UOCAVA Voting in Four StatesA Study of Election Administration

Overview of the Project

3 Components: Qualitative and Quantitative
        - 	Case Studies of 4 States
        - 	Survey of UOCAVA voters
        - 	Conference with Election Administrators,  technology and election experts, etc.

Sample Selection
        - Organized States by Transmission method
        - Some emailing of voted ballots
        - Some emailing of blank ballots or IVAS tool 2
        - Some emailing of FPCA but not ballots
        - Fax but no email
        - Fax of voted ballots
        - Fax of blank ballots 
        - Fax of FPCA for registration and ballot request
        - Fax of FPCA for ballot request
        - Postal delivery only

Sample was selected from 50 states and 5 territories.  All jurisdictions that allow any email also allow use of fax for some things.

More Sample Selection
        - 2 States selected from each of the top categories
        - Additional criteria considered:
        - Region 
        - Size of UOCAVA population
        - Variety of methods utilized by sample state for within-state comparison of different methods
        - Initiation of and participation in pilot projects or FVAP programs

Research States and Jurisdictions	Key Features
        - South Carolina: email and fax voted ballots – state-wide; south-eastern state; VOI ‘00, IVAS ‘04; SERVE ’04; large UOCAVA population
        - Montana: email and fax of voted ballots – some jurisdictions; north-western state; IVAS ‘04; IVAS ‘06 T2; small UOCAVA population
        - Florida: email blank and fax voted ballots; southern state; VOI ‘00, SERVE ’04; pilot projects, large UOCAVA population
        - Illinois: fax of FPCA for ballot request; IVAS ’06 T1 + email blank ballots in 2 jurisdictions; mid-western state; medium UOCAVA pop.

Findings
        - Enthusiasm about facilitating UOCAVA voting
        - Especially about military serving overseas
        - Limited resources and technical infrastructure
        - Extreme variation on technology within states
        - Lack of knowledge about resources and procedures
        - 2 cycle registration requirement: bad for administrators – good or bad for voters?

Findings Continued
        - Concern about authentication of voters
        - Varying perspectives on best methods
        - Little variation in general administration of UOCAVA voting found based on selection criteria for states – differences wash out as population size increases
        - Differences found based on relationship of state to local jurisdictions
        - Lots of innovative ideas on local level
        - Permission to conduct pilot projects desired

Problems they face, how they process them, all are concerned about voter privacy

More Findings
        - No mechanisms to share or promote innovative procedures among locals
        - Lack of communication between LEOs and VAOs in many jurisdictions
        - USPS difficulties
        - Voters uninformed about electronic transmission possibilities (few requests)
        - LEOs cautious about encouraging wide-spread use due to ballot remaking issue etc.

No active education program

Conclusion and Recommendations
        - LEOs hindered by obstacles (legal, resources, technology infrastructure, awareness of voters, knowledge of agencies)
        - Changes needed:
        - Overall increase in communication
        - Laws that allow more discretion
        - Mechanism to share practices
        - Improve technology
        - Security and authentication assurances
        - Upgrade/standardize local systems

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX