# Presentation: 531327

## UOCAVA Voting in Four StatesA Study of Election Administration

## Overview of the Project

- 3 Components: Qualitative and Quantitative
- 	Case Studies of 4 States
- 	Survey of UOCAVA voters
- 	Conference with Election Administrators,  technology and election experts, etc.

## Sample Selection

- Organized States by Transmission method
- Some emailing of voted ballots
- Some emailing of blank ballots or IVAS tool 2
- Some emailing of FPCA but not ballots
- Fax but no email
- Fax of voted ballots
- Fax of blank ballots
- Fax of FPCA for registration and ballot request
- Fax of FPCA for ballot request
- Postal delivery only

**Notes:**
Sample was selected from 50 states and 5 territories.  All jurisdictions that allow any email also allow use of fax for some things.

## More Sample Selection

- 2 States selected from each of the top categories
- Additional criteria considered:
- Region
- Size of UOCAVA population
- Variety of methods utilized by sample state for within-state comparison of different methods
- Initiation of and participation in pilot projects or FVAP programs

## Research States and Jurisdictions	Key Features

- South Carolina: email and fax voted ballots – state-wide; south-eastern state; VOI ‘00, IVAS ‘04; SERVE ’04; large UOCAVA population
- Montana: email and fax of voted ballots – some jurisdictions; north-western state; IVAS ‘04; IVAS ‘06 T2; small UOCAVA population
- Florida: email blank and fax voted ballots; southern state; VOI ‘00, SERVE ’04; pilot projects, large UOCAVA population
- Illinois: fax of FPCA for ballot request; IVAS ’06 T1 + email blank ballots in 2 jurisdictions; mid-western state; medium UOCAVA pop.

## Findings

- Enthusiasm about facilitating UOCAVA voting
- Especially about military serving overseas
- Limited resources and technical infrastructure
- Extreme variation on technology within states
- Lack of knowledge about resources and procedures
- 2 cycle registration requirement: bad for administrators – good or bad for voters?

## Findings Continued

- Concern about authentication of voters
- Varying perspectives on best methods
- Little variation in general administration of UOCAVA voting found based on selection criteria for states – differences wash out as population size increases
- Differences found based on relationship of state to local jurisdictions
- Lots of innovative ideas on local level
- Permission to conduct pilot projects desired

**Notes:**
Problems they face, how they process them, all are concerned about voter privacy

## More Findings

- No mechanisms to share or promote innovative procedures among locals
- Lack of communication between LEOs and VAOs in many jurisdictions
- USPS difficulties
- Voters uninformed about electronic transmission possibilities (few requests)
- LEOs cautious about encouraging wide-spread use due to ballot remaking issue etc.

**Notes:**
No active education program

## Conclusion and Recommendations

- LEOs hindered by obstacles (legal, resources, technology infrastructure, awareness of voters, knowledge of agencies)
- Changes needed:
- Overall increase in communication
- Laws that allow more discretion
- Mechanism to share practices
- Improve technology
- Security and authentication assurances
- Upgrade/standardize local systems

## XXXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXX

## XXXXXXXXXXXX