UOCAVA Voters

and the Electronic Transmission 

of Voting Materials in Four States

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

October 2007

UOCAVA Voters

and the Electronic Transmission 

of Voting Materials in Four States

Contents

Introduction.

Guide to Terms.

Summary.

Executive Summary.

Recommendations.

General Recommendations.

Specific Recommended Practices for 

Electronic Transmission of UOCAVA Voting Materials.

Research Methods. 

Sample Selection. 

Data Collection. .

Findings. 

Case Study: UOCAVA Voting in Illi

Background. 

Implementation. 

Case Study: UOCAVA Voting in Flo

Background. 

Implementation. 

Case Study: UOCAVA Voting in South Caro

Background. 

Implementation. 

CASE STUDY: UOCAVA Voting in Montana.

Background. 

Implementation. 

References. 

Appendix A: Key Criteria for Inclusion in Case Study. 

Appendix B: Election Administration and Statistics for Case Study States. 

Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting. 

Appendix D: Key Implementation Findings. 

iii

Introduction 1

Section 245 of HAVA requires the 

EAC to study the challenges of 

incorporating electronic transmission 

(ET) technologies (including the 

Internet) into the Federal, State, and 

local electoral process—specifically, 

issues pertaining to electronically 

generated messages that permit 

eligible voters to apply for and vote 

an absentee ballot. 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

is an independent, bipartisan commission created 

by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 to 

assist State and local election officials with the 

administration of Federal elections. The EAC 

provides assistance by disbursing, administering, 

and auditing Federal funds for States to implement 

HAVA requirements; conducting studies and other 

activities to promote the effective administration 

of Federal elections; and serving as a source of 

information regarding election administration. 

Section 245 of HAVA requires the EAC to study the 

challenges of incorporating electronic transmission 

(ET) technologies (including the Internet) into 

the Federal, State, and local electoral process—

specifically, issues pertaining to electronically 

generated messages that permit eligible voters to 

apply for and vote an absentee ballot. Electronic 

transmission of voting materials may make the 

voting process easier for people covered by the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA) because they face greater 

constraints for absentee voting. 

In 2006, the EAC commissioned two research 

studies involving ET of voting materials. One study 

involved a survey of UOCAVA voters regarding their 

experiences with electronic voting. The other study 

resulted in this publication, UOCAVA Voters and the 

Electronic Transmission of Voting Materials in Four 

States, which examines the experiences of selected 

States and/or local jurisdictions with Internet voting 

and with ET of absentee ballots to and from UOCAVA 

voters. Although no States at the time of this study 

have Internet-based registration or voting systems, 

many use facsimile (fax) transmission and several use 

electronic mail (e-mail) for UOCAVA voters. 

This report documents election officials’ experiences 

and impressions of the ET process, implementation 

challenges, recommendations for improvements to 

the system, and possible methods of replicating the 

process in other States and/or jurisdictions.

Appendix A shows the degree of ET allowed in the 

States chosen for inclusion in this research, appendix 

B displays each State’s election administration 

structure and ballot statistics for 2006, appendix C 

summarizes the law for the four States, and appendix 

D lists key implementation findings.

3

absent uniformed services voter

An active-duty member of the uniformed services (U.S. 

Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Marine 

Corps, and U.S. Navy; the commissioned corps of the 

U.S. Public Health Service; and the commissioned corps 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 

a member of the U.S. merchant marine, or a spouse or 

dependent of either of those, who is, by reason of such 

active duty in the uniformed services or service in the 

U.S. merchant marine, absent from the place of residence 

where the member is otherwise qualified to vote. “Absent 

from the place of residence” means “out of the local 

voting jurisdiction,” which in many States, translates 

to “out of county.” Absent uniformed services voters, 

sometimes called “military voters” for brevity, do not need 

to be overseas to fall under the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act; they need to be only out of 

their local voting jurisdiction. 

electronic transmission (ET)

The act of faxing or e-mailing a Federal Post Card 

Application or ballot request by the voter, a blank ballot 

to the voter, and/or a voted ballot by the voter. Appendix 

B of the Voting Assistance Guide (published as a book 

and online by the Federal Voting Assistance Program) 

provides guidelines for ET.

Federal Post Card Application (FPCA)

Postage-free postcard, printed and distributed by the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program for use by absentee 

voters covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act, which simultaneously registers 

and requests an absentee ballot for the voter. The 

FPCA is also known as “Standard Form 76” (or SF76). 

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)

An agency within the Department of Defense that 

administers the Federal responsibilities of the presidential 

designee under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The Secretary of Defense 

is the presidential designee responsible for Federal 

functions under UOCAVA.

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB)

A “back-up ballot,” also known as Standard Form 186 (SF 

186) for Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act voters who made a timely request for an absentee 

ballot but did not receive it. A FWAB contains a declaration/

affirmation that is essentially the same information 

gathered on the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) 

(and which some States may use as a registration) and a 

section for listing choice of candidates for Federal offices 

(as well as any other offices the State allows). Although a 

minimum requirement for use of the FWAB exists, about 

12 States use it for more purposes, such as for registration 

or voting on State or local offices. The FWAB is available 

in hard copy or on line at the Federal Voting Assistance 

Program Web site. The online version can be mailed using 

the same postage-free envelope used for the FPCA. 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

A Federal law enacted in 2002 to improve and increase 

the uniformity of election administration. Several sections 

of HAVA relate to voters who are covered by the 

Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

and subsequently amended UOCAVA.

Integrated Voting Alternative Site (IVAS 2006)

The 2006 successor to IVAS 2004 (see next term) that 

provided two tools for States that voluntarily participated 

in the program; assisted voters in obtaining ballots and 

added a new portion of the Federal Voting Assistance 

Program Web site listing electronic alternatives provided 

by each State and territory.

• IVAS 2006 Tool 1

For participating States and local jurisdictions, previously 

registered U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)-affiliated 

voters with access to a secure DoD system completed an 

automated Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) on line 

and then e-mailed it directly to their local election official. 

This automated FPCA showed that it was generated via 

IVAS and did not require a signature.

• IVAS 2006 Tool 2

For participating States and local jurisdictions, previously 

registered DoD-affiliated voters with access to a secure 

DoD system completed an automated FPCA on line, 

which the local election official downloads. This automated 

FPCA showed that it was generated via IVAS 2006 and 

did not require a signature. If the FPCA is approved, the 

local election official then uploaded a portable document 

format, or PDF, of the blank ballot onto the server and 

the voter was alerted and able to download and print the 

ballot. After completing the printed ballot, the voter had to 

return it in accordance with State law and not through the 

IVAS 2006 system.

Interim Voting Assistance System (IVAS 2004)

A program administered by the Federal Voting Assistance 

Program that allowed States that voluntarily participated 

in the program to have previously registered U.S. 

Department of Defense DoD-affiliated voters request and 

receive absentee ballots for the 2004 general election over 

a secure DoD server.

legal voting residence for overseas citizens

Address in the State where the individual resides or last 

resided before leaving the United States. This term applies 

to an individual who no longer owns or rents at that 

address and his or her intent to return is uncertain.

Guide to Terms
4

legal voting residence for uniformed

services members and families

Address in a State where the individual has met the 

State’s residency requirement, generally where the 

individual has or has had a physical presence and has 

an intent to return to make the State his ir her home. An 

individual may have only one legal residence at a time 

and any change of legal residence must be deliberate and 

established through actions, including when reverting to a 

previous residence. Although it can be the same address, 

“legal voting residence” is different from the “home of 

record,” which is the address the individual had upon 

entering the service and which does not change.

local election officials (LEOs)

The individuals responsible for registration and/or voting in 

the local jurisdiction that conducts elections, such as the 

county, parish, or city.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)

A Federal law enacted in 1993 to enhance the ability 

of Americans to register to vote and to maintain their 

registration through, for example, agencies such as motor 

vehicles departments. It also mandated development of 

a national mail-in registration form that can be used in 

all States. The original act gave enforcement powers to 

the U.S. Department of Justice and gave responsibility 

for implementation to the Federal Election Commission 

(FEC). An amendment in the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 transferred the FEC’s responsibilities under the act 

to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The act is 

sometimes called the Motor Voter Act.

overseas citizen permanently residing

outside the United States

A U.S. citizen who resides outside the territorial limits 

of the United States and is qualified to vote or would 

be qualified to vote in the last place in which he or she 

domiciled before leaving the United States.

overseas citizen temporarily out of 

the United States

A U.S. citizen with a residence in the United States 

who will be outside of the territorial limits of the United 

States on Election Day for any reason, including 

employment and travel. 

overseas voter

A U.S. citizen who is outside the territorial limits of the 

United States on Election Day. Although this term includes 

active-duty uniformed service members who are, by reason 

of active duty, outside the territorial limits of the United 

States, it typically refers to civilians because uniformed 

services voters usually are put in their own category.

Secure Electronic Registration and Voting

Experiment (SERVE)

A demonstration project planned for the 2004 general 

election to develop a Web-based registration and voting 

system that could be accessed from any computer in any 

location. SERVE was cancelled in 2004 because of security 

concerns raised by independent computer scientists.

State/Special Write-in Absentee Ballot (SWAB)

For a particular State, a write-in ballot that allows 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

voters to write in their choices for candidates or parties for 

different elected offices (usually more than Federal offices) 

rather than receive a regular absentee ballot. Typically, a 

SWAB is requested and sent out several months before 

the election to voters who will not be able to receive the 

regular absentee ballot because of their activities or 

location. The State must have statutes that establish a 

SWAB and define its use.

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)

A Federal law enacted in 1986 as Public Law 99-410 and 

amended by four subsequent laws, governing registration 

and absentee voting for uniformed and overseas citizens. 

UOCAVA Voter

An absentee voter covered by the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; sometimes also 

called a “Federal voter,” or “Federal elector.” For brevity in 

this report, it may be simply referred to as a “military or 

overseas voter,” with the absence implied.

Voting Assistance Program

A program within each Federal department and agency 

that has employees covered by the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act that assists those 

citizens with voting.

voting assistance officers (VAOs)

Individuals in each Federal department and agency with 

employees covered by the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act who are responsible for 

providing accurate, nonpartisan voting information and 

assistance to those citizens attempting to exercise their 

constitutional right to vote. The Federal Voting Assistance 

Program provides training to VAOs on line and in person.

Voting Over the Internet (VOI) Pilot Project

A pilot project allowing a small sample of Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act voters to register 

and vote over the Internet using dedicated personal 

computers during the 2000 general election.
Throughout this year-long project to study 

military and overseas voting and the electronic 

transmission (ET) of voting materials, a few strong 

patterns emerged that involved jurisdictions 

chosen for the case studies. 

First, State and local election officials (LEOs) are 

enthusiastic about facilitating the voting of this 

population, especially active-duty military who 

are serving overseas, and they are committed to 

protecting voter privacy. Unfortunately, they are 

hindered by limited resources, lack of knowledge 

about resources and procedures, and technical 

incapacities. For example, although some local 

election officials knew about and took advantage of 

providing federally paid postage on ballot materials 

to Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA) voters, several were unaware 

of it and spent local funds for mailings. 

Project researchers also encountered huge 

variations in technical capability from one local 

jurisdiction to the next based on staff compentency 

and computer systems. Also, voting by ET is 

limited because military and overseas voters do 

not always know about their options. Although 

some election officials promote ET options, the 

promotion is rarely comprehensive enough to 

reach all intended voters. Unfortunately, local 

election agencies have a disincentive to encourage 

widespread use of ET of voted ballots because it 

requires hiring staff to duplicate ballots so they can 

be run through the regular counting process. Paper 

ballots sent and received by regular mail in a timely 

fashion better meet the goals of voter privacy and 

administrative efficiency.

Second, from the perspective of State and local 

election administrators, the requirement to use 

UOCAVA registration information through two 

Federal election cycles is burdensome and 

costly. The impact of this law was first seen in 

the 2006 general election, which was the second 

Federal election since the law took effect. Local 

election officials were extremely dismayed at 

the great number of blank ballots returned as 

undeliverable, especially from military voters 

Summary

who have constant address changes or are 

discharged and return home between Federal 

elections. Local administrators also fear having 

blank ballots “out there” that do not come back 

voted or undeliverable. Of particular concern is 

the discharged military voter who returns home 

and cannot vote at the polls because he or she 

has been sent an absentee ballot at the previous 

military address.

Third, State and local election administrators are 

concerned with authenticating voters located 

outside the State or jurisdiction. In general, ET 

of voting materials must be accompanied by an 

assurance that voters are “who they say they 

are,” but the preferred method for achieving that 

varies. Some officials believe e-mail is the safer 

way to authenticate who is on the other end of a 

transmission, because voters need a password 

to access their e-mail accounts. Conversely, a 

blank ballot may sit in a fax machine and anyone 

could simply vote it and return it. Regardless of 

security on the other end, all jurisdictions have 

safeguards such as barcodes and signature 

checks so that stray ballots cannot be fraudulently 

voted and returned unnoticed. Most local election 

administrators prefer direct contact through phone 

or e-mail with absent voters; however, a benefit 

of both the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) pilot 

Integrated Voting Alternative Site 2006 (IVAS 

2006) “tools” was that the DoD authenticated 

each voter and eliminated the need for an original 

signature on the Federal Post Card Application 

(FPCA) ballot request form.

Executive Summary

5

The four States chosen for these 

case studies—Florida, Illinois, 

Montana, and South Carolina—

were selected based on variation in 

region, population size, population 

characteristics, and the application 

of laws across local jurisdictions. 
6

The uniform rules in South Carolina and Florida, 

compared with local variation in Montana and 

Illinois, also did not seem to produce different 

administrative practices. For example, although 

State law allows counties in Montana to vary in 

application of ET based on technical capabilities, 

the same type of administrative variation existed in 

South Carolina. One factor that made a difference 

was population size and the corresponding effect 

on administrative structure. In Montana, where 

county populations are relatively small, rural, and 

remotely located, county election offices seemed 

to have more flexibility in terms of aiding UOCAVA 

voting and facilitating ET.

The four States chosen for these case studies—

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and South Carolina—were 

selected based on variation in region, population 

size, population characteristics, and the application 

of laws across local jurisdictions. (See appendix A.) 

Their commonalities dwarfed any major differences. 

In all four States and the local jurisdictions studied, 

the military population was most of the UOCAVA 

population. Because the military population comes 

from all parts of the United States, no major 

demographic differences exist between voters in 

sample States. And because of the prevalence of 

military voters, the attention to UOCAVA voters was 

fairly high. 
7

Researchers interviewed 11 State election 

administrators and 31 local election officials from 

15 local jurisdictions in Florida, Illinois, Montana, 

and South Carolina. When visiting the four 

States, the researchers conducted 40 interviews 

in person. They also conducted two interviews 

exclusively by telephone. Data collection 

regarding most of the 15 local jurisdictions 

was supplemented by telephone conversations 

and through e-mail exchanges. The following 

recommendations come from speaking directly to 

the LEOs, mostly in their office environment, and 

(where possible) from forms and documents. 

During the field work, researchers were advised 

about the following practices or potential practices 

that make or might make absentee voting by 

UOCAVA voters easier and that may facilitate 

meeting deadlines, maintaining the privacy of the 

voter, authenticating the voter and transmitted 

materials from that voter, and increasing the 

efficiency and reducing the burden on staff.

General Recommendations

State Laws

States should allow people with Power of 

Attorney for an absent voter to apply for that 

voter’s absentee ballot. One State, which now 

has this law but did not have it during the 

November 2006 election, tells of the father of a 

soldier in Iraq who wanted to pick up his son’s 

ballot and send the ballot to him by FedEx. The 

son did not complete an application with his 

own signature before leaving the country, and 

the father was not allowed to sign the absentee 

ballot application for his son.

States should allow local election agencies to 

conduct pilot projects for military and overseas 

voting procedures, because good ideas often 

originate at the local level.

State Administration

States should develop training programs at the 

State level and invite LEOs to collaborate with 

the State on optional courses.

States should provide resources and 

•

•

•

•

Recommendations

infrastructure support for better local 

computer and fax systems and assist with 

uniform setup and troubleshooting.

Local jurisdictions that do ET should 

communicate best practices to other 

jurisdictions in the State. If one jurisdiction has 

some technology (hardware, software, etc.) 

that is particularly helpful for ET of ballots to 

UOCAVA voters, the State should encourage 

the other jurisdictions to adopt that technology.

Voters should be encouraged to provide email addresses to LEOs, and LEOs should 

be encouraged to use e-mail to communicate 

with UOCAVA voters. E-mail is an easy, 

low-cost, and fast way to communicate. Email addresses should be uploaded to the 

statewide registration database. 

States should encourage and support 

local offices sending periodic mailings to 

verify UOCAVA addresses to decrease 

undeliverable or unreturned blank ballots and 

to decrease the number of absentee ballots 

sent to former UOCAVA voters who return 

home but are not allowed to vote at the polls.

Local Administration

LEOs should meet annually with the local 

post office staff to educate them on the 

UOCAVA mail they will encounter. Local U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) line staff are usually 

not trained on handling UOCAVA mail and are 

unaware of time issues.

LEOs should have access to information 

technology (IT) support in their office 

or through the county/local government 

infrastructure. Specifically, local election 

agencies should be part of the county/local 

government IT infrastructure so LEOs have 

server access and support and get the 

technology they need for ETs.

Education and Outreach

The Federal Government should educate 

all local jurisdictions about federally paid 

postage for official ballot material that is 

available for UOCAVA voters.

•

•

•

•

•

•
8

The Federal Government should establish a 

nationwide training program and guide on the 

ET of voting materials. Training should start at 

the Federal level (Federal Voting Assistance 

Program, or FVAP) and be consistently available 

at State and local levels.

FVAP should sponsor regular meetings between 

voting assistance officers (VAOs) and LEOs in 

applicable jurisdictions to share information, 

forms, and educational materials and to update 

each other on changes. FVAP should bring 

civilian VAOs into the process by hosting a 

biyearly conference in the United States with 

military and civilian VAOs, LEOs, State election 

administrators, and USPS representatives to 

discuss UOCAVA voting. These meetings could 

be forums to educate LEOs about various 

UOCAVA populations (overseas civilian, overseas 

military, and domestic military) and the context 

in which they are voting (e.g., military structure, 

postal systems in the military and other countries, 

and embassy/consular resources). 

FVAP should develop standard outreach 

materials about voting options that States and 

LEOs can adapt and disseminate. For example, 

LEOs could modify a sample outreach letter 

that is also an address verification letter. LEOs 

providing information about ET options on their 

Web sites is not enough.

Specific Recommended Practices for 

Electronic Transmission of UOCAVA 

Voting Materials

The following specific practices are those employed 

or proposed by LEOs who were interviewed in 

the case study research. Each practice listed also 

includes the implications for facilitating secure 

voting and for local election administration. The 

list is not meant to be comprehensive; rather, it 

is a compilation of ideas discovered during the 

research. Some ideas may work only in certain 

States and/or jurisdictions.

Faxing

Possible actions: 

The voter faxes the FPCA or ballot request to 

the LEO.

•

•

•

•

The LEO faxes the blank ballot to the voter.

The voter faxes the voted ballot to the LEO.

Recommended practice: The election office 

has a dedicated, secure fax line just for UOCAVA 

materials and a dedicated person to retrieve and 

send UOCAVA materials from that fax machine.

Implications: One fax number and fax machine 

just for UOCAVA materials during the election 

season is a good way to maintain the privacy 

of the voter. This practice ensures security and 

increases privacy of the FPCA, ballot request, 

or voted ballot that is faxed from the voter to 

the LEO. If the fax machine is used for other 

purposes, then other staff may sort through faxes 

and see the voter’s name, personal information, 

and/or ballot choices. A designated person to 

receive and send materials on that fax machine 

makes it easier to be certain that materials are 

going to and coming from the correct person. If 

others pick up the faxes, communication with 

the voter might break down and authentication 

of materials is more difficult. For a voted ballot, 

having a designated person also reduces to one 

the number of people who see the ballot and 

the voter’s name. This one person can verify the 

signature and send the ballot on for duplication, 

possibly preventing the staff that duplicates it 

from seeing the name of the voter. 

Recommended practice: The election office has a 

toll-free fax number for UOCAVA voters.

Implications: This practice reduces the cost 

of voting for UOCAVA voters and enables them 

to submit their FPCA, ballot request, and voted 

ballot by the deadline.

Recommended practice: The election office 

confirms receipt of fax by a voter or from a voter 

through a simultaneous phone call or e-mail.

Implications: Fax transmissions are inherently 

insecure because, at the time of faxing, it is not 

possible to ascertain who receives, sends, or 

sees faxes after they are sent. Therefore, the 

best method of confirmation is to either be on 

the phone with the receiver or sender while the 

fax is transmitted or to send an e-mail confirming 

•

•
9

the transmission and getting an immediate 

positive e-mail response to that confirmation. 

Recommended practice: The election office has 

a software program to generate correct ballot styles 

for faxing. 

Implications: Offsite (sometimes out-of-State) 

printers or voting systems vendors typically 

produce ballots. These printed ballots may 

arrive too late for UOCAVA voters and/or may 

not fit into regular fax machines. Local election 

offices with the capacity to print ballots on 8.5-

inch-wide paper will have an easier time faxing 

blank ballots to UOCAVA voters. This practice 

requires that election offices have their ballot 

layouts in an electronic format from which they 

can then print all ballot styles. A computer 

program to take the UOCAVA voter information 

and generate the appropriate ballot style for 

each voter would make this process even more 

efficient and cut down on the staff needed to 

produce ballots.

Recommended practice: A LEO handling 

UOCAVA voters provides specialized service to 

meet technical needs of individual voters so that 

faxes can be sent or received. For example, one 

overseas voter was in a town with only one fax 

machine, which was available only at certain times. 

The LEO obtained all the necessary information 

and faxed materials to this number when the voter 

said she could be there to receive it. Another 

example of special technical needs is military voters 

who cannot fax to civilian phone numbers from the 

secure DoD phone lines in Southeast Asia. 

Implications: This kind of specialized service 

takes extra time and commitment from the LEOs 

handling UOCAVA voters, but they believe it 

is worthwhile to make extra efforts to facilitate 

voting for this population.

Recommended practice: Allow faxed ballots to 

be hand counted or consider developing technology 

that can scan ballots received by fax.

Implications: As the faxing of voted ballots 

increases, local jurisdictions must hire more 

workers to duplicate the ballots so they can be 

counted in the same manner as other absentee 

ballots (typically scanned). Hand counting of 

faxed ballots might reduce the amount of staff 

needed (staff need only count, not duplicate and 

run ballots through scanner); however, it might 

further compromise privacy. 

E-Mailing

Possible actions:

The LEO communicates with the voter via e-mail.

The voter e-mails the FPCA or ballot request to 

the LEO.

The LEO e-mails the blank ballot to the voter.

The voter e-mails the voted ballot to the LEO.

Recommended practice: The election office 

solicits e-mail addresses from all UOCAVA voters 

and maintains a database of those e-addresses 

regardless of whether the voter requested that his/her 

blank ballot be e-mailed. At a minimum, the election 

office should have an e-mail address book for 

UOCAVA voters and should upload e-mail addresses 

to the statewide voter registration database.

Implications: E-mail is an inexpensive, rapid 

way to communicate with UOCAVA voters about 

their absentee voting process. The LEO can 

use e-mail to communicate about obtaining 

the FPCA and blank ballots and to confirm 

receipt of completed FPCAs, blank ballots, and 

voted ballots. The LEO can also use e-mails to 

provide important information about deadlines, 

transmission methods, upcoming elections, 

candidates, and initiatives. 

E-mail has an advantage over telephone calls 

because both parties do not need to be present 

at the same time. The online FPCA form asks 

for an e-mail address, but many voters do not 

complete that field or they send in the actual 

postcard or the local ballot request form. In 

addition, some LEOs do not electronically record 

the e-mail address from the FPCA, especially if 

the voter did not request the ballot by e-mail or 

the State does not allow e-mailing of ballots. In 

many cases, the only e-mail addresses the LEO 

has are those captured passively because a 

voter sends an e-mail to the jurisdiction with an 

inquiry or a request that a ballot be e-mailed to 

•

•

•

•
10

him/her. After ballots are sent or received, the 

LEO typically deletes the e-mails (for privacy) 

and consequently deletes the e-mail addresses. 

E-mail addresses can be actively solicited 

through postcard mailings to follow up on 

FPCA information and/or confirm mailing 

addresses and through an appeal on the 

jurisdiction’s Website. If the State provides a 

field in the voter registration database for email addresses and requires that information 

be uploaded for UOCAVA voters, then LEOs 

will collect e-mail addresses. 

Recommended practice: The election office 

designates one person to receive all UOCAVA email messages, communicate with voters via e-mail, 

maintain an e-mail address database, and receive 

and send voting materials via e-mail.

Implications: A designated contact person 

for UOCAVA voters can maintain the e-mail 

address database and be the one to accept and 

send voting materials by e-mail. The address 

database can be as simple as a portion of the 

LEOs e-mail address book. This single person 

helps maintain the privacy of the voter’s personal 

information and ballot choices and enhances the 

security of materials by having them sent to and 

from just one e-mail address. This person may 

have an e-mail address such as “absentee@

localelectionoffice.gov” just for the absentee 

voters and may have this account accessible 

by one other staff member to check when that 

designated person is away from work.

Recommended practice: Have all ballot styles 

put into a PDF format by local election staff, rather 

than just by the company responsible for printing the 

official ballots.

Implications: Offsite (sometimes out-of-State) 

printers or voting systems vendors typically 

produce paper ballots. To e-mail paper ballots 

received from the printer, they must first be 

scanned. This process may be finished too late 

and takes extra staff and/or time. It makes more 

sense for the election offices to have their ballot 

layouts in an electronic format (either from the 

printer/vendor or from what is sent to the printer/

vendor) that can be converted to PDF files for 

e-mailing. In this way, blank ballots can be emailed earlier.

Recommended practice: Implement a computer 

program that matches each voter to his or her ballot 

style, automatically creates the ballot to e-mail, and 

sends the e-mails.

Implications: Hand-matching each UOCAVA 

voter to his or her ballot style and then e-mailing 

the appropriate blank ballot could take a great 

deal of time in a large jurisdiction. This process 

could be automated to ensure rapid receipt of 

blank ballots and to free staff to attend to special 

needs of UOCAVA voters.

Recommended practice: Put into place a 

process for confirming receipt of an e-mailed 

blank ballot and responding to bounces and 

nonresponses. Each e-mailed blank ballot should 

request a return e-mail acknowledging receipt on 

the other end. The LEO could then make followup 

phone calls to those whose e-mails bounced to 

get a corrected e-mail address before sending the 

ballot by snail mail. Followup phone calls could 

also be made to those who did not send an e-mail 

response confirming receipt.

Implications: Confirming receipt of blank 

ballots puts both the voter and the LEO at ease 

in terms of ballot security. The LEO can confirm 

that the intended voter received the blank ballot, 

and the voter can confirm that the LEO sent 

him or her the appropriate blank ballot. This 

immediate followup and possible correction can 

also help prevent missed deadlines.

Recommended practice: Put into place a 

process for confirming receipt of an e-mailed voted 

ballot. A designated person at the local election 

offices should e-mail a confirmation to each voter 

who e-mailed a voted ballot. This practice allows 

voters to respond if they did not, in fact, send the 

ballot. LEOs should follow up bounced e-mails and 

nonresponses with phone calls.

Implications: A confirmation of receipt for 

voted ballots puts both the voter and the LEO 

at ease in terms of ballot security. The LEO 
11

can confirm the ballot received came from the 

correct voter, and the voter can confirm the LEO 

received his or her ballot and it will be counted. 

This immediate followup and possible correction 

can also prevent missed deadlines.

Recommended practice: Allow e-mailed ballots to 

be hand counted or consider developing technology 

that can scan ballots received by e-mail.

Implications: As the e-mailing of voted ballots 

increases, the local jurisdiction must hire 

workers to duplicate the ballots so they can be 

counted in the same manner as other absentee 

ballots (typically scanned). Hand counting emailed ballots might reduce the amount of staff 

needed (staff need only count, not duplicate 

and run ballots through scanner), but it might 

compromise privacy. 

Recommended practice: Use a secure DoD 

server such as that used in the IVAS 2006 Tool 2 to 

transmit materials.

Implications: The downside to Tool 2 was that 

the LEOs did not have direct e-mail contact with 

the voter. One LEO pointed out, however, that 

one positive aspect of IVAS 2006 Tool 2 was that 

the voter did not have to seek out his or her LEO 

because the server performed the task for them. 

For this reason, it is probably a good option to 

have a system such as Tool 2 available to LEOs.

Research Methods

Sample Selection

Selecting jurisdictions to participate in the case 

studies first involved choosing States based on 

their policies and requirements for UOCAVA voters, 

including acceptance of forms such as the FPCA and 

the sending and receiving of ballot materials by mail, 

fax, e-mail, or Web site. It also involved reviewing 

State laws and regulations, querying organizations 

and individuals involved in UOCAVA registration 

and voting, and collecting statistics on the number 

of registered military and civilian UOCAVA voters in 

each State. These data were gathered to determine 

the relative experience States have with processing 

this voter group. Any variation in requirements 

between active-duty military and civilian overseas 

electors and for emergency voting was identified 

within each State. 

The information was categorized based on whether 

States allowed ballots to be received or transmitted 

electronically in the November 2006 election. 

Categories ranged from most advanced (States that 

allowed e-mailing of voted ballots) to least advanced 

(States that disallowed any ET of voting materials). 

The information was put into a table for comparison. 

Montana and South Carolina were chosen because 

they allow some e-mailing of voted ballots; Florida 

and Illinois were chosen because they allow some 

e-mailing or uploading/downloading of blank ballots 

(see appendix A). 

Montana has considered electronic options for some 

time, and election administrators are aware of the 

challenges. Since 2003 the State has allowed its 

counties to send and receive registration forms, ballot 

requests, blank ballots, and voted ballots by fax and 

e-mail. In 2006, the State used the IVAS 2006 Tool 

2, which allowed registered DoD voters to complete 

the online FPCA and download a blank ballot—thus 

demonstrating a willingness to experiment with new 

possibilities in election administration. Some counties 

also participated in the Interim Voting Assistance 

System 2004 (IVAS 2004) project, which allowed 

downloading of blank ballots for DoD voters. 

South Carolina has a substantial number of military 

voters and permits all counties to e-mail blank and 

voted ballots and to fax ballots and registration forms 

to UOCAVA voters. As far back as the 2000 general 

election, South Carolina allowed all UOCAVA voters 

to participate in the Voting Over the Internet (VOI) 

Pilot Project; some counties also participated in IVAS 

2004 in 2004. 

Florida allows faxing of the FPCA ballot request, 

blank ballots, and voted ballots. The State also allows 

e-mailing of blank ballots to all UOCAVA voters 

except military voters residing in the United States. 

This State’s selection allowed for exploration into why 

domestic military are treated differently by State law. 

Their sizable UOCAVA population (122,194 ballots 

sent in 20041) provides insight into the workload 

associated with ET of ballots. In 2000, at least one 

local election official participated in VOI and is 

currently investigating an Internet voting pilot project. 

Illinois had two jurisdictions—the City of Chicago 

and suburban Cook County—that participated in the 

IVAS 2006 Tool 1. This practice allowed registered 

voters who are overseas DoD civilian and contractor 

employees and who are active-duty military and 

their dependents to e-mail ballot requests. All 

UOCAVA voters in these two jurisdictions can 

receive a blank ballot by e-mail. Illinois also allows 

faxing of FPCA ballot requests for all military voters 

and for overseas civilians whose legal residence 

is Chicago or Cook County. This State was an 

interesting addition to the sample because two 

jurisdictions are using an approach to absentee 

voting that differs from other local jurisdictions. The 

Illinois UOCAVA population (30,556 ballots sent in 

20042 is larger than that population in Montana but 

smaller than the one in Florida.

After choosing the four States, researchers selected 

three to five local jurisdictions within each State to 

gain greater representation of each State’s practices. 

They chose some local jurisdictions because of their 

1

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voters Act (UOCAVA), Survey Report Findings, 

March 2006, http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/docs/uocavasurveyreport-final-3-3-06.pdf/attachment_download/file

2

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voters Act (UOCAVA), Survey Report Findings, 

March 2006, http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/docs/uocavasurveyreport-final-3-3-06.pdf/attachment_download/file

13
14

previous participation in DoD’s VOI, in the IVAS 2006 

program, or because of planned participation in the 

Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment 

(SERVE), which was later cancelled. They selected 

others based on their population of UOCAVA voters. 

In Illinois, they added one jurisdiction due to the 

relatively high number of UOCAVA ballots sent and 

returned. In Florida, they chose one county because 

of its large military population. In South Carolina, they 

included the top five counties, in terms of UOCAVA 

ballots sent in 2006. In Montana, they selected 

four counties that e-mail and fax voting materials, 

including two that participated in IVAS 2006. 

Data collection

Initial data collection began as the researchers 

acquired information from each State’s legislature, 

State agency Web sites, and library databases. As they 

visited the States, the researchers collected additional 

data and hard copy versions of election codes, 

regulations, voter outreach materials, and statistics. 

Core data collection was conducted through 

personal interviews with State and local election 

officials. In November 2006, researchers contacted 

the top election administrator in each jurisdiction to 

explain the purpose of the EAC study and ask for 

referrals to the staff person best suited to answer 

In November 2006, researchers 

contacted the top election 

administrator in each jurisdiction 

to explain the purpose of the EAC 

study and ask for referrals to the 

staff person best suited to answer 

the questions. At the local level 

especially, valuable information 

was often gained from these initial 

phone conversations.

the questions. At the local level especially, valuable 

information was often gained from these initial 

phone conversations. Interviewees also referred 

researchers to other individuals. In most cases 

researchers traveled to the offices of the sample 

jurisdictions to conduct interviews and observe dayto-day operations. In two States, researchers were 

invited to attend meetings of local election officials, 

where researchers conducted additional interviews 

and observed officials as they learned about laws and 

shared information.
Background

In Illinois, researchers interviewed nine election 

administrators from three local jurisdictions and 

two staff members of the State Board of Elections 

for this study. Election officials and staffers in 

this midwestern State go to great lengths to 

accommodate UOCAVA voters and guide them 

through the registration and voting maze, even 

when it requires a bit of creative thinking. 

Legislative snapshot

Illinois laws affecting military and overseas voters 

emerged in spurts over the past 18 years. During 

the 1989–90 State legislative session, the General 

Assembly specified how military and overseas 

civilians could request absentee ballots, the 

deadlines for mailing blank ballots to these groups, 

and the availability of special write-in ballots. 

Coinciding with the Gulf War, a law was enacted in 

the 1991–92 session that allows for the faxing of 

ballot requests for active-duty military personnel. 

The Illinois Legislature reacted to the difficulties 

that arose during the 2000 Presidential election 

with a flurry of activity related to voting and 

voting equipment. In 2003, legislators asked the 

State Board of Elections to conduct an Internet 

voter registration study. In early 2005, one 

legislator proposed creation of an “Internet Voting 

Commission” to study voting via the Internet, but the 

bill stalled in committee.

Implementation

Absentee choices and consequences

The State Board of Elections is charged with guiding 

local jurisdictions to conduct elections uniformly 

and according to State law and with encouraging 

local election officials to give special attention to 

UOCAVA voters. Even so, registration and voting 

choices can be confusing for voters, and some 

inconsistency in interpretation and implementation 

exists among jurisdictions.

UOCAVA is just one of several absentee programs 

implemented by local jurisdictions in Illinois. Others 

include a “snow-bird” program (temporary absentee 

voters who spend the Illinois winter in warmer 

regions of the country), a disabled voter absentee 

program, and an absentee voter program for those 

with other reasons (specified by law) that prevent 

them from voting in person. 

At least three different registration rules govern 

absentee voter groups, and the implementation of 

these rules varies among jurisdictions. Different 

forms are used to apply for absentee ballots under 

the various programs, and each registration form 

triggers a different length of time for which the 

voter will remain “active” and receive a ballot in the 

mail automatically.

In addition to UOCAVA voters, any registered 

Illinois voter may request at least 10 days before 

an election an absentee ballot from their local 

jurisdiction for a variety of reasons. Requests 

are valid for only one election for regular voters, 

but they cover every election in a calendar year 

for military or overseas voters using the local 

jurisdiction’s ballot request. 

Findings 

Case Sudy:  UOCAVA Voting in Il

In the 2000 Census, Illinois had 

a population of more than 12.4 

million people, with nearly 88 

percent living in urban areas. 

Approximately 0.09 percent 

(10,865 people) lived in military 

quarters.3 Of approximately 9.5 

million people over 16 years 

of age, 0.23 percent (22,020 

individuals) were members of the 

Armed Forces.4

3

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data

4

Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) Sample Data

15
16

UOCAVA voters using the FPCA form are mailed 

ballots for two Federal election cycles. Some 

jurisdictions send voters ballots for all elections in 

which they are eligible to vote during that Federal, 

State, and/or local cycle, while others send only some 

ballots. Jurisdictions also have different interpretations 

about what constitutes “two cycles.” For example, 

should a voter who registered in October 2004 

receive a ballot for the November 2008 election 

without having to renew the application?

If UOCAVA voters apply with a local jurisdiction’s 

absentee ballot request form, they will likely receive 

a ballot for only one election; but staff sometimes 

move applicants to the FPCA timeline when it is 

apparent they are serving in the military rather than 

being on vacation.

Military voters outside their county of residence have 

additional options, by law, for requesting absentee 

ballots. A parent, child, spouse, or sibling registered in 

the same jurisdiction can request that a ballot be sent 

to the voter. Alternately, active-duty Armed Forces 

members can send an application for an absentee 

ballot to their local election authority “by a facsimile 

machine or electronic transmission” at least 10 days 

before the election. No interpretation is provided in 

the State law about what “electronic transmission” 

means. Because the law does not explicitly allow or 

disallow the e-mailing of blank ballots to overseas 

voters, some jurisdictions do e-mail them to make 

sure voters get the ballots in time to return them. 

Illinois law requires a live signature on file for a 

registration to be valid. This requirement is strictly 

implemented by all jurisdictions, although often 

creatively. For example, when a UOCAVA voter 

registers via fax and does not provide a “live” 

signature, the jurisdiction usually suggests that the 

voter return the voted ballot along with the original 

registration form. The ballot is then counted when 

the registration form and signature are received. 

The extra mile

Within each election office, UOCAVA voters are 

usually assigned to a specific staffer, although one 

who likely handles additional tasks. Due to the 

somewhat decentralized nature of busy election 

offices, however, multiple staffers often handle a 

regular UOCAVA application, depending on the 

jurisdiction and the staffers’ assigned job tasks. In 

all jurisdictions, election staff know to whom they 

should direct UOCAVA voters. The training for 

those assigned UOCAVA voters consists of reading 

instructions on forms, receiving guidance from 

the Illinois Board of Elections, and/or accessing 

the DoD FVAP site, particularly the online training 

modules for VAOs. 

Staffers are creative; in one office, someone with 

a military background researched ways to get 

ballots to deployed voters who were difficult to 

reach. Consequently, a registered voter received a 

ballot on a submarine after this staffer tracked him 

down and contacted the submarine’s commander 

to inquire about electronic submission access and 

file size limitations. Many of the staffers interviewed 

told of going out of their way for military voters, 

saying that because they are serving the country, 

“the least we can do is make sure their right to 

vote is protected.” For overseas civilians, however, 

especially those residing overseas permanently, the 

sentiment is different. Processes for these voters 

are followed as prescribed by law, but staffers in one 

jurisdiction admitted they do not go the “extra mile” 

for these voters, because they assume civilians are 

not constrained by issues such as not having a fax 

machine available or serving in combat.

All jurisdictions that the researchers visited had 

e-mail access for staff who handle UOCAVA 

voters. Most offices maintain a designated fax 

No interpretation is provided in the 

State law about what “electronic 

transmission” means. Because 

the law does not explicitly allow 

or disallow the e-mailing of blank 

ballots to overseas voters, some 

jurisdictions do e-mail them to 

make sure voters get the ballots in 

time to return them.

Illinois 
17

machine for registration forms. One office even 

established multiple toll-free fax lines for overseas 

registrations. Information systems are standard, 

over-the-counter hardware and software. Offices 

have technical support available and use standard 

e-mail and virus protection software. It appears 

that higher level security is not used because no 

voted ballots are transmitted electronically. 

All jurisdictions that the researchers visited 

attempt to verify addresses (by mail) for absentee 

voters between elections. This mailed notice 

reminds voters to change their address (if 

necessary) so that the ballot will reach them in 

a timely manner. This verification process also 

enables LEOs to update nondeliverable addresses 

in the registration system. When mail is returned 

as undeliverable, the registration file is updated 

accordingly and the voter will not be sent a ballot 

until a new address is obtained. One interviewee 

has had luck contacting FVAP to track down new 

addresses of military personnel. Others contact 

family members when possible and, if an e-mail 

address is on file, contact voters by e-mail. For 

UOCAVA voters who do not supply an e-mail 

address or a fax number, receiving the ballot 

in a timely manner can be a challenge if they 

reside in remote locations, or if they receive their 

mail through the Military Postal Service Agency 

(MPSA). Every jurisdiction cited problems with 

ballots not delivered promptly or being found 

after an election. Some jurisdictions have raised 

this issue with FVAP and the MPSA in hopes of 

obtaining prioritized delivery status for overseas 

absentee ballots.

According to those interviewed, using the USPS 

to send voting materials is not necessarily efficient 

or effective. Postmarks on overseas ballots can 

be difficult to decipher, and sometimes postmarks 

are missing. (Even if it cannot be read, the ballot 

is generally counted if received within the 14 dayperiod after an election, especially if it looks like a 

military voter’s ballot.)

Military voters are highly mobile and their addresses 

change frequently. Sending out ballots that 

are returned is costly, and election officials are 

uncomfortable sending out ballots that do not reach 

their proper destination but are not returned. 

The use of fax and e-mail, however, has enabled 

voters from overseas to participate in elections in 

which they otherwise would have missed deadlines 

or not have received ballots. Staffers communicate 

regularly with voters by e-mail to solve problems, 

verify ballot receipt, or change addresses. E-mail 

communication is not limited to overseas voters; many 

local voters also use e-mail to interact with election 

office staff. Although e-mail addresses from FPCAs 

are not entered into the local or State registration 

system, some staffers compile their own files. 

Two local jurisdictions participated in an FVAP 

project for the November 2006 election that provided 

even more flexibility in receiving absentee ballot 

requests. Tool 1 of IVAS 2006 was for registered 

voters whose identity the DoD had authenticated 

and who had access to a secure DoD server on 

which they could complete an FPCA to submit to 

their local election office without a signature.

Both the Chicago and Cook County jurisdictions 

were pleased with the availability of Tool 1. One 

reported 25 requests for e-mailed ballots through 

the IVAS 2006 Tool 1; 15 of those ballots were voted 

and returned. The LEO in charge of this function 

commented that Tool 1 allowed 25 more individuals 

to request ballots than otherwise would have, which 

represented 18 percent of all e-mailed blank ballot 

requests. The LEO of the other jurisdiction reported 

that 90 blank ballots were e-mailed as a result of 

requests through Tool 1, which was 64 percent of all 

e-mailed ballots for that election.

Looking forward

Currently, little organized activity deals specifically 

with overseas voting. Also no legislative or political 

push exists to change any ET methods or revise 

other procedures in the overseas voting process. 

Illinois 

Two local jurisdictions participated 

in a FVAP project for the November 

2006 election, which provided 

even more flexibility in receiving 

absentee ballot requests. 
18

Legislation to allow ET of voted ballots is probably 

not forthcoming from the Illinois Legislature because 

of concerns over security and the State’s need to 

improve its image regarding voting fraud.

Those interviewed do not foresee more relaxed laws 

on ETs of voting materials—specifically, voting by 

e-mail or on the Internet—because of its current 

vulnerability, concerns about viruses, and an inability 

to verify where votes originated (e.g., who actually 

voted the ballot). Although most of the people 

interviewed hope military voters will be able to use 

more advanced electronic methods since the military 

system could provide voter authentication, one 

interviewee expressed doubt that even the military 

could safeguard the ET process. 

Certainly, election administrators do not have 

significant funds available that would be necessary 

to set up a “closed” system for transmitting ballots 

electronically. Even if they did, replacing manual 

methods of ballot processes would require even 

more funding. Currently, e-mailed ballots that are 

filled out and returned require two election judges 

to “transfer” the votes from the e-mail ballot to 

a regular ballot because ballot scanners do not 

accept regular paper. If more people began emailing and/or faxing ballots, more judges would be 

needed for this time-consuming duplication process. 

Alternatively, new technological approaches would 

have to be explored, creating time and resource 

problems for jurisdictions that already deal with 

short timelines.

Illinois 
CASE STUDY: UOCAVA Voting in Florid

In the 2000 Census, Florida 

had a population of nearly 16 

million people, with nearly 89 

percent living in urban areas. 

Approximately 0.08 percent of the 

total population (13,457 people) 

lived in military quarters.5 Of 

the 12.7 million people over 16 

years of age, 0.44 percent (56,519 

individuals) were members of the 

Armed Forces.6

5

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data

6

Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) Sample Data

Florida 

Background

One of Florida’s many challenges in the election 

arena is serving its sizeable UOCAVA population 

(122,194 ballots sent in 2004). Researchers 

investigated how State laws affect this voter 

group and those who administer the laws. They 

interviewed five Florida election administrators from 

three local jurisdictions and four staff members of 

the Florida Department of State for this study. 

Election Reform

After the November 2000 election difficulties in 

Florida, the State’s legislature quickly enacted the 

Election Reform Act of May 2001. Although the 

purpose was to end the use of punchcard ballots 

and ensure uniform ballot design and counting, the 

law also focused on making absentee voting easier, 

especially for overseas voters. The controversy 

over the role of military and overseas ballots in the 

outcome of the 2000 Presidential election raised 

concerns that laws surrounding these voters be 

clarified. Before the 2001 Election Reform Act, 

statutes required a military or overseas postmark for 

the ballots arriving within 10 days after the election. 

In the days following the November 2000 election, 

this postmark issue was very controversial; local 

election officials varied in whether they would accept 

or reject overseas ballots with a domestic postmark. 

Now, absentee ballots from overseas are assumed 

to be mailed on the date written on the outside of 

the return envelope, regardless of the absence of a 

postmark or a later postmark date. 

Other provisions affecting military and overseas 

voters in the Election Reform Act are those providing 

late registration for those discharged from military 

or overseas employment, a State write-in ballot 

for overseas voters, e-mail updates with candidate 

information, and the requirement that the Florida 

Department of State issue rules allowing ET of ballot 

requests and voted ballots from overseas voters. 

Implementation

A closer look

Florida’s Secretary of State (SOS), as the chief 

election officer, is charged with maintaining 

uniformity in the interpretation of election laws. Local 

election officials are called county “supervisors of 

elections” (SOEs). 

Reports of voters being treated differently across 

counties in the 2000 and 2004 elections motivated 

the legislature to give the SOS and the Florida 

Department of State authority to pursue legal 

action to enforce the compliance of any SOE with 

the statutes or regulations. These enforcement 

powers are new and have not been used in any 

dramatic way, but the Department sees them as a 

push to uniformity.

The Department of State also establishes rules 

governing transmissions by fax or other electronic 

means. These rules allow for ballot requests and 

blank ballots to be e-mailed and faxed and for voted 

ballots to be faxed; however, the Department has 

determined that a secure way to e-mail voted ballots 

does not yet exist.

Another new authority for the Department relates to 

pilot projects for counties wishing to experiment with 

19
20

electronic ballot transmission. A few Florida counties 

participated in the VOI project with the DoD in 2000. 

This project involved elaborate information system 

setups, from special password and encryption keys 

for each transaction to setting up separate servers 

to process voters, allowing a small group of military 

personnel to vote over the Internet. Several counties 

also participated in planning for the SERVE (later 

cancelled), in which voters would have been able to 

gain access to their ballot from any computer. One 

Florida county is currently developing its own pilot 

project to transmit ballots using the Internet, and the 

Department of State is supporting this pilot as part 

of its mandate.

Local election offices differ in organizational structure. 

Because Florida’s SOEs are elected, if an SOE is 

not re-elected and a new supervisor takes office, the 

entire staff can change. Coordination among the staff 

depends partly on the office size. In smaller offices, 

people work on many aspects of the election process 

and everyone seems to pitch in, whereas larger 

offices have more specialized staff for specific tasks, 

and the division of labor is more decentralized.

The State conducts continuing education sessions 

for SOEs and holds workshops on substantial 

pieces of legislation (e.g., the Election Reform Act). 

Counties communicate regularly with the SOS, 

and they have a strong communication network 

among themselves and an active legislative liaison. 

One SOE, a highly knowledgeable resource on 

UOCAVA voters, consults with the State regularly 

on interpretations and implementation issues, 

especially regarding military voters. 

Resources committed to serving UOCAVA voters 

vary in proportion to the number of registered 

UOCAVA voters in the jurisdiction and according 

to the motivation of staff. In one Florida jurisdiction, 

more than anywhere else studied, researchers 

encountered election administrators who do 

everything to make sure eligible UOCAVA voters are 

able to register and cast a ballot. Their actions include 

figuring out ways to overcome obstacles or streamline 

the process, lobbying for legislative changes, and 

helping other jurisdictions implement procedures that 

aid UOCAVA voters. This jurisdiction communicates 

actively with the FVAP, seeks out VAOs on nearby 

bases to offer assistance, and interacts with 

Florida 

. . .researchers encountered 

election administrators who do 

everything to make sure eligible 

UOCAVA voters are able to 

register and cast a ballot. Their 

actions include figuring out ways to 

overcome obstacles or streamline 

the process, lobbying for legislative 

changes, and helping other 

jurisdictions implement procedures 

that aid UOCAVA voters.

commanding officers to ensure that UOCAVA voters 

have the technology to participate in the election 

process. Election administrators in this jurisdiction 

have worked through holidays to meet deadlines for 

UOCAVA voters and have even picked up ballots for 

UOCAVA voters during a hurricane. 

Some SOEs are willing to explore new projects 

under Florida’s pilot program option but feel severely 

limited by resources, the current political climate, 

and the presence of interest groups that have 

questioned computer use for elections. 

Step by step

Several sections of Florida law apply explicitly to 

“overseas voters,” meaning the particular section 

does not apply to all UOCAVA voters; it does not 

apply to military personnel who are outside of their 

county of residence but still within the United States.

UOCAVA voters can use three forms to register 

to vote in Florida: the FPCA, the State’s voter 

registration form, or the National Voter Registration 

Act (NVRA) form. In at least one jurisdiction, 

military personnel who are not UOCAVA voters 

because they physically reside within the jurisdiction 

frequently use the FPCA. When a local military 

voter registers for the first time and uses the FPCA, 
21

the SOE asks him or her to replace the form with 

a Florida registration form and submit a separate 

absentee ballot application. When a voter submits 

a form electronically, he or she must also mail the 

original copy. 

An overseas voter who is already registered may 

request a ballot in person, in writing, over the 

phone, or by fax or e-mail. In addition, an overseas 

voter who cannot vote an absentee ballot during 

the normal voting period due to military or other 

contingencies can request a State write-in absentee 

ballot. This ballot will include Federal, State, and/or 

local offices for which the voter would otherwise 

vote. If an overseas request for an absentee ballot 

includes an e-mail address, the SOE must e-mail 

the voter a list of candidates for primary and general 

elections at least 30 days before each election.

Florida voters do not need to provide a reason to 

request an absentee ballot, and the application 

remains in effect for one calendar year. UOCAVA 

voters, however, do not have to reapply for 

absentee ballots yearly if they registered through 

the FPCA because the two Federal election cycle 

requirement applies to them in that case. Voters 

can request absentee ballots in person, over the 

phone, by e-mail, by fax, or in writing. A designated 

family member can also request an absentee 

ballot, which is especially important for military 

UOCAVA voters overseas.

Election administrators mail an annual notice of 

election (NOE) to each absentee voter along with an 

absentee ballot application. This mailing also serves 

as an address verification and update reminder 

for UOCAVA voters. Many of these mailings are 

returned because the UOCAVA population is highly 

mobile. Such mobility is especially true for military 

voters. In one jurisdiction, about 25 percent of the 

NOEs came back as undeliverable in 2006, and 

fewer than 10 percent of the voters who were sent a 

ballot actually returned a voted ballot. 

Many military contractors hire and send civilians 

overseas. These overseas civilians become 

UOCAVA voters. When these civilians return to 

the United States, they become regular voters 

again. When overseas military voters return to 

somewhere in the United States other than their 

Overseas ballots are counted up to 

10 days after the election if mailed 

by Election Day.

Florida 

voting residence, however, they remain UOCAVA 

voters. In some election offices, all voters who have 

any contact with the office are asked whether they 

are military because they often have different needs 

than civilian voters have. They may suddenly be 

deployed and change from local UOCAVA status 

to overseas status, or they may be located in 

remote war zones or areas where they cannot be 

easily reached by regular mail. After the military 

contractors leave the jurisdiction, they become 

eligible for use of ET of election materials. 

Blank ballots are e-mailed and faxed only to 

overseas UOCAVA voters who request them but 

not to UOCAVA voters residing in the continental 

United States. (For purposes of eligibility to use 

ET of ballots, residents of Samoa, Guam, the 

Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are not considered 

overseas voters.) Although regular absentee voters 

must receive their ballots by “nonforwardable” mail, 

UOCAVA-qualified ballots are sent by “forwardable” 

mail. By law, election administrators must send 

ballots to overseas voters at least 35 days before 

an election, but, due to a concern that 35 days 

is not enough time for the entire process, some 

administrators send them 10 days earlier. For 

example, military voters at sea may be able to 

receive and send mail only every 2 weeks when a 

supply plane arrives.

In Florida, absentee ballots are returned by mail or 

in person; overseas voters may return voted ballots 

by mail or fax but not by e-mail. Faxed ballots must 

be accompanied by a signed waiver of privacy. 

In one jurisdiction, voters faxing ballots typically 

remain on the phone with the office while the fax 

comes through to satisfy both parties of a positive 

transmission. In another jurisdiction, an e-mail is 

sent upon receipt of the ballot so the voter can 

respond if he or she did not send the fax. As in other 

States, these ballots must be duplicated after arrival 

to be accepted by scanners that count votes.
22

Overseas ballots are counted up to 10 days after 

the election if mailed by Election Day. As previously 

stated, SOEs act according to the date the voter 

signed the form with the assumption that it was 

mailed on that day. For ballots received during the 

10-day grace period, SOEs count only votes for the 

Federal races. 

Their 2 cents

Since the 2000 Presidential election, Florida’s 

election administrators have felt as if they have 

been under a magnifying glass and that the media 

has been scrutinizing everything they do. The 

2000 election also gave rise to interest groups that 

watch over and advocate for or against certain 

technologies in elections. That community largely 

ignored Florida’s participation in the VOI project 

in 2000, but voting technology activism was in full 

swing when SERVE came along in 2004. SERVE 

was discontinued after SOEs spent considerable 

time and effort on its implementation, and voting 

technology experts are largely blamed for its demise. 

At the time of the interviews, some SOEs expressed 

extreme frustration with these groups, believing 

that the experts’ unreasonable doubts regarding 

electronic ballot transmission had hampered election 

administrators from opening up the process to 

UOCAVA voters. 

Florida’s election administrators are highly attuned 

to the controversies around voting technology and 

are knowledgeable about arguments on all sides of 

the issue. Most jurisdictions exercise due diligence 

in securing their systems and keeping them free 

of viruses. They try to put as much information on 

line as possible and encourage UOCAVA voters to 

regularly check the Web site for updates. One SOE 

explained that using the Internet and e-mail can 

bridge time differences between SOEs and distant 

voters, promote more effective communication 

and administrative processes, and bring in a new 

generation of voters. 

Admittedly, issues surrounding electronic ballot 

transmission include verification of the voter and 

secure transmission of the ballot in an unaltered 

state to the SOEs. The election administrators 

interviewed doubted whether current technology 

could alleviate these concerns, but they pointed 

out that the military is the perfect candidate for pilot 

experiments because the DoD already has protocols 

that deal with the authentication and verification of 

Armed Forces members. 

Florida 

 . . . using the Internet and email can bridge time differences 

between SOEs and distant 

voters, promote more effective 

communication and administrative 

processes, and bring in a new 

generation of voters. 
In 2006, South Carolina law changed to allow all 

UOCAVA voters to fax or e-mail their voted ballots. 

This new law has not yet been widely used because 

of a lack of requests from UOCAVA voters and 

because election staffers across the State are 

still adapting their processes to accommodate the 

change. Researchers interviewed seven South 

Carolina election administrators from five local 

jurisdictions and four employees of the State 

Election Commission (SEC). 

Background

On the books

For 25 years, the South Carolina Legislature has 

enacted legislation related to military and overseas voters, but recent laws substantially affect 

UOCAVA voters. 

In 1984, State legislation added the use of Standard 

Form 76 (SF 76)—otherwise known as the FPCA—to 

the section of the law on military and overseas voting. 

Two years later, a law established the special write-in 

absentee ballot for voters who are remotely located; 

the law states that this ballot should be used in voting 

for Federal, statewide, and General Assembly offices. 

At about the time of the Gulf War, the State legislature passed a 1992 law that allowed ET of voting 

materials for voters in the military in an “emergency,” 

such as a war, conflict, or military mobilization. 

Because of a State Senate bill introduced in 1998, 

the State was able to participate in the 2000 VOI 

pilot. In 2001, an additional law further supported ET, 

allowing “other methods of voting by absentee ballot instead of by paper ballot.” In 2003 a bill would 

have allowed for participation in the SERVE project 

planned for 2004, but the project was later cancelled. 

In 2006, the State legislature proposed two major 

bills related to military and overseas voters. One 

sought to allow UOCAVA voters to use State and 

Federal write-in ballots for all elections (including 

local), to use Federal write-in ballots for registration, and to receive an e-mail receipt of candidate 

information. This bill was not enacted, and write-in 

ballots remain for remote voters only. 

The second bill, which was enacted in 2006, removed the emergency military conflict requirement, 

thus expanding the use of electronic means to all 

UOCAVA voters at any time, and mandated that an 

instant runoff ballot be sent to UOCAVA voters with 

their primary election ballots.

Implementation

At the helm

The SEC is the central election authority in 

South Carolina. This commission appoints an 

executive director, whose responsibilities include 

running the centralized voter registration system 

and implementing and enforcing the State’s 

responsibilities under the NVRA and UOCAVA.

South Carolina’s election administration system 

on the local level is governed by two entities: the 

county board of registration and the commissioners 

of election—all appointed positions. Registration 

boards are responsible for facilitating the absentee 

voting process for UOCAVA voters. 

CASE STUDY: UOCAVA Voting in South Carolin

In 2000, South Carolina had 

a population of more than 4 

million people, with nearly 61 

percent living in urban areas. 

Approximately 0.43 percent of the 

total population (17,102 people) 

lived in military quarters.7 Of the 3 

million people over 16 years of age, 

1.16 percent (36,027 people) were 

members of the Armed Forces.8

7

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data

8

Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) Sample Data

South Carolina 23
24

Successful election administration requires a 

significant level of collaboration between the board 

and the commissioners. For example, the election 

commissioners produce the absentee ballots for the 

registration board to distribute. In most jurisdictions, 

this coordination is accomplished by hiring one 

director to oversee all staff and take charge of dayto-day operations. Other counties have separate 

directors for each board and no joint meetings of the 

boards, making coordination somewhat more difficult. 

South Carolina’s SEC trains local jurisdictions on 

election and registration matters throughout the 

year and maintains an Intranet that allows counties 

to access rules, regulations, training materials and 

videos, and other news and information. Training 

on how to send and receive fax and e-mail ballots, 

new for all UOCAVA voters in 2006, was provided 

in April 2006 with training on a new UOCAVA 

instant runoff ballot. 

Funding for local jurisdictions varies. Most offices 

seem adequately staffed for busy election times, but 

staff in other jurisdictions seem overwhelmed by the 

challenges that UOCAVA voters add to their usual 

workload—even outside the election season. Staff 

specifically mentioned the amount of e-mail sent to 

and received from military and overseas voters.

Although a great degree of uniformity exists among 

the 46 counties, even centralized training cannot 

overcome the variation in educational or election 

backgrounds among staff members, nor can this 

training compensate for the difference in resources. 

These variations lead to somewhat different 

interpretations in the implementation of tasks. 

Understanding the process

Most of South Carolina’s UOCAVA voters are 

military, while others work for international 

companies or are independent contractors who 

send employees overseas to work. Members of this 

voting group who need help navigating the process 

typically call the local election administrator. Some 

interviewees talked about military voters who did not 

know about the FVAP and the FPCA or did not know 

a VAO should be on the base. Consequently, busy 

election administrators not only process registrations 

and ensure that ballots arrive on time, but they 

must also refer voters to the appropriate Web sites 

or forms. If that fails, they guide voters through the 

process themselves, which can be time consuming 

and difficult during election season. 

South Carolina residents must register to vote in 

person at their county board of registration office 

or by mail 30 days before an election. Residents 

who are discharged from the Armed Forces and 

return home to South Carolina after the 30-day 

deadline can register “late” at the county board of 

registration office until 5:00 p.m. on Election Day to 

vote in that election.

Voters can vote absentee for 1 of the 17 reasons 

listed on the State’s Application for Absentee Ballot. 

The reasons fall into two broad categories: either the 

voter will be absent from their county of residence 

on Election Day or the voter will not be able to vote 

in person because of a disability, work, jury duty, etc. 

Of the 17 reasons listed on the application, most 

of the ones involving absence from the county of 

residence are geared toward UOCAVA voters (e.g., 

active-duty military, U.S. merchant marine, citizen 

residing outside the country).

South Carolina allows for faxing and e-mailing 

ballots, both blank and voted, and faxing of 

registration forms and ballot requests. Blank ballots 

faxed or e-mailed to voters are sent with a waiver 

of the right to a secret ballot to be signed by the 

voter. UOCAVA voters can both register and request 

a ballot by FPCA, or, if already registered, they 

can ask for an absentee ballot application. In most 

cases, election administrators try to guide UOCAVA 

South Carolina allows for faxing 

and e-mailing ballots, both 

blank and voted, and faxing of 

registration forms and ballot 

requests. Blank ballots faxed or 

e-mailed to voters are sent with a 

waiver of the right to a secret ballot 

to be signed by the voter. 

South Carolina 
25

voters to the FPCA. Election officials reported that 

an original signature is necessary only for a new 

registration form, and there is disagreement on 

whether an electronic signature can be accepted in 

lieu of the original.

When using the FPCA (SF 76), military or overseas 

voters have several options. They can use the 

form to request a ballot or to both register and 

request a ballot. The FPCA does not require a 

notary or witness and can be faxed or mailed. If 

faxed, however, the original must also be mailed. 

Many UOCAVA voters apply for an absentee ballot 

with South Carolina’s absentee ballot application 

rather than the FPCA, not realizing it covers only 

one election instead of all elections for the entire 

year. Opinions among election administrators differ 

regarding whether State and local elections are 

covered by the FPCA. Some jurisdictions send 

ballots for all elections; others wait for the voter’s 

separate request for local ballots. This problem 

seems to be exacerbated by the availability to 

voters of more than one version of the FPCA. Older 

versions of the FPCA, which do not collect all of the 

same information as the new forms, are still being 

used in some overseas locations (embassies, voting 

assistance offices, etc.).

South Carolina voters do not specify a party 

affiliation on their registration form, and most 

voters using the FPCA to register do not indicate 

a partisan preference. This absence of party 

affiliation is problematic for voters because election 

administrators will not mail ballots for primaries to 

those people that did not state a party preference. 

An incomplete or illegible FPCA further increases 

the workload for election administrators, who must 

follow up with the voter.

The County Boards of Registration must mail, fax, 

or e-mail regular ballots and instant runoff voting 

ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days before 

a primary election. Traditional mailing presents 

certain problems. Administrators attempt to verify 

all UOCAVA voters’ addresses between elections, 

but election mail cannot be forwarded. In some 

jurisdictions, 75 percent of returned mail came back 

with corrected addresses, but most of the mail sent 

was not answered or returned. In addition, local 

election administrators must work closely with local 

postal authorities, because USPS employees do not 

always know that the county or State is not required 

to pay for election mail sent to UOCAVA voters. 

Absentee voted ballots can be mailed or delivered, 

but they must be returned inside a special envelope 

imprinted with a special oath, which must be signed 

and witnessed. This witness requirement is waived 

for UOCAVA voters faxing or e-mailing their voted 

ballots. When voted ballots are returned via fax or 

e-mail, they are duplicated in the election office so 

that they can be scanned with other ballots. 

What happened in 2006?

Transmitting voted ballots by e-mail is in the early 

implementation phase in South Carolina because 

the two major elections in 2006 were the first 

opportunities to take advantage of the new law. 

Even so, it was important to look at what happened 

and listen to how those involved in the process 

believe it can be improved. Although the possibility 

for e-mail voting was not frequently used at the 

time of this report, it is generally appreciated by 

election administrators. It is likely that for e-mail 

voting to be implemented effectively and uniformly, 

it would have to be promoted on the State level 

through a combination of trainings on procedures 

and technology. 

Implementation of electronic ballot transmission 

varies, largely due to resources. For example, one 

South Carolina 

When using the FPCA (SF 76), 

military or overseas voters have 

several options. They can use the 

form to request a ballot or to both 

register and request a ballot. The 

FPCA does not require a notary or 

witness and can be faxed or mailed. 

If faxed, however, the original must 

also be mailed. 
26

jurisdiction did not have technology support staff, 

nor did it have an employee who was particularly 

tech-savvy. It was difficult for the jurisdiction to set 

up a fax machine for faxing ballots because their 

phone plan did not allow for overseas calls, and they 

had not figured out a process for e-mailing ballots. 

With no office or county resource to provide training 

or assistance, election staff members believed 

they had to rely on themselves. Local election staff 

“might” have attended the State workshop on instant 

runoff voting ballots and e-mailing and faxing ballots, 

but they did not recall the information or know where 

to look on the State Intranet for further assistance.

When problems arise, election administrators 

and/or office staff with heavy workloads must find 

their own solutions or figure out alternative ways 

to accommodate voters. In one jurisdiction, when 

voters request e-mail ballots, they are offered a 

faxed ballot instead. In contrast, e-mailing ballots 

has become, in part, routine in some jurisdictions 

where resources are not an issue.

Each county is responsible for its own computers 

and servers. Some have easy and direct access 

to technical support staff; others are left to fend for 

themselves. In jurisdictions with little support, little 

evidence indicates that computers are backed up 

regularly or that they are part of a network. One 

exception is the registration database, which is 

administered by the SEC and housed at the State 

election office. 

South Carolina 

Transmitting voted ballots by e-mail 

is in the early implementation phase 

in South Carolina because the two 

major elections in 2006 were the first 

opportunities to take advantage of 

the new law.

Local offices do have online access to the statewide 

voter registration database. All other programs and 

platforms seem standard—usually with Windows 

and Microsoft Office—but some offices do not 

have software for creating PDF files that can be 

sent to voters. Although the SEC creates ballot 

layouts for the election offices, they still have to 

be adapted for each ballot style, which requires 

significant knowledge about the software and some 

understanding of how various programs interact. In 

one jurisdiction, 85 different ballot styles had to be 

created for one election. 

Election administrators appreciate the future 

possibilities of ET, but it is not widely used because 

election offices do not yet know how to implement 

it and voters do not know about it. For e-mail 

voting to be implemented effectively, it would likely 

have to be promoted on the State level to ensure 

appropriate training. 
Background

Those who envision Montana as rugged and 

unsettled might be surprised to learn that this State 

is quickly becoming a frontrunner of electronically 

transmitted voting materials. Researchers conducted 

interviews with nine Montana election administrators 

from four jurisdictions and the State Election Director 

for this study; in addition, researchers had informal 

conversations with approximately 10 additional 

election administrators. Researchers also attended 

a meeting in which county clerks discussed their 

experiences in the November 2006 election. 

The new “old frontier”

For 20 years, the Montana Legislature has actively 

addressed election reform, particularly for military 

and overseas voters. State legislation enacted as 

early as 1969 mentioned the voting rights of citizens 

“in United States service” who are “absent from the 

state and county” of residence. 

The Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) was 

addressed in 1987 legislation, and laws enacted in 

1991 allowed for the transmission of voting materials 

by facsimile. More changes came in 1999 with a 

bill that added “transmission using the Internet” 

for overseas and military voters. That same year 

marked the enactment of “no excuse” absentee 

voting that allows any Montana resident to vote by 

absentee ballot for any reason. 

The 2003 Montana Legislature passed the Montana 

Absent Uniformed Services and Overseas Elector 

Voting Act, primarily to implement Federal UOCAVA 

and Help America Vote Act (HAVA) laws. The SOS 

was made the designated source of information 

regarding UOCAVA voting. The act also allows for 

domestic military voters to use the FWAB to take 

advantage of the ET of ballots, if available, and to 

register to vote at the polls late if they return home. 

It also requires the SOS to adopt regulations to 

implement provisions for electronic voting contained 

in the act. The SOS can, if necessary, contract with 

private companies to enable registration and voting 

by facsimile. The 2003 Act also amended or clarified 

other absentee voting laws, including that UOCAVA 

voters must be notified of their registration using 

the fastest transmission method available. In 2007, 

State legislation affecting UOCAVA voters expanded 

use of the FWAB to State and local offices. 

Implementation

From the top down

The office of the Montana SOS is responsible for 

interpreting State election laws and implementing 

them uniformly, and the office’s Elections and 

Government Services Division administers this 

duty. The office is the “single point of contact” for 

information regarding UOCAVA voting procedures 

and reports. The SOS’s office issues directives 

to the counties by mail, fax, and e-mail, and the 

Elections Division conducts biyearly training for 

election administrators.

Montana has 56 counties, and the county 

clerk in each jurisdiction registers voters and 

conducts elections. One person in each office 

usually handles UOCAVA voters, which election 

administrators believe is a good practice 

CASE STUDY: UOCAVA Voting in Montan

In 2000, Montana had a population 

of more than 900,000 people, 

with nearly 54 percent living in 

urban areas. Approximately 0.04 

percent of the total population (404 

people) lived in military quarters.9

Of the 700,000 people over 16 

years of age, 0.52 percent (3,619 

individuals) were members of the 

Armed Forces.10

9

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data

10Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) Sample Data

Montana 27
28

because UOCAVA voters are subject to separate 

processes, which are more efficiently conducted 

by one person. It is also easier to preserve voter 

privacy when the voter has one contact point. 

Understandably, though, smaller jurisdictions often 

have fewer staff who must handle multiple tasks. 

In larger offices with more UOCAVA voters, two 

people sometimes share the responsibilities. 

The SOS’s Web site provides access to laws and 

interpretations, and election administrators are 

largely self taught, using resources from the FVAP 

and communicating with colleagues. Montana’s 

local election officials meet yearly to discuss 

implementation and legal issues, including overseas 

and military voting issues. 

Counties select their own computing systems 

based on available resources—most jurisdictions 

use standard, over-the-counter hardware and 

software to communicate with UOCAVA voters. 

The more tech-savvy counties seemed well 

connected to their county’s information technology 

infrastructure in terms of server access and 

technical support. In some jurisdictions, voter 

registration rolls were still kept on ledgers until 

HAVA required interactive databases, and some 

offices do not have fax machines.

Voting process: start to finish

Regular close of registration is 30 days before 

Election Day. In 2006, Montana began allowing 

“late registration” up until the polls close for those 

who vote in person at the county clerk’s office. 

UOCAVA voters returning to Montana during the 

30-day period can register until noon on the day 

before an election to vote at the polls just like any 

other registered voter rather than wait in line at the 

election office to vote.

Any registered Montana voter can vote absentee 

without a reason and can apply for permanent 

absentee ballots for all elections or just for Federal 

elections. Local election officials send an address 

confirmation to each voter on the permanent 

absentee list 75 days before each election. Voters 

must sign and return the confirmation form or risk 

being taken off the permanent absentee ballot list. 

Military and overseas voters in Montana who wish 

to vote absentee can register—by mail, fax, or 

e-mail, if the county is so equipped—using the 

State registration form, the FPCA, or the FWAB 

transmission envelope. UOCAVA voters often use the 

State’s absentee ballot application rather than the 

FPCA, especially if they were registered in Montana 

before their move overseas. Use of the State form is 

probably common because the State has permanent, 

no-excuse absentee voting. A return notice of 

registration can be sent by fax or e-mail. 

When UOCAVA voters do not specifically request 

e-mail or fax ballots, a regular absentee ballot is 

sent to their last known address. In one jurisdiction, 

however, 90 percent of those ballots were returned 

as undeliverable in 2006. When the clerks have time 

and a forwarding address, they resend the ballot.

Currently, an absentee ballot request has to bear 

the voter’s signature. Election administrators 

accept these requests with an electronic signature, 

but there is a growing awareness that military 

personnel may not have access to faxes or 

scanners. Interviewees recalled situations in which 

parents or relatives of UOCAVA voters came 

into the election office with specific requests that 

could not be accommodated under current law, so 

election administrators recently lobbied for a power 

of attorney bill allowing the voter’s designee to 

 Interviewees recalled situations 

in which parents or relatives of 

UOCAVA voters came into the 

election office with specific requests 

that could not be accommodated 

under current law, so election 

administrators recently lobbied for 

a power of attorney bill allowing 

the voter’s designee to change an 

address, pick up a ballot, or apply 

for an absentee ballot.

Montana 
29

change an address, pick up a ballot, or apply for an 

absentee ballot.

A variety of processes are in effect when creating 

e-mail ballots. In one county, the vendor for the 

central scan technology creates the ballot layouts 

and sends PDF files to the clerk, who then e-mails 

them to UOCAVA voters who have requested them. 

Another county creates a PDF ballot that is emailed to the voter, who then completes the ballot 

on line and returns it by e-mail without a scanner 

and printer. In a third jurisdiction, the clerk scans 

ballots, names them by precinct, saves them as 

PDF files, and e-mails them. A fourth jurisdiction 

creates ballots in Microsoft Word format and e-mails 

those. Blank ballots can be faxed or e-mailed to 

voters—again, if the county has the capacity to do it. 

When a UOCAVA voter who is mailed an absentee 

ballot appears at a polling place, the absentee ballot 

is voided in the State’s voter registration database 

and is then reissued—an elaborate process and 

especially difficult on Election Day when county 

election administrators are troubleshooting other 

problems. All interviewees mentioned the effort that 

goes into keeping UOCAVA lists current to avoid 

these situations. 

Regular voted absentee ballots must be received at 

the county clerk’s office by 8 p.m. on Election Day. 

Military and overseas voters can fax or e-mail their 

voted ballots if their county receives them in this 

manner. All e-mail and fax returns of voted ballots 

have to be accompanied by a waiver of privacy. The 

waiver does not need a signature; it can simply be 

attached to the ballot. 

Montana clerks take very seriously the mandate 

to keep fax and e-mail votes private and secure. 

Jurisdictions that accept faxed ballots have gone to 

great lengths to minimize access to fax machines on 

which ballots may be received, including moving the 

machines into rooms with limited access. One clerk 

prefers e-mail transmissions because e-mails sit 

in her inbox until she logs on and prints the ballot, 

whereas a fax may sit in the machine all night. She 

also likes e-mailing ballots better than faxing them 

because she feels more certain about who is on the 

other end. If a voted ballot is transmitted by e-mail, 

the signature requirement on the privacy waiver is 

ignored because the clerk knows where the e-mail 

came from.

As in other States, electronically transmitted ballots 

must be duplicated to be counted. But even mail 

ballots from UOCAVA voters often arrive torn, folded, 

or wrinkled. Because they can’t be scanned, they 

must be duplicated. After the duplication is completed 

and verified for accuracy, the ballot is added to all 

others and counted on Election Day. In Montana, 

16 counties hand count their ballots and 40 others 

use optical-scan systems. This simple distinction 

affects the procedures that individual offices have 

implemented and indicates how technologically 

advanced the respective jurisdictions are. 

In one office, voting conducted entirely by e-mail 

would typically be handled as follows:

The clerk receives the original request for an 

e-mail ballot.

The clerk e-mails back and notifies voters that 

they will have to waive their right to privacy.

The voters e-mail back and acknowledge that 

they would like to continue the process.

The clerk e-mails instructions, forms, and the 

ballot to the voter.

The voter e-mails the ballot with the privacy 

waiver.

The clerk e-mails the voter an acknowledgment 

that the ballot was received.

The clerk then duplicates, validates, and counts 

the ballot.

Room for improvement

As the number of UOCAVA voters increases, so 

do reports about difficulties in dealing with this 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Most election administrators 

interviewed favored the expansion 

of electronic transmission, 

especially e-mail balloting, to more 

voters in small counties. 

Montana 
30

population. One county reported that the mailing 

costs to UOCAVA voters are a significant burden on 

their county budget. Another suggested the biggest 

issue is bad addresses because the population is so 

mobile—and the post office does not forward mail. 

They also mentioned that mailed ballots handled 

through the postal system are often torn or folded and 

wrinkled so they cannot be scanned.

Election administrators spend significant resources 

educating UOCAVA voters, because very few of 

them seem to use the FVAP Web site and few, if 

any, have contact with a VAO. In fact, many voters 

learn about fax and e-mail options from local election 

administrators because the SOS’s Web site mentions 

only that some counties allow for faxing; it makes no 

mention of the e-mail option. 

Most election administrators interviewed favored the 

expansion of ET, especially e-mail balloting, to more 

voters in small counties. Larger counties would need 

a considerably expanded infrastructure to handle 

more e-mailed and faxed ballots, so any new policy 

must consider population and density along with 

resource allocations. Most said that e-mail ballots 

were their preferred option: “E-mailed ballots are less 

messy than faxed ballots.” One official said, “E-mail 

is more reliable—you know where you sent it, and 

it stays in the inbox until you open it. With a fax, you 

never know who gets it.”

Two Montana counties participated in the IVAS 2006 

program. After time-consuming setup problems, 

Montana 

The best election system for 

UOCAVA voters is “e-mail without a 

middle man,” according to election 

administrators, who want more 

control over a process for which 

they bear the ultimate responsibility. 

The IVAS-type systems, which use 

a remote server, did not allow for 

that kind of control.

election administrators liked the program but still had 

reservations. Without direct communication with the 

voter, they cannot follow up if problems arise, and they 

were uneasy about “taking the word of the DoD for the 

voter being who they say they are” because election 

administrators get neither a registration form nor a 

signature. 

The best election system for UOCAVA voters is “email without a middle man,” according to election 

administrators, who want more control over a process 

for which they bear the ultimate responsibility. The 

IVAS-type systems, which use a remote server, did not 

allow for that kind of control.
References 31

General

“Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA),” http://www.fvap.gov/laws/

uocavalaw.html and http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/

military/uocava_statute.htm

“The Help America Vote Act of 2002,” Public Law 107-

252, Sec. 242 & 245, Sec 701-707, Oct. 29, 2002

“The National Voter Registration Act,” Public Law 

103-31, May 20, 1993

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Uniformed 

and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voters Act 

(UOCAVA) Survey Report Findings,” March 2006

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Best 

Practices for Facilitating Voting by U.S. Citizens 

Covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act,” in consultation with the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program, Department of 

Defense, September 2004

Federal Voting Assistance Program, Department 

of Defense, “Report on IVAS 2006, As Required by 

Section 596 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007,” December 200

Government Accountability Office, “Elections: 

Issues Affecting Military and Overseas Absentee 

Voters,” GAO-01-704T, May 9, 2001 

Government Accountability Office, “Elections: 

Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and 

Overseas Citizens Increased for the 2004 General 

Election, but Challenges Remain,” GAO-06-521, 

April 7, 2006

Government Accountability Office, “Elections: DOD 

Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee 

Voters, but Challenges Remain,” GAO-06-1134T, 

September 28, 2006

LexisNexis Academic Universe, http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe

NewsBank, Inc., Access World News, http://infoweb.

newsbank.com

Illinois

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Voting Assistance Guide, 

Illinois,” http://fvap.gov/pubs/vag/pdfvag/il.pdf

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department 

of Defense, “Electronic Transmission Alternatives for 

Illinois,” http://fvap.gov/ivas/illinois.html

Illinois General Assembly Web site, http://www.

ilga.gov

Illinois Statutes, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/

ilcs.asp

Illinois Administrative Code, http://www.ilga.gov/

commission/jcar/admincode/titles.html

Illinois State Board of Elections Web site, http://

www.elections.il.gov

“Clerks See Problems in ‘Motor Voter’ Bill,” Herald & 

Review (Decatur, IL), January 25, 1993

“News; Metro Briefing,” Chicago Sun-Times, March 

8, 1993, p. 4

Miller, Bryan, “Quiet Fighter David Orr Does Well in 

Politics by Doing Good for the Taxpayers,” Chicago 

Tribune, March 15, 1993 

“Sangamon County Absentee Voting Kicks Off 

Today,” The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL), 

September 29, 1994, p. 2

“Election Law -- Absentee Ballots,” Chicago Daily 

Law Bulletin, September 8, 1994, Appellate 

Summary, p. 1

Colindres, Adriana, “Reform of Illinois Election Law 

Proposed,” The State Journal-Register (Springfield, 

IL), December 14, 2000

Slife, Erika, “Senate Unanimously Approves EarlyVoting Proposal,” Chicago Tribune, April 9, 2005

Roszkowski, John, “Early Voting Among Ballot 

Proposals,” Des Plaines Times (IL), May 12, 2005 
32

Roszkowski, John, “Lang Unsure Of Stance on Early 

Voting,” Lincolnwood Review (IL), May 12, 2005

Lannan, Maura Kelly, “Cook County Switching To 

Optical Scan Ballots; Absentee Ballot Bill Goes To 

Governor,” The Associated Press State & Local 

Wire, May 26, 2005 

Mackey, Brian, “Senate Approves Election 

Reforms,” The State Journal-Register (Springfield, 

IL), May 27, 2005 

Riopell, Mike, “House Splits Along Political Lines, 

Ok’s Election Changes, It’ll Be Easier for Voters 

To Register and Cast Ballots Under Democratic 

Measure,” Chicago Daily Herald, May 29, 2005

Reynolds, John, “New Law Allows for Early Voting,” 

The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL), 

September 19, 2005

Ingram, Ron, “Voters Will Be Greeted With Changes 

in Time for March Elections Ballot Casting, New 

Machines, Precinct Consolidation on Tap,” Herald & 

Review (Decatur, IL), December 15, 2005

Manson, Patricia, “More Fixes Needed for Absentee 

Voting Law; Judge Rules,” Chicago Daily Law 

Bulletin, October 11, 2006

Florida

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Voting Assistance Guide, 

Florida,” http://fvap.gov/pubs/vag/textvag/fl.html

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department 

of Defense, “Electronic Transmission Alternatives for 

Florida,” http://fvap.gov/ivas/florida.html

Florida Legislature Web site, http://www.leg.state.

fl.us

Florida Statutes, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes

Florida Administrative Code, https://www.flrules.org

Florida Department of State Web site, http://www.

dos.state.fl.us

Wallsten, Peter, “Florida Breaks Ground with First 

Internet Vote,” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), 

October 31, 1997, South Pinellas Edition

“Florida Will Be One of First States with Online 

Ballots,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida), 

November 7, 1999, all editions, p. 6b

Kallestad, Brent, “Counties Skirmish Over Overseas 

Absentee Ballots,” The Associated Press State 

& Local Wire, November 17, 2000, Dateline: 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Wing, John, “Overseas Absentee Ballots In Dispute,” 

Tampa Tribune (Florida), November 18, 2000 

Kaczor, Bill, “Federal Judge Rejects Overseas Ballot 

Challenge,” The Associated Press State & Local 

Wire, December 9, 2000, Dateline: Tallahassee, 

Florida

“Federal Court Rules Overseas Ballots Valid,” St. 

Petersburg Times (Florida), December 12, 2000, p. 1

Affleck, John, “Florida’s Election Supervisors See 

Chance to Win Reforms,” The Associated Press 

State & Local Wire, December 13, 2000, Dateline: 

Tampa, Florida 

Van Sickler, Michael, “Overseas Ballots to Add 

More Than 8,000 Votes,” Palm Beach Post (Florida), 

November 11, 2000 Saturday Final Edition

Unger, Howard M., “Overseas Votes Arrive At 

Local Elections Offices,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune 

(Florida), November 15, 2000 

Binette, Chad, “Trial Vote by Soldiers on Internet 

a Success,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida), 

January 26, 2001

Pfankuch, Thomas B., “Bill Revises Overseas 

Balloting Proposal Would Ensure Absentee Votes 

Counted,” Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, 

Florida), April 3, 2001, City Edition

Silva, Mark, “Florida Legislation Sets Pace on 

Election Reforms,” The Miami Herald (Florida), May 

6, 2001
33

Kallestad, Brent, “Legislature Eliminates Runoff 

Primary, Bush Expected To Sign,” The Associated 

Press State & Local Wire, June 18, 2003, Dateline: 

Tallahassee, Florida

Kallestad, Brent, “End of Era Nears: Legislature 

Passes Measure To Eliminate Runoff,” The

Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 28, 2005, 

Dateline: Tallahassee, Florida

South Carolina

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Voting Assistance Guide, 

South Carolina,” http://fvap.gov/pubs/vag/pdfvag/

sc.pdf

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Electronic Transmission 

Alternatives for South Carolina,” http://fvap.gov/ivas/

south_carolina.html

South Carolina Legislature Web site, http://

scstatehouse.net

South Carolina Code of Laws, http://scstatehouse.

net/code/titl7.htm

South Carolina Election Commission, http://www.

scvotes.org 

Kelley, Matt, “Internet Voting System for Overseas 

Americans Is Vulnerable, Security Experts Say,” 

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 

21, 2004

“Pentagon Says No Internet Voting Experiment in S.C. 

Primary,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 

February 2, 2004, Dateline: Columbia, South Carolina

“Bill Eases Absentee Voting Signature Requirement,” 

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, March 9, 

2005, Dateline: Columbia, South Carolina

O’Connor, John, “Lawmakers to Consider Voting 

Bills,” Business News & The State (Columbia, South 

Carolina), December 13, 2005

Montana

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Voting Assistance Guide, 

Montana,” http://fvap.gov/pubs/vag/pdfvag/mt.pdf

Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. 

Department of Defense, “Electronic Transmission 

Alternatives for Montana,” http://fvap.gov/ivas/

montana.html

Montana Legislature Web site, http://www.

montanastatehouse.com

Montana Statutes, http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/

mca_toc/index.htm

Montana Administrative Rules, http://arm.sos.state.

mt.us

Montana Secretary of State Web site, http://www.

sos.mt.gov

Rapoport, Mike and Cooney, Mike, “Guest Opinion: 

Montana’s Election-Day Registration Successful,” 

The Billings Gazette, November 19, 2006 

Testa, Dan, “‘Sine Die’: Montana Legislature 

Adjourns on 90th Day,” Montana Legislature, April 

27, 2007 

ET

Electronic 

Transmission

Case 

Study 

Site Electronic Transmission (ET) Options

Number of 

UOCAVA

Voters 2004

Region of USA Other

Within Case 

Analysis11

Cross-Case 

Analysis11

E-mail Fax

E-mail voted ballots and also allow faxing

Montana • E-mail voted ballot in 

select counties

• E-mail blank ballots in 

all counties

• IVAS Tool 2 (upload 

blank ballot for DODaffiliated voters) in 2 counties

• E-mail FPCA for 

registration in all counties

• Fax of voted ballot

in over 30 counties

• Fax of blank 

ballots in all counties 

• Fax of FPCA in all 

counties

• 4,721 ballots 

sent

• 3,490 ballots 

returned

Northwest • Allowed some 

e-mailing in 2004

• Participated in 

IVAS 2004

• One of 

three States implementing IVAS Tool 2

• Examine variation 

in several choices regarding electronic transmission across local jurisdictions

• Examine e-mail vs. 

fax experience with voted ballots, and email vs. fax experience with blank ballots

• Relatively small 

UOCAVA population compared to other States in sample

• Regional and size 

contrast with other e-mailing voted ballot State (South Carolina)

South Carolina

• E-mail voted ballots in 

all counties

• E-mail blank ballots in 

all counties

• Fax of voted 

ballots in all counties

• Fax of blank 

ballots in all counties

• Fax of FPCA in all 

counties 

• 168,814 

ballots sent

• 157,990 

ballots returned

** We learned later that it was actually 8078 ballots sent and 5533 ballots returned

Southeast • High number of 

military voters 

• State participated 

in Voting Over the Internet Project (VOI) for 2000 general election and made process available to all UOCAVA voters

• Participated in 

IVAS 2004

• Examine uniform 

electronic transmission across State

• Examine e-mail vs. 

fax experience with voted ballots, and email vs. fax experience with blank ballots

• Investigate experience 

with VOI in 2000

• Regional contrast 

with other e-mailing voted ballot State (Montana)

E-mail of blank ballots and also allow faxing

Florida • E-mail blank ballots

in all counties, except military in US

• Fax of voted 

ballots in all counties, except military in US

• Fax of blank 

ballots in all counties, except military in US

• Fax of FPCA in all 

counties for ballot request

• 122,194 

ballots sent

• 93,524 

ballots returned

South • Allow request 

of blank ballot by telephone for registered UOCAVA voters

• Pat Hollarn 

work developing Internet voting

• Participation in 

VOI 2000 general election

• Examine uniform 

electronic transmission across State jurisdictions

• Examine why location 

of voter determines electronic choice

• Examine e-mail vs. 

fax experience of blank ballots

• Investigate experience 

with VOI 2000

• Regional and size 

contrast with other e-mailing blank ballot State (Illinois)

• Compare to other 

States without telephone alternative

Illinois • IVAS Tool 1 (e-mail 

ballot request for DOD-affiliated voters) in Chicago and Cook County

• E-mail blank ballot to 

all UOCAVA in Chicago and Cook County

• Fax of FPCA for 

ballot request for military in all counties

• Fax of FPCA for 

ballot request for overseas civilians in Chicago and Cook County

• 30,556 

ballots sent

• 26,639 

ballots returned

Midwest • One of several 

(~7) States implementing IVAS Tool 1

• Examine variation 

in several choices re electronic transmission across local jurisdictions

• Examine e-mail vs. fax 

experience for FPCA for ballot request

• Regional and size 

contrast with other e-mailing blank ballot State (Florida)

• Moderate size 

UOCAVA population compared to other States

Appendix A: Key Criteria for 

Inclusion in Case Study 35 11With the choice of these four States as “cases,” variation can be examined both within each case (or State), and across each case (or State) while other characteristics are constant. For example, within a State (a case) the laws are constant and the experience with practices (such as e-mail and faxing of ballots) can be compared. An example of cross-case analysis is that Montana and South Carolina have similar laws but vary in region of the country and population size, so differences in their practices might be affected by those two factors.
36
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

State agency in charge of elections

State Board of Elections (8 members)

Department of State State Election 

Commission (5 members)

Secretary of State’s Office

Chief election official Executive Director of SBE Secretary of State 

(appointed)

Executive Director of State Election Commission

Secretary of State (elected)

Sub-agency Division of Elections Elections DivisionLocal jurisdictions 102 Counties and 8 Cities 67 Counties 46 Counties 56 CountiesLocal election officials 101 County Clerks, 

1 County Election Commission, and 8 City Election Commissions (clerks are elected, commission members are appointed)

County Supervisors of Elections (65 elected, 2 appointed)

11 Counties with separate Board of Voter Registration and Election Commission, 35 Boards of Elections and Voter Registration (all members are appointed)

County Clerks (elected)

Number of registered voters in 200612

7,375,688 10,433,849 2,452,714 538,374

Total ballots cast November 200613

3,587,676 4,386,339 1,103,933 414,594

Absentee ballots cast in 2006 (including UOCAVA)13

71,665 750,762 76,132 121,303

Best estimate of UOCAVA ballots cast in 200613

6534 27,469 1686 1121

UOCAVA voters in each jurisdiction in 200613

From 1 to 1597 From 2 to 3443 From 0 to 222 From 0 to 229

Appendix B: Election Administration 

and Statistics for Case Study States

12As reported on the State’s election agency website13Estimates based on documents and data collected from interviews with State and local election officials

37
38
Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting 39

Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Language in State statute about electronic transmission of voting materials

“Members of the Armed Forces. Any member of the United States Armed Forces while on active duty, otherwise qualified to vote, who expects in the course of his or her duties to be absent from the county in which he or she resides on the day of holding any election, in addition to any other method of making application for an absentee ballot under this Article, may make application for an absentee ballot to the election authority having jurisdiction over his or her precinct of residence by a facsimile machine or electronic transmission not less than 10 days before the election. 

Ballots under this Section 

shall be mailed by the election authority in the manner prescribed by Section 20-5 of this Article and not otherwise. Ballots voted under this Section must be returned to the election authority before the closing of the polls on the day of election and must be counted at the election authority’s central ballot counting location.”

“Electronic transmission of election materials.--The Department of State shall determine whether secure electronic means can be established for receiving ballots from overseas voters. If such security can be established, the department shall adopt rules to authorize a supervisor of elections to accept from an overseas voter a request for an absentee ballot or a voted absentee ballot by secure facsimile machine transmission or other secure electronic means. The rules must provide that in order to accept a voted ballot, the verification of the voter must be established, the security of the transmission must be established, and each ballot received must be recorded.”

“Absentee ballots as provided by Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. (A) To ensure that all South Carolina residents eligible to vote as provided by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, set forth in the United States Code, Title 42, Section 1973ff, et seq., have the opportunity to receive and cast any ballot they would have been eligible to cast if they resided in and had remained in South Carolina, the State Election Commission must, in cooperation with United States government agencies, take all steps and action as may be necessary including, but not limited to, electronic transmissions of Standard Form 76 issued by the Federal government as an application for voter registration and an application for absentee ballots and electronic transmissions of absentee ballots to or from any elector eligible to vote as provided by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.”

“Registration and voting by facsimile and Internet authorized. Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, each election administrator may, in any primary election, general election, and special election, take the following acts by facsimile transmission, if facsimile facilities are available, or electronically through the Internet for a United States elector, if Internet facilities that provide for secrecy are available, in place of the public mails: (1) register an individual to vote; (2) give notice of registration; (3) receive requests for an absentee ballot; (4) transmit absentee ballots to electors; and (5) receive absentee ballots from electors.”

Population to which electronic transmission applies

Active duty members of Armed Forces.

Overseas UOCAVA eligible voters.

UOCAVA eligible voters. UOCAVA eligible voters.

Close of registration books

28 days; postmarked 28th day accepted.

29 days; postmarked 29th day accepted.

30 days; postmarked 30th day is accepted.

30 days; postmarked 30thday and received in 3 days accepted.

39
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Late registration for UOCAVA or former UOCAVA returned to home voting jurisdiction

If in or discharged (within 60 days of election) from Armed Forces and return home within the 28 days, can vote at own polling place without registration.

If discharged from uniformed services or from employment outside United States within the 29 days, can register at the election office up until 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the election.

If discharged from the Armed Forces and return home within 30 days, can register at the county voter registration office up until 5:00 p.m. on election day.

UOCAVA voters who returned home within 30 days can register up to noon the day before the election.

Registration for UOCAVA – form and time

Temporarily overseas civilians can submit the State registration form or the FPCA for registration at least 28 days before the election. Military and temporarily overseas who are not registered and request a ballot through the FPCA are automatically registered. Military can submit FPCA for registration and ballot request up to 10 days before the election. Former residents of Illinois who are indefinitely living overseas must use the FPCA to request a ballot. The State registration form and FPCA can be submitted in person or by mail.

For all UOCAVA, the State registration form or the FPCA to register must be received by the county at least 29 days before the election with the oath affirmed and signed. Either form for registration must have original signature as opposed to only a scanned signature; however, having a witness of the oath is not required.

UOCAVA voters can register using the State form or the FPCA submitted in person or by mail. If submitted by mail, the form must be postmarked 30 days before the election.

UOCAVA voters can register by submitting, at least 30 days before the election, the State registration form, the FPCA, or the FWAB transmission envelope. The FPCA and FWAB transmission envelope are also automatic requests for absentee ballots.

Electronic options for registration

The FPCA can be faxed, but an original signature is needed, so the hard copy must follow at the latest with the voted ballot.

No electronic options for UOCAVA voter registration. To register, the voter must submit a hard copy form with an original signature to the county office.14

The FPCA can be faxed, but an original signature is needed, so the hard copy must follow.

All registration forms from UOCAVA voters can be faxed or e-mailed and do not require an original signature or hard copy to follow. A scanned signature is sufficient.

Absentee ballot requests - applies to all voters

Need one of 11 reasons unable to go to polls (reasons printed on local jurisdictions version of State prescribed request form). Request must be received in mail 5 to 40 days before the election or in person 1-40 days prior to the election. Original signature must be on file.

Do not need reason. State application by 5:00 p.m. on sixth day before election. Request in person, in writing, or by phone; can be requested by immediate family.

Need one of 17 given reasons un able to go to polls. Reasons printed on State absentee ballot request form.

Do not need reason.

14Once registered, the overseas voters can fax or e-mail the FPCA for a ballot request.

40 Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Does State have permanent Regular Absentee Voters?

No. Absentee ballot application/request good for one election.15

No. One application good for calendar year.

No. State absentee ballot application/request good for one election.

Yes. Can request absenteeballots to be sent for all elections or just for Federal elections.

UOCAVA ballot request

Military who will be absent from local jurisdiction on election day can request ballot with local jurisdiction’s form without being registered. Military and temporarily overseas civilians may use local jurisdiction’s absentee ballot request form or FPCA, and either must be received by the local election office by the 10th day before the election. Former residents of an IL jurisdiction who reside indefinitely overseas must use the FPCA. Original signature is required for any absentee ballot request. Hard copy of absentee ballot request with original signature is required at least by time of vote.

If already registered, UOCAVA voters can submit the regular State ballot request or the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. on the sixth day before the election.

State absentee ballot application must be requested in person, by phone, by mail or through an immediate family member. Once received, the application can be completed and returned as early as January 1, and by mail by 5:00 p.m. of the fourth day before the election or in person up to 5pm the day before the election. FPCA that is used to register and request a ballot must be in at least 30 days before the election. FPCA for already registered voters must be in by 4 days before the election.

Regular absentee ballots requests are made by using the State application or by written request with birth date and signature, mailed, or delivered in person between 75 days and noon the day before the election. As of the general election of 2006, only the voter’s signature was accepted for issuing of an absentee ballot.16 Registered UOCAVA voters can apply for absentee ballot with State application, written request with birth date and signature, FPCA, or FWAB transmission envelope from any date until noon the day before the election. If not registered, UOCAVA voter can use the FPCA or FWAB transmission envelope to request a ballot and automatically register if submitted by 30th day before election.17 Requests by UOCAVA voters are good for the next two Federal elections but only for the State and local elections during the calendar year.

15UOCAVA voter’s absentee ballot application is good for every election in the calendar year; the FPCA is good for two Federal election cycles.16During the legislative session of 2007, a law was enacted that allowed a person with Power of Attorney to apply for and sign for a UOCAVA voter’s ballot.17Legislation enacted by the 2007 legislature and effective on October 1, 2007 that expands use of the FWAB moves the deadline for request for regular absentee ballot to 30 days before the election and removes the application for absentee ballot by FWAB transmission envelope.

41 Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Electronic options for ballot request

Active duty military can send ballot request by fax.

If already registered, overseas voters (not military in the US) can send either regular State ballot request or FPCA by fax or e-mail.

FPCA can be faxed, but must be followed with the original sent in the regular mail.

All requests from UOCAVA voters can be faxed or emailed and do not require an original signature or hard copy to follow. A scanned signature is sufficient.

Mailing of blank ballot to UOCAVA – method and deadline

45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

Mailed 35 days before primary and general elections to UOCAVA voters who are overseas. Domestic military will be sent ballots as soon as they are available. Ballots must be sent by “forwardable” mail to those qualified under UOCAVA. If an overseas voter has provided an e-mail address in their absentee ballot request, supervisor of elections office must e-mail a list of candidates at least 30 days before each primary and general election.

Mailed at least 45 days before the primary and general elections. The primary ballot sent to UOCAVA voters is sent with an Instant Runoff Voting ballot to be used in the event of a second runoff primary. If ballots are not ready at the time the UOCAVA voter requests one, the registration board must provide a blank ballot in which a voter can write his selection of candidates, parties, and support or opposition of measures. (This is not the official State/Special Write-in Ballot.)

All absentee ballots must be printed and available for mailing 30 days before a Federal primary election, 45 days before a Federal general election, and 20 days before odd year elections.

Electronic options for sending blank ballot

No electronic options. Overseas voter can request 

that their blank ballots be emailed or faxed to them.

UOCAVA voters can request that their blank ballots be e-mailed or faxed to them.

Ballots to UOCAVA voters are a priority over other absentee ballots and must be sent by the fastest method possible, including fax or e-mail.

Offices on ballot Non-resident civilians living 

indefinitely overseas vote on Federal offices only. Illinois residents who are temporarily overseas and not registered to voter and who make request between 10-30 days before the election get ballot with Federal offices only.

Law does not limit the offices for which any type of UOCAVA voter can vote.

Non-resident civilians living indefinitely overseas vote on Federal offices only. All other UOCAVA voters can vote on local, State, and Federal offices.

Law does not limit the offices for which any type of UOCAVA voter can vote.

42 Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting
Special or State 

Write-in Ballot?

If ballots not ready 60 days before general election, overseas voters must be sent a Special Write-in Absentee Voter Blank Ballot and list of candidates.

If, due to military duties or other contingencies, a voter will not be able to vote during the regular absentee voting period, voter can request, 90-180 days before the election, a “State write-in absentee ballot,” which includes all offices for which the voter would otherwise vote (Federal, State, local); voter can designate choices by names or parties. Labels stating this situation are available in the State’s Voting Assistance Guide, or it can be written into the FPCA.

If, due to military duties or living in isolated or remote area so unable to vote a regular absentee ballot, voter can request, 90 days or less before an election a “Special Write-in Absentee Ballot” for that election. The SWAB will list the State and Federal offices on the ballot and names of candidates if available. Voter can designate names or parties. Labels stating this situation are available in the State’s Voting Assistance Guide, or it can be written into the FPCA.

Nothing during the general election of 2006. A law allowing use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot for non-Federal offices was enacted during the legislative session of 2007. The bill was titled “Special write-in absentee ballot for military and overseas voters,” and was originally proposed to establish a SWAB but was amended to simply allow the expanded use of the FWAB.

Return voted ballot – method and deadline

Signed voter certification on outside of envelope and delivered in person or by mail. If returned by mail and postmarked by midnight before the election, will be counted if received within 14 days after election day for all absentee voters, UOCAVA or not.

All absentee ballots can be returned by mail or in person. Overseas UOCAVA voters (not out of county military who are in the U.S.) may return ballots also by fax. Faxed ballots and the accompanying voter certificate must be received at the supervisor of elections by 7:00 p.m. on election day. Mailed absentee ballots must have a date next to the signature on the voter’s certificate, and the Federal portion of the ballot will be counted if voted by election day (based on date on outside of envelope) and received within 10 days after the election.

Absentee ballots must be received at the county election commission by the close of polls on election day and can be delivered in person, by mail, or by another person with authorization to deliver it. The oath on the outside of the return envelope must be signed and witnessed.

Regular absentee ballots must be received at the county clerk’s office by 8:00 p.m. on election day. UOCAVA voters who request an absentee ballot before the 30-day deadline and have not received it can vote using FWAB, which must be sent by 8pm on election day and received no later than the Monday after election day. FWAB voter who subsequently receives the regular ballot can also vote and return the regular ballot.

Electronic Options for returning voted ballot

No electronic options. Overseas UOCAVA voters may 

return ballots by fax.

UOCAVA voters can fax or e-mail their voted ballots with the signed oath and no witness, but a waiver of the right to a secret ballot is required.

UOCAVA voters have an option of sending voted ballots by fax or e-mail in some counties. The waiver of the right to a secret ballot must be attached to the fax or e-mail, but it does not need to be signed in the case of e-mail.

43 Appendix C: Laws in Effect During the 2006 General Election 

Regarding Registration, Absentee Voting and UOCAVA Voting

Appendix D: Key Implementation Findings Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana Election officials’ perspective on UOCAVA voting (based on interviews conducted by the case study researchers)

• State encourages locals to 

facilitate UOCAVA voting

• Local tracks down voters and 

gives specialized service

• Local go out of way for military 

more than for civilian overseas who are believed to have access to more resources

• State law and 

administration focus on overseas (not domestic military) because of difficulty getting ballot through international mail

• Local consider overseas 

a priority, but try to provide good service to all UOCAVA; send ballots as soon as can, earlier than required

• Civilians and military have 

different needs; military move more often

• Content of ballot (local 

and State offices included or not) varies by Supervisor of Elections

• State enthusiasm about 

assisting UOCAVA voters but State election officials are generally unaware of the lack of electronic transmission at the county level; concerned about the 2 cycle requirement, mailing to bad addresses, and then voters returning home and not being able to vote at polls

• Local enthusiasm about 

helping military especially, but focused more on maintaining addresses and getting voters to send necessary information than electronic transmission

• State unaware of how electronic 

transmission implemented at the local level

• Local enthusiasm about helping 

military and overseas but mostly concerned about difficulties such as mailing ballots to bad addresses (e.g., UCOAVA voters sent an absentee ballot and then showing up at the polls, and parents of soldiers who want to get ballots to them) 

• Locals are very concerned with 

protecting blank ballots sent out and protecting the privacy of voted ballots returned electronically

Extent of use of electronic transmission

• Faxing FPCA’s vary in use from 

common in two jurisdictions to very rare in one (about 5 in 2006)

• Two jurisdictions accepted 

FPCA by e-mail and e-mailed from 97-136 blank ballots for November 2006 (2.3-2.5% of all sent), including approximately 25-40 through IVAS

• 1-3% of blank ballots 

sent to all UOCAVA voters were sent by email; approximately 5-8% of blank ballots sent to those UOCAVA voters eligible for e-mailed blank ballots, were sent by email .5-1.5% faxed of all UOCAVA; 2-5% faxed back ballot of those who could

• Very little, voters don’t 

request often; in six counties, requests of e-mail and/or fax from 0-10 (or 1-10% of all ballots sent)

• Substantial use of ET considering 

small UOCAVA population; in four counties, 1.8- 26% of ballots sent out were e-mailed or faxed

45
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Difference between electronic transmission methods

• For voter, e-mail and fax of 

FPCA are not that much different because need original signature - either way starts process but not complete, hard copy must come back with ballot at the latest, so for voter depends on what is available to them. However, most jurisdictions only have the fax option, and only for military. For one jurisdiction facilitating faxing of FPCA through e-mail message takes longer than getting FPCA through e-mail

• For two jurisdictions that e-mail 

and fax blank ballot, e-mail seems more common because requested more often

• Difference between email and fax of blank 

ballot for voter depends on resources available to them; groups within military vary in access to e-mail, printers, and fax machines

• Difference between e-mail 

and fax of blank ballot: faxing is comparatively easy and the default, if requested e-mail, is not possible

• Difference between e-mail 

and fax of voted ballot: still too little to know. Ballot must be duplicated in either case to run through scanner used statewide for all absentee ballots

• Difference between e-mail and 

fax of blank ballot: e-mail is easier to do, easier to know who’s on other end, and doesn’t require a signature; local election officials prefer e-mail

• Difference between e-mail and fax 

of voted ballot: must waive privacy with either, but with e-mail, they don’t require a signature on the waiver —just that the voter sees, reads, and sends it back

• Disincentive among local election 

officials: ballot must be duplicated if either e-mailed or faxed

Variation across local jurisdictions

• Difference in use of ET• No difference in effort to assist 

military

• Extension of ET to overseas 

civilians in two jurisdictions not administratively significant

• Difference in which elections 

(just Federal or others, too) send ballots for after FPCA

• All same rules but 

variation in effort based on number of UOCAVA voters and their needs (e.g., military have different needs, so larger number of military influences actions of SOE)

• All same rules but differs in ET 

based on variation in technical resources of county and knowledge and experience of county registration staff

• Variation in capacity based on 

separation or consolidation of election and registration; in one county with separate staff, the registration staff who e-mails the ballots did not receive the ballot layout from the elections staff (who produce the ballots) so the blank ballots were not emailed to any UOCAVA voters

• Variation in how to maintain 

lists of UOCAVA voters, specifically keeping e-mails, fax #’s, addresses, lists by date of registration, or by simply relying on the State registration database

• Difference in which elections 

(just Federal or others, too) send ballots for FPCA

• Variation in electronic transmission 

based on population and number of requests (largest county in sample faxed, e-mailed, or uploaded only 1.8% of blank ballots, but second largest county in sample had requests for and sent almost 25% electronically); a relatively small county with a larger UOCAVA population sent 3.7% of ballots electronically, but a small county with a very small UOCAVA population sent over 25% of ballots electronically

• Variation in technical capacity: some 

had little capacity and others had great tools, but no one had the same tools (e.g., in one large county, clerk did not have computer capacity to received e-mailed ballots; in another large county, the clerk received faxes on her secure computer; in a smaller county, IT department provided clerk with a PDF of the ballot that could be transmitted both ways by e-mail)

46 Appendix D: Key Implementation Findings
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Improvements needed (in no particular order)

• Outreach to voters on FPCA 

submission alternatives

• Use e-mail to communicate with 

more UOCAVA voters

• Encourage local jurisdictions to 

have electronic database of email addresses for all UOCAVA voters (not just those that ask for e-mailed ballot)

• Outreach to voters 

on ballot receipt and submission alternatives

• Obtain more e-mail 

addresses and use e-mail to communicate with more UOCAVA voters

• Outreach to voters on ballot 

receipt and submission alternatives

• Obtain more e-mail 

addresses and use e-mail to communicate with more UOCAVA voters

• Encourage local jurisdictions 

to have electronic database of e-mail addresses for all UOCAVA voters (not just those that ask for e-mailed ballot)

• Technological standardization 

in terms of what is needed to electronically communicate with and transmit materials to UOCAVA voters

• Technological standardization 

in terms of what is needed to electronically communicate with and transmit materials to UOCAVA voters; encourage use of helpful technical tools across counties

• Ability for individual with Power of 

Attorney to apply for and collect absentee ballot for overseas voter (County Clerks wanted this law and it was enacted in the 2007 session)

• Outreach to voters on ballot receipt 

and submission alternatives

Issues with expanding ET

• Would need more staff and/or 

computer program to e-mail blank ballots to all UOCAVA

• Would need more staff 

and/or computer program to e-mail blank ballots to all UOCAVA

• Would need more judges 

to duplicate ballots if expansion in ET of voted ballots

• Expanding from Voting Over 

the Internet (VOI) (47) to all UOCAVA (6000+) would require additional software and hardware capacity at the State level because of centralized registration system

• At local level, expanding 

would require more staff assistance and poll managers to replicate

• Would need greater technical 

capacity and assistance in some counties

• At local level, expanding would 

require more staff assistance and election judges to replicate ballots

Appendix D: Key Implementation Findings 47
Illinois Florida South Carolina Montana

Past electronic transmission efforts/experience

• Allowed Gulf War soldiers to 

fax voted ballots in 1992

• Two jurisdictions expand use 

of ET, including participation in IVAS 2006 Tool #1. Did not choose Tool #2 because easier to send ballot directly

• VOI was only tried in a few 

counties but was exciting and successful; about 86 total voters participated in the State, most were in one county personally visited by FVAP Director on election day; same counties hoped SERVE would make it easier for voters to access ballots from any computer and increase participation; frustration with academic critique of the readiness of the technology

• IVAS 2006 would not 

have provided anything extra to them

• VOI was exciting and successful; 

statewide implementation in all 46 counties; 50 voter maximum per State so approximately 1 per county; 47 voters used the system successfully; secure server at the State office and one in each county and ballots printed at the county; easy to administer

• Disappointed that SERVE not 

implemented; were again to be the only State doing it in all jurisdictions

• IVAS 2006 was more difficult 

than what they already do; no recollection of IVAS 2004

• No recollection of IVAS 2004• IVAS Tool 2 got mixed reviews: 

In one case (a small county) it was difficult to set up technically, it was used by only one voter, and administrator felt it cut out interaction with the voter; in the other case, (a larger county), the system was called “slick” and administrator liked the centralized nature because it took the burden off the voter for finding their local election official

Future of and interest in electronic transmission

• Interest in helping military• E-mailing blank ballot is 

feasible

• Security, especially 

authentication issues, are big concern in the State

• Electronic transmission of 

voted ballots would require significant funding for closed systems in each jurisdiction and more election judges to remake ballots

• Electronic transmission of 

voted ballots is unlikely to be enacted by legislature

• Aware of technology 

barriers and concerns but optimistic that either DOD or individual county pilots could test existing methods to overcome these concerns.

• Belief in alternative 

methods for overseas voters only, especially for those unable to receive and send mail in time for various reasons

• State Election Commission 

(SEC) is very enthusiastic and does not see security concerns as insurmountable

• Legislature is amenable to 

necessary law changes

• Political will to expand electronic 

transmission exists in Legislature and interest among State and local election officials, but technical capacity would have to increase to accommodate electronic transmission on a larger scale; State is still transitioning into a new registration system and probably needs more time to focus on that before other technical upgrades are undertaken

48 Appendix D: Key Implementation Findings

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Ave., NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

1-866-747-1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.gov

www.eac.gov

EAC Commissioners

Chair Donetta L. Davidson

Vice Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez

Commissioner Caroline Hunter

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel