Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel,

Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m., EDT

Wednesday, May 9, 2001 ELECTIONS

Issues Affecting Military

and Overseas Absentee

Voters

Statement of David M. Walker,

Comptroller General of the United States

GAO-01-704T
Page 1 GAO-01-704T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the status and results to date of

our ongoing work for this Committee on military and overseas citizens’

absentee voting. This effort is part of a broad body of work we are doing

to help Congress assess the need for changes in the procedures and

equipment used to administer federal elections. As you know, the 2000

presidential election brought to light concerns about a number of issues,

including the reliability of voting machines, training of polling place

workers, and the extent to which local jurisdictions accepted votes from

members of the military and civilians living overseas. As requested by the

Committee, we are reviewing programs and policies in place to assist

military and overseas citizens in voting. Our work includes site visits and

interviews at state and county government offices, military installations in

the U.S. and overseas, and U.S. embassies and consulates. We plan to

summarize the results of this work in a report to the House and Senate

Armed Services Committees in September 2001. That report will contain a

more detailed description of our work, along with our conclusions and any

appropriate recommendations.

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986

requires states to permit military personnel and their dependents as well

as overseas citizens to vote absentee in federal elections. The act covers

about 6.1 million citizens, including 2.7 million military members and their

dependents at home and abroad and roughly 3.4 million citizens who

reside overseas. The act also recommends that states adopt a number of

provisions that facilitate absentee voting by these populations. The

Secretary of Defense is the presidential designee with primary

responsibility for educating and assisting voters covered by the act and for

working with states to facilitate absentee voting. Voter education and

assistance efforts for military personnel are largely implemented by the

military services; the State Department assists overseas citizens and

federal employees assigned to embassies and consulates.

My testimony today will address our preliminary observations on (1) the

extent and quality of voter assistance for uniformed and overseas citizens,

(2) challenges to these voters posed by state and local requirements, and

(3) the extent of and reasons for disqualification of ballots cast by these

voters.

Information about the military services is based on questionnaires and

discussion groups held with 970 officer and enlisted active duty

servicemembers, 284 DOD civilians and dependents of active duty

Methodology
Page 2 GAO-01-704T

personnel, and 154 Voting Assistance Officers at 36 military installations

and on ships around the world. We judgmentally selected installations

from all services and in six countries (Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea,

Turkey, and the United Kingdom). We asked installation officials to

provide discussion group participants who met certain criteria such as

being eligible to vote and deployed overseas during the 2000 election. We

conducted our work jointly with DOD’s Office of the Inspector General,

which was requested by the former Secretary of Defense to review DOD’s

voting assistance program. Information about the State Department and

civilian overseas citizens was derived from similar questionnaires and

discussion groups held with federal employees and private citizens in six

countries (France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom)

and 98 responses from a cable inquiry sent to the remaining 210 embassies

and consulates around the world. We worked jointly with the State

Department’s Office of the Inspector General to collect this information.

While we attempted to contact a cross section of potential voters from all

the military services and citizens living overseas, their comments cannot

be projected to represent anyone beyond those people with whom we

spoke. Further, we visited 4 states—California, Florida, New Jersey, and

Texas—and 16 counties within those states to obtain information on state

and local procedures; this information cannot be projected beyond those

locations. We selected California, Florida, and Texas because they have

the largest numbers of potential military voters and chose New Jersey as

an example of a state that has a smaller potential pool of military voters.

Finally, our telephone survey of 179 local election offices, used to collect

data on disqualified ballots, is ongoing.

The extent and quality of federal voter assistance for military personnel

and overseas citizens varied considerably for the November 2000 general

election. To its credit, the Department of Defense (DOD) has developed

some useful information tools but many overseas military personnel we

spoke to were unaware of them. Moreover, the military services did not

always comply with DOD requirements to appoint and train Voting

Assistance Officers (who are assigned this role in addition to their primary

duties), brief military personnel on how to go about voting, or maintain

sufficient supplies of voting materials, according to military voters in

discussion groups we held at 36 installations around the world. Lack of

emphasis by commanders and limited oversight by service Inspectors

General and installation commanders appear to be the chief reasons why

some military installations did not fully comply with DOD guidance on

how voting assistance programs should be carried out. Finally, the State

Department provided citizens abroad with a variety of useful information,

Summary
Page 3 GAO-01-704T

according to overseas citizens and federal employees we spoke to,

although more outreach could be beneficial.

Many states have worked with DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program

to implement some of the program’s legislative initiatives that make it

easier for military personnel and overseas citizens to register, obtain

ballots, and vote; however, voters continue to face some challenges. Many

military and overseas voters we spoke to expressed concerns about (1)

varied state and local requirements for absentee voting, (2) the lack of

feedback from local jurisdictions about the status of their applications for

registration or ballots, and (3) the short time frame provided by many

states and local jurisdictions for sending and returning ballots. Remedies

such as extending deadlines for receiving ballots beyond election day—as

is the case in 14 states and the District of Columbia—have led to

requirements, such as postmarks on ballots to ensure that ballots were

cast overseas and on time, which further complicate the process. Many

states are examining the need for changes to their election processes,

including requirements for absentee voting, as a result of issues raised

during the 2000 election. Continued efforts by DOD officials to work with

the states to simplify their procedures, modify their election schedules, or

allow more use of technology such as faxing and the Internet to speed

some portions of the voting process may help alleviate the challenges.

However, security and privacy issues pose challenges to widespread use of

the Internet for casting votes, at least in the near term, according to some

DOD and state officials.1

 Moreover, state and local officials told us they

must balance ease of voting with protecting the integrity of the voting

process.

Information on the precise number of military and overseas absentee votes

that local jurisdictions disqualified nationwide in the November 2000

election and the reasons for disqualification is not available. Many local

officials we spoke to told us they did not track data on these specific

groups of absentee voters and could not readily provide the data. While

the available data on absentee voting is spotty, the preliminary results of

our survey of 179 local election jurisdictions show the most common

reasons ballots were disqualified are (1) the ballot arrived after the

established deadline and (2) the envelope or form accompanying the ballot

was not completed properly. In the two states we visited where extended

 1

 We are reviewing technology issues as part of our ongoing work on election issues for the

Senate leadership.
Page 4 GAO-01-704T

deadlines could make postmarking an issue (Florida and Texas), data on

ballots disqualified due to postmarking was incomplete. Our limited

review of military postmarking procedures after the election did not

indicate that missing postmarks represented a systemic problem.

Voters, local election jurisdictions, states, and the federal government all

play important roles in ensuring that ballots are successfully cast in an

election. All military servicemembers and U.S. citizens living overseas who

vote absentee face a multi-step process to comply with state and local

voting requirements (See fig. 1). They must register and request absentee

ballots, cast their ballots in accordance with administrative requirements

(such as providing a signature or having the ballot appropriately

witnessed), and send them in time to meet state deadlines. Military voters

must plan ahead, particularly when deployed during elections. Moreover,

military and overseas voters require more time to transmit voting materials

because of distance.

Figure 1: Steps in the Absentee Voting Process

Source: GAO.

Background

Register

to vote

Request

absentee 

ballot

Receive ballot

from local voting

jurisdiction

Fill out and

return absentee

ballot

Meet state &

local election

requirements

Ballot

box

Federal Voting Assistance Program

Ballot
Page 5 GAO-01-704T

The constitutional framework for elections contemplates both state and

federal roles. States are responsible for administering state and federal

elections and incur the costs associated with these activities.2

 However,

Congress has authority to affect the administration of elections in certain

ways. Congress’ authority to regulate congressional elections is derived

from the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which courts have held

grants Congress broad authority to override state regulations in this area.3

Congressional authority in presidential elections is more limited in the text

of the Constitution.4

 However, although case law is sparse, the courts have

upheld statutory provisions regulating presidential elections that go

beyond the specific provisions in the Constitution, which only refer to the

timing for choosing the electors.

Congress has passed legislation relating to federal elections, pursuant to

its various constitutional powers. An example of such legislation is the

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, which

protects the rights of (1) uniformed servicemembers and all other voters

living overseas and (2) uniformed servicemembers and their dependents

within the United States but living out of their voting jurisdiction to vote

by absentee ballot in federal elections.5

 Under the act, states must process

valid voter registration applications received 30 days or more before the

election. In addition, states must accept Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots

for federal elections in the event state ballots are not received, provided

the voter is registered, the state ballot application is timely, and the federal

ballot is submitted from overseas. State law, in general, governs the

processing and acceptance of all absentee ballots submitted under the act.

Further, the act contains a number of recommendations to the states to

facilitate voting by citizens covered by the act, including the acceptance of

a Federal Post Card Application to simultaneously register and request

absentee ballots. Finally, the Attorney General is given the authority to

bring civil actions in federal court to enforce the act.

The Secretary of Defense implements his responsibilities as the

presidential designee under the act through the Federal Voting Assistance

 2 Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Admininistration

(GAO-01-470, March, 13 2001).

3

 Article I, Section 4, Clause 1.

4

 Article II, Section 1, Clause 4.

5

 42 USC 1973ff-1973ff-6.
Page 6 GAO-01-704T

Program, located in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s

Administration and Management Office. With a fiscal year 2001 budget of

$5.1 million and a staff of 13, the program’s mission is to inform U.S.

citizens worldwide about their right to vote, foster voting participation,

and work with states to simplify the registration and absentee voting

process. The Federal Voting Assistance Program coordinates with DOD

components and the State Department to provide information to military

personnel who vote absentee and to U.S. citizens who reside abroad.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program provides a number of useful

information resources to voters and Voting Assistance Officers, but these

resources are not highly utilized. While some military installations we

visited generally met DOD’s goal of providing information and assistance

to voters, some installations did not meet DOD and service requirements

because they did not provide sufficient numbers of Voting Assistance

Officers, voting materials, and voter training. This variability in executing

the program is due to a lack of command emphasis at some installations

and lack of program oversight by some of the DOD components. American

citizens overseas generally viewed the State Department’s Voting

Assistance Program as providing useful assistance but believed that

dissemination of information on the right to vote and voting assistance

resources could be improved.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program publishes a variety of useful

information tools to inform voters worldwide about voting rights, but

many of the overseas servicemembers we spoke to were unaware of them.

Specifically, the program has developed (1) a Voting Assistance Guide

containing state voting requirements, (2) a web site with voting

information and links to state web sites, and (3) toll-free phone numbers

to call for voting information. Over 80 percent of the Voting Assistance

Officers we spoke with found both the voting assistance guide and Web

site useful. However, for the 970 servicemembers we spoke to, we found

• about 40 percent were unaware of the guide,

• approximately 50 percent were unaware of the web site, and

• about 74 percent were unaware of the toll-free phone number.

We also found that a toll-free number published widely on promotional

posters can only be used in the United States. Moreover, on ships and

submarines, phone lines are limited, and sailors are charged $1 per minute

even for toll-free calls.

Extent and Quality of

Programs to Assist

Military and Overseas

Voters Varied

Federal Voting Assistance

Program Is an

Underutilized Source of

Information
Page 7 GAO-01-704T

Despite a DOD directive requiring them, some installations we visited had

no installation Voting Assistance Officers, who coordinate the voting

assistance program of all units and commands located at military

installations. Also, Unit Voting Assistance Officers who assist individual

voters, were not always appointed or, in some cases, appeared to be

spread too thin. DOD’s directive states that Voting Assistance Officers

should be appointed at all levels of command and be readily available and

equipped to give personal assistance to voters for all elections. However,

military personnel are expected to fulfill these duties in addition to

carrying out their primary roles as warfighters and mission support staff.

Service requirements on how many voters a Unit Voting Assistance Officer

is responsible for varies. The Air Force requires one such officer for as

many as 20 voters, the Army requires one at the company level (as many as

190 voters), and the Marine Corps requires one at each battalion (about

900 voters). The Navy has not established specific requirements. About 30

percent of the overseas Voting Assistance Officers we spoke to were

assigned to provide assistance to 250 or more people. Slightly over onethird of the servicemembers we spoke with told us they did not know who

their Voting Assistance Officer was.

In addition, we found that many Voting Assistance Officers were not aware

of basic DOD or service requirements. DOD requires that Voting

Assistance Officers be trained, but neither DOD nor the services specify

the mode of that training. Around 85 percent of 154 Voting Assistance

Officers we spoke to told us they were self-taught; only 48 of those we

spoke to had participated in one of the 70 training workshops sponsored

by the Federal Voting Assistance Program. According to the program’s

director, the number of workshops offered was limited primarily by the

availability of program staff. At several locations we visited, Voting

Assistance Officers did not know of the DOD requirement to personally

deliver a Federal Post Card Application to each overseas servicemember

by August 15 or the need to provide training to servicemembers on the

absentee voting process. Additionally, we found unit Voting Assistance

Officers who were unaware of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot and

when to use it. Furthermore, at a number of installations we also found

that unit Voting Assistance Officers did not know about service-specific

voting assistance program requirements and implementing instructions,

leaving them unprepared to meet the needs of potential voters.

We also found that voting supplies such as Federal Post Card Applications

and Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots were not always provided in

sufficient quantities at some installations. DOD recommends that four

Federal Post Card Applications and one Federal Write In Absentee Ballot

Extent and Quality of

Service Voting Education

and Assistance Efforts

Varied
Page 8 GAO-01-704T

be available for every servicemember and eligible family member.

However, one Voting Assistance Officer told us that his ship deployed

without Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots, and another Unit Voting

Assistance Officer also told us that she was only able to obtain 20 such

ballots for her unit of 2,000 people.

DOD requires that all servicemembers receive at least one briefing on the

absentee voting process in years with a federal election. However, 60

percent of the 970 servicemembers we spoke to said they had not received

a briefing. During several small group discussions, we met with

servicemembers who were unfamiliar with the Federal Post Card

Application and found a significant number of servicemembers who had

no knowledge of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. During these

discussions, both officers and enlisted servicemembers told us they

believed that training would improve their ability to request, obtain, and

complete absentee ballots.

Installation and organization commanders’ varying emphasis on the

program contributed to the mixed success of the services’ voting

assistance efforts. More than 40 percent of the 970 active duty

servicemembers we spoke with believed that not enough emphasis was

placed on voting during the last election. While some commanders, such

as the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Forces Korea, placed a great deal of

emphasis on the voting program by showing support in public service

announcements and developing a theater-wide voting action plan, others

clearly placed little emphasis on the program. For example, one

commander described the voting program as another administrative

burden on officers who have more important things to do. Although

command emphasis is essential for a successful voting program, DOD’s

directive contains prohibitions against ordering servicemembers to vote.

There is very little oversight or evaluation of the military’s voting

assistance programs. Although the DOD directive states that voting

programs are to be inspected by the service Inspectors General, only the

Air Force and the Marine Corps are conducting these inspections;

however, their comprehensiveness varies. In addition to inspections by

service Inspectors General, DOD’s directive also requires commands to

evaluate their voting programs. The Army and the Air Force have included

this requirement for evaluation in their voting guidance, but not all of the

installations we visited had conducted these evaluations. Navy and Marine

Corps guidance is silent on the need for program evaluation.
Page 9 GAO-01-704T

In discussions with federal employees and U.S. citizens living abroad, we

found that most had not encountered problems receiving assistance at the

embassy or consulate and that some government employees and citizens

praised their embassies and consulates’ voting efforts. However, some

overseas citizens told us that the quality of voting assistance at an embassy

or consulate varied depending on who was providing assistance and that

some citizens do not have the same level of exposure to government

resources.

Citizens may receive voting assistance from consular officers, student

interns, and Foreign Service Nationals6

 who may not have received much,

if any, formal training on absentee voting. State Department guidance

requires that Voting Assistance Officers familiarize themselves with DOD’s

Voting Assistance Guide, but does not require that they receive formal

training. Twenty-two posts specifically requested that more training be

provided in the future.

Many of the citizens who reported positively on embassy and consulate

voting assistance had voted absentee two or more times (80%) in the past

and were aware of the Federal Voting Assistance Guide (75%), so their

level of exposure to government resources may be greater than that of

newcomers to absentee voting and of U.S. citizens who have limited

contact with an embassy. In group discussions with private U.S. citizens,

we were told about citizens who were unaware of the Federal Write-in

Absentee Ballot or that they could use the post office at the embassy to

mail their voting material. Thirty-three posts said that many citizens

seeking assistance were unable to vote because they did not understand

the requirements for absentee voting, including deadlines for registering to

vote and requesting a ballot. Some thought they could vote at the embassy

or consulate on election day. Overseas citizens that live at some distance

from embassies and consulates may also have been less exposed to voting

information and faced additional challenges. For example, citizens eligible

to vote in the five states7

 requiring that registration forms or voting

materials be notarized must either travel to a consulate or pay a private

notary, which we were told can cost several hundred dollars or more.

 6

 Foreign Service Nationals are non-U.S. citizens directly hired by embassies and

consulates.

7

 Alabama, Delaware, Michigan, Mississippi, and Vermont.

State Department Provides

Useful Voting Assistance

but More Outreach Would

Be Beneficial
Page 10 GAO-01-704T

Many embassies and consulates said better dissemination of information

on the right to vote and the overseas absentee voting process could

alleviate some of the problems voters encounter. For example, some

private U.S. citizens suggested that the U.S. government could increase

outreach by funding public service announcements in print and televised

media widely available to Americans who reside overseas. Thirty-two

posts suggested that the federal government make greater use of the

Internet, print and televised media, and consular outreach such as email

lists and staff trips around the district to provide voting information.

However, some Voting Assistance Officers told us limited consular

resources constrained the extent to which they could expand these and

other voter outreach efforts.

Although many states have worked with the Federal Voting Assistance

Program to make it easier for military and overseas citizens to vote

absentee, voters continue to face some challenges in discerning the

specific requirements that apply to them, meeting tight time frames that

leave little room for error or delay, and obtaining feedback on the status of

their applications. Continued efforts by DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance

Program to work with states to simplify their procedures, modify their

election schedules, and expand use of the Internet and electronic mail may

help to ease time pressures and enhance communications with voters,

particularly for registration and requesting ballots. However, DOD, state,

and local election officials view security and privacy concerns as obstacles

to widespread use of the Internet to cast ballots in the near future.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has encouraged states to adopt 11

legislative initiatives—such as eliminating notarization requirements—

designed to facilitate voting for military and overseas citizens. Many states

have implemented some of these proposals. For example, only five states

require that registration forms or voting materials be notarized. Also, 45

states allow overseas and military voters to register and apply for absentee

ballots in one step for both primary and general elections in a calendar

year, according to Federal Voting Assistance Program data. Federal Voting

Assistance Program officials have continued to work with states to

identify ways to make the absentee voting process easier. For example,

following the November 2000 election, the program’s director wrote to

state election directors suggesting legislative provisions their states could

adopt to make the absentee voting process easier. Moreover, as a result of

issues identified during November 2000 election, many states are

examining the need for changes to their requirements.

States Have Taken

Steps to Facilitate

Military and Overseas

Absentee Voting, but

Some Challenges

Remain

States Have Taken Some

Steps to Simplify Absentee

Voting Process
Page 11 GAO-01-704T

Some military and overseas voters and Voting Assistance Officers told us

that varying state and county requirements resulted in confusion about

registration and residency and about the deadlines for registering,

requesting a ballot, and returning the voted ballot. Figure 2 shows the

variation in states’ deadlines for registration. States also have different

deadlines for receiving overseas ballots. As shown in figure 3, these

deadlines range from the day before the election to 15 days after the

election.8

 The extensions are necessary in some states to ensure that

military and overseas absentee voters have at least 30 days between the

time ballots are mailed and the deadline for receipt of voted ballots.

Figure 2: States’ Absentee Registration Deadlines for Overseas Voters

Note: Numbers include District of Columbia. Four states waive registration for military voters only.

Two states have earlier registration deadlines for overseas civilians.

Source: GAO legal analysis

 8

 For the 2000 election, Alaska, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Washington, and

West Virginia had extended ballot deadlines for overseas absentee voters.

Voters Must Understand

and Comply with Varying

Requirements

Number of states

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Registration

not required

21-30 

days prior 

to election

11-20

days prior 

to election

0-10

days prior 

to election

12

3

21

15
Page 12 GAO-01-704T

Figure 3: States’ Absentee Ballot Deadlines for Overseas Voters

Note: Numbers include District of Columbia.

Source: GAO legal analysis

Many military personnel and overseas citizens we spoke to believe a

standardized registration and absentee balloting system for all the states

would make the voting process much easier. Some state and county

officials agreed that greater standardization would make voting easier for

military and overseas voters, although they noted that standardized

election systems might require new legislation in states. However,

obtaining political support for changes may be difficult because state

legislators may have differing views on how to best balance competing

objectives, such as promoting voter participation and ensuring the

integrity of the voting process.

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 California, Florida, New Jersey, and Texas 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,

Number of states

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Due

before 

election

Due on

election

day

Due

after

electiona

4

32

15
Page 13 GAO-01-704T

• 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, including military and overseas 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 jurisdictions. 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.

Military and overseas voters face tight timeframes to accomplish multiple

tasks required to vote. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, local

election officials, and military and overseas voters we spoke to agreed that

30 days is the minimum needed to allow a ballot to reach an overseas voter

and be returned to a local jurisdiction.9

 The Federal Voting Assistance

Program recommends a 45-day interval between mailing ballots to voters

and the deadline for receipt of voted ballots, but late primaries, runoffs,

and local issues are often not resolved in time to allow for a 45-day

turnaround time.10 Our fieldwork showed that 11 of the 16 counties we

visited mailed final ballots in time to provide 30 days or more for receipt of

the voted ballot. Moreover, only 5 of these counties mailed final ballots to

allow 45 days between mailing the ballot and the election. Because of the

tight timeframes, Florida and California mailed advance ballots to

absentee voters about 45 to 60 days before the election to ensure adequate

time to return the voted ballot. However, these ballots represented draft

ballots based on information available at the time and did not reflect the

 9

 There is no such specific requirement in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee

Voting Act.

10According to the Federal Voting Assistance Program, since 1976, the Justice Department

has taken legal action in 39 cases under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee

Voting Act and its predecessor (The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975) to ensure

that states and local jurisdictions provide absentee voters sufficient time to receive and

return their ballots.

Voters and Election

Officials Frustrated by

Tight Timeframes
Page 14 GAO-01-704T

final certified slate of candidates and issues. Receipt of advance ballots in

addition to the regular ballot confused some voters we spoke to.

Some states whose primary election schedules do not allow ballots to be

available 30 days before the election extend the deadline for overseas

voters. For example, two of the four states we visited—Florida and

Texas—allow 10 days and 5 days after election day, respectively, for

receiving overseas ballots. While such provisions give more time to

absentee voters, they have also led to administrative requirements, such as

postmarking, to show that ballots are mailed from overseas and on or

before election day. Both state officials and citizens groups we spoke with

agreed that these administrative requirements further complicate the

election process. Some said that it would be best if states and local

jurisdictions would send out ballots at least 30 days prior to the election

and have all ballots due on election day.

While local election officials and absentee voters face time constraints in

executing their parts of the election process, the one area that neither can

control is the transport of the ballot materials and voted ballots through

the mail. Although some military voters voiced concern about postal

systems, our limited review of the military postal system did not identify

systemic problems with the timeliness of mail delivery. Overseas voters

who do not have access to the military postal system may have faced other

problems such as longer transit times and unreliable mail service. For

example, international mail generally takes longer to deliver, particularly

to remote locations, than mail within the United States. Moreover, while

some private mail carriers such as DHL, Inc. transported ballots to the

United States free of charge by air from some overseas locations, not all

overseas citizens had access to such services. Further, even though they

originated from overseas, such ballots were not postmarked until they

arrived in the United States, raising the potential for local jurisdictions in

states with an extended deadline to disqualify them because they lacked

an overseas postmark or bore a postmark dated after election day.

Some military and overseas voters we spoke to also voiced their

frustration about not knowing whether their applications for registration

or ballots had been approved and when they could expect a ballot.

Practices on providing such feedback varied at the 16 counties we visited.

Some said they notified voters using the return post card on the Federal

Post Card Application or other notification; some notified applicants only

if there was a problem with the application; and some considered mailing

the ballot as confirmation that the application was accepted. County

officials told us that they did not always have time to respond to voters

Lack of Feedback on

Status of Registration and

Ballot Requests Caused

Frustration
Page 15 GAO-01-704T

whose applications they received close to the deadline, even if there was a

problem.

State and local election officials in the states we visited often used

technology such as faxing and e-mail to alleviate time problems and

improve communications with voters. However, they pointed out the need

for security in the registration and voting process. During the 2000

election, 41 states allowed voters to fax some election materials—such as

ballot requests—while 9 states did not allow any faxing. Moreover, the

Federal Voting Assistance Program conducted a pilot program on Internet

voting in the 2000 general election, working with 4 states (Florida, South

Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and 84 military voters in 12 countries. While

the pilot program demonstrated that it is possible for military voters to

cast ballots on line using digital signatures, security and privacy are issues

in significantly expanding the program in the near term, according to the

Federal Voting Assistance Program’s Director and state officials who

participated in the project.

Technology may be used to increase communication between local

jurisdictions and voters and alleviate some of the timing problems without

creating undue security risks, however. For example, the states we visited

have made their registration applications available on the Internet, and the

Federal Voting Assistance Program’s web site has an electronic version of

the Federal Post Card Application. E-mail is also a way that counties can

correspond with voters, for example, reminding them of upcoming

elections and providing sample ballots before actual ballots are printed.

However, the Federal Post Card Application does not include a space for

voters to provide an e-mail address.

Increased Use of

Technology May Improve

Communication with

Voters and Alleviate Some

Time Concerns, but

Security Is an Issue
Page 16 GAO-01-704T

Information is not available on the precise number of military and

overseas absentee ballots that were cast nationwide in the November 2000

election, the number that were disqualified, and the reasons they were

disqualified.11 While some local election officials we have spoken to so far

in our telephone survey could provide this data, others said they did not

track data on these specific groups of absentee voters and could not

readily provide the data. Local election officials we have spoken with told

us the most common reasons for disqualifying absentee ballots are (1) the

ballot arrived after the deadline and (2) the envelope or form

accompanying the ballot was not completed properly.

During our visits to the 16 counties, local election officials provided

examples of various reasons absentee ballots had been disqualified during

the November 2000 election:

• Based on data provided by the counties we visited, the largest numbers

of ballots were disqualified because they arrived after the states’

specified deadlines.

• Technical problems with the information provided on the ballot

envelope were also cited as common reasons that ballots were

disqualified in counties in all four states we visited. For example, we

found instances where counties rejected ballots that lacked the voter’s

signature or the signature did not match the signature on the

application.

• Lack of witnesses was cited as a reason for disqualified ballots in

counties we visited in Florida. California, New Jersey, and Texas do not

have a witness requirement.

• Some ballots were disqualified because voters were not properly

registered in the county that received the ballot or had not requested an

absentee ballot. For example, one county official noted that some

military and overseas voters sent in Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots

without requesting a regular ballot. States are only required to accept

 11 We use the term disqualified ballot to mean those ballots that were not accepted for

counting because they arrived after states’ deadlines or did not meet other administrative

requirements (such as requirements for a signature or witness). We did not obtain

information on ballots that may have been disqualified due to problems discerning voter

intent such as failure to mark a candidate preference or selection of two candidates for the

same office.

Precise Information

on Disqualified

Absentee Ballots Is

Not Available

Nationwide
Page 17 GAO-01-704T

these write-in ballots for voters who requested an absentee ballot 30

days before the election and met other conditions.

While late ballots were a problem in the four states we visited,

postmarking could be a consideration in two states—Florida and Texas—

that had extended deadlines. A limited DOD survey of postmarking

systems and spot-checks we conducted at six overseas locations—both of

which occurred after the election—showed that few pieces of first-class

military mail lacked postmarks.12 Officials in the four Texas counties we

visited did not view postmarking as a major reason why votes were

disqualified but could not provide detailed information on how many

ballots were disqualified for this or other reasons. However, in two of the

four Florida counties we visited, we saw some examples of illegible

postmarks and some postmarks dated after November 7 that served to

disqualify votes. In a few cases, ballots came from overseas voters through

means such as diplomatic pouch or private carrier and were postmarked

after election day. Because these ballots had a domestic postmark, some

were disqualified for lacking evidence of coming from overseas. However,

one county told us they accepted these ballots if they could determine that

the ballot originated from an overseas voter, was in all likelihood mailed

on or before November 7, and arrived before the deadline for overseas

ballots.

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

shared responsibility to help increase military and overseas voters’

awareness of absentee voting procedures and make the process easier

while protecting its integrity. Opportunities exist for DOD to improve the

extent to which military personnel and overseas citizens are aware of

voting information tools developed by the Federal Voting Assistance

Program and to enhance the amount and quality of voter assistance

provided by the services. Specifically, DOD could substantially improve

voting assistance by ensuring that the services widely disseminate voting

information and voting forms and comply with DOD requirements to (1)

appoint and train Voting Assistance Officers, and (2) evaluate voting

assistance programs. Similarly, opportunities exist for DOD’s Federal

Voting Assistance Program to continue to work with states and local

jurisdictions to reduce the potential for military and overseas voters to

 12 We conducted these checks at Ramstein Airbase, Baumholder Military Community,

Mannheim Military Community in Germany; Incirlik Air Base in Turkey; the U.S. Embassy

in Paris, France, and the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany.

Observations
Page 18 GAO-01-704T

encounter problems in registering, applying for absentee ballots, and

casting their votes. These actions range from encouraging states to change

their laws to make the process less onerous for voters, working with states

and local jurisdictions to allow at least 30 days for sending and returning

ballots, and taking advantage of technology to improve communication

with voters and decrease reliance on traditional mail systems that require

longer transit times. In working with states and local jurisdictions,

however, the federal government should be aware that states must weigh

initiatives to promote ease of voting against other goals such as

safeguarding voting systems against misuse.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared remarks. As noted, we plan to

issue a more detailed report in September 2001. We will be happy to

answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may

have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For future questions regarding this testimony, please contact Derek B.

Stewart at (202) 512-2559. Staff in our Defense Capabilities and

Management team, Applied Research and Methods team, Office of General

Counsel, and Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Norfolk and San Francisco field

offices made contributions to this testimony. We would like to especially

acknowledge the contributions of Kathleen Joyce, who passed away on

April 21, 2001.

(350073)