United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Addressees

ELECTIONS

Absentee Voting 

Assistance to Military 

and Overseas Citizens 

Increased for the 2004 

General Election, but 

Challenges Remain 

April 2006 

 

GAO-06-521 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2006

ELECTIONS

Absentee Voting Assistance to Military 

and Overseas Citizens Increased for the 

2004 General Election, but Challenges 

Remain

Highlights of GAO-06-521, a report to 

congressional addressees

The narrow margin of victory in the 

2000 presidential election raised

concerns about the extent to which 

members of the military, their 

dependents, and U.S. citizens living 

abroad were able to vote via 

absentee ballot. In September 

2001, GAO made recommendations

to address variances in the

Department of Defense’s (DOD)

Federal Voting Assistance Program

(FVAP). Along with the military

services and the Department of 

State (DOS), FVAP is responsible

for educating and assisting military 

personnel and overseas citizens in 

the absentee voting process. 

Leading up to the 2004 presidential

election, Members of Congress 

raised concerns about efforts under

FVAP to facilitate absentee voting. 

Because of broad Congressional 

interest, GAO initiated a review

under the Comptroller General’s 

authority to address three 

questions: (1) How did FVAP’s 

assistance efforts differ between 

the 2000 and 2004 presidential

elections? (2) What actions did 

DOD and DOS take in response to

prior GAO recommendations on

absentee voting? and (3) What

challenges remain in providing

voting assistance to military

personnel and overseas citizens? 

This review is one of several GAO

reviews related to various aspects

of the 2004 election. 

GAO provided DOD and DOS with

a draft of this report for comment, 

and they both generally concurred 

with the report’s contents.

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those 

taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel and overseas 

citizens tools needed to vote by absentee ballot. With 13 full-time staff 

members and a fiscal year 2004 budget of about $6 million, FVAP distributed 

more voting materials and modified its Web site, which includes absentee 

voting information, and made it accessible to more military and overseas 

citizens worldwide. It also added an online voting assistance training 

program and an online version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. 

FVAP also conducted 164 voting training workshops for military 

servicemembers and overseas citizens, as compared to 62 workshops for the 

2000 election. In its 2005 report on the effectiveness of its federal voting 

assistance program, on the basis of its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed 

higher 2004 voter participation rates to the effective implementation of its 

voter outreach program. However, because of low survey response rates, 

GAO has concerns about FVAP’s ability to project changes in voter 

participation rates between the 2000 and 2004 elections. 

In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD and DOS revise their voting guidance, 

improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to reduce the 

variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers and overseas

citizens. DOD and DOS took actions to implement these recommendations; 

however, absentee voting assistance continued to vary. Voting Assistance

Officers (VAOs) provide voting assistance as a collateral duty. Because of 

competing demands on VAOs and differences in their understanding and 

interest in the voting process, some variance in absentee voting assistance

may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to continue their efforts to improve 

absentee voting assistance. 

Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, GAO identified three challenges 

that remain in providing absentee voting assistance to military personnel and

overseas citizens. One challenge involves simplifying and standardizing the 

time-consuming, multistep absentee voting process, which has different 

requirements and time frames established by each state. In attempting to 

simplify and standardize the absentee voting process, FVAP continued 

working with the states through its Legislative Initiatives program to 

facilitate absentee voting for military servicemembers and overseas citizens. 

Another challenge involves efforts to implement an electronic registration 

and voting system given persistent issues regarding security and privacy. 

For the 2004 election, FVAP developed an electronic voting experiment that 

it planned to make available to the entire military, their dependents, and 

overseas citizens; however, the experiment was never implemented because

of security concerns publicly raised by four of the ten members of a peer 

review group. A challenge for DOS is having the ability to reach all overseas 

citizens. Overseas citizens are not required to provide contact information 

to an embassy or consulate. If these citizens do not provide appropriate 

contact information, DOS cannot proactively reach these overseas voters. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-521.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Derek B. 

Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or 

stewartd@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

FVAP Expanded Its 2004 Voting Assistance Efforts 6 

DOD and DOS Implemented Prior Recommendations on Absentee 

Voting; However, Assistance Continued to Vary 11 

Some Challenges Remain in Providing Absentee Voting Assistance 18 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31 

Appendix II Related GAO Reports 34 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 35 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of State 37 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40 

Tables 

Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for FVAP’s Postelection 

Surveys 10

Table 2: Number of Agreements with FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives 23 

Page i GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Abbreviations 

DEERS Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOS Department of State 

FPCA Federal Post Card Application 

FVAP Federal Voting Assistance Program 

IVAS Interim Voting Assistance System 

SERVE Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment 

UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

USD (P&R) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

VAO Voting Assistance Officer 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 7, 2006

Congressional Addressees: 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

established that members of the U.S. military, their dependents of voting 

age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a permanent residence 

in the United States are eligible to participate by absentee ballot in all 

federal elections. The act covers more than 6.5 million people, including 

approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not affiliated with the 

government (about 2 million of which are of voting age), 1.4 million 

military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of voting 

age. Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary 

of Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal 

functions under UOCAVA. In 2001, we reported that the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) and the Department of State’s (DOS) voting assistance to

military and overseas citizens should be improved.1

 Specifically, the 

review disclosed that while DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP) provided some useful voting information resources for voters and 

voting assistance officers (VAOs), many potential voters were unaware of

them. The report also stated that the military services varied in their 

implementation of the absentee voting program. 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

established that members of the U.S. military, their dependents of voting 

age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a permanent residence 

in the United States are eligible to participate by absentee ballot in all 

federal elections. The act covers more than 6.5 million people, including 

approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not affiliated with the 

government (about 2 million of which are of voting age), 1.4 million 

military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of voting 

age. Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary 

of Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal 

functions under UOCAVA. In 2001, we reported that the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) and the Department of State’s (DOS) voting assistance to

military and overseas citizens should be improved.1

 Specifically, the 

review disclosed that while DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP) provided some useful voting information resources for voters and 

voting assistance officers (VAOs), many potential voters were unaware of

them. The report also stated that the military services varied in their 

implementation of the absentee voting program. 

Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress and 

media reports raised concerns about inadequate absentee voting 

assistance for military servicemembers and overseas citizens. Because of 

this broad congressional interest, we initiated this review under the 

Comptroller General’s authority, to examine the status of FVAP efforts to 

facilitate absentee voting by military personnel and overseas citizens for 

the 2004 presidential election. Specifically, our objectives were to 

(1) determine how FVAP’s efforts to facilitate absentee voting by military 

personnel and overseas citizens differed between the 2000 and 2004 

presidential elections, (2) identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in 

response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee voting, and 

(3) identify challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to 

Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress and 

media reports raised concerns about inadequate absentee voting 

assistance for military servicemembers and overseas citizens. Because of 

this broad congressional interest, we initiated this review under the 

Comptroller General’s authority, to examine the status of FVAP efforts to 

facilitate absentee voting by military personnel and overseas citizens for 

the 2004 presidential election. Specifically, our objectives were to 

(1) determine how FVAP’s efforts to facilitate absentee voting by military 

personnel and overseas citizens differed between the 2000 and 2004 

presidential elections, (2) identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in 

response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee voting, and 

(3) identify challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to 

Absentee Voting sentee Voting Assistan Assistance

 

6-521

 1

GAO, Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be 

Improved, GAO-01-1026 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001). 

Page 1 GAO-06-521
military personnel and overseas citizens. This review is one of several 

GAO reviews related to various aspects of elections (see app. II). 

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by 

GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Election Assistance Commission, and private 

nonprofit organizations that represent military and overseas citizens who 

participate in the election process via absentee voting. To determine 

differences in FVAP’s voting assistance efforts between the 2000 and 2004 

presidential elections, we reviewed relevant FVAP and DOD regulations 

and operating procedures related to absentee voting. We also met with a 

commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and voting 

assistance representatives from FVAP, the military services, and DOS’s 

Chief Voting Officer to obtain their views on efforts taken for the 2004 

election. We examined projects and special initiatives undertaken by these 

organizations to address the absentee voting process. We also reviewed 

FVAP’s 2005 report to Congress and the President and assessed its 

methodology for conducting its survey of voter participation among 

military and overseas citizens for the 2004 presidential election. To 

identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in response to prior GAO 

recommendations to reduce variance in program implementation, we 

reviewed prior GAO reports related to absentee voting. We held 

discussions with and reviewed documents from DOD and DOS 

representatives concerning actions taken in response to these 

recommendations. We also met with VAOs from each of the military 

services to discuss their voting assistance efforts and to identify whether 

there was consistency or variance in program implementation. To identify

challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel 

and overseas citizens, we met with representatives of several

organizations representing members of the military and American citizens

living overseas. We also discussed challenges in providing voting 

assistance with VAOs from five judgmentally selected installations. In 

addition, we conducted 19 focus group discussions with 173 enlisted 

servicemembers and officers from each military service to discuss their 

views on challenges to absentee voting. Following each focus group 

discussion, we administered a short survey to each participant that 

solicited information related to individual absentee voting experiences and 

challenges. Comments provided by the focus group members cannot be

projected across the entire military community because the participants 

were not selected using a statistically valid sampling methodology. We 

determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purpose

of our report. We conducted our review from March 2005 through April 

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

Page 2 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
standards. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is 

contained in appendix I.

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those 

taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel and overseas 

citizens tools needed to vote by absentee ballot. FVAP distributed more 

absentee voting materials and improved the accessibility of its Web site, 

which includes voting information. Also, FVAP conducted 102 more voting

training workshops than it did for the 2000 election, and it provided an

online training course for VAOs. FVAP also designed an electronic version 

of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot—an emergency ballot accepted by

all states and territories—although its availability was not announced until 

a few weeks before the election. In assessing its efforts for the 2004 

election, using data from its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed 

increased voter participation rates to an effective voter information and 

education program. However, in light of low survey response rates, FVAP’s 

estimates and conclusions should be interpreted with caution. 

Results in Brief 

In 2001, we reported that voting assistance by DOD and DOS varied due to

incomplete service guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command 

support. We recommended that DOD and DOS revise their voting 

guidance, improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to 

reduce the variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers and 

overseas citizens. DOD and DOS implemented these recommendations. 

However, absentee voting assistance continued to vary because of the 

collateral nature of the VAO role and the fact that VAOs’ understanding 

and interest in the voting process differ, among other things. Given these 

factors, some variance in absentee voting assistance may always exist. 

DOD and DOS plan to continue their efforts to improve absentee voting 

assistance. 

We identified three challenges that remain in providing absentee voting

assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens. One challenge 

involves simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming, multistep 

absentee voting process that has different requirements and time frames 

established by each state for requesting and submitting absentee voting

materials. Although 49 states allow some form of electronic transmission 

of election materials for faster delivery, the U.S. Postal Service and 

military and international mail systems remain the primary methods for 

obtaining and returning required documents. As required by UOCAVA, 

FVAP continued to work with the states through its Legislative Initiatives 

program to facilitate the absentee voting process; however, the majority of 

Page 3 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
states have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP’s December 2001

report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its program. 

Another challenge involves efforts to implement an electronic registration 

and voting system, which have not progressed because of persistent issues 

regarding security and privacy. Since the 2000 election, FVAP 

implemented two electronic voting initiatives; however, one was not used 

by any voters, and the other was used only by a small number of 

participants. Implementing an electronic system would potentially 

eliminate some obstacles to absentee voting. Another challenge is DOS’s 

inability to reach all overseas citizens. Although DOS made an extensive 

effort to provide absentee voting assistance to overseas citizens for the 

2004 presidential election, it is impossible to know where all eligible 

overseas voters are located or to directly provide them information on 

absentee voting. Because overseas citizens have no obligation to register 

with the nearest embassy or consulate, DOS cannot know where they are 

located, thus it is unlikely that DOS will have the ability to proactively 

reach all overseas voters. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs 

within DOS generally concurred with the report’s content. 

The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised 

concerns about the extent to which members of the military, their 

dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were able to vote via absentee

ballot. The elections process within the United States is primarily the 

responsibility of the individual states and their election jurisdictions. 

States have considerable discretion in how they organize the elections 

process and this is reflected in the diversity of processes and deadlines 

that states have for voter registration and absentee voting, including 

diversity in the processes and deadlines that apply to military and overseas 

voters. Even when imposing requirements on the states in the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002, such as statewide voter registration systems and 

provisional voting, Congress left states discretion in how to implement 

those requirements and did not require uniformity. 

Background 

Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary of 

Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal 

functions under UOCAVA. UOCAVA requires the presidential designee to 

(1) compile and distribute information on state absentee voting 

procedures, (2) design absentee registration and voting materials, (3) work 

with state and local election officials in carrying out the act, and (4) report 

Page 4 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
to Congress and the President after each presidential election on the 

effectiveness of the program’s activities, including a statistical analysis on

UOCAVA voter participation. DOD Directive 1000.4, dated April 14, 2004, is

DOD’s implementing guidance for the federal voting assistance program, 

and it assigned the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness (USD P&R) the responsibility for administering the program. 

The FVAP office, under the direction of the USD P&R, manages the 

program. For 2004, FVAP had a full-time staff of 13 and a fiscal year budget 

of approximately $6 million. FVAP’s mission is to (1) inform and educate 

U.S. citizens worldwide of their right to vote, (2) foster voting

participation, and (3) protect the integrity of, and enhance, the electoral 

process at the federal, state, and local levels. 

DOD Directive 1000.4 also sets forth DOD and service roles and 

responsibilities in providing voting education and assistance. In 

accordance with the directive, FVAP relies heavily upon the military 

services and DOS for distribution of absentee voting materials to 

individual UOCAVA citizens. According to the DOD directive, each military 

service is to appoint a senior service voting representative, assisted by a 

service voting action officer, to oversee the implementation of the 

service’s voting assistance program. Also, the military services are to 

designate trained VAOs at every level of command to carry out voting 

education and assistance responsibilities to servicemembers and their 

eligible dependents. One VAO on each military installation should be 

assigned to coordinate voting efforts conducted by VAOs in subordinate 

units and tenant commands. Where possible, installation VAOs should be 

of the rank GS-12 civilian or higher, or pay grade O-4 officers or higher. In

accordance with the DOD directive, commanders designate persons to 

serve as VAOs. Serving as a VAO is a collateral duty, to be performed along 

with the servicemember’s other duties. Similarly, DOS, through its Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, embassies and consulates, carries out its voter 

assistance responsibilities by designating VAOs to provide assistance. The 

Foreign Affairs Manual contains absentee voting guidance for embassy 

and consulate VAOs, who also provide voting assistance as a collateral

duty. 

FVAP updates the Voting Action Plan—its primary voting guidance to DOD 

components and other agencies—every 2 years. The Voting Action Plan 

provides detailed guidance on implementing the federal functions of 

UOCAVA and DOD Directive 1000.4. It also tasks FVAP, DOD components, 

and all other participating federal agencies with specific responsibilities 

and provides a timeline for carrying out their roles. FVAP updated the plan 

for 2004–05; however, it was never approved by the Secretary of Defense, 

Page 5 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
and it remained in draft form for the 2004 presidential election. FVAP and

the services referred to the draft Voting Action Plan in implementing their 

voting assistance efforts for the 2004 election. To assist voters in the 

absentee voting process, FVAP also updates its Voting Assistance Guide 

every 2 years. The guide includes state-by-state instructions and timelines 

for completing the various voting forms and it also lists addresses for local 

election offices within each state. 

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those 

taken in the 2000 election by providing military personnel and overseas 

citizens with more tools and information needed to vote by absentee 

ballot. First, FVAP distributed more voting materials, and improved its 

Web site to enable greater access for participants. Second, FVAP increased 

absentee voting training opportunities by providing more workshops and 

an online training course for the 2004 election. Third, FVAP developed an 

electronic version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, which is 

accepted by all states and U.S. territories. In its 2005 report to the 

Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its federal voting 

assistance program, on the basis of its postelection surveys, FVAP 

attributed higher 2004 voter participation rates to the effective

implementation of its voter outreach program. However, because of low 

survey response rates, GAO has concerns about FVAP’s ability to project 

changes in voter participation rates between the 2000 and 2004

presidential elections. 

For the 2000 election, we reported that voting materials, such as the 

Federal Post Card Application (FPCA)—the registration and absentee 

ballot request form for UOCAVA citizens—were not always available when 

needed. We were told by representatives from DOD and DOS that they had

enough 2004 election materials for their potential absentee voters. Each 

service reported meeting the DOD requirement of 100 percent in-hand 

delivery of FPCAs to each servicemember by January 15. DOS also 

targeted 100 percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to citizens employed with 

the embassies and consulates. According to DOS, FVAP initially provided

DOS with the quantity of Voting Assistance Guides requested, however, 

because of high voter interest, additional copies were needed and obtained 

from the military services. 

FVAP Expanded Its 

2004 Voting 

Assistance Efforts 

FVAP Distributed More 

Voting Materials and 

Improved Access to Its 

Web Site 

Page 6 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
After the 2000 presidential election, FVAP took steps to make its Web site 

more accessible to UOCAVA citizens worldwide by changing security 

parameters surrounding the site.2

 According to FVAP, prior to the 2004 

election, its Web site was within the existing DOD “.mil” domain, which 

includes built-in security firewalls. Some overseas Internet service 

providers were consequently blocked from accessing this site because 

hackers were attempting to get into the DOD system. As a result, FVAP 

moved the site out of the DOD “.mil” domain to a less secure domain. In 

September 2004, FVAP issued a news release announcing this change and 

provided a list of Web site addresses that would allow access to the site. 

Nonetheless, representatives of overseas citizens’ organizations continued 

to report that some citizens were not able to access the site. FVAP 

acknowledged that the site was not accessible at times prior to the 2004 

election, but said that this problem was limited to relatively small 

geographic areas and occurred because some networks employed 

independent protection mechanisms that prevented communication with 

FVAP’s system. Representatives from overseas citizens groups 

acknowledged that obtaining access to FVAP’s Web site was sometimes 

difficult, but this was caused by the Internet service provider and not by 

FVAP. They stated that they were able to get to FVAP’s Web site through 

other Web sites, such as Democrats and Republicans Abroad. 

FVAP also added more election-related links to its Web site to assist 

UOCAVA citizens in the voting process. The Web site (which FVAP 

considers one of its primary vehicles for disseminating voting information 

and materials) provides downloadable voting forms and links to all of 

FVAP’s informational materials, such as the Voting Assistance Guide, Web 

sites of federal elected officials, state election sites, and U.S. overseas 

citizens’ organizations. It also contains contact information for FVAP and 

the military departments’ voting assistance programs. The representatives 

from overseas citizens’ organizations felt that FVAP’s Web site provided 

useful and valuable information concerning absentee voting. Although 

FVAP provided more resources to UOCAVA citizens concerning absentee 

voting, it is ultimately the responsibility of the voter to be aware of and 

understand these resources, and to take the actions needed to participate 

in the absentee voting process. 

 2

http://www.fvap.gov/.

Page 7 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
For the 2004 election, FVAP increased the number of VAO training 

workshops it conducted to 164. The workshops were conducted at U.S.

embassies and military installations around the world, including 

installations where units were preparing to deploy. In contrast, only 62 

training workshops were conducted for the 2000 election. FVAP conducts 

workshops during years of federal elections to train military and civilian 

VAOs in providing voting assistance. In March 2004, FVAP added an online 

training course to its Web site as an alternative to its in-person voting 

workshops. Military VAOs can take the military version and DOS civilian 

VAOs can take the civilian version of the online course, and both are 

available on CD-ROM. According to FVAP, completion of the workshop or

the online course meets a DOD requirement that VAOs receive training 

every 2 years. Installation VAOs are responsible for monitoring completion

of training. The training gives VAOs instructions for completing voting

forms, discusses their responsibilities, and informs them about the 

resources available to conduct a successful voting assistance program. 

On October 21, 2004, just a few weeks prior to the election, FVAP issued a 

news release announcing an online version of the Federal Write-in 

Absentee Ballot, an emergency ballot accepted by all states and territories. 

UOCAVA citizens who do not receive their requested state absentee 

ballots in time to meet state deadlines for receipt of voted ballots can use

the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. The national defense authorization 

act for fiscal year 2005 amended the eligibility criteria for using the 

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot.3

 Prior to the change, a UOCAVA citizen 

had to be outside of the United States, have applied for a regular absentee 

ballot early enough to meet state election deadlines, and not have received 

the requested absentee ballot from the state. Under the new criteria, the 

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot can also be used by military 

servicemembers stationed in the United States, as well as overseas. 

However, overseas civilian citizens cannot mail the Federal Write-in 

Absentee Ballot from within the United States. 

FVAP Increased Absentee 

Voting Training 

Opportunities 

FVAP Designed an 

Electronic Absentee Ballot 

Form 

 3

Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 566 (2004). 

Page 8 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
On the basis of its 2004 postelection surveys, FVAP reported higher voter 

participation rates among UOCAVA citizens in its quadrennial report to the 

Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its 2004 voting 

assistance efforts.4

 The report included a statistical analysis of voter 

participation and discussed experiences of uniformed servicemembers, 

federal civilians overseas, nonfederally employed overseas citizens, unit 

and DOS VAOs, and local election officials during the election, as well as a

description of state-federal cooperation in carrying out the requirements 

of UOCAVA. However, the low survey response rates raise concerns about 

FVAP’s ability to project increased voter participation rates among all 

categories of UOCAVA citizens. 

FVAP’s Report of Higher 

Voter Participation Should 

Be Interpreted with 

Caution 

We reported in 2001 that some absentee ballots became disqualified for 

various reasons, including improperly completed ballot return envelopes, 

failure to provide a signature, or lack of a valid residential address in the 

local jurisdiction.5

 We recommended that FVAP develop a methodology, in

conjunction with state and local election jurisdictions, to gather nationally 

projectable data on disqualified military and overseas absentee ballots and 

reasons for their disqualification. In anticipation of gathering nationally 

projectable data, prior to the election, FVAP randomly selected 

approximately 1,000 local election officials to receive an advance copy of 

the postelection survey so they would know what information to collect 

during the election to complete the survey. The survey solicited a variety 

of information concerning the election process and absentee voting, such 

as the number of ballots issued, received, and counted, as well as reasons 

for ballot disqualification. In FVAP’s 2005 report, it cited the top two 

reasons for disqualification as ballots were received too late or were 

returned as undeliverable. 

FVAP also developed a survey for federal civilians overseas, nonfederally 

employed overseas citizens, military servicemembers, and VAOs for 

military units and DOS, which it sent after the election to elicit voting 

experiences with the absentee voting process. Table 1 displays FVAP’s 

sample size and response rates for the various survey groups.

 4

FVAP reported the following participation rate changes from the 2002 to 2004 election: 

uniformed services (69 percent to 79 percent), federal civilians overseas (65 percent to 80 

percent), and nonfederally employed overseas citizens (37 percent to 58 percent). 

5

GAO-01-1026. 

Page 9 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for FVAP’s Postelection Surveys 

Survey group Sample size Response rates (percent)

Uniformed servicemembers 15,025 27%

Federal civilians overseas 3,000 28

Unit VAOs 5,000 32

DOS VAOs 240 87

Nonfederal civilians 6,000–7,500a16

Local election officials 1,013 52

Source: GAO generated from FVAP data. 

a

Based on five DOS geographic regions with 1,200–1,500 surveys per region. The regions included 

Africa, East Asia/Pacific, Europe, Near-east/South Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. 

FVAP reported higher participation rates for all groups in the 2004 

presidential election as compared with those reported for the 2000

election. FVAP attributed the higher voting participation rates to an 

effective voter information and education program that included 

command support and agency emphasis. State progress in simplifying 

absentee voting procedures and increased interest in the election were 

also cited as reasons for increased voting participation. However, low 

survey response rates raise concerns about FVAP’s ability to project 

participation rate changes among UOCAVA citizens. While, according to 

FVAP, the 2004 postelection surveys were designed to provide national

estimates, most of the surveys experienced low response rates. Although 

FVAP did not include the sample sizes and response rates in its report, five 

of the six groups surveyed had response rates that ranged from 16 to 52 

percent; the remaining and smallest group surveyed achieved an 87 

percent response rate. FVAP did not perform any analysis comparing 

those who responded to the surveys with those who did not respond. Such 

an analysis would allow researchers to determine if those who responded 

to the surveys are different in some way from those who did not respond. 

If it is determined that there is a difference between those who responded 

and those who did not, then the results cannot be generalized across the 

entire population of potential survey participants. In addition, FVAP did no 

analysis to account for sampling error. Sampling error occurs when a 

survey is sent to a sample of a population rather than to the entire 

population. While techniques exist to measure sampling error, FVAP did 

not use these techniques in their report. The practical difficulties in 

conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors as 

well, commonly known as nonsampling errors. For example, errors can be 

introduced if (1) respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular 

question, (2) respondents have access to different information when 

Page 10 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
answering a question, or (3) those entering raw survey data make 

keypunching errors. 

FVAP also faced specific challenges in administering surveys to overseas

citizens who voted absentee. In surveying overseas citizens, only a select 

number of embassies were chosen by DOS to administer the survey to 

overseas citizens. Because of confidentiality restrictions, FVAP was unable 

to obtain a list of federal civilians and nonfederally employed civilians 

living overseas, and had to rely on the embassies to select the people who 

received the surveys. Only citizens who had previously registered with the 

embassy had a chance to participate in the survey. U.S. citizens who lived 

overseas and were not registered with the embassy had no chance of being 

selected. The absence of a listing of all civilians overseas certainly 

contributes to the possibility of error associated with using a sample of the 

population. The response rate for nonfederal civilians was the lowest 

among all groups surveyed. As such, the views and voting experiences of 

the survey participants may not reflect those of and are not generalizable

to all overseas citizens. As a result of known weaknesses in FVAP’s 

reporting methodology, its estimates and conclusions should be 

interpreted with caution. 

In 2001, we reported that implementation of the federal voting assistance 

program by DOD and DOS was uneven due to incomplete service 

guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command support. Prior to 

the 2004 presidential election, DOD and DOS implemented corrective 

actions that addressed our recommendations. However, the level of 

assistance continued to vary at the installations we visited and throughout 

the overseas civilian community. Because the VAO role is a collateral duty 

and VAOs’ understanding and interest in the voting process differ, some 

variance in voting assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to 

continue their efforts to improve absentee voting assistance.

In 2001, we reported that the services had not incorporated all of the key 

requirements of DOD Directive 1000.4 into their own voting policies, and 

that DOD exercised very little oversight of the military’s voting assistance 

programs. The report also stated that the oversight of DOS’s voting 

assistance program could be improved. These factors contributed to some 

installations not providing effective voting assistance. We recommended 

that the Secretary of Defense direct the services to revise their voting 

guidance to be in compliance with DOD’s voting requirements, and 

DOD and DOS 

Implemented Prior 

Recommendations on 

Absentee Voting; 

However, Assistance 

Continued to Vary 

The Services and DOS 

Revised Their Voting 

Guidance and Enhanced 

Program Oversight 

Page 11 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
provide for more voting program oversight through inspector general 

reviews and a lessons-learned program. 

Subsequent to DOD’s revision of Directive 1000.4, the services revised 

their guidance to reflect DOD’s voting requirements. In the 2002–03 Voting 

Action Plan, FVAP implemented a best practices program to support the 

development and sharing of best practices used among VAOs in operating

voting assistance programs. FVAP included guidance on its Web site and 

in its Voting Assistance Guide on how VAOs could identify and submit a 

best practice. Identified best practices for all the services are published on

the FVAP Web site and in the Voting Information News—FVAP’s monthly 

newsletter to VAOs. 

We also recommended that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant 

Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to take a more active role in 

overseeing the voting assistance program by establishing 

• processes for improving oversight and consistency across embassies and 

consulates, including reminding posts more frequently to use the Foreign 

Affairs Manual and related guidance for ordering supplies and to use the 

military postal system and the diplomatic pouch, and 

• initiatives to improve outreach, including identifying best practices in a

forum accessible to embassies and consulates, such as the Consular 

Affairs Web site. 

In responding to these recommendations, DOS began maintaining a global

listing of all of its VAOs and voting assistants and provided instructions to 

posts on administering their voting assistance programs. DOS revised 

chapter 7, which covers voting assistance, in its Foreign Affairs Manual 

and posted the manual, its 2004–05 Voting Action Plan, and other guidance

on its intranet Web site for access by all its embassies and consulates. 

Although the revised version of this chapter was in draft form during the 

2004 election and awaiting approval by the various DOS directorates, it 

was put on the DOS Web site in early 2004 for use by the embassies and 

consulates. The draft was approved in January 2006. 

Representatives at the embassies and consulates also conducted 

numerous outreach efforts through warden messages,6

 embassy Web sites, 

 6

A warden message is a method for communicating with American citizens, similar to a 

phone tree, and it works best in a small area. 

Page 12 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
and town hall meetings. The department’s Chief Voting Officer maintained 

contact with the various embassy VAOs and voting assistants throughout 

the year, providing information on absentee voting procedures, voter 

education and outreach campaigns, and various registration and voting

deadlines. The DOS Chief Voting Officer also received periodic updates on

the status of the embassies’ voting assistance efforts. While DOS did not 

develop a formal lessons-learned program, the Chief Voting Officer said 

that he solicited ideas and best practices from each of the embassies and 

consulates. These practices were incorporated into instructions for the 

2004 election that were distributed throughout the organization via its Web 

site and e-mail traffic. 

For the 2004 election, emphasis on voting education and awareness 

increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD and DOS. In

2001, we reported that lack of DOD command support contributed to the 

mixed success of the services’ voting programs and recommended that the 

Senior Service Voting Representatives monitor and periodically report to 

FVAP on the level of installation command support. To ensure command 

awareness and involvement in implementing the voting assistance 

program, in late 2003 the USD P&R began holding monthly meetings with 

FVAP and the Senior Service Voting Representatives and discussed the 

status of service voting assistance programs. In 2001, we also reported that

some installations and units did not appoint VAOs as required by DOD 

Directive 1000.4. In March 2004, the Secretary of Defense and Deputy 

Secretary of Defense issued memorandums to the Secretaries of the 

military departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 

Commanders of the Combatant Commands, directing them to support 

voting at all levels of command. These memorandums were issued to 

ensure that voting materials were made available to all units and that 

VAOs were assigned and available to assist voters. Also, the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff recorded a DOD-wide message regarding the 

opportunity to vote and ways in which VAOs could provide assistance. 

This message was used by FVAP in its training presentations and was 

distributed to military installations worldwide. During our review, we 

found that each service reported to DOD that it assigned VAOs at all levels 

of command. 

Voting representatives from each service utilized a variety of servicewide 

communications to disseminate voting information and stressed the 

importance of voting. For example, the Marine Corps produced a 

videotaped interview stressing the importance of voting that was 

distributed throughout the Marine Corps. The Army included absentee 

Top-level Command 

Emphasis Increased 

Page 13 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
voting information in a pop-up message that was included on every 

soldier’s e-mail account. In each service, the Voting Action Officer sent 

periodic messages to unit VAOs, reminding them of key voting dates and

areas to focus on as the election drew closer. Throughout the 

organizational structure, these VAOs contacted servicemembers through 

servicewide e-mail messages, which contained information on how to get

voting assistance and reminders of voting deadlines. According to service

voting representatives, some components put together media campaigns

that included reminders in base newspapers, billboards, and radio and 

closed circuit television programs. They also displayed posters in areas 

frequented by servicemembers (such as exchanges, fitness centers, 

commissaries, and food court areas). 

DOS’s top-level leadership also increased its emphasis on absentee voting

for the 2004 election. The department’s Senior Voting Representative 

provided an article in the September 2003 issue of FVAP’s Voting 

Information News, which was available on FVAP’s Web site. This article 

reminded overseas voters of the upcoming presidential primary election 

and the time frame for registering and requesting absentee ballots. It also 

reminded all involved that starting early in the process was key to a

successful program. Identifying and training volunteers from the civilian 

American community were also emphasized as ways to multiply the 

effectiveness of the VAO. Also discussed was the availability of the 

embassy community and its resources, meetings with local communities, 

and using local media to get the word out on absentee voting. Throughout 

the year, the Chief Voting Officer sent messages to the posts concerning 

the absentee voting process and various deadlines. DOS also used its 

embassies and consulates, various private organizations, and the local

media to disseminate FVAP voting materials and information. These 

organizations conducted various outreach efforts, including holding town 

hall meetings, sending messages from the VAO to overseas citizens 

concerning absentee voting, and holding voter registration drives. As the 

election deadline approached, the department intensified its efforts to 

assist overseas citizens in voting absentee. For example, in early October

2004, a consular general placed hundreds of Federal Write-in Absentee 

Ballots on a supply plane headed to Antarctica and sent an e-mail message

to overseas citizens there, urging them to drop off completed ballots or fill 

out emergency ballots while the plane was on the ground in that country. 

In late October 2004, one consulate sent an e-mail containing last-minute 

voting information to all Americans in the district and attempted to 

telephone those who could not be reached by e-mail. 

Page 14 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
DOS encouraged all of its VAOs and voting assistants to set a goal of 100 

percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to the official American community by 

approximately June 30, 2004. It defined this community as the U.S. citizens 

employed at the embassies, consulates, or other U.S. missions in the 

various countries for whom they had appropriate contact information. In 

addition to this goal, the Chief Voting Officer also suggested that officers 

transferring to a post should receive FPCAs as part of their post welcome 

kit or shortly after their arrival at a post. 

DOS also worked with courier services to obtain discounted or free 

delivery of requests for ballots and voted ballots. While the arrangements 

varied by country, generally the courier would allow overseas citizens, 

with proper identification, to ship ballot materials to their local election 

offices at reduced or no cost. The voter was required to go to a shipping 

office of the courier and complete the shipping paperwork, and the 

package would be mailed. 

The services and DOS revised their voting guidance, increased top-level

support, and improved program oversight. However, voting assistance to 

servicemembers and overseas citizens continued to vary. Based on our 

analysis of information from our focus groups, we determined that the 

voting assistance that servicemembers received varied from unit to unit 

for several reasons, including (1) the fact that the VAO role is a collateral

duty, (2) varying individual VAO understanding and interest in the voting

process, (3) differing levels of VAO training, and (4) the command’s 

mobilization status. Also, in discussions with DOS’s Chief Voting Officer, 

we were told that the level of DOS voting assistance varied according to 

the level of development in the country, the security climate, and the 

quality of the host country’s infrastructure. The variation in voting 

assistance provided by DOD and DOS may have caused some potential 

voters to be unaware of relevant voting tools. Given these factors, some 

variance in absentee voting assistance may always exist; however, DOD 

and DOS plan to continue efforts to improve the process. 

VAOs play a crucial role in informing citizens of the availability and 

usefulness of FVAP’s resources. Providing voting assistance is a collateral 

duty; those appointed are faced with time constraints in providing voting

assistance to military servicemembers and overseas citizens, and are 

expected to fulfill these duties in addition to their primary duties as 

warfighters and mission support staff. Furthermore, military personnel 

rotate to new assignments periodically, creating turnover in the voting

assistance program. VAOs at each installation we visited commented that 

Voting Assistance 

Continued to Vary 

Page 15 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
it was difficult to be effective because of the normal but competing 

mission requirements they had to fulfill while simultaneously performing 

their VAO responsibilities. For example, VAOs at two installations said 

their workload increased because of additional tasks that included 

responding to voting-related requirements from the head of the service,

answering surveys on whether servicemembers were being educated on

voting, and completing numerous reports on contacts with 

servicemembers. 

The level of understanding and interest shown by some VAOs toward their 

duties may have also affected the voting assistance they provided. At one 

installation we visited, VAOs said they were directed by their commanding 

officer to serve as VAOs, while at two other installations we visited, some 

VAOs said they had volunteered for the role. VAOs who volunteered 

appeared to be more interested and took the initiative to learn more about 

voting than some of the VAOs who were appointed. At one installation we 

visited, disinterest in being a VAO was evident in VAOs who thought it was 

the responsibility of the voter to get the necessary information to vote via 

absentee ballot. 

While the VAOs we spoke with were generally knowledgeable about 

DOD’s voting requirements, we found that the extent to which they were 

trained to provide voting assistance varied, as we reported in September 

2001.

7

 At four of the installations we visited, none of the VAOs we met with

had attended an FVAP workshop and VAOs at one of these installations 

said they had not received any training. A Voting Action Officer from one 

service stated that travel to a workshop location was a problem because 

there was no specific funding for VAO training. At one installation, VAOs 

cited time constraints and high turnover as reasons for not being trained 

to provide voting assistance. VAOs from another installation suggested 

that voting training should be shortened to include only the key items 

VAOs need to know to provide assistance, such as instructions for 

completing the FPCA. At one other installation, many VAOs had attended

an FVAP workshop and others had taken the online training. A VAO 

unable to attend a workshop is allowed by DOD Directive 1000.4 to take 

the online training course to meet the requirement for VAO training. Our 

review of FVAP’s online course showed that it provided an overview of 

VAO roles and responsibilities, included a section on using the Federal 

Write-in Absentee Ballot, and cited several other resources available for 

 7

GAO-01-1026. 

Page 16 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
absentee voting assistance, such as the Voting Assistance Guide, FVAP’s 

Web site, and the Voting Information News—resources that we found to 

be helpful in providing voting assistance. For example, the Voting 

Assistance Guide has a chapter titled Instructions for Voting Assistance

Officers, which provides instructions on 23 areas related to absentee 

voting. 

The extent of training had an effect on the level of voting assistance 

provided to potential voters in some locations. For example, we found one 

installation VAO who was not aware of the online Federal Write-in 

Absentee Ballot or the revised criteria for its use, and therefore was 

unable to assist other VAOs and servicemembers in using the online form. 

However, a VAO at another installation said he was aware of the ability to 

use this ballot, and his unit used as many as 125 during the 2004 

presidential election. 

At one installation, some VAOs said the online training was more useful 

than the workshop but at another installation some VAOs did not find the 

online training very helpful, commenting that it was difficult to find on 

FVAP’s Web site, was not user-friendly, or took too much time to 

complete. At another installation, VAOs commented that training 

workshops tailored to specific installations would be beneficial and would 

cause more VAOs to attend. For example, this training could include 

specific tasks related to new recruits at a training installation.

Additionally, VAOs commented that training is good only for a limited 

time. By the time a presidential election occurs, much of the training they

received earlier in the year is forgotten. 

The command’s mobilization status also affected the level of voting 

assistance provided by VAOs. Specifically, one location we visited had 

many ground units deployed or preparing to deploy during the 2004 

election and absentee voting was not a priority. Officials stated that voting

was mentioned but was not a top priority when compared with other 

deployment issues, such as preparing powers-of-attorney and wills and 

concentrating on troop movements while in theater. Conversely, we were 

told by ship-based servicemembers that they had no reason to be unaware

of absentee voting, given the enclosed boundaries of their ship, even while 

deployed. During our review, a few servicemembers who were deployed 

during the election told us that voting was mentioned at their deployed

location but there were other things going on that took priority. 

According to the DOS Chief Voting Officer, the level of voter assistance for 

overseas citizens also varied according to the level of development in the

Page 17 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
country, the security climate, and the quality of the host country’s 

infrastructure. For example, the reliability of the mail system, working 

telephones, passable road networks, and even the existence of electric 

power grids play important roles, and require VAOs to use different means 

in different places to help citizens register and vote. Also, in industrial 

locations within a country, e-mail and warden messages could be an 

effective primary means of communication, whereas in rural locations 

within the same country, the means of communication might be a person 

on foot taking information to an American citizen. According to the 

department’s Senior Voting Representative, most embassies, consulates, 

and U.S. news organizations reported extraordinary increases in the 

number of Americans abroad who registered and planned to vote in the 

2004 general election. Contributing factors to this increase appear to be 

greatly expanded voter education and outreach, the closeness of the vote

in the 2000 election, and reaction to world events over the past 4 years. 

Despite the outreach effort of DOS for the 2004 election, representatives of 

some overseas citizens’ groups we spoke with believed there was still a 

lack of adequate DOS outreach to overseas citizens, especially in 

comparison with the outreach they believe was provided to military 

servicemembers. DOS reported that it received relatively few complaints 

from Americans abroad and that most complaints were from infrequent or

first-time voters confused by the absentee voting process. Some voters 

complained that they failed to receive a ballot from their local election

officials, and a few claimed they experienced difficulties when attempting

to contact embassies or consulates by phone. DOS reported that it acted 

quickly to address each of these concerns. 

Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, we identified three challenges 

that remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel and 

overseas citizens, which are: 

• simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep absentee 

voting process, which includes different requirements and time frames for 

each state;

8

Some Challenges 

Remain in Providing 

Absentee Voting 

Assistance 

• developing and implementing a secure electronic registration and voting

system; and 

 8

This also applies to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. 

Page 18 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
• proactively reaching all overseas citizens. 

FVAP has attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by 

encouraging states to simplify the multistep process and standardize their 

absentee voting requirements. FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives program has 

encouraged states to adopt changes to improve the absentee voting 

process for military and overseas citizens. The current absentee voting 

process requires the potential voter to take the following four steps: (1) 

register and request an absentee ballot, (2) receive the ballot from the 

local election office, (3) correctly complete the ballot, and (4) return it 

(generally through the mail) in time to be counted for the election. 

Knowing when to complete the first step of this process can be 

challenging, as evidenced by an explanation given by the DOS Chief Voting 

Officer in responding to the question, “When is the deadline for 

submission of the FPCA?” The voting officer responded: 

The simplest and most truthful answer is that it all depends. Does the voter want to

participate in Presidential primary elections, state primary elections, run-off elections, 

special elections and the November general election? To answer that question, you’ll need

to ask several questions. (1) What is the voter’s state of voting residence? (2) Is the voter 

already or still registered to vote? (3) Does the voter’s state send out absentee ballots early

or late? and (4) Are remoteness or poor mail service considerations for the voter? 

Answering these questions is also a challenge for voters, given that each 

state has its own deadlines for receipt of FPCAs, and the deadline is 

different depending on whether or not the voter is already registered. For 

example, according to the Voting Assistance Guide, Montana requires a 

voter that has not previously registered to submit an FPCA at least 30 days

prior to the election. A voter who is already registered must ensure that 

the FPCA is received by the County Election Administrator by noon on the 

day before the election. For Idaho voters, the FPCA must be postmarked 

by the 25th day before the election, if they are not currently registered. If

they are registered, the County Clerk must receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. 

on the 6th day before the election. For Virginia uniformed services voters, 

the FPCA must arrive not later than 5 days before the election, whether 

already registered or not. However, overseas citizens that are not already 

registered must submit an FPCA to the General Registrar not later than 29

days before the election. Those overseas voters who are already registered

must ensure that the FPCA arrives to the General Registrar not later than 5 

days before the election. Using different deadlines for newly registered 

and previously registered voters to return their absentee ballots may have

some administrative logic and basis. For example, verifying the eligibility 

Simplifying and 

Standardizing the 

Absentee Voting Process 

Page 19 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
of a newly registered voter may take longer than that of previously 

registered voters, and if there is some question about the registration 

information provided, the early deadlines provide some time to contact the 

voter and get it corrected. 

DOD encourages potential voters to complete and mail the FPCA early, in

order to receive absentee ballots for all upcoming Federal elections during 

the year. Military and international mail and the U.S. postal service are the 

primary means for transmitting voting materials, according to

servicemembers with whom we spoke. A challenge for military service 

members in completing the FPCA is to know where they will be located 

when the ballots are mailed by the local election official. If the voter 

changes locations after submitting the FPCA and does not notify the local 

election official, the ballot will be sent to the address on the FPCA and not 

the voter’s new location. This can be further complicated by a 2002 

amendment to UOCAVA,9

 which allowed military personnel and overseas 

citizens to apply for absentee ballots for two federal elections. If 

servicemembers request ballots for the next two federal elections, they 

must project up to a 4-year period where they will be located when the 

ballots are mailed. DOD recommended that military servicemembers and 

overseas citizens complete an FPCA annually in order to maintain 

registration and to receive ballots for upcoming elections. 

After a valid FPCA has been received by the local election official, the next

step for the voter is to receive the absentee ballot. The determination of 

when the state mails its ballots sometimes depends on when the state 

holds its primary elections. FVAP has an initiative encouraging a 40–45-day 

transit time for mailing and returning absentee ballots; however, 14 states 

have yet to adopt this initiative. During our focus group discussions, some 

servicemembers commented that they either did not receive their absentee

ballot or they received it so late that they did not believe they had 

sufficient time to complete and return it in time to be counted. 

After the voter completes the ballot, the voted ballot must be returned to 

the local election official within time frames established by each state. As 

we reported in 2004, deployed military servicemembers face numerous 

problems with mail delivery, such as military postal personnel who were 

inadequately trained and initially scarce because of late deployments, as 

well as inadequate postal facilities, material-handling equipment, and 

 9

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 amended UOCAVA. 

Page 20 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
transportation assets to handle mail surge.10 In December 2004, DOD 

reported that it had taken actions to arrange for transmission of absentee 

ballot materials by Express Mail through the Military Postal Service 

Agency and the U.S. Postal Service. However, during our focus group 

discussions, servicemembers cited problems with the mail, such as it being 

a low priority when a unit is moving from one location to another; 

susceptibility of mail shipments to attack while in theater; and the absence 

of daily mail service on some military ships. For example, some 

servicemembers said that mail sat on the ships for as long as a week, 

waiting for pick up. Others stated that in the desert, mail trucks are 

sometimes destroyed during enemy attacks. The DOS Chief Voting Officer 

characterized some overseas mail systems as not functioning. To 

compensate for some of the mail delivery challenges, DOS negotiated with 

international courier companies to establish reduced rates and expedited 

service for voting materials from overseas citizens. 

In attempting to simplify and standardize the absentee voting process, 

FVAP continued working with the states, through its Legislative Initiatives 

program, to facilitate the absentee voting process for military 

servicemembers and overseas citizens. However, the majority of states 

have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP’s 2001 report to 

Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its efforts during the 

2000 election. The Legislative Initiatives program is designed to make it 

easier for military servicemembers and overseas citizens to vote by 

absentee ballot. FVAP is limited in its ability to affect state voting 

procedures because it lacks the authority to require states to take action 

on absentee voting initiatives. In the 1980s, FVAP began its Legislative 

Initiatives program with 11 initiatives, and as of December 2005 it had not

added any others. Two of the 11 initiatives—(1) accept one FPCA as an 

absentee ballot request for all elections during the calendar year and 

(2) removal of the not-earlier-than restrictions for registration and 

absentee ballot requests11—were made mandatory for all states by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002, respectively.12 According to FVAP, this action 

 10GAO, Operation Iraqi Freedom: Long-standing Problems Hampering Mail Delivery

Need to Be Resolved, GAO-04-484 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2004). 

11Not-earlier-than restriction refers to states not accepting an FPCA if it arrives before a 

specified date. 

12Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 1606 (2001) and Pub. L. No. 107-252, § 706 (2002), respectively. 

Page 21 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
was the result of state election officials working with congressional 

lawmakers to improve the absentee voting process. 

Between FVAP’s 2001 and 2005 reports to Congress and the President, the

majority of the states had not agreed to any of the remaining nine 

initiatives. Since FVAP’s 2001 report, 21 states agreed to one or more of 

the nine legislative initiatives, totaling 28 agreements. Table 2 shows the 

number of agreements with the initiatives since the 2001 report. According 

to FVAP records, one state withdrew its support for the 40–45-day ballot 

transit time initiative, and another state withdrew support for 

enfranchising citizens who had never resided in the United States. 

Initiatives with the most state support were (1) the removal of the notary 

requirement on election materials and (2) allowing the use of electronic 

transmission of election materials. We also found a disparity in the number 

of initiatives that states have adopted. For example, Iowa is the only state 

to have adopted all nine initiatives, while Vermont, American Samoa, and 

Guam have adopted only one initiative each. 

Page 22 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Table 2: Number of Agreements with FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives 

Number of states 

in agreement 

FVAP Initiatives 2001 2005 Change

1. Allow a 40–45-day transit time between the date 

the absentee ballot is mailed to the voter and the 

due date for the voted ballot to be returned 

42 41 -1

2. Remove the notary requirement on any election 

materials 

49 50 1

3. Establish late registration procedures for persons 

recently separated from the uniformed services and 

citizens returning from overseas employment

24 28 4

4. Provide for a special state write-in absentee ballot 27 27 0

5. Incorporate reference to UOCAVA into state 

election code

33 37 4

6. Allow the use of electronic transmission of election 

materials 

48 49 1

7. Expand use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot 

to include special, primary, and run-off elections, 

and allow the ballot to be used as a simultaneous 

registration application and ballot 

7 12 5

8. Provide emergency authority for absentee ballot 

handling to the state’s chief election official during 

periods of declared emergency 

11 16 5

9. Enfranchise citizens who have never resided in the 

United States or its territories

8a17 9

Total 28b

Source: GAO generated from FVAP data. 

a

Eight states agreed, but one state later withdrew support. 

b

Some states agreed to more than one initiative. 

Despite some progress by FVAP in streamlining the absentee voting 

process, absentee voting requirements and deadlines continue to vary

from state to state. While it is ultimately the responsibility of the voter to 

understand and comply with these deadlines, varying state requirements 

can cause confusion among voters and VAOs about deadlines and 

procedures for registering and voting by absentee ballot. However, the

election process within the United States is primarily the responsibility of 

the individual states and their election jurisdictions. 

Page 23 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Developing and implementing an electronic registration and voting system, 

which would likely improve the timely delivery of ballots and increase 

voter participation, has proven to be a challenging task for FVAP. Eightyseven percent of servicemembers who responded to our focus group 

survey said they were likely to vote over the Internet if security was 

guaranteed. However, FVAP has not been able to develop a system that 

would protect the security and privacy of absentee ballots cast over the 

Internet. For example, during the 2000 presidential election, FVAP 

conducted a small proof of concept Internet voting project that enabled 

only 84 voters to vote over the Internet. While the project demonstrated 

that it was possible for a limited number of voters to cast ballots online, 

FVAP’s project assessment concluded that security concerns needed to be 

addressed before expanding remote (i.e., Internet) voting to a larger 

population. In 2001, we also reported that remote Internet-based 

registration and voting are unlikely to be implemented on a large scale in

the near future because of security risks with such a system.13

For the 2004 election, FVAP developed a secure registration and voting 

experiment. However, it was not used by any voters. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed DOD to conduct an 

electronic voting experiment and gather data to make recommendations 

regarding the continued use of Internet registration and voting.

14 In 

response to this requirement, FVAP developed the Secure Electronic 

Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), an Internet-based 

registration and voting system for UOCAVA citizens. The experiment was 

to be used for the 2004 election by UOCAVA citizens from seven 

participating states,15 with the eventual goal of supporting the entire 

military population, their dependents, and overseas citizens. In January 

2004, a minority report published by four members of the Security Peer 

Review Group, a group of 10 computer election security experts FVAP 

assembled to evaluate SERVE, publicly raised concerns about the security

of the system. They suggested it be shut down due to potential security 

problems that left it vulnerable to cyber attacks. Furthermore, they

cautioned against the development of future electronic voting systems 

Developing a Secure 

Electronic Registration 

and Voting System 

 13GAO-01-1026. 

14Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 1604 (2001). 

15The seven states were Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, 

and Washington. 

Page 24 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
until the security of both the Internet and the world’s home computer 

infrastructure had been improved. Specifically, the report stated: 

The real barrier to success is not a lack of vision, skill, resources, or dedication, it is the 

fact that, given the current Internet and PC security technology, and the goal of a secure, 

all-electronic remote voting system, the FVAP has taken on an essentially impossible task. 

According to FVAP, the full peer review group did not issue a final report.

Also, because DOD did not want to call into question the integrity of votes 

that would have been cast via SERVE, they decided to shut it down prior 

to its use by any absentee voters. FVAP could not provide details on what 

it received for the approximately $26 million that it invested in SERVE. 

FVAP officials stated that they received some services from the 

contractor, but no hardware or other equipment.

In September 2004, DOD implemented the Interim Voting Assistance 

System (IVAS), an electronic ballot delivery system, as an alternative to 

the traditional mail process. Although IVAS was meant to streamline the 

voting process, its strict eligibility requirements prevented it from being 

utilized by many military or civilian voters. IVAS was open to active duty 

military members, their dependents, and DOD overseas personnel who 

were registered to vote. These citizens also had to be enrolled in the 

Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS),16 and had to 

come from a state and county participating in the project. FVAP officials 

said the system was limited to DOD members because their identities 

could be verified more easily than those of nonmilitary overseas citizens. 

Voters would obtain their ballots through IVAS by logging onto 

www.MyBallot.mil and requesting a ballot from their participating local 

election jurisdiction. One hundred and eight counties in eight states and 

one territory agreed to participate in IVAS;17 however, only 17 citizens 

downloaded their ballots from the site during the 2004 election. 

Despite low usage of the electronic initiatives and existing security 

concerns, we found that servicemembers and VAOs at the installations we 

visited strongly supported some form of electronic transmission of voting 

materials. During our focus group discussions, servicemembers stated that 

 16DEERS provides a means for quickly verifying and validating a person as eligible to 

receive military health care and other DOD benefits. 

17The nine states/territories were Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New

Mexico, South Carolina, Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin. 

Page 25 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
election materials for the 2004 presidential election were most often sent 

and received through the U.S. postal system. Servicemembers also 

commented that the implementation of a secure electronic registration 

and voting system could increase voter participation and possibly improve 

confidence among voters that their votes were received and counted. 

Additionally, servicemembers said that an electronic registration and 

voting system would improve the absentee voting process by providing an 

alternative to the mail process, particularly for those servicemembers 

deployed on a ship or in remote locations. However, at one location, some 

servicemembers were more comfortable with the paper ballot system and 

said that an electronic voting system would not work because its security 

could never be guaranteed. 

Although DOS set a goal of 100 percent in-hand delivery of an FPCA to 

overseas citizens employed with an embassy or consulate, it does not have 

the ability to reach every overseas citizen. While DOS’s Web site is 

available for overseas citizens to access, DOS does not have the ability to 

proactively reach the estimated 2 million overseas United States citizens of 

voting age. According to DOS, about 67 percent of overseas citizens live in 

about 10 countries, and the remaining 1.2 million overseas citizens are 

spread throughout the world. If these citizens do not contact the embassy 

or consulate and provide DOS with appropriate contact information, DOS

cannot proactively reach them. DOS has assigned a VAO and voting 

assistant at each of its approximately 240 embassies and consulates. 

According to the DOS Chief Voting Officer, it is impossible to know where 

all eligible overseas voters are located or to directly provide them 

information on absentee voting. Also, he stated that some overseas 

citizens could be located hundreds of miles from the embassy. Even for 

those citizens within proximity to the embassy, the heightened security 

environment could preclude easy embassy access to obtain voting 

information. DOS emphasized that it cannot and should not force people 

to vote, but it should get the forms and information to them as early as 

possible. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally agreed with 

our description of their voting assistance efforts. DOD expressed concerns 

that our information from the focus group discussions may be presented in 

a way that can be misinterpreted. In our report, we acknowledged that our 

focus group responses could not be projected across the military 

community because participants were not selected using a statistically 

valid sampling methodology. DOD also stated that Congress instructed the 

DOS Cannot Reach All 

Overseas Citizens 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 26 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
department to pursue an electronic absentee voting project upon the 

release of guidelines for electronic voting from the Election Assistance 

Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As 

required by the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2005,

DOD may delay the implementation of another electronic voting project 

until the new electronic absentee voting guidelines are issued by the 

Election Assistance Commission. At the time of our review, the Executive

Director of the Commission informed us that the Commission was waiting 

for the report from FVAP on its internet voting project prior to 

establishing the guidelines. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their 

entirety in appendix III. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOS 

also generally agreed with our report and provided a few clarifying 

comments which we incorporated into our final report as appropriate. 

