoretical chance of people being able to afford insurance is the worst with the minimum policy you can purchase being BI & PD +UM, +UIM; 50/100/25. All the other states that require insurance minimums are quite similar in affordability, based on insurance requirements.