United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Armed Services, 

United States Senate 

ELECTIONS

DOD Expands Voting 

Assistance to Military 

Absentee Voters, but 

Challenges Remain 

Statement of Derek B. Stewart, Director, 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST 

Thursday, September 28, 2006 

 

GAO-06-1134T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 28, 2006

ELECTIONS

DOD Expands Voting Assistance to 

Military Absentee Voters, but Challenges 

Remain

Highlights of GAO-06-1134T, a report to 

the Committee on Armed Services, United 

States Senate 

The narrow margin of victory in the 

2000 presidential election raised

concerns about the extent to which 

members of the military and their 

dependents 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, FVAP is 

responsible for educating and 

assisting military personnel 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. 

This testimony, which draws on 

prior GAO work, addresses three 

questions: (1) How did FVAP’s 

assistance efforts differ between 

the 2000 and 2004 presidential

elections? (2) What actions did 

DOD take in response to prior GAO 

recommendations on absentee 

voting? and (3) What challenges

remain in providing voting

assistance to military personnel? 

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

taken for the 2000 election to facilitate absentee voting by military personnel. 

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 Voting Assistance Officers (VAO). 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. 

DOD has taken actions in response to GAO’s prior recommendations regarding

voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD

revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and increase command 

emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to military

servicemembers. Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented 

corrective actions that addressed GAO’s recommendations. Specifically, the

services revised their voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the military’s 

voting assistance program, and emphasis on voting education and awareness 

increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD. However, the level

of assistance continued to vary at the installations GAO visited. 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 plans

to continue its efforts to improve absentee voting assistance. 

Despite efforts of DOD and the states, GAO’s April 2006 report identified two

major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military

personnel: (1) simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multi-step 

absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and time frames 

for each state; and (2) developing and implementing a secure electronic 

registration and voting system. FVAP attempted to make the absentee voting

process easier by using its Legislative Initiatives program to encourage states to 

simplify the multi-step process and standardize their absentee voting 

requirements. However, the majority of states have not agreed to any new 

initiatives since FVAP’s 2001 report on the 2000 election. 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. For the 2004 election, FVAP 

developed an electronic registration and voting experiment. However, it was not

used by any voters due to concerns about the security of the system. Because 

DOD did not want to call into question the integrity of votes that would have 

been cast via the system, they decided to shut the experiment down prior to its

use by any absentee voters. Some technologies—such as faxing, e-mail and the 

Internet—have been used to improve communication between local jurisdictions 

and voters.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1134T.

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. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on military 

voting and the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). As you know, 

the 2000 presidential election brought to light concerns about a number of 

issues, including absentee voting by members of the military and civilians 

living overseas. 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 whom are of voting age),

1.4 million military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of 

voting age. 

As requested, my testimony today will focus on absentee voting for 

military servicemembers. I will address (1) how FVAP’s efforts to 

facilitate absentee voting by military personnel differed between the 2000 

and 2004 presidential elections, (2) actions taken by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) in response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee 

voting, and (3) remaining challenges related to military absentee voting. 

Mr. Chairman, we should also note that we have just begun work to assess 

FVAP’s long term plans to implement and expand electronic voting. Upon

completion of this work early next year, we will report the results to 

Congress. 

In preparing for this testimony, we drew extensively from our published 

work on the election process and absentee voting for military 

servicemembers.1 We also identified recent changes to DOD voting 

guidance that discusses the electronic transmission of voting materials. 

All the work on which this testimony is based was performed in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

taken for the 2000 election to facilitate absentee voting by military 

personnel. For example, FVAP distributed more absentee voting materials 

and improved the accessibility of and added more election-related links to 

Results in Brief 

 1

 See appendix I for a list of related GAO reports.