First, DOS wanted us to quantify the approximate voting age population of 

overseas citizens at about 2 million. Next, DOS stated the challenge to 

reaching overseas citizens relates to citizens having no obligation to 

contact the embassies or consulates versus the geographic dispersion of 

overseas citizens. If citizens do not contact the embassy or consulate and 

provide DOS with appropriate contact information, DOS cannot 

proactively reach them. DOS’s description of the challenge further 

supports our statements that they cannot reach all overseas citizens. 

Finally, DOS said that variance in voting assistance was not a result of the 

size and location of the embassy but related to other issues such as (1) the 

level of development of the country, (2) the security climate, and (3) the 

quality of the host country’s infrastructure. They stated that the reliability 

of the mail system, working telephones, passable road networks, and even

the existence of electric power grids play far more important roles, and 

require the VAOs to use different means in different places to help citizens

register and vote. DOS’s written comments are printed in their entirety in 

appendix IV.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 

Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps; the Secretary of State; and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov or George F. Poindexter at (202) 512-

7213 or poindexterg@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix V. Contact points for our Offices of 

Page 27 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. 

Derek B. Stewart, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 28 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
List of Congressional Addressees 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Trent Lott 

Chairman 

The Honorable Christopher Dodd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Page 29 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
The Honorable Vernon Ehlers 

Chairman 

The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on House Administration

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney 

House of Representatives 

Page 30 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address our overall objectives, we reviewed relevant reports prepared 

by GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Inspectors General of each service and DOD, the 

Election Assistance Commission, and private nonprofit organizations that 

represent military and overseas citizens who participate in the election 

process via absentee voting. Specifically, to determine differences in 

FVAP’s efforts between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, we 

reviewed our 2001 report to obtain an assessment of FVAP’s efforts for the 

2000 election and compared that assessment with actions taken by FVAP 

for the 2004 election. We reviewed Section 1973ff. et seq. of Title 42,

United States Code, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

to identify specific federal responsibilities for absentee voting and 

compared these responsibilities with actions taken by the responsible 

parties. We also reviewed relevant FVAP, DOD, and DOS regulations, 

operating procedures, and reports to determine how UOCAVA 

requirements had been incorporated. This included reviewing DOD 

Directive 1000.4, Federal Voting Assistance Program; Air Force Instruction 

36-3107, Voting Assistance Program; Army Regulation 608-20, Army Voting 

Assistance Program; Operations Navy Instruction 1742.1A, Navy Voting 

Assistance Program; Marine Corps Order 1742.1A, Voter Registration 

Program; and DOS’s Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1500, Overseas Voting 

Program; which list the specific responsibilities of each of the respective 

organizations for implementing the provisions of UOCAVA. We discussed 

these requirements with representatives from each organization to 

determine actions they took in implementing them. We met with a 

commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and Voting Action 

Officers for each of the military services and the DOS’s Chief Voting 

Officer to obtain their opinions on efforts taken for the 2004 election. We

also examined projects and special initiatives undertaken by these 

organizations to address the absentee voting process. We also reviewed 

FVAP’s Voting Assistance Guide and its Web site to document the type of 

information provided to UOCAVA citizens for participating in the absentee

voting process. Also in determining FVAP’s efforts for the 2004 election, 

we met with the Deputy Director of FVAP and discussed actions they took

to facilitate absentee voting for UOCAVA citizens. We also reviewed 

FVAP’s 2005 report to Congress and the President and assessed its 

methodology for conducting its survey of voter participation among 

military and overseas citizens for the 2004 presidential election. 

To identify actions taken in response to prior GAO recommendations to 

reduce variance in program implementation, we reviewed prior GAO 

reports on absentee voting. We held discussions with officials from DOD 

and DOS to identify actions they took in responding to these 

recommendations. We reviewed updated DOD and military service voting 

Page 31 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

assistance policies and guidance and determined whether requirements 

included in DOD’s overarching guidance had been included in the services’ 

guidance. We reviewed DOS’s guidance to see whether it included 

requirements for increased program oversight and outreach to overseas 

citizens. In addition, we reviewed voting messages sent to 

embassies/consulates from DOS’s Chief Voting Officer to identify actions 

taken to assist absentee voters. We also held discussions with VAOs from

the military services to discuss their voting assistance efforts and to 

identify variance in program implementation. We also visited the Marine 

Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, to discuss actions 

taken at the service level to provide absentee voting training to new 

recruits. We held discussions with VAOs concerning whether and how 

they provided absentee voting training during recruit training and we 

reviewed the training syllabus to identify training related to absentee 

voting. 

To identify challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to 

military personnel and overseas citizens, we met with leaders of 

organizations representing members of the military and American citizens

living overseas to obtain their opinions on assistance efforts provided by 

FVAP, DOD, and DOS for the 2004 presidential election. These 

organizations included the National Defense Committee, the Federation of 

American Women’s Clubs Overseas, the Association of Americans 

Resident Overseas, and the Overseas Vote Foundation. We also reviewed 

reports produced by these organizations to gain insights on absentee 

voting assistance for the 2004 election and to identify remaining 

challenges. To obtain servicemembers’ opinions on assistance received for 

the 2004 election and to identify challenges to absentee voting, we 

conducted 19 focus group discussions, which included 173 participants 

consisting of enlisted servicemembers and officers from each service. In 

an attempt to provide an open discussion environment for participants, the 

groups were ranked according to grade; enlisted 1–4, enlisted 5–9, and 

officers. In selecting the installations to conduct the focus group 

discussions, we identified the top nine states that had the largest number 

of military servicemembers. From this list, we judgmentally selected one 

installation for each service, except for the Air Force in which we selected

two installations. One Air Force location was selected as our test site and

we used the results in our totals. Locations selected were Ft. Stewart, 

Georgia; Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 

To select focus group participants, at each site we asked the installation

VAO to send out notices requesting volunteers to participate in our focus 

group discussions. The basic criterion used in soliciting volunteers was 

Page 32 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

that they were eligible to participate in the 2004 election. Topics of 

discussion for the focus groups included the command’s view on absentee 

voting, each participant’s awareness and their opinion on the usefulness of 

FVAP’s absentee voting resources, and challenges faced by

servicemembers in voting by absentee ballot. Following each focus group 

discussion, we administered a short survey to each participant which 

solicited information related to their absentee voting experiences and 

challenges. Comments provided by the focus group members cannot be

projected across the entire military community because the participants 

were not selected using a statistically valid sampling methodology. 

We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of our report. We conducted our review from March 2005 through

April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Page 33 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix II: Related GAO Reports Appendix II: Related GAO Reports 

Election Reform: Nine States’ Experiences Implementing Federal 

Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists. 

GAO-06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006. 

Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter 

Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997. 

Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005. 

Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of 

Electronic Voting Systems Are Underway, but Key Activities Need to be 

Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005. 

Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections 

Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478. 

Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005. 

Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related 

Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 

2004. 

Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents 

Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004. 

Page 34 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Page 35 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 36 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV of State : Comments from the 

Department of State 

Page 37 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 38 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 39 GAO-06-521 Absentee Voting Assistance
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-06-521

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Derek B. Stewart (202) 512-5559 

In addition to the individual named above, George F. Poindexter; Connie 

W. Sawyer, Jr.; Margaret Holihan; Jennifer Thomas; Terry Richardson; 

Amanda Miller; Cheryl Weissman; and Julia Matta made key contributions 

to this report. 

Absentee Voting Assistance

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(350645) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER