U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

76–216 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–155] 

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JEANETTE JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Research Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, September 13, 2012, Federal Voting Assistance Program ................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, September 13, 2012 ............................................................................... 21 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mitchell, Pamela S., Acting Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, 

U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................ 6 

Moorefield, Amb. (Ret.) Kenneth, Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans 

and Operations, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 27 

Mitchell, Pamela S. .......................................................................................... 39 

Moorefield, Amb. (Ret.) Kenneth ..................................................................... 28 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Testimony of Pamela Smith, President, VerifiedVoting.org ......................... 59 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Dr. Heck ............................................................................................................ 67 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. West ............................................................................................................ 68 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 71 

(1) 

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Thursday, September 13, 2012. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:31 a.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to a 

hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House 

Armed Services Committee. 

Today this subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the Department of Defense to help us understand how members of the 

Armed Forces and their families, along with U.S. civilians living 

and working outside of the United States, are afforded the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. 

I want to welcome our witnesses and I look forward to their testimony. 

Voting is a fundamental and essential part of the democratic 

process. It is both our right and our duty as citizens of a democracy 

to set the direction of the Nation by selecting the individuals who 

will represent us at each level of government. 

This responsibility remains with us regardless of where we 

choose to live and work or, as in the case of our service members, 

where they are sent to defend our freedoms. 

For many years, Congress has been concerned about military and 

overseas voters who have told us about the difficulties they face 

when they try to cast their ballots. 

Registering to vote, receiving a ballot by mail and returning the 

ballot by mail in time for the vote to count in an election when the 

voter is not physically located in the United States is challenging 

at best. 

One can only imagine the difficulty trying to accomplish that 

same process when the voter is at a remote outpost in Afghanistan, 

fighting a war. 

Yet, these are the very individuals who, through their military 

service, protect our right to vote. 

Congress has worked hard over the last several years to ensure 

that the men and women assigned overseas on behalf of our country do not lose their ability to vote as a result of their service. 
2 

A number of Federal laws have been enacted to enable the military and U.S. citizens abroad to vote in Federal elections. Most recently Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, the MOVE Act, as part of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2010. 

The MOVE Act required the Department of Defense to make several changes to the Federal Voting Assistance Program to improve 

the process by which the military absentee ballots are cast. 

However, the most recent report by the Department of Defense 

Inspector General on the Department of Defense’s implementation 

of the requirements of the MOVE Act finds that the military services are falling short in establishing installation voting assistance 

offices. 

I look forward to hearing from our Department of Defense witness on how the Department will fully implement the legislative 

improvements that are intended to assist military and overseas 

voters. 

I am also interested to know how the changes to the Federal Voting Assistance Program have affected the military and overseas 

voter in the lead up to the 2012 general election. 

I will close by saying that every day our troops lay their lives on 

the line to defend freedom and it is our job that we make sure that 

they are not denied the right to vote. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman Susan 

Davis of California, the ranking member, an opportunity to make 

her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Ambassador Kenneth Moorefield, Deputy Inspector General for Special 

Plans and Operations and Ms. Pamela Mitchell, the Acting Director 

of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Thank you for being 

with us. 

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has been given the lead 

in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of Defense to 

inform and to educate Americans worldwide of the their right to 

vote, to foster voter participation and protect the integrity and enhance the electoral process for overseas voters at every level of government, from the local to the Federal level. 

Many new voter assistance requirements were included in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, Public 

Law 111–84, such as requiring the development of online portals, 

to provide voter registration procedures and notifications, and establishment of voting assistance offices and the development of 

standards for reporting requirements. 

I am very interested this morning in hearing from our witnesses 

on how implementation is going, what we have learned and whether additional programs or processes have been identified to further 

improve voting assistance and participation. 
3 

While the recent Inspector General report found that over half 

of the offices that are required to be established on military installations were unable to be contacted, the report did not address 

whether the offices that were established are effective in meeting 

the needs of military and overseas voters. 

What efforts, if any, is the Department taking to measure the effectiveness of these offices and the services that are being provided? The Inspector General recommended that alternative methods to reach out to military voters, especially since such a majority 

of them are young, single individuals who may not necessarily have 

a propensity to vote, especially overseas, be adopted. 

If such efforts are undertaken then what efforts will be established to measure the effectiveness of these alternative methods, 

whether part of social media, how do we go ahead and measure 

that as well? 

As resources continue to be reduced, we need to ensure that the 

programs that are established to assist military and overseas voters are efficient; not only efficient but that they are also cost effective. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. The upcoming elections, as we all know, are a mere 7 weeks ahead. So it is imperative that we ensure that all Americans have the ability to vote in 

our electoral process, but especially those who are on the front 

lines of defending our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We are joined today by an outstanding panel. We would like to 

give each witness the opportunity to present his or her testimony 

and each member an opportunity to question the witnesses. 

I would respectfully remind the witnesses that we desire that 

you summarize to the greatest extent possible the highlights of 

your written testimony. I assure you that your written comments 

and statements will be made part of the hearing record. 

At this time, without objection, I ask unanimous consent that an 

additional statement from VerifiedVoting.org be included in this 

record of the hearing. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 59.] 

Mr. WILSON. Without objection, so ordered. 

Let me welcome our panel: Ambassador Kenneth Moorefield, 

Deputy Inspector General for Plans and Operations of the Department of Defense. Additionally, we have Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell, 

who is the Acting Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, Defense Human Resources Activity. 

At this time we will begin with Ambassador Moorefield. 

STATEMENT OF AMB. (RET.) KENNETH MOOREFIELD, DEPUTY 

INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR SPECIAL PLANS AND OPERATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and 

also Ranking Member Davis and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel, thank you for this oppor-
4 

tunity to discuss past and ongoing DOD IG [Department of Defense 

Inspector General] oversight regarding the DOD implementation of 

voter assistance programs. 

We share your commitment to ensuring that U.S. military service members worldwide and other eligible overseas citizens have 

the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights as American 

citizens to vote. 

The law requires the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 

IGs to annually review their own Services’ voting assistance programs and report results to the DOD IG 

Since 2001 the DOD IG has issued 11 reports describing the results of these annual reviews. Our latest report, issued in March 

2012, is discussed in our written testimony. 

In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, or 

MOVE Act, was passed. It established various programs to help 

military and other overseas citizen voters to register and to vote. 

The MOVE Act required the military services to have an installation voting assistance office on every installation worldwide, with 

the exception of those in a war zone. 

The use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots for Federal elections was to be expanded. DOD, through its FVAP [Federal Voting 

Assistance Program] office, was intended to implement a number 

of new electronic voting support programs and systems. 

The FVAP office also had to report to the Congress annually on 

their assessment of compliance with voting assistance laws and the 

effectiveness of voting assistance programs, including programs implemented by each of the military services. 

In August 2012, the DOD IG released a self-initiated report assessing key obligations and actions carried out by DOD and FVAP 

under the MOVE Act. 

We specifically focused on the establishment of voting assistance 

offices on every military installation worldwide and the sufficiency 

of survey data used to assess DOD’s Voting Assistance Program effectiveness related to the 2010 elections. 

DOD implementing instructions for the establishment of the 

IVAOs [Installation Voting Assistance Offices] required robust 

walk-in offices; the DOD estimated would be staffed with one to 

two full-time personnel to perform the required voting assistance 

functions. 

To determine if the Services had established a robust IVAO presence on all installations worldwide, we examined FVAP’s official 

list of installations as of March 2012. 

We immediately noted that the list was in some instances either 

inaccurate or incomplete, with installations such as Fort Meade, 

Maryland; Camp Casey, Korea, and the U.S. Army garrison in 

Kaiserslautern in Germany not listed and other bases listed that 

no longer existed. 

It became apparent that installation consolidations or closures 

resulting from the 2005 BRAC [Base Closure and Realignment] 

program, such as the consolidation of the 12 multiservice joint 

bases, in part had contributed to omissions and duplications. 

To test the accessibility of the IVAOs, we placed ourselves in the 

shoes of potential military voters seeking help. Using the official 
5 

FVAP Web site information as of March 2012, we attempted to contact each of the 229 IVAOs listed. 

It turned out that not all of the FVAP contact information was 

current. We initially called the IVAO phone number. If no one answered, we left a voicemail asking for a return call and if there was 

an e-mail address, followed up with an e-mail. 

If we could not make contact on our initial attempt, we called installation telephone operators or accessed installation Web sites to 

obtain updated IVAO contact information. 

Ultimately, in about 50 percent of the cases we were unable to 

contact IVAOs using our updated version of the FVAP Web site installation list and concluded that the offices either did not exist or 

were not reasonably accessible. 

In partial explanation, some senior military officials pointed out 

that the law had not provided additional funding, which FVAP estimated at $15 million to $20 million per year, necessary to fund at 

least one assistance person at each IVAO and bases, moreover, 

were not funded internally by DOD to enable commanders to meet 

this obligation. 

On another issue, the FVAP 2010 post-election survey report to 

Congress, dated September 2011, asserted that voting assistance 

was effective in the 2010 election because, one, DOD statistical 

analysis indicated military populations registered and voted at 

higher rates than civilians and, two, that military participation had 

improved appreciably between 2006 and 2010. 

To determine if these conclusions were reliable and accurately reflected the effectiveness of DOD voting assistance programs, DOD 

IG’s Quantitative Methods Division assessed their survey methodology. 

They noted that only 15 percent of military personnel contacted 

had responded to the survey and that FVAP’s conclusions in the reports could be considered inconclusive and would have been more 

credible with a higher response rate. 

We recommended that the FVAP office design a survey that will 

increase the 2012 post-election survey response rate. 

Finally, I should add that during our assessment we observed 

that the FVAP had made significant efforts to develop and implement a military voter communications plan. 

This was intended, we believe, in part, and primarily perhaps 

even, to get to younger voting personnel. And it used information 

technology of various—of various kinds, including social media, direct e-mail notifications and Web-based systems. 

FVAP officials indicated that these initiatives were having a 

positive impact. For example, they noted that as they began their 

outreach and communication program for the 2012 primaries, activity on their Web-based systems significantly increased. 

Feedback from the military services incorporated in our March 

2012 report to Congress indicated that they too were increasing use 

of targeted advertising, social media, and other easy to use online 

tools to more effectively reach younger service members. 

In closing this morning, let me emphasize that the DOD IG remains committed to providing oversight of DOD’s role in the Federal voting assistance programs. 
6 

I look forward to answering any questions that you may have 

and I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moorefield can be found in the 

Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ambassador. 

We now proceed to Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA S. MITCHELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. MITCHELL. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Voting Assistance Program, or 

FVAP, and its implementation of the MOVE Act. 

For absentee service member and overseas citizen voters, as for 

all U.S. citizens, the decision to cast a vote in an election is a personal choice. 

To that end, the Federal Voting Assistance Program is committed 

to two primary tenets: promoting awareness of upcoming elections, 

with a specific focus on the right of service members and overseas 

citizens to vote by absentee ballot; and to eliminating barriers for 

those who choose to exercise their right to vote. 

We provide voting assistance every day, and we have never done 

it better. Voters seeking assistance will find a myriad of resources 

available, including a professional call center, well-trained voting 

assistance officers, and an information-rich Web portal at fvap.gov. 

This year we conducted in-person and online installation voter 

assistance, or IVA, office training worldwide, and we visited 43 IVA 

offices to provide training and assistance. 

We also provide Webinar training and a self-paced course for 

both IVA office staff and unit voting assistance officers that is on 

demand. 

As noted, the Department of Defense Inspector General recently 

identified problems in contacting IVA offices. And as the Ambassador said, they found outdated contact information. 

However, IVA offices are open. As we review contact information, 

we find that it changes, as it often does in military environments, 

because of transfers, deployments, and other requirements. 

FVAP has authority and budget resources to provide policy guidance and assistance to the Services. Such guidance is outlined in 

the Department of Defense Instruction 1000.04, which defines the 

responsibilities of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. It consolidates and enhances Department policy by outlining specific requirements for the military service voting assistance programs. 

Publication of this instruction is the culmination of a meticulous 

Department process. 

It is important to note that while IVA offices are one resource, 

they are one of many. We also provide an online wizard that produces a completed registration and ballot request. We send service 

members at least six reminder messages addressing voter registration. We have conducted train-the-trainer workshops at 81 locations worldwide. 

As the Ambassador noted, we are conducting a comprehensive 

communications and outreach campaign, and we established a call 
7 

center that provides support by phone, by e-mail, and by online 

chat. 

In addition to our efforts, the Services are also actively engaged 

to increase awareness of the election and service members’ right to 

vote. 

Looking at this in another way, there were over 8 million visits 

to the FVAP Web site since November 2011 and over 380,000 individuals have downloaded the Federal postcard application during 

that time. 

To put the amount of those downloads in perspective, 380,000 is 

nearly the size of the United States Air Force. 

We also dispatch 1.4 million e-mails five times since January, 

with at least two more transmissions of 1.4 million to be sent before the election. 

And, as of 30 June, the Services reported that their installation 

and unit voting assistance officers had helped over 550,000. 

It is also important to note that State laws and voting procedures 

drive absentee voting success or failure. That is why FVAP has 

worked with States to improve their election laws. Thirty-two 

States have passed laws benefiting absentee voters since the 2010 

general election. 

Registration rates alone are poor indicators of the effectiveness 

of voting assistance. The information, tools, and other resources are 

in place, the outreach is ongoing, and we continuously look for 

ways to improve the Department’s ability, both to promote awareness of every service member’s right to vote and of the upcoming 

elections. 

Voting assistance has never been better, given the breadth of 

tools, information, and other resources now available. 

I spent over 25 years in uniform, and I wish I had access to the 

tools that are out there today. However, even if only one absentee 

service member or overseas citizen has a problem, we believe it is 

one too many, and there is no question that we still have work to 

do. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you both for your presentations, and we will 

now proceed to questions from each member of the subcommittee. 

We are very fortunate to be joined by Ms. Jeanette James. She is 

professional staff, a person above any standard of consideration. 

And she will be maintaining the 5-minute rule. And so we can 

count on her. 

As we begin, I want to thank the Inspector General for your report. I think you brought very important issues to the attention of 

the American people. 

Additionally, I want to also commend the Military Voter Protection Project and the AMVETS [American Veterans] legal clinic at 

Chapman University. They have been very thorough in their review of how the legislation that we are discussing today and the 

ability of voters to participate. It is a very thorough review, and I 

appreciate their oversight. 

Ms. Mitchell, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 

provides that voting assistance be offered to troops as they arrive 
8 

at a new duty station, and also when they deploy. Does each of our 

four Services include voting assistance offices for in-processing 

checklists at duty stations, and also on the list for pre-deployment 

processing? 

And I was glad to hear of your military service. I join you. I 

served 31 years in the Army Guard and Reserve. I am very grateful to have four sons currently serving in the military. But I have 

also been an election commissioner, and it is very frustrating to me 

to see how complicated some of this has become, according to the 

IG report. 

So is the in-processing list, the deployment checklist, is this in 

place? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, DOD policy does specify that service members be afforded the opportunity to register to vote during in-processing, out-processing, and deployments. 

I cannot speak to the specifics of how that may be handled by 

each Service on every installation. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am particularly concerned—it has been identified that in the offices that have been established, that of the 229, 

that it has been by the Inspector General report—and, Ambassador, I appreciate you bringing this information out. That, in fact, 

that only 114 of the 229 that could there be access and contact. 

And so your report was very revealing, but at the same time you 

indicate that maybe we don’t need that many offices. 

And so I would be interested in hearing why we don’t need that 

many offices. And, additionally, what do you propose to make and 

improve voter participation and access. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, let me emphasize that compliance with the law has no 

alternative, and the law is very specific about the requirements. 

There is a certain doubt, I think, in the part of some of our military commanders as to what qualifies as an installation, and that 

is understandable. In some cases installations today are covering 

three or four outlying bases. There is a considerable distance between some of these installation voting offices and bases that they 

support. 

It would appear to us that a careful review is probably necessary 

to determine where we actually have these offices, how they are 

functioning, and what their capabilities are to support any and all 

installations and bases they may be responsible for. 

Obviously, the size of the bases varies; the size of installation 

voting office coverage varies. So that, you know, remains to be seen 

as to what is appropriate given the size of the responsibilities and 

the extent of the responsibilities of IVAOs. 

There was another part to your question—— 

Mr. WILSON. And that is, what do you propose to increase participation and access? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Well, I truly believe, as I also was a former 

military officer and would have been very grateful, you know, for 

the kind of access that I think military officers have today, particularly younger ones that are well schooled in the use of IT [information technology] and various social media mechanisms. 

I think and I believe, and even though there is no metric yet that 

can confirm that other than ex post facto after elections—but I be-
9 

lieve that can be determined whether or not that is demonstrating 

and indicating that it is making a difference. So I think that is important. 

For the immediate election, the question is—and I think this has 

been brought up by several members of the Senate—how a Federal 

voting application postcard could be made available on an expedited basis to individual military voters who want to vote and do 

not decline, in other words, the offer. 

There is a way to get to them. We have got unit voting officers 

all over the world, as was pointed out by Ms. Mitchell, and I think 

that it is certainly feasible to ensure that those that want to vote 

get their application. So that is one of the considerations I think 

needs to be considered for serious and fairly urgent implementation. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we proceed to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you all being here. 

Could you go a little bit further in discussing about the assessments that were conducted? You mentioned that over half of them, 

you couldn’t actually talk to somebody there, I guess, they didn’t 

have a response. And yet they were—I think you said, Ms. Mitchell, that they were compliant. So I am trying to understand whether—you know, is that just a disconnect—that they didn’t respond 

and that you still could get information from them? If you could, 

answer that for me. 

And also, to what extent did you actually have an opportunity to 

really assess how significant their operation was and what kind of 

a difference that made in terms of the men and women that were 

using those services? What more do we know about that? You mentioned social media, and of course it feels as if that is probably one 

of the best ways to reach people who want to vote in that fashion. 

And are the offices necessary, important? What role do they 

play? Is that something that really is being utilized to the extent 

that it could be or should be? And are there alternatives that actually you would suggest might need to be developed in a much more 

robust fashion? 

And I guess, Ms. Mitchell, just to answer in terms of the compliance, how do we know that they are complying if only half of them 

were contacted? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Would you like me to go first, ma’am? 

Mrs. DAVIS. As long as we get both of you, that would be great. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you. In terms of how measure the effectiveness of IVAOs, one of the ways you can do that, of course, is 

the incidence of contact that is made with them by potential military voters and what services they specifically provide. 

To the best of my knowledge right now, the incidence of use is 

not what was expected. What are the reasons for that? You asked 

how far we went and how far we could go. We had a questionnaire 

of 50 different points that we raised with any office we could make 

contact with, including how they were functioning, what degree of 

activity they had, and so forth. 
10 

So we tried to go the extra mile, given that we couldn’t go to 229 

installations and eyes-on determine what exactly they were doing. 

So I think that in terms of your question as to whether or not they 

are necessary, it is still perhaps early stage. 

Perhaps some IVAOs are not fully developed or established. I 

can’t definitively determine that because we just couldn’t make 

contact with half of them. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist, you 

know, and maybe that they were fully functional. We can’t confirm 

that one way or the other. 

But I do, as I mentioned to the chairman before, believe that in 

the world, particularly a huge voting population percentagewise of 

younger voters in the military overseas, that their tendency—like 

my own daughter, I have noticed—is not to find information anywhere else but through some IT mechanism; so whether we like 

that or not, that tends to be the reality. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Ma’am, you asked about compliance. And we rely 

upon the Services to execute and comply and to report their compliance. And as a recently as the March 2012 IG report, it did reflect 

that the Service IGs found their offices to in execution and compliance. 

The issue of half being notified goes back, again, to the challenges of keeping information updated. We have done a lot of work 

this summer, as have the Services, with reaching out to try to 

maintain that information as current as possible on our Web site. 

We have progressively ramped up our outreach over the summer 

to the point that now, between now and the election, we will be 

reaching out every single week to make contact. 

And I can tell you that as of COB [close of business] yesterday, 

we have a list of installations on our Web site that was absolutely 

accurate as of yesterday. We also made 43 visits to installation 

voter assistance offices this past year. And we were there to provide training, but while we are there, we also provide assistance. 

So we look at how they are executing. 

And we found that of the 43, 37 were fully executing what they 

should have been doing, and the others have varying degrees of 

challenges that they needed to overcome to implement things. But 

those things were relayed to the Services and they did report back 

to us that they were fully operational. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I was going to follow up, but perhaps we will have 

another round. 

Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by recognizing that my State, the State of Nevada, was recently recognized by the military voter protection 

project for its efforts to preserve and protect and promote voting 

rights for military members. It was given all-star status. In our 

State, you can register to vote, request and submit your absentee 

ballot all electronically. And currently our Secretary of State is 

traveling with a delegation of Secretaries and DOD members overseas to look at the impact of overseas voting. 

I also see, Ms. Mitchell, you talked about sending out e-mails to 

remind people. I can tell you as somebody with a dot-mil address, 
11 

that I received your e-mails in January, February, June, August, 

and September encouraging me to request my absentee ballot if I 

needed one. So certainly that message is getting through. 

Ambassador Moorefield, you mentioned an issue with the definition of ‘‘installations’’ as perhaps causing confusion. So what steps 

are being taken to address the issues that you identified, such as 

the definition of an installation so that there is a common operating picture of who is responsible at what level to make sure the 

appropriate offices and opened and staffed? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you, Congressman. 

I do not have a sufficiently definitive answer to give you at this 

time, but I would like to take that and get back to you. 

I am not sure there has been a thorough assessment of it within 

DOD. And so I would like to pursue that, if you don’t mind. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 

Mr. HECK. Okay. And then also, in your review, what impact, if 

any, did you find based on, you know, command emphasis on the 

importance of being involved in—obviously, you can’t force people 

to vote if they don’t want to, but the command emphasis of, one, 

knowing that the resources are available and encouraging members 

in the deployed environment to take advantage of those resources? 

I can tell you as someone who was deployed back in 2008, the 

extent of my command emphasis was a notice that was posted on 

the, you know, unit bulletin board about where the office was and 

who the contact person was, but that wasn’t ever anything put out 

in any other media other than one posting on a bulletin board. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you, again. 

The reports that we turn in annually and turned in this last 

spring from the Service IGs indicate that each and every one of the 

commands in all of the military services are carrying out their responsibilities and duties with respect to their unit voting officers, 

which include promoting access and understanding to the opportunity to vote. 

I can’t be any more definitive than that on the subject. But I will 

say that having spent over the last 6 years quite a bit of time in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, where you would think given the remoteness 

and the exigencies of war, that I often found, at least at the operating base level, that there was a substantial amount of information that was coming in. 

I wasn’t looking for it in those days, but I just couldn’t get away 

from it. It was coming in on TV monitors. It was coming in through 

multiple mechanisms—Stars and Stripes, any number of media opportunities and social media opportunities. 

So I was intrigued at the time and reasonably impressed. I don’t 

think that there has been any diminishing in that effort. So even 

though the MOVE Act doesn’t specifically apply to war zones, given 

the concentration of forces that we have had there, I hypothesize 

that if they weren’t deeply engaged in combat operations, that the 

awareness and even the opportunity to vote could have been accessible to them. 

Mr. HECK. I would suggest that just like there may be a problem 

with the definition of an installation in the Service IG’s report. 

There may be a problem with the definition of what is promoting 
12 

access. Promoting access to one command may be totally different 

than another command. That perhaps is another area that needs 

further review and refinement. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you for raising that question. Indeed, 

we have initiated outreach with the military services and their IGs. 

Specifically, we have a working group that is beginning to look at 

how we can improve the conciseness, clarity, and value of the annual reports that the Services provide the IGs and then to us on 

unit voting. 

We are not yet satisfied that it is sufficiently revealing, let me 

put it that way. So in terms of this next annual report that is our 

responsibility to submit to the Congress, we would like to frankly 

have a more robust effort made on all sides. 

Mr. HECK. Great. Thank you both for your service and thank you 

for your report, Ambassador. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Heck. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the seriousness of effort that you all are demonstrating, especially as we come to a very important election. 

For you, Ms. Mitchell, it seems in reading the materials one of 

the really important issues was, as we have at the Federal level 

enacted the MOVE Act and other efforts to make it easier for absentee voting, that there is much work that has to be done with 

the individual States in order to streamline their absentee voting 

requirements. 

I hear from Congressman Heck that Nevada is one that has done 

this very well. But I am curious how you have worked with each 

of the States to resolve some of the issues that may, despite all 

your efforts, still make it more difficult than it should be. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Ma’am, we work with them on a regular basis to 

discuss the MOVE Act and to talk about the very things you just 

mentioned. One of the things that we talk to them about is, and 

you will forgive me because I can never remember the acronyms 

just yet, but UMOVA [Uniformed Military and Overseas Voters 

Act] which is a law that would actually make across the States 

things much more consistent for service members. 

So, for example, I have talked to service members from Florida 

who reported that they had no difficulty in figuring out what to do. 

And you talk to service members from some other States that have 

reported that it is very complex and they really aren’t quite sure 

what to do. So we think that if there could be more consistency 

across the States, that would be a very big deal in terms of helping 

service members. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And are there still States where it is very difficult, 

despite all the necessity of moving forward on this? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Ma’am, I can’t speak to the details of which 

States that might be, but I would be happy to take that for the 

record. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to have that answer. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 
13 

Ms. TSONGAS. And then the other question I have is that you 

have said that the various Services report that they are meeting 

all the requirements. But how do you challenge that or test that? 

Or is that something more you would have looked at, Ambassador Moorefield? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Well, as I indicated—thank you, Congresswoman—as I indicated in response to the last question, we would 

like to drill down more on that, quite frankly. 

I mean, it is not that we don’t trust the information we are getting, but there is the old adage about verifying. And we would like 

to figure out how to do that. 

It may be in the world of the entire universe of units worldwide 

that have voting officers that we may need to do some statistical 

sampling, you know, that—and we fortunately have the ability to 

do that within DOD IG to come up with something that gives us 

a high degree of the confidence that we understand their real capabilities and the real extent of the performance of their duties and 

what the impact is actually having on military voters. 

If I could go back for just a second to what you were saying about 

the States one of the things that I have concluded recently in 

thinking about this and reading all the literature that is out 

there—and there is quite a bit—on States’ participation and the requirements under the MOVE Act. 

But the requirement to make enhanced use of electronic access 

to the opportunity to vote on the part of the States, including links 

to Web sites that would enable a military voter to download an absentee ballot, it seems to me, is really a great idea in the world 

today. And it cuts through an awful lot of the steps that otherwise 

might have to be followed by a military voter. 

I am pretty sure about this, but I will ask Ms. Mitchell to confirm. But I think that the FVAP Web site has links to those States 

that have that electronic capability. 

Ms. MITCHELL. We do actually have links to all the States and 

territories. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So it would be interesting to see if those that allow 

for the electronic means of accessing it, how—comparing the data 

as to which are more successful and encourage absentee voting. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

And thanks for the panel for being here today. 

I want to frame this in an initial metaphor. If a commander says 

to a unit and the sergeant major first sergeant ‘‘We want the unit 

to go down to the motor pool, and we want to do PMCS [preventive 

maintenance checks & services] on our vehicles, take care of our 

vehicles today.’’ But instead if the unit goes off to the barracks and 

they clean up the barracks, did the unit meet the commander’s 

mission and intent? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No, sir, they did not. 

Mr. WEST. Okay, so when I read here, the MOVE Act of 2009 

was designed to ensure that American men and women serving 

overseas have every opportunity to vote, requiring military services 
14 

to open a voter assistance office on every one of its installations except for those in a war zone. 

I appreciate the things that you are saying you did, but a lot of 

those things were optional within the MOVE Act. The law, what 

was directed, the mission was to open up these voter assistance offices; and based upon the report that we got from the IG, 114 of 

229 installation voter assistance offices. So is that success or failure? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I would suggest it goes back to contact information. 

Mr. WEST. But that is not what the law said. The law didn’t say 

anything about contact information. And that is why I used that 

metaphor. If the commander says go the motor pool and PMCS 

your vehicles and you go off to the barracks and you clean the barracks, did you meet the commander’s intent? 

So that is the whole point here: Did we meet the intent of this— 

of this act? And I mean, then why are we here? If everything is 

going fine then why are we here having this hearing? We have a 

problem. 

So this is what I want to know: after the 2010 election did we 

have some type of after-action report or review where we looked at 

our processes and procedures from 2010? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, sir, we did. 

Mr. WEST. And what did you find from 2010? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, as I recall, it was a post-election survey. And 

I don’t have those details in my head, but we could certainly provide that to you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 68.] 

Mr. WEST. We would like to have that, because the next question 

is from there we should have looked at having some type of voter 

registration readiness exercise, some type of rehearsal to make 

sure that we were prepared going forward into 2012. And I think 

if we had done that we would not have had all of these incidences 

of having duplicative or, you know, the wrong type of installations 

listed. 

So did we do anything between 2010 and now? I know that you 

just said you are doing things weekly, and that is great. But is that 

a reaction to us, you know, all of a sudden having news reports and 

hearings or did we have a plan of action with milestones between 

2010 and 6 November, 2012 that would have made sure we didn’t 

have to have this hearing? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, guidance was put out 2 years ago on establishing the IVA offices. It was put out to the Services. The Services, 

again, as recently as March of this year reported that they were 

operational. And as I have said a few moments ago, we visited 43 

of those, representing about 25 percent and found that they did 

exist. 

And as of yesterday we have valid contact information for all of— 

the actual number is 221 for the military services. 

Mr. WEST. Okay. So are we on the right track to get the intent 

of this law implemented before we have the 6th of November? I 

mean, are we moving in the right direction? Do we have the type 

of milestones so that the military members—which I have friends 
15 

and family members, they are starting to feel a little 

disenfranchised. That is the truth about what they are saying to 

me. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I would submit that we have many resources 

available to them. The IVA office is one. It may be an important 

one in some places. 

And as to the issue of which installations they are on, that was 

up to Service discretion. And the reason for that is they are in the 

best position to understand their population, what the demographics look like in any particular area, and also what their operational environment is. 

So an analogy I would give you is I.D. card offices, dental clinics, 

medical clinics, those are not on every single installation worldwide, but they are in places where they can be accessed by service 

members. 

Mr. WEST. But this law gave a responsibility to your office to be 

able to make sure that that stuff happened, though. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Colonel West. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And you answered a couple of the questions that I had which 

dealt with registering to vote. You said that at in-service, at outservice, and anytime that a soldier is deployed, they are given the 

opportunity to register to vote. Is that correct? 

Ms. MITCHELL. That is the guidance that has been given to the 

Services, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Is that being carried out? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I would defer to the Inspector General and 

the Services. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. Thank you, Congressman. 

We can’t confirm one way or the other, frankly. As I said, we had 

difficulty contacting half of the IVAOs. And whether or not—and 

in what respect they were performing their functions, as I said we 

had a fairly exhaustive questionnaire. I think the results were 

mixed. Some of them I would say—some appeared to be doing exactly what they needed to be doing and others, maybe less so. 

And as I mentioned also, previously there is some questions in 

our minds as to whether or not they are getting the activity that 

perhaps was the intent. And I am not sure if that is because they 

are not promoting themselves enough or they are not accessible 

enough or in the right places or because military voters today, particularly younger ones, would much rather not go to bricks-andmortar place but look it up on an IT site. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Ambassador, if I can—thank you for that. 

I will tell you, that seems pretty simple. When you go to register 

for a driver’s license you can automatically register to vote. 

And if the DOD has not implemented that, that seems to me that 

that is borderline negligence, especially when they have been directed that at in-service, out-service, and deployment—that our 

men and women that are in the military should be allowed to register there. And if the States can do it when somebody applies for 
16 

a driver’s license, it sure seems to me that DOD could do it if they 

wanted to on the other side. 

Are you aware of the report that says the Justice Department encouraged States to use waivers that bypass the MOVE Act? Are 

you aware of that and do you have any indication that that may 

be true or is that just a news report that doesn’t have any basis? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. I am sorry. Could you restate that question 

please? 

Mr. SCOTT. There were some reports that the Justice Department 

encouraged States to use waivers to bypass the MOVE Act. Are you 

aware of any States being given waivers to bypass the MOVE Act? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. I don’t know anything about any recent activity. It seems to me I recall—and this is what I read in several reports, so I can’t confirm it beyond that—that they had the authority to issue waivers and so it had selectively in the past issued 

waivers where States had not been able to ramp up effectively 

enough in order to comply with the law. 

Whether or not that has happened recently I can’t say. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Let me ask one other question. This may be more for you, Ms. 

Mitchell. 

But it seems to me, as somebody who, in watching the DOD from 

the Armed Services Committee—and if you watch how the DOD 

carried out the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ surveys, for example—it 

seems to me that the DOD made sure that they got the ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell’’ surveys to every member of the military to every 

spouse, to everybody that they were supposed to, but when it comes 

to military voting it seems that we are not able to get the absentee 

ballots to our soldiers. 

And, I guess, can you explain the disparity in how when it comes 

to a ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ survey the DOD takes every effort and 

makes every effort to make sure that every soldier and every family member gets that but when it comes to voting the effort is certainly subpar compared to what we saw with that other movement? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, in terms of surveys, we are actively working 

with the Defense Manpower Data Center on a strategy to improve 

the response rate, if I understand that to be your question. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am talking about getting our men and women who 

are overseas their absentee ballots. 

The DOD got them their surveys with ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ 

but we don’t seem to be able to get them their absentee ballots so 

that they can vote, and it seems to me that there is a different 

standard there when it comes to voting versus a survey that the 

DOD or the Administration actually wanted the response to? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, sir, I think one of the great things about 

the MOVE Act is the 45-day requirement on the States to get the 

ballots out. And of course the States are the ones who send out the 

ballots, as opposed to DOD. 

What we have done is put a very good process in place for service 

members to be able to get the Federal postcard application so that 

they can request those ballots. 

And many States now are providing for electronic delivery of the 

ballot or online or via e-mail, which is a big improvement in the 

way they may receive ballots. 
17 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

We now proceed to Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your involvement in this critical issue. 

I really think that the most sacred right afforded to Americans is 

the right to vote. 

And for those who are fighting in defense of our rights, of our 

freedoms, I think that we have to do everything we can to make 

sure that they have that right. 

One metric it seems that we are focused on are these installation 

voting assistance offices. You know, as someone who was a junior 

enlisted Army guy when I turned 18, and had that right to vote, 

and who was a Marine Corps officer in a combat zone where I tried 

to vote, I want to say, first of all, that I don’t think that that is 

the metric to look at. 

I think that the metric to look at are the voting assistance officers that are scattered throughout the commands as collateral responsibilities. 

And my concern is the training for those voting assistance officers. And to what extent that they are available, so how far today 

do they go down? Are they at the company level and their other 

Services’ equivalence or at the battalion level? 

And what is the extent of their training for those folks? And, Ms. 

Mitchell, maybe you could answer that first. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Unit voting assistance officers are supposed to be appointed for 

units of 25 or more. That may vary in some cases because of the 

type of unit. 

Training is done in a variety of ways. We do train the trainer. 

The Services do the same. We also have Webinars and we have ondemand training that is offered through our Web site. 

We have also provided training to the Services for use on their 

learning-management systems. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ambassador. 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. It is certainly our understanding that they are 

receiving training, that they have that responsibility for units of 25 

or greater. And as I said, we are turning in an annual report that 

is based on the military IG’s reports as to what activities they have 

undertaken. 

The only thing that I have posed is what we believe is a challenge to us and to the military IGs is to drill down a little bit further as to exactly the extent of the effectiveness, as it were, of that 

interaction with their military personnel in each unit. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Well, then one thing that I am concerned 

about when I served in Iraq in 2005, 2006, I was not able to vote 

in the 2005 election back home. 

In the, you know, the race to report in and the stresses of predeployment, I didn’t do my absentee ballot for my respective 

States. Then I found—then when I got into the combat zone the 

laws of my State, Colorado, didn’t comport with the realities of 

serving in a combat zone where they expected you to be able to utilize a fax machine that didn’t exist in Iraq at the time. 
18 

And so I think they have since adjusted those laws. But are we 

also making efforts for those off-election years where those service 

members can vote in their respective States of home-of-record. 

Could you, Ms. Mitchell? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. 

Every election is important, whether it be in one of the odd years 

or the even years. And so, for example, the unit voting assistance 

officer, as you mentioned, of whom there are thousands across the 

Services are actually required on odd-numbered years to provide a 

Federal postcard application to every service member. 

And during even-numbered years they are supposed to provide it 

twice a year, once in January and once in July. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And, Ambassador, we know that that is taking 

place? 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. That is what has been reported, Congressman. 

And we are going to make a more aggressive effort beginning 

now, or we already undertook this starting several months ago to 

confirm that that is actually taking place. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you both for your efforts. And my concerns 

obviously are military-wide but in particular those serving in a 

combat zone. And I have been in both in, you know, major base 

camps in a combat zone and out in forward operating facilities. 

And I can tell you, out in those forward operating bases, communications is pretty tough sometimes. And so I would just really 

hope that we take that into account so we can make sure that 

those who are fighting in defense of our freedom, again, have the 

right to vote—that most sacred freedom. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

We have a final follow-up question with Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to follow up on your comment, Ms. Mitchell, because you said, and I think we are very aware of this, that States 

have different laws related to absentee ballots, which some of 

them, as you said, make it very difficult for service members to get 

the information and be able to act on it. 

Are you all doing anything that would kind of help pull some of 

that information together in those instances where it really is difficult? And what changes could be made? 

I would love to, you know, invite my colleagues to be concerned 

about this because we know that in many States it is so difficult 

for people to get an absentee ballot. 

And it shouldn’t be that way. In Federal elections everybody 

ought to have equal access. And so where we have that access in 

some States and it is, you know, it is almost impossible in others, 

what are you finding? 

Can you help us with that information so that we can make certain that our men and women overseas—who happen to come from 

States where their absentee balloting is so difficult—that they have 

that opportunity, because that is where the problem is. 

It is not necessarily in just getting the ballot. It is because they 

can’t somehow comply in some way. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, ma’am. And we have a lot of information 

available on our Web site, FVAP.gov, to help with that. We also 
19 

have online wizards that are really very easy to use and walk service members and overseas citizens through the process. 

So we think that has done a lot to aid in folks being able to both 

register to vote and to request a ballot. 

But in terms of the different laws and levels of complexity, we 

do believe that one of the efforts I had mentioned earlier, UMOVA, 

which would standardize things across the States would really be 

a big help to service members. 

And as I recall, I want to say right now six States plus the District of Columbia have passed that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you very much. And again I do invite everyone at the—— 

Mr. WILSON. No. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

And I would like to thank everyone for their participation. Particularly Congressman West, thank you for your question about the 

post-election analysis 2010. I think that would be very helpful to 

the subcommittee. 

Additionally, I am very grateful for the Military Voter Protection 

Project. They have disclosed that there is a very low absentee ballot request participation thus far. But I am just confident that good 

people being involved, something can be done. 

So at this time I move that we adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

(25) 

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

Hearing on 

Federal Voting Assistance Program 

September 13, 2012 

Today the Subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the Department of Defense to help us understand how members of the 

Armed Forces and their families along with U.S. civilians living 

and working outside of the United States are afforded the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. I want to welcome our witnesses and I look forward to their testimony. 

Voting is a fundamental and essential part of the democratic 

process. It is both our right and our duty as citizens of a democracy 

to set the direction of the Nation by selecting the individuals who 

will represent us at each level of government. This responsibility 

remains with us regardless of where we choose to live and work or, 

as in the case of our service members, where they are sent to defend our freedom. 

For many years, Congress has been concerned about military and 

overseas voters who have told us about the difficulties they face 

when they try to cast their ballots. Registering to vote, receiving 

a ballot by mail, and returning the ballot by mail in time for the 

vote to count in an election when the voter is not physically located 

in the U.S. is challenging at best. One can only imagine the difficulty trying to accomplish that same process when the voter is at 

a remote outpost in Afghanistan fighting a war. 

Yet, these are the very individuals who, through their military 

service, protect our right to vote. 

Congress has worked hard over the last several years to ensure 

that the men and women assigned overseas on behalf of our country do not lose their ability to vote as a result of their service. A 

number of Federal laws have been enacted to enable the military 

and U.S. citizens abroad to vote in Federal elections. 

Most recently, Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter 

Empowerment (MOVE) Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The MOVE Act required the 

Department of Defense to make several changes to the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) to improve the process by which 

military absentee voters cast their ballots. However the most recent report by the DODIG on DOD’s implementation of the requirements of the MOVE Act finds that the military services are falling 

short in establishing Installation Voting Assistance offices. I look 

forward to hear from our DOD witness how the Department will 

fully implement the legislated improvements that were intended to 
26 

assist military and overseas voters. I am also interested to know 

how the changes to FVAP have affected the military and overseas 

voter in the lead up to the 2012 general election. 

I will close by saying that every day, our troops lay their lives 

on the line to defend freedom and it is our job to make sure that 

they are not denied the right to vote. 
27 

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel 

Hearing on 

Federal Voting Assistance Program 

September 13, 2012 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses, Ambassador Kenneth P. Moorefield, Deputy Inspector 

General for Special Plans and Operations, and Ms. Pamela Mitchell, the Acting Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

Thank you for being here with us. 

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has been given the lead 

in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of Defense to 

inform and educate Americans worldwide of their right to vote, foster voter participation and protect the integrity and enhance the 

electoral process for overseas voters at every level of government— 

from the local to the Federal level. 

Many new voter assistance requirements were included in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public 

Law 111-84, such as requiring the development of online portals to 

provide voter registrations procedures and notifications, and establishment of voting assistance offices, and development of standards 

for reporting requirements. 

I am very interested in hearing from our witnesses on how implementation is going, what we’ve learned and whether additional 

programs or processes have been identified to further improve voting assistance and participation. While the recent Inspector General report found that over half of the offices that are required to 

be established on military installations were unable to be contacted, the report did not address whether the offices that were established are effective in meeting the needs of military and overseas voters. What efforts, if any, is the Department taking to measure the effectiveness of these offices and the services that are being 

provided? The Inspector General recommended that alternative 

methods to reach out to military voters be adopted, especially since 

such a majority of them are young single individuals who do not 

have a high propensity to vote. If such efforts are undertaken, what 

efforts will be established to measure the effectiveness of these alternative methods? As resources continue to be reduced, we need 

to ensure that the programs that are established to assist military 

and overseas voters are efficient but also cost-effective. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. The upcoming elections as we all know are a mere 7 weeks ahead; it is imperative 

that we ensure that all Americans have the ability to vote in our 

electoral process, but especially those who are on the front lines of 

defending our Nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
28 

;;;;;;;;;;;;---;;;;;; September 13, 2012 ....... iiiiiiiO ....... iiiiiiiOiilii 

Statement of 

Expected Release 

9:45 a.m. 

Ambassador (Ret.) Kenneth P. Moorefield 

Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans and Operations 

Department of Defense Office of Inspector General 

before the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 

House Armed Services Committee 

On the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program 
29 

Good morning Chainnan Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss past and 

ongoing Department of Defense (DoD) Office ofInspector General (DoD IG) oversight 

regarding the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). 

We share your commitment to ensuring that U.S. military services members 

worldwide and other eligible overseas citizens have the opportunity to exercise their 

rights as American citizens to vote in federal elections. 

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 

The Unifonncd and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, amended and 

modi fled by the Military and Overscas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, 

specifled that the right to vote was ftmdamental. The law explained that many logistical, 

geographical, opcrational, and environmental barriers restricted the ability to vote for 

military and other eligible overseas citizens. Accordingly, thc law established various 

programs and requirements intended to help military and eligible overseas citizens 

register, vote, and have their votes counted. 

The MOVE Act contained numerous provisions. Notable among them were: 

• The Military Services were required to have an installation voting assistance 

office (IV AO) on every installation worldwide, with the exception of installations 

in a warzone. 

• States were required to transmit ballots to absentee voters at least 45 days before 

federal elections. 
30 

• States were required to transmit voting information and blank ballots 

electronically to absentee voters. 

• The use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot' for all federal elections was 

expanded. 

• Notarization requirements for military and overseas absentee ballots were 

prohibited. 

• DoD (through FV AP) was required to implement a number of new electronic 

voting support systems. 

The law impacted numerous federal agencies, including the Departments of State, 

Homeland Security and Justice, and the U.S. Postal Service, as well as the DoD and its 

Military Departments and Services. 

The MOVE Act also required the FV AP Office to report to Congress: 

• Within 180 days of MOVE Act implementation on their assessment of 

compliance with the law's provisions, and the effectiveness of programs 

intended to assist military personnel and overseas citizens vote2

• 

• Not later than March 31 st of each year, on their assessment of compliance with 

voting assistance laws, and the effectiveness of voting assistance programs, 

including programs implemented by each of the Military Services. 

1 The Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot can be used as a back-up measure in case the ballot requested from the 

local jurisdiction does not arrive in time to be returned. The ballot only has federal offices listed. 

2 The MOVE Act was passed by Congress on October 28, 2009; consequently, the initial MOVE Act implementation 

report was due to Congress on April 26, 2010, a date preceding the 2010 Federal election. However, the initial 

report was not issued until March 17, 2011. 

2 
31 

Unit Voting Assistance Officers 

Various DoD policy documents stipulate that one Unit Voting Assistance Officers 

(UV AO) has to be assigned at the 02/E7 level to every military unit worldwide, with an 

additional UVAO assigned for each 50 unit members after the first 25. The UVAO are 

authorized to perform all functions perfonned by voting assistance officers assigned at 

higher echelons. These functions include activities such as assisting personnel with 

registering, and obtaining and submitting absentee ballots. UV AO are specifically 

charged to ensure that all small and geographically separated units are assisted. 

Federal Voting Assistance Program Office 

The FV AP office administers the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act and the MOVE Act on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. The FVAP 

provides U.S. citizens worldwide, estimated at approximately 6 million potential voters, 

including Military personnel and their families, a broad range of non-partisan information 

and assistance to facilitate their participation in the democratic voting process - regardless 

of where they work or live. 

The FV AP exists to: 

• Assist uniformed services and overseas voters to exercise their right to vote so 

that they have an equal opportunity with the general popUlation to have their 

vote counted. 

• Assist the States in complying with relevant federal laws, and advise them on 

ways to best comply. 

3 
32 

• Advocate on behalf of the unifonned services and overseas voters, identifYing 

impediments to their ability to cxercise their right to vote, and proposing 

methods to overcome those impediments. 

Annual Reporting Requirements 

The Anny, Naval, Air Force, and Marine Corps IGs are required by law to 

annually review compliance with their own Service's voting assistance program, review 

the effectiveness of those programs, and report the results to the DoD IG. Since 2001, in 

compliance with the law, the DoD IG has issued eleven reports on the Service's voting 

assistance programs. 

In March 2012, the DoD IG released its 11th report3 on the voting assistance 

program. The Anny, Naval, Air Force, and Marine Corps IGs reported that their Service 

voting assistance programs were effective and compliant with relevant policy, regulation, 

and public law. 

The services' reports also identified that the services were increasingly using 

electronic and social media techniques to reach potential voters, especially in the 18-25 

year old age bracket. In this regard, the Anny IG reported that although some units did 

not receive voting materials on time, the problem was mitigated because Anny 

organizations were now utilizing social media techniques, such as Facebook, Twitter, 

websites, and email as their principal methods of distributing infonnation. The Navy IG 

report also emphasized that the Navy voting assistance program was using electronic 

media techniques, including websites and electronic bulletin boards-to conduct 

outreach. 

3 "Assessment of Voting Assistance Programs for Calendar Year 2011:' released March 30, 2012 (Report No. 

DODIG-2012-068). 

4 
33 

Current DoD IG Oversight 

In August 2012, the DoD 10 released its 12th repor{ a self-initiated inspection 

asscssing whether voting assistance programs carried out under the Uniformed and 

Overseas Absentee Voting Act, amcnded and modified by the MOVE Act, complied with 

the law and were effective in meeting the law's intent. 

As indicated earlicr, the FV AP is a major multidimensional program impacting 

numerous Federal, state, and local agencies and jurisdictions, and is subject to repetitive 

examination and reporting by various Federal oversight organizations, especially the 

Oovernment Accountability Office (OAO). Collectively, the reports form a substantial 

body of work to which senior public officials and those charged with governance can 

refer in shaping their decisions and actions. 

The 10 Act of 1978 requires DoD 10 to avoid duplication in reporting by 

coordinating with the OAO, other Federal lOs, Military Service lOs, and other Federal 

entities. To avoid duplication and repetition-and accomplish the DoD 10 oversight 

mission-we focused this assessment on: 

• compliance with the MOVE Act requirement to establish a voting assistance 

office on every military installation worldwide. 

• the sufficiency of survey data used by the FV AP office to manage and assess 

DoD's voting assistance program effectiveness. 

4" Assessment of the Federal Voting Assistance Program Implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter 

Empowerment (MOVE) Act," released August 30,2012 (Report No. DoDIG·2012·123). 

5 
34 

Installation Voting Assistance Offices 

One of the most significant requirements of the MOVE Act was for the Military 

Services to have an installation voting assistance office (IV AO) on every installation 

worldwide, with the exception of installations in a warzone. The law envisioned an 

extcnsive system of offices offering walk-in, face-to-face voting assistance to military 

members, families, and overseas citizens. The law required the Services to aetively 

inform voters of what help was available from the IVAO's-and the time, location, and 

manner in which they might get that help. 

DoD implementing guidance reiterated the requirement and emphasized that the 

intent was to provide "robust" assistance to military personnel, dependents, and overseas 

citizens. It specified that IV AOs would report directly to installation commanders; be 

located in fixed, well-advertised places easily accessible to personnel who might need 

help; and estimated staffing at one or two full-time people in each office. 

The FV AP 2010 Post Election Survey Report to Congress, dated September 2011, 

enumerated a purported universe of all installations worldwide that required IV AOs, and 

stated that there were 224 installations in that universe, including 13 Coast Guard 

installations. The FV AP report also said that with the exception of five Air Force 

installations, all installations worldwide had established the mandated offices. The 

FV AP report did not identifY the 224 installations by name. 

To determine whether the Services complied with the requirement to establish an 

IVAO on all installations worldwide, we asked the FVAP to provide the names of the 224 

installations. After receiving the list, we immediately noted that the FV AP's universal 

requirement list was inaccurate, and some major installations we determined existed were 

not identified. Examples of omitted installations included Fort Meade, Maryland; Camp 

6 
35 

Casey, Korea; the U.S Army Garrison in Kaiserslautem, Germany; and the Naval 

Support Activity in Philadelphia. 

It also became apparent that installation closures or consolidations resulting from 

the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, such as the consolidation 

of the twelve multi-Service Joint Bases, had apparently contributed to certain installation 

omissions. 

To assess the effectiveness ofIVAOs that reportedly existed, we placed ourselves 

in the shoes of potential voters seeking help. Using official FVAP website contact 

information, as posted on the FVAP website in late March 2012, we attempted to contact 

the 229 IVAOs the website identified. These attempts excluded Fort McPherson and Fort 

Monroe in Virginia, which appeared on the website but had been closed. We initially 

called the IV AO telephone number; if no one answered, we left a voice mail asking for a 

return call, and if possible, followed-up with an email. It became evident that some 

FVAP website information was inaccurate. Accordingly, depending on circumstances, 

we contacted installation operators or accessed installation websites to obtain updated 

contact information. The results were clear. 

About half of the time, we were unable to contact the IV AOs the FV AP website 

identified. In addition, we believe the number ofIV AOs necessary to comply with the 

spirit of the law may significantly exceed the number ofIVAOs actually in existence 

today. Some senior military officials pointed out the law had not authorized DoD 

additional funding for this initiative, which the FV AP estimated would cost more than 

$15-20 million per year. 

DoD officials also posed concerns about the relative effectiveness ofIVAO's. 

They noted that younger military personnel were the biggest DoD military population 

7 
36 

segment and that IV AOs were likely not the most cost effective way to reach out to them 

with voting infonnation given their familiarity and general preference for communicating 

via on-line social media and obtaining data from internet websites. They suggested 

military voter assistance might be provided more effectively and efficiently by using 

targeted advertising, technology, social media like Twitter and Facebook, and online 

tools, along with trained unit voting assistance officers. 

Use of Social Media 

Throughout our work, we noted that the FV AP had made significant efforts to 

develop and implement a communications and marketing plan-principally focused on 

younger military personnel-using technology, advertising, social media, email 

notifications, and web-based systems. FV AP officials, as had unit voting officers, 

asserted that these efforts appear to be etfective. For example, at the end of2011, as they 

began their outreach and communication program for the 2012 primaries, they explained 

that activity on their web-based voter assistance systems significantly increased. 

Data Sufficiency 

The FV AP 20 I 0 Post Election Survey Report to Congress, dated September 2011, 

asserted that voting assistance programs were effective because when survey data was 

properly adjusted to compensate for demographic and other differences, analysis 

indicated military popUlations registered and voted at higher rates than their civilian 

counterparts, and that military participation had improved appreciably between 2006 and 

2010. To ensure rigorous, data-driven statistical analysis for the 2010 Post Election 

8 
37 

Survey Report to Congress, FVAP officials prepared the report with the help of the 

Defense Manpower Data Center5 (DMDC). 

To determine if the conclusions of the FV AP 2010 Post Election Survey Report to 

Congress were reliable, and accurately reflected the effectiveness of voting assistance 

programs, the DoD 1G assessed the FVAP/DMDC's 2010 post-election survey 

methodology. 

The DoD IG's Quantitative Methods Division detennined that FVAP's assertions 

about voting by active duty personnel in the 2010 Post Election Survey Report to 

Congress were based on a participation rate of only 15 percent of military personnel 

queried in the survey. The DoD IG quantitative specialists concluded the assertions 

would have been more credible if more people had responded to the survey. 

Because the response rate was low, the DMDC perfonned a non-response bias 

analysis as required by Office of Management and Budget guidance. The objective was 

to detennine if the 85 percent of military members not responding to the survey would 

have responded in the same way as the 15 percent who did respond. The DoD IG 

quantitative specialists reviewed the DMDC non-response bias analysis and found the 

2010 post-election survey was inconclusive. Because DMDC considered non-response 

bias the largest source of survey error, FV AP and DMDC need to work to increase 

response rates. 

5 The Defense Manpower Data Center is a central repository for data within the DoD and manages programs such 

as the Common Access Card; it's Statistical Information and Analysis Division provides survey and analytical 

services to various clients throughout the DoD, including to the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

9 
38 

Future Survey Efforts 

The FV AP staff explained that they were aware of the issues involved and were 

already actively working with DMDC to improve the upcoming 2012 post-election 

survey response rate by using various survey techniques. 

Conclusion 

The DoD IG remains committed to providing oversight of the federal voting 

assistance program. 

I thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

10 
39 

STATEMENT OF 

MS. PAM MITCHELL 

ACTING DIRECTOR 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

HEARING ON 

THE FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 
40 

Chainnan Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FV AP) and its implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE 

Act). Since enactment of the MOVE Act, FVAP has improved voter assistance and expanded 

services for State and local election officials to ensure members of the Unifonned Services and 

overseas citizens have the opportunity to vote in U. S. elections by absentee ballot. Voting 

assistance for absentee military and overseas citizen voters has never been better. 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), as amended by 

the MOVE Act (42 U.S.C. 1973[f et seq.) (hereafter "the Act"), establishes protections for absent 

members of the Unifonned Services, their families, and U.S. citizens overseas who wish to vote 

in federal elections by absentee ballot. The MOVE Act amendments specifically call for refonns 

ofFVAP and place several requirements on State election officials to ensure more timely 

delivery of voting materials to military and overseas voters. The Department is fully compliant 

with the spirit and intent of the Act. To implement the MOVE Act amendments, FV AP has: 

• Enhanced FV AP.gov by adding online wizards to guide voters through the process of 

registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and, when necessary, obtaining a writein ballot. The website includes detailed information on absentee voting requirements and 

links to election infonnation from all 55 States and Territories; 

• Provided guidance and support to the military Services for establishing Installation Voter 

Assistance Offices; 

• Provided guidance and training to State and local election officials to ensure they are 

aware of the requirements of the Act; and, 

2 
41 

• Executed an enhanced voter education and outreach campaign utilizing email messages, 

social media outreach, and paid advertisements. 

FV AP strives to ensure each citizen covered under the Act who wishes to vote by 

absentee ballot has the tools and resources to do so. FV AP further strives to ensure any ballot 

timely cast by a covered voter will be counted. This year is the first Presidential Election since 

the MOVE Act amendments were enacted. Absentee military and overseas service voters will 

experience a much improved process from four years ago. Prior to the last Presidential Election, 

only 13 States emailed blank ballots to voters; this year, 47 States offer voters the option of 

receiving a ballot by email. Fifteen States, including one of the three States that do not offer 

email,will also offer voters the option of downloading a blank ballot from a secure website. To 

request ballots, voters have the option of filling out an intuitive form at FVAP.gov or similar 

online systems offered by 19 States. Voters needing assistance will find a plethora of resources 

available, including a professional call center, well-trained Voting Assistance Officers, and an 

intuitive web portal at FVAP.gov. Since enactment of the MOVE Act amendments, the 

Department, the Military Services, along with State and local election officials have rededicated 

themselves to supporting service member participation in U.S. elections. 

Participation rates alone are poor indicators of the elTectiveness of voting assistancc 

given (hat interest in voting fluctuates with each election. This is especially true for the military 

population, which is younger and more male-young men being the least likely of any 

demographic to vote-than the general civilian population. Moreover, members of the National 

Guard and Reserve forces who are no longer on active duty do not qualify for the benefits and 

protections of the Act, which covers only military voters who are both on active duty and absent 

from their voting residence. Among covered military and overseas citizens who do vote, an 

3 
42 

increasing number visit FVAP.gov, as evidenced by the over 8 million visits to the website since 

November 2011, use FVAP tools for registration and ballot requests, and are aware of the option 

to use the federal back-up ballot if their regular ballot does not arrive on time. As for all u.s. 

citizens, the decision to cast a vote in an election is a personal choice. 

Serving Voters 

Two forms are at the heart of the absentee voting process for military and overseas 

citizens. The Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) serves as a simultaneous voter registration 

and absentee ballot request form. The Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) acts as the 

standard back-up ballot for voters who do not receive their regular State ballot in time to be 

returned and counted. Both forms, as mandated by the Act, are prescribed by FVAP. In 2011, 

FV AP updated both forms to reflect the MOVE Act amendments by eliminating any reference to 

a notary requirement and creating space for voters to rank their preferred transmission methods 

(e.g. mail, email, or fax) for receiving election materials. FVAP also conducted a usability study 

to help make the new FPCA and FW AB more readable and intuitive. 

Direct-to-thc-Voter Assistance 

An increasing number of voters utilize the web and online tools for assistance with the 

absentee voting process. The Act rcquires FVAP to deploy online wizards that assist voters 

applying for an absentee ballot and submitting a FW AB. The wizards ensure that voters answer 

all of the questions required by their State to register to vote or request an absentee ballot. These 

online tools were first deployed on the FVAP.gov web portal in August 2010. FVAP has 

continued to refine these wizards, updating them based on the redesign of the FPCA and FW AB 

and, prior to the 2012 primary season, incorporating redistricting data in the FW AB wizard. The 

online wizards have been well received by absentee voters, both military and overseas civilian. 

4 
43 

Among recent comments, for example, from an Army Staff Sergeant, "This process was easy 

and fast. Outstanding set up. Thank you." and from an overseas citizen, "You did a great job 

with the online tool. Easy, fast, efficient for those of us living abroad. Thank you!". 

In addition to the wizards, the Act requires FV AP to host an online portal. This portal is 

located at FV AP.gov and serves as a consolidated and comprehensive resource. Military and 

overseas voters can find general and State-specific information on absentee voting rules and 

deadlines. FV AP continues to use the "Global Address Network," to reach out to military voters 

across the globe by sending email messages at 90, 60, and 30-day intervals before a federal 

general election. These emails have embedded links to the FV AP portal, making it as easy as 

possible for Service members to follow up and register to vote. In January, June, and the first 

week of September 2012, FVAP sent an email message to every member of the military with a 

'.mil' email address, some 1.4 million, reminding them to submit a new FPCA to register and 

request an absentee ballot for the upcoming election. Following these messages, FVAP 

experienced significant increases in traffic on FVAP.gov. Since November 2011, FVAP.gov has 

received 8.3 million page views. 

In addition to email messaging, FV AP developed and executed a comprehensive 

communications and marketing plan, including social media outreach, to promote awareness of 

the resources available at FV AP.gov. FVAP included print advertisements in Military Times, 

Stars and Stripes, and Military Spouse and banner ads on websites including 

washingtonpost.com. To complement these advertisements, FVAP deployed online 

advertisements using behavioral, contextual, and geographic targeting to reach military and 

overseas voters. 

5 
44 

As social networking platforms have become ubiquitous, FV AP maintains a presence on 

Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedln. Social networking platforms enable two-way conversations 

with voters and offer an effective means to quickly disseminate news and information within the 

military and overseas citizen communities. FV AP social media efforts target younger voters. 

Post-election surveys consistently show 18- to 24-year-old members of the military, like their 

general population counterparts, have less experience voting and are often less familiar with the 

process. 

FV AP aims to be the primary source of information for absent military and overseas 

citizen voters, but it is by no means the only source of information. Each State, as required by the 

Act, maintains a webpage dedicated to military and overseas voters. Several outside advocacy 

groups provide voting information to military and overseas voters, and FV AP cooperates with 

these groups to ensure that they are relaying accurate information. Even Google has now created 

an online tool to assist military and overseas voters, which includes a link to FVAP.gov. 

Once overseas service members and their family members vote, the Military Postal 

Service (MPS) employs special tools to track the ballot and ensure it reaches local election 

officials in time. The MPS applies the Express Mail Service Label 11-000 to each ballot from 

an overseas Service member. The label ensures expedited delivery to the local election office 

upon arrival in the United States. The label provides voters and the MPS capability to track 

military ballots from acceptance to delivery through scans at the initial intake point, en route and 

upon arrival at the U.S. International Gateways (New York, San Francisco, and Miami), and a 

delivery scan conducted by the U.S. Postal Service. 

6 
45 

Supporting the Services 

The Act directs the Service Secretaries to designate an office on military installations as a 

voter assistance office. The Act further requires that these Installation Voter Assistance Offices 

(IVA Offices) serve as voter registration agencies under the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA). Department of Defense Instruction (DoD!) 1000.04, "Federal Voting Assistance 

Program" outlines the requirements and procedures the Services must follow in establishing and 

maintaining voting assistance programs. The DoD! 1000.04 replaces and consolidates previous 

issuances and provides the Military Services with a single, authoritative source for executing 

their voting assistance programs. It enhances Department policy by outlining specific 

requirements for IV A Offices in greater detail than previous guidance. 

To assist the Services with these requirements, FVAP provides classroom and webinar 

training and self-paced courses with handbooks and document templates. The training is 

intended to provide the Services with an "IV A Office in a box" turnkey set up. FV AP hosts 

these training materials on FV AP.gov, which also includes a list of all IV A Office contact 

information. FVAP hosts monthly conference calls and semi-annual face-to-face meetings with 

the Service Voting Action Officers to discuss implementation of the IV A Office requirement. 

These regular meetings offcr the Services an opportunity to identify challenges and seek 

assistance from FVAP. In 2012, FVAP staff conducted in-person training and assistance visits at 

43 installations. The Services are responsible for execution and compliance, and are required to 

submit annual reports that outline the effectiveness of their programs. 

The Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD!G) conducts an annual assessment 

on compliance with the Act. In their "Assessment of Voting Assistance Programs for Calendar 

Year 2011," dated March 30,2012, the DoD!G noted that "The Army, Naval, Air Force, and 

7 
46 

Marine Corps lOs reported that their Service voting assistance programs were effective and 

compliant with relevant policy, regulation, and public law." The most recent DoDIO report, 

released in September 2012, focused on the IVA Office requirement. The DoDIO noted it had 

difficulty contacting the IV A Offices. However, they used an outdated contact list for the IV A 

Offices. These offices exist on military installations and, as in any military environment, offices 

change and service members get reassigned. FV AP has addressed the outdated information and, 

to ensure accurate records for each office, FV AI' will contact every IV A Office weekly until the 

election. 

DoDIO suggested that brick and mortar IV A Offices may not be the most effective way 

to provide assistance to military voters. FV AP agrees, particularly with respect to younger voters 

accustomed to going online for information, that IV A Offices may not be the best way to reach 

all military voters and that the Secretaries of the Military Departments should have the discretion 

to designate offices where they determine they are needed to optimize voting assistance. FV AP 

will continue to work with all stakeholders, including the Military Services and the Congress, to 

review and refine the way the Department provides voting assistance to service members. 

FV AP devotes considerable resources to training unit and installation level Voting 

Assistance Officers (VAOs). FVAP conducts formal in-person training of unit VAOs, wcbinars 

for V AOs with FV AP staff, and this year FV AI' developed and deployed self-paced online 

training for use by VAOs at their convenience. The FVAP.gov web portal contains a complete 

section for V AOs, which includes templates for establishing an effective voting assistance 

program, election alerts, and resources to answer State-specific questions about voting 

procedures. The training materials cover important deadlines in the absentee voting process, the 

various ways to receive and return election materials, and recommends voters use the online 

8 
47 

wizard for the FPCA and FWAB at FVAP.gov. As first reported in the FVAP 2010 post-election 

report, 98% of the V AOs who accessed FV AP.gov found it useful and informative. 

To prepare for the 2012 election, FVAP conducted VAO training workshops at 81 

military installations and embassies around the world. Additionally, FVAP conducted 42 

webinar training sessions. These webinar courses will continue throughout October. All 

sessions follow a "train-the-trainer" format, giving participants tools and techniques that may be 

used to train other V AOs, thus ensuring that training may be conducted as required internal to 

each Service. In addition to supporting the Services, FV AP also supports the Department of 

State in its mission to provide voting assistance at embassies and consulates around the world. 

In 2012, FVAP and the State Department partnered to host 22 in-person workshops for overseas 

citizens, and held a series of conference calls for consular officers to address frequently asked 

questions from overseas voters. The Department of State provides information on absentee 

voting, including links to FV AP.gov, on its website and in the information it distributes to U.S. 

citizens living abroad. 

Partnering with the States 

The ability of a member of the Uniformed Services or overseas citizen to successfully 

cast a ballot is largely determined by State law. In passing the Act, Congress placed a number of 

requirements on States, and mandated that the federal government "consult with State and local 

election officials [ ... J, and ensure that such officials are aware of the requirements of this Act," 

42 U.S.c. I 973ff(b)(2). 

In several States, the Act precipitated substantial changes to election law. In response to 

the requirement that States transmit previously requested absentee ballots to military and 

overseas voters 45 days in advance of each federal election, five States and the District of 

9 
48 

Columbia moved the date of their primary election or enacted other changes to their election 

calendar. Many State legislatures had to pass authorizing legislation for electronic transmission 

of voting materials. In all, 32 States made legislative reforms to the absentee voting process for 

military and overseas citizens between the 2010 General Election and August 2012. 

As States continue to implement the Act and strive to better serve military and overseas 

citizen voters, FV AP partners with the States to: 

• Obtain accurate and up-to-date information on absentee voting rules, procedures, and 

deadlines that FV AP widely disseminates to voters and Voting Assistance Officers; 

• Obtain data for the FV AP statistical analyses of military and overseas voting through 

post-election surveys of election officials; 

• Provide instructions for addressing election materials sent through the Military Postal 

Service; 

• Provide training to State and local election officials on processing election materials from 

military and overseas voters; 

• Assist with compliance when unforeseen circumstances arise; 

• Provide written guidance on the application for and approval of hardship waivers as 

provided by the Act; 

• Provide expertise and best practice recommendations on policies and procedures that 

affect military and overseas voters; 

• Consult on State legislative changes to absentee voting laws; and 

• Serve as an advocate for military and overseas voters to Chief Election Officials and the 

professional election administrator community. 

10 
49 

Building State Capabilities 

Beginning in 2011 and continuing through the first half of2012, the Department awarded 

grants on a competitive basis to States and localities to research the effectiveness of new 

electronic tools for voter registration, blank ballot delivery, and marking. It is important to note 

that no grant award funds may be used for the electronic return of a voted ballot in a live 

election. Awardees will submit detailed, quantitative reports on the effectiveness of their 

systems over the next five years. The grants offer States and localities the flexibility to build 

tools for military and overseas citizen voters into their existing voter registration and election 

administration systems. This enables election officials to keep more accurate records of military 

and overseas citizen voters, reducing the number of misaddressed and thus undeliverable ballots, 

and automating the timely delivery of blank ballots to voters at the 45-day mark. Improved 

electronic record keeping that, for instance, clearly labels which voters are covered by 

UOCA V A, should assist states in complying with federal law. Moreover, such systems automate 

data collection activities so States and the federal Government can more quickly spot violations 

ofUOCAVA. 

Grant awards were made based on recommendations from a review board comprised of 

election and technology experts. The board assessed proposals based on criteria developed in 

partnership with State election officials. All identifying information in each proposal was 

redacted prior to the review, so that board members remained unaware of the grant applicants' 

identities. In all, FV AP awarded 35 grants. The awardee jurisdictions serve more than 770,000 

members of the Uniformed Services. 

Assisting Voters When States Falter 

II 
50 

FV AP does not have authority to enforce State compliance with the Act. Only the 

Department of Justice can take legal action against a State for noncompliance. In 2012, the 

Department of Justice has taken action against five States for failing to comply with the 45-day 

deadline. In each of these instances, coordinating with the Department of Justice, FV AP worked 

with the State so affected military and overseas voters were and will be able to successfully cast 

ballots. FVAP uses its ability to quickly message all Service members from a particular State 

and notify them of changes to ballot receipt deadlines when federal courts have ordered such 

changes. When Georgia was ordered to change its primary run-off procedures, FV AP worked 

with the State to quickly transmit and receive ballots from affected voters. After the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered California to provide better training 

and procedures for local election officials, State officials agreed to make FV AP training 

materials mandatory for their local election officials to fulfill that judgment. 

To the extent possible, FVAP works in coordination with the Voting Section of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. As required by the Act, FV AP must consult with the Justice Department 

when reviewing applications for waivers from the 45-day prior transmission requirement. As 

federal officials, FVAP has an obligation to report violations of federal law, including instances 

of States failing to comply with the Act, to the Justice Department. Likewise, thc Justice 

Department notifies FV AP when initiating enforcement actions, and includes FV AP in the 

process of assisting voters affected by a State's noncompliance. 

FV AP received only one application for a waiver from the "4S-day prior" rule for federal 

elections during 2012. In late 2011, New York submitted an application for a waiver to cover 

the State Primary and the General Election in 2012, citing the compressed primary calendar and 

demands of local election systems. After consulting with the Justice Department, FV AP denied 

12 
51 

New York's request. No other waiver applications have been received. The deadline for waiver 

applications for the 2012 General Election passed on August 8, 90 days before the November 

6election. 

Preparing for the 2012 General Election 

Expanded Training 

In Spring and early Summer 2012, FVAP rolled out interactive online training tools for 

both election officials and V AOs. These training resources represent a significant expansion of 

previous FV AP training efforts. Online training provides an effective means to connect with 

more voters and election officials while maximizing limited staff resources. 

Improvements at FVAP.gov 

In August 2012, FVAP unveiled a mobile website for easy access to absentee voting 

information on smartphones and tablets. This update is representative of FV AP's efforts to 

provide up-to-date information to voters in the most accessible means possible. Since the 2010 

General Election, FV AP has updated its online FW AB wizard to include the appropriate 

Congressional candidates based on the 2012 redistricting process. The wizards, as well as the 

voting information pages, were updated to reflect changes to State election law and turnover 

among local election officials. FV AP also drives voters to websites and wizards operated by our 

State and local partners. Because State and local wizards are often connected directly to the 

jurisdiction's voter registration and election management software, FV AP displays links to these 

wizards prominently on the State pages at FVAP.gov. 

As of August 26, 2012,359,683 voters have filled out an FPCA using the FVAP.gov 

wizard. Following the election, FV AP will survey State and local election officials to gauge 

usage of State online resources for military and overseas voters. During the election, however, 

13 
52 

downloads of the FPCA is FVAP's best gauge of voter participation. At present, the number of 

downloads is running parallel with the 2004 election cycle, the last time an incumbent U.S. 

President ran unopposed through one party's primary elections. 

Communicating with Voters 

In March 2012, FVAP established a call center that military and overseas citizen voters 

can contact with questions about the absentee voting process. The call center, open from 6:00am 

to 8:00pm on weekdays, uses email and web chat communications, in addition to phones calls, 

making it more accessible for voters around the world. Military voters, overseas citizen voters, 

and local election officials have contacted the call center in roughly equal proportion, with each 

group accounting for about a third of the inquiries received. 

Following its communication plan, FV AP increased advertising efforts to reach more 

voters during the critical period before registration deadlines. FVAP's summer online 

advertising campaign attracted 184,000 viewers to FV AP .gov over a four-week period in June 

and July. The fall online advertising campaign runs from September 10 to October 4. 

FV AP also worked to make voters and election officials aware of concerns raised by 

some overseas citizen advocacy groups regarding the 2011 redesign of the FPCA and FW AB. 

Previous versions of the FPCA asked overseas citizens to classify their status as overseas 

"temporarily" or "indefinitely." The 2011 form asked overseas citizens whether or not they 

"intend to return" to the United States. On both forms, the voter classification question is asked 

so that election officials can determine whether the voter should receive a full ballot or a ballot 

with only federal offices. FV AP changed the wording to more accurately reflect State election 

laws. In 37 States, the determination of ballot type, which is based on residency guidelines, at 

least partly hinges on whether or not a voter intends to return. Some overseas citizens groups 

14 
53 

voiced concerns that the 2011 version could hinder participation since some overseas citizens 

may not feel comfortable declaring an intent regarding their return to the United States. 

Although the Act makes clear that voting in federal elections cannot affect a voter's tax status, a 

number of overseas citizens raised taxes as a point of possible confusion. In response to these 

concerns, FVAP made both the 2005 and 2011 versions of the FPCA available on FVAP.gov. 

Both versions of the FPCA are still valid, and FV AP notified State and local election officials 

they will likely receive both versions this year. 

Communicating with States 

As described above, FV AP maintains regular contact with State election officials. In the 

last several weeks, FV AP sent emails to all State and local election officials reminding them 

General Election ballots must be sent by September 22, the 45th day prior to the November 

General Election. 

FV AP spends significant resources tracking changes to contact information for local 

election officials. Across the U.S., approximately 7,300 local election officials are 

independently responsible for transmitting absentee ballots to voters. Approximately half of 

these officials are in Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which maintain highly decentralized 

election systems with part-time election officials in every village and township. Turnover among 

these smaller, rural local officials can pose a hurdle to maintaining current contact information 

for aU local election officials. 

FVAP strives to ensure all local election officials are aware of the requirements of the 

Act. Throughout this year's primary elections, FVAP reminded States which had not previously 

accepted the FW AB in primary elections that the Act now requires acceptance of the FW AB in 

all federal elections. This change went into effect after the November 2010 General Election. 

15 
54 

Previously, federal law required States to accept the FW AB only in general elections for federal 

offices. 

Similarly, FVAP has had ongoing discussions with States regarding the automatic ballot 

request validity period of the FPCA. Prior to the MOVE Act amendments, Section 104 of 

UOCA V A required election officials to treat each valid FPC A as a standing ballot request for all 

elections through two election cycles, or up to four years. Congress repealed this requirement 

based on concerns from election officials who were sending ballots to Iraq long after the voter's 

deployment had ended. This change was not among the heavily publicized changes of the 

MOVE Act amendments and over the last year has generated questions. For this reason, and 

because military voters are a mobile population, FV AP instructs military voters to submit a new 

FPCA each year. 

On-Going Research 

FVAP conducts a statistical analysis on the effectiveness of the Department's voting 

assistance programs and submits its findings to Congress annually. FVAP continues to use a 

series of surveys to document the performance of the voting assistance programs. FV AP surveys 

members of the active duty military, their spouses, VAOs, and election officials following each 

federal general election and uses research findings to guide program decisions. Following the 

2008 election, for instance, FV AP found that service members and overseas citizens rarely have 

difficulty registering to vote or requesting an absentee ballot, but often struggle to receive a 

blank ballot in time to both vote and return the ballot in time for it to be counted. In light of this 

finding, FVAP shifted to a focus on ballot delivery, aiming to reduce the amount of time a ballot 

spends in transit. This focus has guided the development of secure websites where ballots can be 

quickly downloaded from anywhere in the world. 

16 
55 

FVAP compares its survey findings to the findings of the American Community Survey 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both FV AP and the Census Bureau ask similar questions 

about voter registration and participation in recent U.S. elections. Though surveys are always 

inexact, the comparison allows FV AP to see identify similarities and differences in voter 

participation between military voters and the civilian voting age population. FV AP weights its 

survey findings to account for the fact that the military is younger and more male than the 

general civilian population. Surveys following the 20 I 0 General Election indicated that service 

members and the general civilian population voted at nearly an identical rate, 46% versus 45.5%. 

Analyzing data from election officials as reported by the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) can be useful, but also poses many challenges. Because service members 

can use anyone of several avenues to register to vote, it is impossible to know exactly how many 

active duty service members are registered. Many service members vote by absentee ballot, but 

do so without using an FPCA, and election officials thus have no way of identifying them as 

military voters. Others simply vote in-person at their local voting precinct. Both groups would 

not be included in any sort of tally of military voters collected by State or local election officials 

and reported to the EAC. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today about FVAP and the Department's efforts to support military and overseas citizen 

voters. I firmly believe the voting assistance provided to these groups has never been better. For 

the 2012 General election, military and overseas citizen voters will benefit from several upgrades 

to FVAP's assistance service, including: 

17 
56 

• Redesigned FPCA and FW AB that eliminate references to notaries and allows for ranked 

choice of ballots transmission options; 

• Updated wizards on FVAP.gov that reflect the 2012 redistricting process and other 

changes to State election laws; 

• Notification emails to all Service members with a .mil email address in January, June, 

and September 2012, and at 90, 60, and 30 day intervals before the election; 

• 81 in-person voter and VAO workshop training sessions at locations around the world, to 

include an additional 42 webinar trainings; 

• 43 installations visits for IV A Office training sessions; 

• Broad training and support services to State and local election officials to improve the 

service that they provide to military and overseas citizen voters; 

• A voter education and outreach campaign, utilizing advertisements in publications and on 

websites of interest to military and overseas citizen voters; 

• A call center available to answer questions by phone, email, web chat from voters, 

V AOs, and election officials; and, 

• A mobile website, allowing voters to easily find information on FVAP.gov from their 

smartphones and tablets. 

Through these steps, along with additional email and social media messages to voters and a 

staff well versed in the absentee voting process, FVAP offers an unprecedented level of service 

to military and overseas citizen voters covered by UOCA VA. I look forward to your questions. 

18 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

(59) 

TESTIMONY OF PAMELA SMITH 

PRESIDENT, VERIFIED VOTING.ORG 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITIEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (FVAPj 

September 13, 2012 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Pamela Smith, President of 

Verified Voting.org. Verified Voting is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded and 

governed by leading technologists in the United States working to safeguard elections in the 

digital age. We advocate for secure, reliable and accessible voting systems and election 

administration practices. Verified Voting with Common Cause and Rutgers Law School Newark 

Constitutional Litigation Clinic recently released: "Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look 

at Voting Technology Preparedness" which includes a section on military and overseas voting 

and can be accessed online at: http://countingvotes.org . 

Congress is to be commended for passing the Military and Overseas Voter 

Empowerment (MOVE) Act in 2009. It is well known that the nation's military and overseas 

voters have for too long faced significant challenges in exercising their right to vote. The MOVE 

Act has helped to alleviate these challenges. The Act increased the window of time available 

for voting, abbreviated the process by making blank, un-voted ballots available electronically, 

and eliminated bureaucratic hurdles in the way of completing the voting process timely. 
60 

The MOVE Act was crafted to address the challenges of time and distance for our 

remote voters very admirably. Its initial implementation in 2010 demonstrated promise that 

many of its provisions, if carried out with the spirit of the law, can alleviate many of the 

concerns surrounding overseas military voting. It is likely that this year will see additional 

improvements that result directly from The Act's best provisions. 

It is unfortunate, however, that more effort did not go into supporting outreach actions 

like the IVAO program and other registration programs, and that so much subsequent effort has 

gone into supporting unproven technologies like online ballot marking wizards and 

experimental internet voting methods that introduce new, grave risks to the voting process. 

Recently, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (OHS) and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) have clarified that the Internet is not sufficiently mature to be 

employed as a platform for something as important as voting. Such ballots are vulnerable to 

interception and alteration in transit, risking both the privacy of the voters and the security of 

the election.; Our troops deserve verifiably secure ballots; ifthis option is presented to them, 

they may not realize the risks not just to their own votes, but to the election itself. Indeed, if it 

is being presented to them, they likely will think it must be secure, yet that is not the case. 

It is important to note that the MOVE Act did not call for electronic return of voted 

ballots over the Internet. Nonetheless, in 2012 the electronic return of voted ballots will occur 

in 30 states -over unprotected public networks.1I The spate of provisions allowing this 

insecure practice came about in part because of active or implied support from the Federal 

Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), which for some time has been promoting the use of 

technology that either enables - or can be configured to allow-electronic return of voted 

2 
61 

ballots. In nearly all instances, such provisions likely could have been prevented by clear 

guidance to the contrary from FVAP. 

In 2010 the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) launched the Electronic Voting 

Support Wizard (EVSW) program and for 2011/2012, the subsequent Electronic Absentee 

Systems for Elections (EASE) grants to the States to enable online ballot marking "wizards" and 

online voting systems for mock elections. 

While the RFP for the EASE grants stated that these systems are not to be used for the 

online return of voted ballots in real elections, the systems in question can in fact enable such 

options for mock elections. Further, the systems' architecture allows them to be configured to 

allow electronic return of voted ballots if that were permitted by the States. Even if the terms 

ofthe grants do not permit that usage today, it can be done in the future, and in the interim, 

the systems can enable connection to the voter's email or fax client today_ 

That some States' even applied for these grants with the stated intent of using them for 

electronic return of voted ballots (despite the RFP's terms) is not entirely unexpected, in the 

absence of clear guidance from the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) about the 

inherent hazards of returning voted ballots through electronic means over the Internet. For 

some time, States have been encouraged to introduce or expand the electronic return of voted 

ballots as an option to military voters. Until and unless FVAP makes a-very clear statement that 

online return of voted ballots is the worst ofthe available options and should not be used until 

it can be made secure, that past climate of encouragement will not be seen to have changed. 

Information about the reliability of these systems has not been made public - even 

though States will be using these systems through the awarded EASE grants. A promised 2010 

3 
62 

"lessons learned" report about the EVSW systems has not yet been made public, to our 

knowledge. Tests were arranged by FVAP and conducted by voting system testing laboratories 

for functionality and security for both online ballot marking wizards and internet voting 

systems. In public meetings as early as 2011 it was stated that the results of the tests would be 

made available but it is nearly Election Day more than a year later, and no test reports have 

been shared with the public. 

Organizations with security expertise dwarfing that of any voting system vendor or 

election jurisdiction - Google, Symantec and the White House, to name a few - have been 

victims of remote attacks via the Internet. We cannot expect an election jurisdiction to resist 

remote attack for any online systems. Any and all relevant guidance on the systems they may 

be using must be made, publicly available in advance of deployment of such systems; that 

guidance may not be sufficient, but it will be a responsible and welcome step. 

What Can FVAP Do To Help Secure Federal Elections? 

As a nation we fail in our duty if we do not take into consideration warnings already provided to 

FVAP from experts at NIST and other authorities about the vulnerability of returning voted 

ballots electronically and even marking ballots online. Federal agencies like FVAP can and 

should be completely clear with constituents about where policy can safely encompass the use 

of current technology - e.g., sending information ill voters electronically, including blank ballots 

- and should avoid ambiguity in areas where technology is stili largely untested and known to 

be hazardous. We should support the responsible use oftechnology where it can benefit our 

remote voters, while opposing technology that makes our elections highly vulnerable. 

4 
63 

• FVAP should protect military voters by recommending that marked ballots be 

returned in expedited and tracked physical mail. 

FVAP Should Provide Clear, Written Guidance to the States, The FVAP should provide 

guidance prior to the 2012 elections clarifying that the return of voted ballots over the 

Internet is something that should be put off until such time as the technical challenges 

are met and systems that are demonstrably reliable and verifiable can be approved by 

bodies such as the National Cybersecurity Council and the Critical Infrastructure 

Partnership Advisory Council with input from appropriate persons at NIST and DHS. 

• FVAP Should Release Information to the public about any testing completed on 

systems deployed through EVSW or EASE, or being considered for deployment. 

• FVAP Should Continue to Engage with the community of stakeholders, including 

technology experts, to seek safer alternatives for aiding military and overseas voters. 

We understand that a conference is planned for 2013 to continue the dialogue initiated 

in the last two years, with election officials, technologists and security experts. We 

applaud the Interim Director's plan to continue this effort and will do what we can to 

support its success. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for holding today's 

hearing. Please consider Verified Voting.org as a resource for information as you continue to 

address these very important matters. 

5 
64 

; In 2010, when the District of Columbia operated its pilot Internet voting project, it was 

hacked. The system was corrupted remotely by white hat hackers who were able to alter 

votes, obtain codes to individuals' voting pin numbers and principally change the system in 

36 hours. They also observed intruders with IP addresses from China and Iran. Thus far, this 

is the only jurisdiction that has even enabled such testing to identify vulnerabilities, yet 

Internet return of voted ballots is available in 31 states today, with fewer security 

precautions than DC's experimental system. 

;; 20 States Are Doing the Right Thing; 30 States and DC Still Need to Improve. Currently, 

20 states protect voters by prohibiting electronic return of marked ballots over the Internet 

and/or requiring the voter's original paper ballot to be returned. One state, New Jersey, 

permits electronic return of votes for military and overseas voters, but requires the physical 

ballot to be returned as well. However, the follOWing 24 states permit electronic return of 

votes for military and overseas voters without restrictions, subjecting the ballots and voting 

systems to the risk of corruption: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, District of 

Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, LOUisiana, Massachusetts, MiSSiSSippi, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia. The following six states make 

electronic return of voted ballots available to restricted groups of voters (e.g., military 

voters in combat zones): Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Missouri and Texas. However, 

these votes are still at risk. 

6 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

(67) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. HECK 

Mr. MOOREFIELD. As highlighted in our report, one of the most significant provisions of the MOVE Act was the requirement to establish an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) on every military installation worldwide (except for installations in a warzone). The President of the United States designated the Secretary 

of Defense as the official primarily responsible for overseeing all Federal Voting Assistance Programs—including the development of any definitions necessary to guide 

the Service Secretaries in their compliance with MOVE Act provisions. During our 

assessment of MOVE Act implementation, we explained that DOD and Military Department installation voting assistance office records were incomplete, did not include offices on a number of bases knowledgeable people might consider installations, and noted the absence of criteria or the definition of an ‘‘installation’’ for 

MOVE Act compliance purposes. On September 13, 2012, the Department of Defense issued DOD Instruction No. 1000.04, ‘‘Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP.)’’ The instruction applied to all Military Services, including the Instruction 

specifically required all Services to appoint a General Officer, Admiral, or a Member 

of the Senior Executive Service to manage their Service’s voting assistance program, 

establish an installation voter assistance office on every base worldwide, and maintain accurate records. The instruction also allowed satellite office to accommodate 

geographically dispersed installations. Implementation and enforcement of this 

newly published policy document should address the installation voting assistance 

office issues we identified in our report. However, compliance with the DOD Instruction will be subject to DODIG’s ongoing and independent oversight and reporting. 

[See page 11.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. MITCHELL. Since the MOVE Act’s passage, States have taken significant steps 

to improve the absentee voting process for absent military and overseas citizen voters. For instance, in 2008, 13 States offered military and overseas voters the option 

of receiving a blank ballot by email. Today, 48 States offer this service by email. 

Forty-two States have enacted legislation authorizing changes to the absentee voting process for military and overseas citizen voters and implementing the MOVE 

Act reforms. 

Some voters still encounter obstacles that can impede voter participation. For instance, witness requirements—especially when the witness must be a U.S. citizen— 

can pose a substantial hurdle for Peace Corps volunteers, missionaries or other 

Americans who may be serving in a remote area by themselves. Four States (Alabama, Alaska, Virginia and Wisconsin) still require a ballot envelope to be witnessed in order for the ballot to be counted. 

Another obstacle is the decentralization of the election system and the sheer number of local election officials. Across the country, there are over 7,300 local election 

officials. Two States, Michigan and Wisconsin, have unusually decentralized election 

systems. Wisconsin alone has over 1,850 local election officials. Across Michigan, 

there are 11 municipalities called ‘‘Grant Townships,’’ each with its own local election official, and each with different contact information. For an absentee voter, figuring out where to send your election materials can be confusing and time consuming. At the other end of the spectrum, two States (Alaska and Maine) have a 

single, centralized point of contact for all overseas and military voters. That is a real 

benefit to voters. Though only ten States hold run-off elections, they vary greatly 

in how they treat absent military and overseas citizen voters. Texas changed the 

State election calendar in 2011 to allow 65 days in between the primary and runoff elections, ensuring that election officials could send blank ballots to military and 

overseas voters 45 days before each election. Timing issues remain in several of the 

other runoff States; the U.S. Department of Justice sued Georgia earlier this year 

for not allowing military and overseas voters an adequate opportunity to participate 

in that State’s primary runoff elections. [See page 12.] 
68 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST 

Ms. MITCHELL. As stated, the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General (DODIG) reported investigators were only able to contact 114 Installation Voter 

Assistance (IVA) Offices. The Military Services have established 221 IVA Offices. 

The listing used by the DODIG in August 2012 was a March 2012 contact list. Information on this list changes regularly. Since that time, FVAP has worked with the 

Services to ensure accurate contact information for each office. In addition, FVAP 

has and will continue to contact every IVA Office weekly until the election. 

FVAP did review the processes and procedures for the program from 2010 and the 

results are contained in the 2010 Post Election Survey Report. As indicated in the 

Report, FVAP provided extensive in-person and Webinar training for the new 

MOVE Act requirement for Installation Voter Assistance (IVA) Offices as indicated 

on pages 37–38. Pages 54–57 detail the Services MOVE Act implementation activities. 

A copy of the 2010 report may be found at: http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/ 

2010report.pdf. [See page 14.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

(71) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. In 2011, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) arranged for 

the voting system testing laboratories to perform functionality and security testing 

on both online ballot marking systems and Internet voting systems. The results of 

these tests were to be made available to the public but as we rapidly approach the 

2012 elections, these reports have yet to be published. These online ballot marking 

systems will be used in States across the country in the November elections, and 

election administrators could benefit from the results of these reports. What are 

FVAP’s plans for releasing these test reports? 

Ms. MITCHELL. These tests are at different stages of ongoing review. The early 

release of these results without a full vetting of issues and a thorough assessment 

would lead to incomplete and potentially inaccurate results. The first of the assessments will be released in December 2012, with all of the assessments being released 

by the end of the 2nd quarter. 

Mrs. DAVIS. In 2010, FVAP received about $9 million for research, development, 

testing and evaluation (RDT&E) of online balloting and Internet voting systems 

which was largely used for the funding of the Electronic Voting Support Wizards 

(EVSW). In 2011 and 2012, FVAP received a combined total of $65 million for 

RDT&E for projects to assist military and overseas voters. Can your office provide 

a summary of the projects this money funded and what was learned from the research, development, evaluation and testing performed? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Please see the listing of projects and activities below. 

FY 2012 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDTE)—Funds not yet executed (RDTE is two-year funding and can be spent over a two-year period.) 

FY 2011 RDTE 

• EASE Grants: The Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections (EASE) Grants 

Program provides funds to States and localities to enable military and overseas 

voters to use electronic systems such as online registration, absentee ballot requests, and blank ballot delivery. Reports, from grant recipients on the utility 

of these systems, are pending. 

• Candidate database for R3: During the 2010 election cycle, FVAP implemented 

‘‘R3,’’ also referred to as FVAP’s online wizards, a paperless, automated process 

system. R3 guides the voter through the completion of the Federal Post Card 

Application and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. R3 now has the capability to import candidate data and allow FVAP staff to validate the data prior 

to presenting candidates to the public. This reduced FVAP’s reliance on third 

party sources for candidate information and improved FVAP’s ability to perform 

internal quality assurance reviews of this information. 

• Voting Over the DISN–CAC Analysis: In support of the electronic voting demonstration project (aka, Internet voting project) pursuant to the 2002 and 2005 

National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), FVAP awarded a contract to 

study the feasibility of voting over the Defense Information Systems Network 

(DISN) using the Common Access Card (CAC) as an identification credential. 

Final deliverable was received in October 2012 and is being reviewed. 

• Non Technical Research: FVAP awarded contracts to study the following. This 

is ongoing research and results are not yet available. 

Æ Analysis of the processes employed by all strata of UOCAVA voters for potential deficiencies, risks, and pitfalls which serve as barriers to voting success. 

Æ To determine the differences of voting success rates between UOCAVA and 

non-UOCAVA voters in Federal elections across States that identify election 

data trends over time. 

Æ To assess and identify the social and behavioral factors that influence 

UOCAVA voters. 

Æ To complete a series of studies and analyses related to the security of voting 

systems that UOCAVA voters could use. 
72 

• Portal: FVAP awarded a contract to develop a dynamic, data-driven portal to 

replace its existing, static Web site (FVAP.gov). The portal will serve as the 

basis for the development of a series of Web services and applications designed 

to meet the needs of overseas military and overseas voter stakeholders. This effort has just begun. 

• Kiosk: FVAP awarded a contract to obtain two reports reflecting lessons learned 

from the 2008 Okaloosa County’s Internet voting pilot project, with the second 

report directly applying lessons learned into an operational framework for potential use as a future demonstration project. This work is ongoing and results 

are not yet available. 

• OCC Survey: FVAP awarded a contract to develop a scientifically based estimate of the U.S. overseas citizen population. This work is ongoing and results 

are not yet available. 

FY 2010 RDTE 

• Electronic Voting Assistance Wizard (EVSW): Pilot program for online blank 

ballot delivery and marking wizard to allow military and overseas voters to receive and mark, online, their absentee ballots. Results of this effort are pending 

internal Department review and compilation of a final report. 

• Operation Vote: FVAP conducted extensive research, testing, and evaluation of 

Kiosk and PC voting systems with the intent of supporting disabled military 

members, military members, their spouses and dependents, and overseas citizen 

voters to register and vote successfully with a minimum amount of effort. Full 

results of this effort are pending final internal review. However, one valuable 

outcome already promulgated was a checklist and handbook for voting assistance officers to use in helping wounded warriors exercise their right to vote. 

Mrs. DAVIS. According to a mandate in the FY05NDAA, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is responsible for developing the guidelines for a remote 

electronic voting demonstration project to be carried out by the FVAP once the EAC 

creates these guidelines. In May, NIST issued a statement warning that secure 

Internet voting is not currently feasible and that more research is needed. In light 

of this development, has FVAP adjusted its proposed timeline for a remote electronic 

voting demonstration project? Does FVAP plan to alter any of its proposed research 

and development projects for 2012 and 2013? 

Ms. MITCHELL. At this time, FVAP does not anticipate implementing the electronic voting demonstration project without applicable standards in place as referenced in the FY05 NDAA. FVAP, the EAC, and NIST have worked collaboratively 

over the last few years to chart a responsible course forward in adhering to the outstanding Congressional requirement for the conduct of an electronic voting demonstration project. FVAP continues to focus on supporting research that will help 

drive the standards development process itself, and does not currently plan to alter 

any of the ongoing research and development projects for 2012 and 2013. 

FVAP is currently engaged in both technical and non-technical research in support of the outstanding concerns regarding Internet voting security: 

Technical Research Initiatives: 

• Conduct research on the relative security and privacy risks of the current 

postal balloting experience versus a potential Internet solution (i.e., electronic 

voting demonstration project) to establish the relative security risks of each 

and identify potential trade-offs. 

• Research the relative technical processes associated with using the Defense 

Information System Network (DISN) and Common Access Card (CAC) to mitigate security risks in response to NIST’s concerns about public networks. 

• Explore the viability of existing software tools to document software integrity 

and reconcile voting system elements with Federal information security 

guidelines. 

Non-Technical Research Initiatives: 

• Document the overall failure rates for UOCAVA voters and validate past research data to fully document the level of difficulties experienced by UOCAVA 

voters in casting ballots. 

• Examine pilot program alternatives to the electronic voting demonstration 

project that do not expose voting systems to increase security risks. 

• Further quantify the overseas civilian population to assist with overall assessment of FVAP program effectiveness and scope of future pilot projects. 

All of the ongoing FVAP research attempts to answer outstanding policy questions 

and further assist the EAC and NIST with developing security standards. 
73 

Mrs. DAVIS. A NIST statement from May 2012 said, ‘‘NIST’s research results indicate that additional research and development is needed to overcome these challenges before secure Internet voting will be feasible.’’ Given NIST’s statement, does 

FVAP currently encourage States to allow the electronic transmission of voted ballots for overseas and military voters? If so, what message does it communicate to 

State elections officials? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No, FVAP does not advocate for Internet voting (online return of 

a voted ballot in a live election). FVAP currently encourages States to offer tools 

to Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) voters that 

focus on online registration and the electronic transmission of blank ballots. 

FVAP’s grants program researches the long-term effectiveness of various electronic voter support systems. These competitive grants are awarded to State and 

local election officials across a broad spectrum of electronic absentee voting initiatives. The final terms and conditions of these awards specifically preclude use of 

grant funding for electronic transmission of voted ballots in an actual election via 

the Internet, email, or facsimile. 

Æ