Page 1 GAO-06-1134T 
its Web site, which includes voting information. FVAP also conducted 

more voting training workshops than it did for the 2000 election, 

conducting 164 workshops rather than the 62 workshops conducted for 

the 2000 election, and provided an online training course for Voting 

Assistance Officers (VAOs). In addition, FVAP designed an electronic 

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

accepted by all states and territories—although the ballot’s availability 

was not announced until a few weeks before the election. FVAP used data 

from its postelection surveys to assess its efforts for the 2004 election. 

FVAP reported increased voter participation rates, which it attributed 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. 

DOD has taken actions in response to our prior recommendations 

regarding voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, we recommended 

that DOD revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and 

increase command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to 

military servicemembers. In 2001, we reported that implementation of the 

federal voting assistance program by DOD was uneven due to incomplete 

service guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command support. 

Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented corrective 

actions that addressed our recommendations. Specifically, the services 

revised their voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the military’s 

voting assistance program, and emphasis on voting education and 

awareness increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD. 

However, the level of assistance continued to vary at the installations we 

visited. 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 plans to continue its efforts to improve 

absentee voting assistance. 

Despite the efforts of DOD and the states, our April 2006 report identified 

two major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military 

personnel, which are: simplifying and standardizing the absentee voting

process and developing and implementing a secure electronic registration 

and voting system. FVAP attempted to make the absentee voting process 

easier by encouraging states to simplify the multi-step process and 

standardize their absentee voting requirements. FVAP’s Legislative 

Initiatives program encouraged states to improve the absentee voting 

process for military personnel by adopting changes such as (1) removing 

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

electronic transmission of election materials. However, FVAP is limited in 

Page 2 GAO-06-1134T 
its ability to affect state voting procedures because it lacks the authority to

require states to take action on absentee voting initiatives. Developing and 

implementing a secure 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. FVAP has not 

been able to develop a system that would protect the security and privacy 

of absentee ballots cast over the Internet, despite conducting a small 

Internet voting project during the 2000 election and developing an 

electronic registration and voting experiment for the 2004 election. In both

cases, security concerns prevented expanded use of these projects. 

Communications technologies, such as faxing, e-mail, and the Internet, 

have been used to improve communication between local jurisdictions and 

voters. For example, for the 2004 election, FVAP’s Voting Assistance 

Guide showed that the states allowed some form of electronic 

transmission of certain voting materials. 

The U.S. election system is highly decentralized and based upon a complex 

interaction of people (election officials and voters), processes, and 

technology. Voters, local election jurisdictions, states,2

 and the federal 

government all play important roles in ensuring that ballots are 

successfully cast in an election. 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 voters. Each state has its own election system with a 

somewhat distinct approach. Within each of these 55 systems, the 

guidelines and procedures established for local election jurisdictions can 

be very general or specific. Even when imposing requirements, such as 

statewide voter registration systems and provisional voting on the states in

the Help America Vote Act of 2002,3

 Congress left states discretion in how 

to implement those requirements and did not require uniformity. 

Background 

 2

 Throughout this testimony, states also include the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. 

3

 Pub. L. No. 107-252, § 706 (2002). 

Page 3 GAO-06-1134T 
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 

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 designated the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness (USD P&R) as responsible for administering and overseeing 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 for distribution of absentee voting materials to military 

servicemembers. 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. The directive also states that the military services are 

to designate trained VAOs at every level of command to provide voting

education and assistance 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 civilian 

rank GS-12 or higher, or officer pay grade O-4 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. 

Page 4 GAO-06-1134T 
For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those 

taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel 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 

for its VAOs than it did for the 2000 election. FVAP also provided an 

online training course for them. 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. 

Differences in FVAP’s

Efforts Between the 

2000 and 2004 

Presidential Elections

FVAP Distributed More 

Voting Materials and 

Improved Access to Its 

Web Site 

In preparing for the 2004 election, FVAP distributed more absentee voting

materials and improved the accessibility of its Web site. 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 citizens4

—were not always available when needed. DOD officials 

stated 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. 

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.5

 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. 

 4

 This includes members of the United States military, their dependents of voting age, and 

American citizens no longer maintaining permanent residence in the United States. 

5

http://www.fvap.gov/.

Page 5 GAO-06-1134T 
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, and state election sites. It also contains 

contact information for FVAP and the military departments’ voting 

assistance programs. 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. 

For the 2004 election, FVAP increased the number of VAO training 

workshops it conducted to 164. The workshops were conducted at 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 VAOs in providing voting assistance. As an 

alternative to its in-person voting workshops, in March 2004 FVAP added

an online training course to its Web site. This course was also 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. 

FVAP Increased Absentee 

Voting Training 

Opportunities 

FVAP Designed an 

Electronic Absentee Ballot 

Form 

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

news release announcing an electronic 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.6

 Prior to the change, a UOCAVA citizen 

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

 6

Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 566 (2004). 

Page 6 GAO-06-1134T 
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. 

FVAP’s Report of Higher 

Voter Participation Should 

Be Interpreted with 

Caution 

On the basis of its 2004 postelection survey, FVAP reported higher voter 

participation rates among uniformed service members in its quadrennial

report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its 2004 voting

assistance efforts. The report included a statistical analysis of voter 

participation and discussed experiences of uniformed servicemembers 

during the election, as well as a description of state and federal 

cooperation in carrying out the requirements of UOCAVA. However, the 

low survey response rate raises concerns about FVAP’s ability to project 

increased voter participation rates among military servicemembers. 

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.7

 We recommended that FVAP develop a methodology, in

conjunction with state and local election jurisdictions, to gather nationally 

projectable data on disqualified military 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 reported higher participation rates for military servicemembers in 

the 2004 presidential election as compared with the rate reported for the 

2000 election. FVAP attributed the higher voting participation rate to an 

effective voter information and education program that included 

command support and agency emphasis. State progress in simplifying 

 7

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

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

Page 7 GAO-06-1134T 
absentee voting procedures and increased interest in the election were 

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

survey response rate raises concerns about FVAP’s ability to project 

participation rate changes among uniformed servicemembers. According 

to FVAP, while the 2004 postelection survey was designed to provide 

national estimates, the survey experienced a low response rate, 27 

percent. FVAP did not perform any analysis comparing those who 

responded to the survey with those who did not respond. Such an analysis 

would allow researchers to determine if those who responded to the 

survey 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 

answering a question, or (3) those entering raw survey data make 

keypunching errors. 

DOD has taken actions in response to our prior recommendations 

regarding voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, we recommended 

that DOD revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and 

increase command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to 

military servicemembers. In 2001, we reported that implementation of the 

federal voting assistance program by DOD was uneven due to incomplete 

service guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command support. 

Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented corrective 

actions, such as revising voting guidance and increasing emphasis on 

voting education at top command levels to address our recommendations. 

However, the level of assistance continued to vary at the installations we 

visited. 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 plans to continue its efforts to improve 

absentee voting assistance. 

Actions Taken in 

Response to Prior 

Recommendations 

Page 8 GAO-06-1134T 
The Services Revised Their 

Voting Guidance and 

Enhanced Program 

Oversight 

In response to our recommendations in 2001, the services revised their 

voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the military’s voting assistance 

program. 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. 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 

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. 

Top-level Command 

Emphasis Increased 

For the 2004 election, emphasis on voting education and awareness 

increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD. 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 memoranda were issued to ensure

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

assigned and available to assist voters. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff also recorded a DOD-wide message regarding the opportunity to vote

and ways in which VAOs could provide assistance. This message was used

Page 9 GAO-06-1134T 
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 used 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 

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). 

Despite the efforts of DOD and the states, our April 2006 report identified 

two major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military 

personnel, which are: 

• simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep 

absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and 

time frames for each state; and 

• developing and implementing a secure electronic registration and 

voting system. 

Remaining Challenges 

Related to Absentee 

Military Voting 

Simplifying and 

Standardizing the 

Absentee Voting Process 

FVAP attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by 

encouraging states through its Legislative Initiatives program, to simplify 

the multi-step process and standardize their absentee voting requirements. 

Many military personnel we spoke to after the 2000 and 2004 general 

elections expressed concerns about the varied state and local

requirements for absentee voting and the short time frame provided by 

many states and local jurisdictions for sending and returning ballots. 

FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives program encouraged states to adopt changes 

Page 10 GAO-06-1134T 
to improve the absentee voting process for military personnel. 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. 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 requests8

—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.9

 According to FVAP, this action 

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 1 shows the 

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

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

transit time initiative. 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. 

 8

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

specified date. 

9

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

Page 11 GAO-06-1134T 
Table 1: Number of Agreements with FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives 

Number of states 

in agreement 

FVAP Initiatives 2001 2005 Change

1. Allow a 40 to 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

8a 17 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. 

The absentee voting process requires the potential voter to take the 

following five steps: (1) register to vote,10 (2) request an absentee ballot,

(3) receive the ballot from the local election office, (4) correctly complete

the ballot, and (5) return it (generally through the mail) in time to be 

counted for the election. (See fig. 1.) There are several ways for military 

servicemembers to accomplish these steps. Military voters must plan 

ahead, particularly when deployed during elections. Moreover, military 

voters require more time to transmit voting materials because of distance. 

 10 In some states, registration may not be necessary to vote. 

Page 12 GAO-06-1134T 
Figure 1: Steps in the Absentee Voting Process 

Page 13 GAO-06-1134T 
Military servicemembers are encouraged to use the Federal Post Card 

Application (FPCA)11 to register to vote and to request an absentee ballot. 

Servicemembers can obtain the FPCA from several sources, including the 

unit VAO, from the Internet via FVAP’s Web site, or from their local 

election office. DOD Directive 1000.4, Federal Voting Assistance Program, 

requires the in-hand delivery of a FPCA to eligible voters and their voting 

age dependents by January 15th of each year. 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 mail 

and the U.S. postal service are the primary means for transmitting voting

materials, according to servicemembers with whom we spoke. 

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

challenging since 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 required a voter that had not previously registered to submit an 

FPCA at least 30 days prior to the election. A voter who was already 

registered had to ensure that the FPCA was received by the County 

Election Administrator by noon on the day before the election. For Idaho

voters, the FPCA had to be postmarked by the 25th day before the 

election, if they were not registered. If they were registered, the County 

Clerk had to receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. on the 6th day before the 

election. For Virginia uniformed services voters, the FPCA had to arrive 

not later than 5 days before the election, whether already registered or 

not. Using different deadlines for newly registered and previously 

registered voters to return their absentee ballots may have some 

administrative logic and basis. For example, the process of verifying the

eligibility of a newly registered voter might take longer than the process 

for previously registered voters, and if there was some question about the 

registration information provided, the early deadlines provide some time 

to contact the voter and get it corrected. 

For the November 2004 general election, according to our site survey, nine

states reported having absentee ballot deadlines for voters outside the 

United States that were more lenient than the ballot deadlines for voters 

inside the United States. Table 2 lists these nine states and the difference 

 11 In all states and territories, the FPCA serves as a valid request for registration and/or 

absentee ballot for those citizens entitled to use it regardless of whether they have 

registered prior to the submission of the FPCA. 

Page 14 GAO-06-1134T 
between the mail-in ballot deadline from inside the United States and the 

mail-in absentee ballot deadline from outside the United States. 

Table 2: States Reporting Differing Mail-in Absentee Ballot Deadlines from Inside and Outside the United States, November

2004 General Election

State 

Mail-in absentee ballot deadline from inside

the United States 

Mail-in absentee ballot deadline from outside the United 

States 

Alaska 10 days after Election Day and postmarked by 

Election Day 

15 days after Election Day and postmarked by Election Day 

Arkansas Election Day 10 days after Election Day 

Florida Election Day No later than 10 days after Election Day if postmarked or signed 

and dated by Election Day (federal races only) 

Louisiana 1 day before Election Day Election Day 

Maryland 1 day after Election Day if postmarked before 

Election Day 

10 days after Election Day and postmarked before Election Day 

Massachusetts Election Day 10 days after Election Day and postmarked by Election Day 

Ohio Election Day 10 days after Election Day 

Pennsylvania 4 days before Election Day Absentee ballot deadline extended per court order for 

November 2004 general election for not only absentee ballots 

from outside the United States but also for those voters covered 

by UOCAVA, including domestic uniformed service members, 

who are nonetheless absent from the place of residence where 

they are otherwise qualified to vote 

Texas Election Day 5 days after Election Day 

Source: GAO 2005 survey of state election officials.

Another 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,12 which allowed 

military personnel to apply for absentee ballots for the next 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 complete an FPCA annually in order to maintain 

registration and receive ballots for upcoming elections. 

 12The Help America Vote Act of 2002 amended UOCAVA. 

Page 15 GAO-06-1134T 
After a valid FPCA has been received by the local election official, the next

step for the voter is to receive the absentee ballot. Prior to mailing the 

ballot, the local election jurisdiction must process the FPCA. Based on 

one of our recent reports,

13 local election jurisdictions reported 

encountering problems in processing FPCAs. For example, 39 percent of 

the jurisdictions received the FPCA too late to process—a problem also 

encountered with other state-provided absentee ballot applications. An 

estimated 19 percent of local jurisdictions encountered the problem of 

receiving the FPCA too late to process more frequently than the other 

problems. Other reported problems with FPCAs included (1) missing or 

inadequate voting residence address, (2) applied to wrong jurisdiction, (3) 

missing or inadequate voting mailing address, (4) missing or illegible 

signature, (5) application not witnessed, attested, or notarized, and (6) 

excuse for absence did not meet state law requirements. 

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 to 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 

transportation assets to handle mail surge.14 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; 

 13GAO, Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November

2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006).

14GAO, Operation Iraqi Freedom: Long-standing Problems Hampering Mail Delivery

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

Page 16 GAO-06-1134T 
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. 

Voters must also cope with registration requirements that vary when local

jurisdictions interpret state requirements differently. We found variation 

in the counties we visited in several states as to how they implemented 

state laws and regulations, with some holding strictly to the letter of the 

law and others applying more flexibility in accepting registration 

applications and ballots. For example: 

• In Florida, officials in three counties told us they allow registration of 

applicants who have never lived in the county, while the fourth county 

said they require a specific address where the applicant actually lived. 

• In New Jersey, officials in three counties said they accepted any ballot 

that showed a signature anywhere on the envelope while the fourth 

county disqualified any ballot that did not strictly meet all technical 

requirements. 

Some local election officials in the states we visited took actions to help 

absentee voters comply with state and local voting requirements by 

tracking down missing information on the registration form or ballot 

envelope and ensuring that applications and ballots went to the right 

jurisdiction. However, local officials told us they must balance voting 

convenience with ensuring the integrity of the voting process. This 

balance often requires the exercise of judgment on the part of local 

election officials. 

Developing and implementing a secure 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. 

Eighty-seven 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 developed 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 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 

Developing and 

Implementing a 

Secure Electronic 

Registration and 

Voting System 

Page 17 GAO-06-1134T 
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.15

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.

16 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,17 with the eventual goal of supporting the entire 

military population, their dependents, and overseas citizens.

FVAP established a Security Peer Review Group, a group of 10 computer 

election security experts, to evaluate SERVE. However, in January 2004, a 

minority report published by four members of the group 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 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, after the minority group issued its report, 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

 15GAO-01-1026 

16Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 1604 (2001). 

17The seven states were Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, 

and Washington. 

Page 18 GAO-06-1134T 
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. 

Communications technologies, such as faxing, e-mail, and the Internet, can 

improve communication between local jurisdictions and voters during 

some portions of the election process. For example, FVAP’s Electronic 

Transmission Service (ETS) has been in existence since the 1990s, and is 

used by UOCAVA citizens and state and local officials to fax election 

materials when conditions do not allow for timely delivery of materials 

through the mail. For the November 2004 general election, FVAP’s Voting 

Assistance Guide showed that the states allowed some form of electronic 

transmission of the FPCA, blank absentee ballot and the voted ballot. 

However, it is important to note that of the 10,500 local government 

jurisdictions responsible for conducting elections nationwide, particular 

local jurisdictions might not offer all of the options allowed by state 

absentee ballot provisions. As shown in Table 3, for the November 2004 

presidential election, 44 states allowed the FPCA to be faxed to the local 

election jurisdiction for registration and ballot request. In each of these 

states, the completed FPCA also had to be mailed to the local election 

jurisdiction. In one state, the completed FPCA had to be mailed or 

postmarked the same day that the FPCA was faxed. A smaller number of 

states allowed the blank absentee ballot to be faxed to the voter and an 

even smaller number of states allowed the voted ballot to be sent back to

the local election jurisdiction. According to FVAP’s records, in calendar 

year 2004 ETS processed 46,614 faxes, including 38,194 FPCAs, 1,844 

blank ballots to citizens, and 879 voted ballots18 to local election officials. 

Total costs to operate ETS in 2004 were about $452,000. According to 

FVAP’s revised Voting Assistance Guide for 2006-2007, only one 

additional state allowed the faxing of the FPCA for registration and ballot

request. Table 3 also shows options allowed by each state and territory for 

electronic transmission of election materials for the November 2006 

election. Two additional states also allowed the faxing of the blank ballot. 

 18 Voters sacrifice privacy for timeliness when they return completed ballots by fax. 

Page 19 GAO-06-1134T 
Table 3: Options allowed by States and Territories for Electronic Transmission of

Election Materials for the November 2004 and November 2006 Elections

November 2004 November 2006 Number of states that allowed faxing

of: Yes No Yes No

FPCA for registering 44 11 45 10

FPCA for ballot request 49 6 50 5

Blank ballot 31 24 33 22

Voted ballot 23 32 23 32

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 voters. IVAS was open to active duty 

servicemembers, 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,19 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;20 however, only 17 citizens 

downloaded their ballots from the site during the 2004 election. According 

to FVAP, many states did not participate in IVAS for a variety of reasons 

including state legislative restrictions, workload surrounding regular 

election responsibilities and additional Help America Vote Act 

requirements, lack of technical capability, election procedural 

requirements and barriers, and unavailability of Internet access. 

Despite low usage of the electronic initiatives and existing security 

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

 19The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System provides a means for quickly 

verifying and validating a person as eligible to receive military health care and other DOD 

benefits. 

20The nine states and territories were Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, 

New Mexico, South Carolina, Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin.

Page 20 GAO-06-1134T 
visited strongly supported some form of electronic transmission of voting 

materials. During our focus group discussions, servicemembers stated that 

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. 

The federal government, states, and local election jurisdictions have a

shared responsibility to help increase military voters’ awareness of 

absentee voting procedures and make the process easier while protecting

its integrity. The election process within the United States is primarily the 

responsibility of the individual states and their election jurisdictions. 

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. The ability to 

transmit and receive voting materials electronically provides military 

servicemembers another option to submit a ballot in time to participate in

an election. Although state law may allow electronic transmission of 

voting materials, including voted ballots, the 10,500 local election 

jurisdictions must be willing and equipped to accommodate this 

technology. The integration of people, processes and technology are very 

important to the United States’ election system. 

Concluding 

Observations 

 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have at

this time. 

Page 21 GAO-06-1134T 
Page 22 GAO-06-1134T 

Appendix I: Related GAO Reports 

Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the 

November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 

2006 

Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens

Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-

521. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.

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. 

Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should 

Be Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001. 

Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election 

Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001. 
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. 
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