U.S. Election Assistance C

UOCAVA

Survey Report Findings

September 2007

Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act

UOCAVA

Survey Report Findings

September 2007

Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act

UOCAVA Report i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Possible Interpretations of Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

UOCAVA Turnout: Ballots Requested, Returned, and Counted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The UOCAVA Environment Faced by the States...

Federal Write in Absentee Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Advanced Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Reasons for Not Counting UOCAVA Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Moving Ahead and Next Steps for 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figures and Tables

Table A: Selected Response Rates on UOCAVA Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 1 Relationship of UOCAVA Voters to Their Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2 Relationship Between Requested Ballots and Counted Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 3 Source of UOCAVA Ballots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 4 Share of UOCAVA Ballots by Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 5 Predominant Reason for Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots 

 to Not be Counted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Footnotes to Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 19 UOCAVA Ballots Cast by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 20 UOCAVA Ballots Counted by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 21a Ballots Counted as Percent Cast, by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Table 21b Ballots Counted as Percent of All UOCAVA Ballots, by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 21c UOCAVA Ballots: Maximum Cast or Counted by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 22 UOCAVA Ballots Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 23 Advanced Ballots Transmitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 24 Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 25a Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected by Reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 25b Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected by Reason - Percentages . . . . 43

Cross Reference of Survey Questions to Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Survey Instrument Extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Contents

UOCAVA Report iii

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act 

(UOCAVA) of 1986 (42 USC 1973ff) protects the voting 

rights of members of the uniformed services (on active 

duty), members of the Merchant Marine and their eligible 

dependents, Commissioned Corps of the Public Health 

Service, Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. citizens residin

outside the U.S. UOCAVA requires States and territorie

 to 

allow these citizens to register and to vote in elections for 

Federal office using absentee procedures

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (42 USC 

15301) mandates that for each regularly scheduled general 

election for Federal office, the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) shall collect comprehensive data 

from the States on all of the ballots sent and received by 

UOCAVA voters. This is the second report from the EAC

to Congress regarding UOCAVA voting. It is based on

information gathered from a survey administered to States 

and local jurisdictions after the November 7, 2006 election

2

Response rates from many States and local jurisdictions 

were low, making the monitoring of compliance with the 

mandated requirements of UOCAVA difficult. A concern

voiced during the congressional debate about HAVA was 

that citizens covered by UOCAVA faced an unusual burden 

in finding out how to register to vote and how to cast their 

ballot. The Election Administration and Voting Survey

remains the primary tool by which the Congress and the 

public can monitor compliance with those portions of 

HAVA that apply to UOCAVA voters

Unfortunately, numerous States and local jurisdictions 

are still not collecting information on UOCAVA ballots 

requested, ballots returned, and, although not mandated 

by law, the reasons for ballot rejection in a manner 

appropriate to provide a full and fair accounting of the 

UOCAVA voting experience

While this report reflects far more, and in fact better, 

data than what was able to be collected two years ago 

for the 2004 election, it is still built upon a dataset 

that is both incomplete and replete with improbable 

information. Readers must be cognizant of this fact as

they review this report

Highlights from the 2006 UOCAVA 

survey include:

UOCAVA turnout remains low. At least 992,034

UOCAVA-related absentee ballots were requested for the 

2006 general election. There is no way of knowing how

many of these were actually requests for ballots for the 

2006 election or were the automatic generation of ballots 

through the use of the “Federal Post Card Application” 

form. Less than 16.5 percent of the estimated 6 millio

potentially eligible UOCAVA voters sought to participate 

in the 2006 election.

States report slightly more than 330,000 UOCAVA ballots 

were cast or counted, for an estimated eligible turnout 

rate of approximately 5.5 percent  The ballots returne

account for just under one-third of the ballots requested

Over 70 percent of all UOCAVA ballots reported not 

counted by States and localities were because they were 

returned to the local elections office as undeliverable

3

 

This is the largest category for rejection and may be 

one that can be substantially reduced with partnerships 

among States, localities, and the armed services. The

establishment of a program whereby the military 

notifies local election offices when a military transfer 

takes place would go a long way toward solving the 

problem with undeliverable ballots. The second largest

categorized reason for rejecting ballots was “other 

reason,” while the third was that the ballot was returned 

after the deadline for receipt

1 .

2 .

3 .

Executive Summary

1

“United States,” where used in the territorial sense, means all States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the 

Virgin Islands, and American Samoa

2

In 2004, the EAC administered a separate UOCAVA survey. In 2006, in order to reduce the data collection burden on States and to improve the

quality of data, the EAC combined the UOCAVA survey with surveys that collected information for the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

and the Election Day Survey

3

Technically, these ballots were never rejected because they were never submitted by the voter. However, for the sake of consistency and clarity, they

are treated here as if they were all submitted in order to review reasons for not being counted

UOCAVA Report 1
In many cases, States were unable to provide 

sufficiently detailed information on UOCAVA 

balloting. For over one-third of the UOCAVA ballots

that were cast, as well as counted, it was not possible to 

determine whether they came from domestic military, 

overseas military or overseas citizens. In 14 States, less

than 2/3 of the jurisdictions collected the information 

mandated by UOCAVA. (In a number of these cases,

“uncategorized” became a “catch-all” category to 

describe UOCAVA ballots.

Domestic military voters who requested ballots had 

56.3 percent of their ballots cast or counted  Oversea

citizens that requested ballots had 52.6 percent of their

ballots cast or counted. On the other hand, overseas

military voters had only 47.6 percent of their requested

ballots cast or counted. What significantly drove

down the overall rate of counted ballots was the large 

number of ballots that were uncategorized as to their 

origin, which represented nearly one-third of all ballots 

requested. Just 21.8 percent of these uncategorize

requested ballots were cast or counted

On average, 26.5 percent of the UOCAVA ballots

came from domestic military voters, 19.7 percent

from overseas citizens, and 16.9 percent from overseas

4 .

5 .

6 .

military. Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs)

contributed 4.9 percent  The remaining one-third o

UOCAVA ballots were uncategorized as to their source

The EAC survey found that the FWAB program is 

not being used by many voters. Only 1,451 clearly

identifiable FWAB ballots were cast in the 2006 

election, while only 698 were counted. Therefore,

FWAB ballots amounted for only 2.5 percent of all

UOCAVA ballots

Low responses to the survey may also have been 

hindered by actions of the EAC. Some states didn’t

realize the survey sought numbers at County and 

lower geographic areas, and had failed to program 

their voter registration systems to provide finite 

data. Some of the wording and layout of the survey

instrument caused many jurisdictions to place wrong 

data into fields that were reserved for UOCAVAonly answers, necessitating further follow-up to 

obtain correct information. Finally, the web-based

survey answer mechanism was set up for individual 

jurisdictions to answer all questions, but many states 

collected the data from the local governments first and 

then found it extremely difficult and time-consuming 

to enter data into the EAC system

7 .

8 .

Conclusions

Too many local election authorities continue to fail to track 

the precise number of ballots they mailed or transmitted 

to their domestic military, overseas military, and overseas 

citizens, as required by HAVA. The quality of information

regarding UOCAVA ballots is low, making it impossible to 

sufficiently monitor compliance with HAVA mandates

The tracking of these transmitted absentee ballots is 

complicated by the following factors that may artificially 

inflate or deflate the numbers reported in this survey:

The Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots are not 

classified as “sent” from the State, and they may or 

•

may not be counted as UOCAVA ballots received in 

the data reported

State record-keeping protocols might inflate the 

number of ballots received when voters send in 

both the Federal Write-in Absentee ballot and the 

full absentee ballot

Persons eligible for UOCAVA ballots move a great 

deal, yet ballots are automatically sent for two 

federal elections after they have registered. This

is likely the cause of large numbers of ballots 

returned as undeliverable

•

•

2 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Recommendations

States must redouble their efforts to make sure that 

local jurisdictions collect the mandated information for 

UOCAVA voters, including:

Appropriately separating domestic civilian and 

domestic military absentee ballots;

Correctly categorizing UOCAVA ballots and not 

employing the “uncategorized” category as a catch-all;

Tracking the reasons for ballot rejection;

Reporting data at the appropriate jurisdictional level 

(county, township, and city) and not just statewide

More effort needs to be made to ensure that 

members of the armed services and citizens 

living overseas are made fully aware of their 

voting rights and that any obstacles to voter 

registration, ballot receipt, and ballot return 

should be reduced, minimized, or eliminated

However, all legislators should be aware of the 

unique electoral environments experienced in 

different states, given the wide variation in 

the number of domestic and overseas armed 

services personnel and overseas citizens

States should work in partnership with federal 

agencies to develop best practices and ongoing 

programs for encouraging voting participation 

among the UOCAVA population

States should be open to legal changes and to 

new technologies that may overcome some of 

the barriers currently faced by UOCAVA voters.

States may wish to explore new technologies to 

1 .

•

•

•

•

2 .

3 .

4 .

deliver and receive ballots, such as voting by fax, 

by telephone, or by using the Internet as ways to 

encourage UOCAVA voting, while attending to 

vital issues of ballot integrity and voter privacy

It is unrealistic to keep sending ballots to 

voters who have moved: more than 35,000 

ballots were returned as undeliverable. There

are a wide number of mechanisms that should 

be established to solve this problem

Continuing efforts by the EAC should be aimed 

at States and their local election authorities 

to educate them about HAVA requirements 

regarding UOCAVA. While it is important

to recognize the tremendous variation in how 

States and their local election authorities handle 

the mailing and processing of their ballots, it 

is equally important that EAC assist States and 

local election authorities to develop policies and 

procedures that will make them HAVA-compliant

The EAC needs to provide the survey instrument 

to States well in advance of upcoming Federal 

elections and then assist States with their collection 

and reporting of UOCAVA survey data.

The EAC needs to continue to work to develop 

uniform measures for the collection and reporting 

of UOCAVA data. It is anticipated that this

type of information will assist States with their 

implementation of effective and efficient methods for 

sending and receiving ballots to UOCAVA voters

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

UOCAVA Report 3
The 1988 Executive Order 12642 names the Secretary of 

Defense as the Presidential designee for administering 

UOCAVA. Executive Branch departments and agencies

with employees overseas provide voting assistance under 

guidance from the Secretary of Defense

4

 The U.

Postal Service and the Department of Defense Military 

Postal Service Agency physically transmit election 

materials between the voter and local election officials

The Department of Justice enforces UOCAVA protections 

through litigation

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Section 

703 (a), amended Section 102 of UOCAVA by adding the 

following requirement:

“Not later than 90 days after the date of each 

regularly scheduled general election for Federal 

office, each State and unit of local government 

which administered the election shall (through the 

State, in the case of a unit of local government) 

submit a report to the Election Assistance 

Commission (established under the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002) on the combined number of 

absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed 

services voters and overseas voters for the election 

and the combined number of such ballots which 

were returned by such voters and cast in the 

election, and shall make such a report available to 

the general public.”

HAVA Section 703 (b) requires EAC to work with the EAC 

Board of Advisors and EAC Standards Board to develop 

a standardized format for the reports submitted by States 

and units of local government under UOCAVA Section 

102, as revised. HAVA also requires EAC to make the

format available to the States and local units of government 

submitting such reports

Section 702 of HAVA also requires each State to establish 

a single State office that is “responsible for providing 

information regarding voter registration procedures and 

absentee ballot procedures to be used by absent uniformed 

services voters and overseas voters with respect to 

elections for Federal office (including procedures relating 

to the use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot) to all 

absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters who 

wish to register to vote or vote in any jurisdiction in the 

State.” It further recommends that this State office be

the entity responsible for carrying out the entire State’s 

responsibilities under UOCAVA

Background

Survey Methodology

The EAC is assigned the task, through HAVA, of 

collecting comprehensive data on all of the ballots sent 

and received by uniformed and overseas citizen absentee 

voters. In 2004, EAC developed a survey instrument to

collect information and data on UOCAVA voters from 

the November 2, 2004 Presidential Election. During the

process of collecting the data, it was determined that many 

States and local jurisdictions did not track the specific data 

required by HAVA, and/or stored the requested statistics 

in various formats, which resulted in gaps in the UOCAVA 

data collected by EAC

To study the 2004 election, the EAC administered two 

separate surveys to collect and report the information 

required under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

and Section 102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voter Act. In addition, it conducted a third

survey to collect information regarding the November 

2004 Federal general elections. To reduce the burden of

responding to multiple collections of information, facilitate 

data collection and reporting, and encourage participation 

in the 2006 survey, the EAC incorporated the three 

previous collections into a single survey instrument (2006 

4

The Secretary of Defense has been designated by the President to have primary responsibility for Federal functions under UOCAVA, through the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The U.S. Department of State assists the Secretary of Defense in carrying out these functions wi

respect to U.S. civilians overse

4 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Election Administration and Voting Survey). The latter

was designed with feedback received from State and local 

election officials, political scientists, researchers, members of 

election and voter registration groups, and the general public

In May 2005, the EAC met with a small group of election 

officials to solicit their feedback regarding the 2004 

Election Day Survey. The group discussed the challenges

faced by election officials when collecting the survey’s 

data, including the interpretation of the survey questions 

and terms and the methods for assembling the data. In

April 2006, the EAC convened a second group, consisting 

of election officials, social scientists, and voter interest 

groups, to discuss recommendations to improve the EAC’s 

data collection efforts, including the design of one survey 

instrument to collect all of the required data.

One month later, the EAC completed the first draft of 

the 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey 

and presented it to the EAC’s Advisory and Standards 

Boards. The boards are comprised of 110 State and local

election officials, and another 37 are drawn from various 

national associations and government agencies that 

play a role in the implementation of HAVA, as well as 

science and technology-related professionals appointed by 

Congressional members. In addition, a presentation of the

survey was made to the annual meeting of the National 

Association of State Election Directors (NASED) in the 

summer of 2006. Finally, a copy of the survey draft was

forwarded to the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting 

Assistance Program (FVAP) office for their input. The

survey was revised based on the input from all of these 

groups, and a second draft was produced

The second draft of the survey was posted in the Federal 

Register on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43477), for a period of 

60 days to solicit public comment, as required for approval 

of information collection under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The survey was revised again based on the

14 comments received during the 60-day public comment 

period and was published for an additional 30 days in the 

Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63755). States

were notified of both comment periods, and the draft survey 

was made available on the EAC Web site. The 2006 Election

Administration and Voting Survey was approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on November 30, 

2006 (OMB Control No. 3265-0006, exp. 11/30/2009). T

final, approved version of the survey contained 58 questions; 

28 questions required information only at the State level, and 

30 required information at both State and county levels. The

actual UOCAVA questions from the survey instrument are 

contained as an Appendix to this report

In addition to revising the survey to improve the clarity of 

the questions and terminology, EAC designed a web-based 

application for States and for local jurisdictions to submit 

their data. In early December 2006, EAC provided States

with an identification and password to log in to the online 

survey to begin entering data. Although the deadline for

States to submit data was March 7, 2007, data were collected 

and tabulated for this report up to August 24, 2007. Unlike

previous surveys conducted by EAC and the FEC to collect 

the required data, the 2006 survey asked for information for 

both the State and the county/local election jurisdictions, 

rather than a single State-wide number as in previous 

surveys. State totals were, in most cases, merely the sum of

the information from the local jurisdictions that responded

The 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey 

was sent to 55 State-level election jurisdictions, including 

the District of Columbia and the four territories—Guam, 

Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgi

Islands. The survey sought information for the States’ local

jurisdictions, and some States allowed their jurisdictions to 

fill in the Web-based survey instrument. Other State offices

collected the information from local governmental bodies, 

created a State-wide compilation, and entered the data into 

the Web-based survey instrument. Finally, almost half of

the States sought to submit the State-wide compilation of 

data to the EAC via spreadsheets and avoid the online data 

entry process. EAC staff, temporary employees, and the

contractor performed the data entry

During the process of performing an analysis of the EAC 

survey, all States were sent the information extracted from 

the survey at two different times, and were allowed to 

review the compiled information and submit amendments 

or corrections. Unfortunately, some States and local

jurisdictions neither track the specific data required by 

HAVA, nor do they store the required statistics in various 

formats. Both problems resulted in gaps in the UOCAVA

data in this report. To reflect the irregularities in States’

collections of data by local jurisdictions, the tables at the 

end of this report show the overall number of jurisdictions 

in a State and the number responding for a particular 

question in the column labeled “Jur.

UOCAVA Report 5
Furthermore, this report to Congress does not cover all 

jurisdictions (i.e., county and township level) in eac

State. States were able to submit county and local-level

data, although in a number of instances, the States’ data 

were incomplete. Some States only submitted statewide

figures and did not report data from local jurisdictions.

As a result, this report is based on survey results from 

50 States, the District of Columbia, and two territories, 

and, depending upon the specific question, at most 2,029 

jurisdictions out of 3,123 total jurisdictions possible.

Puerto Rico had no Federal election in 2006, so it did not 

submit any information

Survey Questions

The UOCAVA portion of the 2006 Election Administration 

and Election Day Survey is contained in six questions in the 

survey. They are

Ballots Cast (question 33)

Ballots Counted (question 34)

Absentee Ballots Requested (question 38)

Advanced Ballots Transmitted to Overseas Voters 

(question 39)

FWAB Ballots Received (question 40)

Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected 

(question 42)

For the questions dealing with ballots cast (question 

33), ballots counted (question 34), and absentee ballots 

requested (question 38), each had subcategories that dealt 

specifically with UOCAVA voters, and this extracted 

information is summarized in the tables of the appendix 

to this report. The subcategories were domestic military,

overseas military, and overseas citizens. The rest of the

information from these questions, including the domestic 

citizens subcategory, will appear in the Election Day 

Survey report, which is scheduled to be released shortly 

after this report

Over one third of all UOCAVA ballots tallied in the survey 

could not be attributable to an appropriate category, that 

is, whether they came from domestic military, overseas 

military, or overseas citizens. For the purposes of

determining an overall UOCAVA number for any question, 

the subcategories of domestic military, overseas military, 

and overseas citizens were combined together with the 

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB) information and 

the “uncategorized” data to create a “Sum of UOCAVA” 

field. While the subcategories of voters provide the most

detailed information, some jurisdictions did not break down 

voters in this manner. As a result, the survey also allowed

for a total UOCAVA field to be entered. In the attached

tables to this report, the “Uncategorized” column reflects 

this data.

For the purposes of the survey, the EAC provided the 

following definitions within the questionnaire: 

Ballots cast: refers to ballots that have been submitted 

manually or electronically by a voter regardless of 

whether they are ultimately counted. Note: Jurisdictions

that provide voters with more than one ballot card to 

vote for different contests or measures should have only 

reported one ballot cast per voter

Ballots counted: refers to all ballots that have been 

cast, processed, and counted

Domestic military citizen is statutorily defined as:

A member of a uniformed service on active duty 

who, by reason of such active duty, is stationed or 

positioned within the United States or its territories, 

and who is absent from the place of residence 

where the member is otherwise qualified to vote;

A member of the merchant marine who, by reason 

of service in the merchant marine, is serving 

within the United States and its territories, and who 

is absent from the place of residence where the 

member is otherwise qualified to vote; and

A spouse or dependent of a member referred to 

in subparagraph (A) or (B) who, by reason of the 

active duty or service of the member, is absent 

from the place of residence where the spouse or 

dependent is otherwise qualified to vote

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is an 

emergency ballot available to military and overseas 

citizens (including APO and FPO addresses) when they 

have properly requested but have not received a regular 

absentee ballot from their local jurisdiction in time to 

return it before the deadline

•

•

•

A .

B .

C .

•

6 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Overseas military citizen is statutorily defined as:

A member of a uniformed service on active duty 

who, by reason of such active duty, is stationed 

or positioned outside of the United States and its 

territories, and who is thus absent from the place of 

residence where the member is otherwise qualified 

to vote;

A member of the merchant marine who, by 

reason of service in the merchant marine, is 

serving outside of the United States and its 

territories, and who is thus absent from the place 

of residence where the member is otherwise 

qualified to vote; and

A spouse or dependent of a member referred to 

in subparagraph (A) or (B) who, by reason of the 

active duty or service of the member, is absent 

from the place of residence where the spouse or 

dependent is otherwise qualified to vote

Overseas citizens refers to persons who are citizens of 

the United States who are living, working, or stationed 

outside of the United States and its territories and who 

are not members of a uniformed service

Possible Interpretations of 

Survey Questions

While the survey instrument provided definitions of 

various terms, some state and local jurisdictions appear 

to have interpreted some questions differently than 

intended. One of the major problems that occurred dealt

with various questions that asked for the subcategories of 

UOCAVA voters (domestic military, overseas military, 

and overseas civilians) and then allowed the responder to 

provide an overall total of the UOCAVA voters. Because

of the placement of the overall total UOCAVA field at 

the bottom of a column of numbers, and the fact that 

•

A .

B .

C .

•

the field was just labeled with the word “Total,” many 

jurisdictions summed the overall column of numbers 

(which included non-UOCAVA fields) and placed the 

resulting number in the total UOCAVA field. Numerous

contacts with states and local jurisdictions were made to 

correct this problem

Response Rates

States and jurisdictions were asked to provide numeric 

responses to nearly all the survey questions. In the Webbased survey response instrument, it was noted that if

a jurisdiction intended to record a zero in answer to a 

question, then a “0” should have been entered as the 

response rather than leaving it blank. In determining the

number of jurisdictions that responded to a particular 

question, a “zero” was considered a valid response from 

a jurisdiction, while a “blank” was an indication the 

jurisdiction did not respond to the question. Jurisdictions

were also allowed to respond with “Don’t know” or 

“Check if your office does not collect this data,” either of 

which was also considered a valid response to a question

Response rates varied across the UOCAVA-related 

questions, but in general, they are at a level that makes it 

difficult to monitor compliance with the basic requirements 

of UOCAVA. For example, as shown in Table A, of

3,123 possible jurisdictions, 54 percent (1,685) provided 

information on the number of domestic military absentee 

ballots cast, while a somewhat higher 62 percent (1,933) 

provided information on the number of overseas military 

absentee ballots. Interestingly, there is a consistent pattern

in the relative response rates. Generally, more jurisdictions

kept track of information on overseas voters as opposed 

to domestic military voters

5

 The lowest responses dealt 

with the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB), in all 

instances, less than 50 percent of the jurisdiction responded

The table on the opposite page reports the response rates 

across a selected set of the UOCAVA items

5

 One possible explanation for this is that some jurisdictions may be lumping domestic military ballots with absentee ballots and they did not 

report any information for this category. According to the survey protocol, however, the jurisdiction still should have reported, even if the answer

provided was “none” or “zero.

UOCAVA Report 7
Table A: Selected Response Rates on UOCAVA Survey Questions

Survey Results

The accompanying charts and tables illustrate the results 

of the 2006 Election Administration and Election Day 

Survey, including data that the EAC is required by HAVA 

to report, and additional information regarding UOCAVA 

voters and the UOCAVA voting process. As already noted,

the statistics in this report may be artificially inflated or 

deflated by a number of factors. Most important, many

States reported incomplete information or told the EAC 

that they do not collect the information necessary that 

would have allowed the EAC to respond to the mandated 

requirements of UOCAVA. Thus, many of the results are

based on incomplete information. The number of reporting

jurisdictions is always noted in the data tables

6

A review of the data collected and submitted by the 

States for the UOCAVA portion of the 2006 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey indicates large variations 

in the manner in which UOCAVA information is collected, 

tracked, and reported

In many cases, States were unable to provide sufficiently 

detailed information on UOCAVA balloting. In 13 States,

only one-third of the jurisdictions collected the information 

mandated by UOCAVA. (In a number of these cases,

“uncategorized” became a “catch-all” category to describe 

UOCAVA ballots.)

Compilation of accurate data for the 2006 UOCAVA report 

has been challenging. A major difficulty was due to confusion

over the appropriate response to several questions relating to 

the categorization of ballots. This resulted from both the lack

of definition as to what constitutes a UOCAVA ballot and a 

lack of clarity in the question. For example, numerous checks

were made on the data, and repeated contacts with the State 

6

Of course, jurisdictions vary greatly in population and the impact of non-response on the overall numbers will vary accordingly

8 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

UOCAVA Question Response Rate

 Number of Per-

 Jurisdictions cent

Domestic Military Ballots Cast 1685 of 3123 54%

Domestic Military Ballots Counted 1692 54%

Domestic Military Ballots Requested 1761 56%

 

Overseas Military Ballots Cast 1933 62%

Overseas Military Ballots Counted 1940 62%

Overseas Military Ballots Requested 2024 65%

Overseas Citizen Ballots Cast 1947 62%

Overseas Citizen Ballots Counted 1948 62%

Overseas Citizen Ballots Requested 2014 64%

 

Domestic Military FWAB 1276 41%

Overseas Military FWAB 1529 49%

Overseas Citizens FWAB 1462 47% 

Notes: Figures calculated from Tables 19, 20, 22, and 24
and local election authorities were made, to the extent possible, 

during processing of the data for this report. States were

given the opportunity to correct all data prior to the release 

of the report. Nevertheless, while many discrepancies were

resolved,7 the end result is still a dataset that is both incomplete 

and replete with improbable information. In many categories

(e.g. turnout) the estimates provided, to the degree they ar

incorrect, are underestimates

UOCAVA Turnout: Ballots Requested, 

Returned, and Counted

At least 992,034 UOCAVA-related absentee ballots 

were requested for the 2006 general election (see Table 

22). Question 38 does not specifically ask how many

absentee ballots were “transmitted” (“transmitted” as 

defined by UOCAVA), but there is no indication in the 

data that absentee ballot requests were not acted upon by 

local jurisdictions. There are indications in the footnotes

and comments from jurisdictions that UOCAVA-related 

ballots were not tracked separately and may have been 

merged into overall absentee ballot counts or even into the 

civilian absentee numbers. In addition, about one third of

the nation’s jurisdictions did not report any answer to the 

question of how many absentee ballots were transmitted

While there were nearly one million UOCAVA ballots 

requested, as reported in the survey, this number is still 

dwarfed by the absolute number of eligible voters. A recent

Government Accounting Office (GAO) report estimates 

that “6 million citizens...are covered under the Uniformed 

and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and have the 

opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”

 As such, less 

than 16.5 percent of potentially eligible UOCAVA voters

sought to participate in the 2006 election. While low, these

EAC survey figures are not as low as the numbers reflected in 

the GAO report, which reported that only 80 voters received 

ballots—and eight returned—through one of the two “tools” 

developed by the Department of Defense to encourage 

UOCAVA registration and turnout

9

While the EAC survey sought information on number 

of ballots requested, there was no separation of the data 

between actual inquiries made by voters for ballots for 

the 2006 election versus information that was already on 

hand in the elections office. When a voter uses the Federal

Post Card Application to register with an overseas address, 

jurisdictions are required under law to automatically mail 

an absentee ballot for the next two federal elections. As a

result, many local jurisdictions flag their voter registration 

files with this information and a ballot is then automatically 

generated for the voter. The EAC survey did not seek

information about these two possible ways that a ballot 

could be requested. As such, the nearly one million figure

cited above could be artificially high

The EAC survey showed that only a quarter of UOCAVA 

ballots that were requested were eventually cast. In response

to question 33 in the survey (Total number of ballots cast), 

nearly 264,000 UOCAVA ballots were cast in 2006 (see 

Table 19). This accounts for only 26.5 percent of th

requested ballots. For the component pieces of UOCAVA

voters, of the 141,317 domestic military ballots requested, 

only 45.6 percent (or 64,540) were cast  Only 39 percen

of overseas military ballots requested were cast, and 42.8

percent of overseas citizen ballots requested were cast

10 

The survey also reported, in response to question 34 

(Total number of ballots counted), that there were 244,027 

UOCAVA ballots counted. This would seem to indicate

that 92.5 percent of all UOCAVA ballots cast were counted

However, there are a number of instances where States 

reported more UOCAVA ballots counted than were cast.

This is because not all jurisdictions keep both sets of data.

Some jurisdictions in a State reported only ballots counted 

and nothing for ballots cast. This affected data reporting

from California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, as noted in Table 21a

Because of this finding, Table 21c was created, and it reports 

the maximum number of UOCAVA ballots either cast or 

7

In some cases, offsetting discrepancies at the local level mask the impact of the problem at the State level

8

GAO 07-774, ELECTIONS: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in Electronic Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas 

Citizens, June 2007, p. 3

9

The discrepancies between the GAO report and this report may be explained by the different methodology used by the two studies. The GAO

report was based on a sampled survey of UOCAVA voters conducted by the Department of Defense, whereas this study attempts to collect 

information from all jurisdictions in the United States. While the EAC survey did not get a high response rate on the UOCAVA questions, the EAC

collected information from a great deal more jurisdictions than did the DOD

10The reader should note that these figures are artificially low due to previously noted non-response problems in the survey

UOCAVA Report 9
counted in each local jurisdiction that responded, and then 

sums to the statewide level. Using these data, the EAC survey

found that slightly more than 333,000 UOCAVA ballots were 

either cast or counted in the 2006 general election. This

accounts for only one-third of the requested ballots

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the total estimated 

eligible UOCAVA voters (according to the GAO report), 

the number of requested UOCAVA ballots as reported in 

the EAC survey, and the maximum number of UOCAVA 

ballots cast or counted

Using the maximum cast or counted data slightly raises the 

percentage of requested ballots that were tallied in the 2006 

election. Overall, 33.6 percent of the requested UOCAV

ballots were cast or counted in 2006.

There are significant differences between the different 

types of voters, as well as the large portion of the ballots 

that were uncategorized. At the highest level, domestic

military voters that requested ballots had 56.3 percent

of their ballots cast or counted. Overseas citizens that

requested ballots had 52.6 percent of their ballots cast or

counted. On the other hand, overseas military voters had

only 47.6 percent of their requested ballots cast or counted

What significantly drove down the overall rate of the 

survey responses were the ballots that were uncategorized 

as to their origin, which represented nearly one-third of all 

ballots requested. Just 21.8 percent of these uncategorize

requested ballots were cast or counted. Figure 2 shows

both the number of ballots requested and the number that 

were cast or counted, as well as the percentages between 

those two calculations

Figure 1

Relationship of UOCAVA Voters to Their Ballots

Cast/Counted Ballots

Requested Ballots

Estimated

UOCAVA Voters

0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m

Number of Voters

10 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

m = millions
Approximately one-third of the cast or counted ballots were 

uncategorized by the States. On average, 26.5 percent o

the UOCAVA ballots came from domestic military voters, 

19.7 percent from overseas citizens, and 16.9 percent fro

overseas military. FWAB ballots contributed the final 4.

percent. Figure 3 shows the overall source of UOCAVA

ballots, as reported in the EAC survey—with a reminder 

that the “uncategorized” category became a “catch-all.”

There was great variation between the States as to the 

source of the UOCAVA ballots. Table 21c shows the share

that each subcategory contributes to the overall count of 

UOCAVA ballots for each State

Figure 2

Relationship Between Requested Ballots and Counted Ballots

52.64%

47.62%

56.34%

21.81%

33.59%

125,913

66,280

107,449

51,172

141,317

79,614

617,355

134,659

992,034

333,179

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

Overseas Overseas Domestic Uncategorized Total

 Citizens Military Military

Note: Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots 

(FWABs) are not shown in Figure 2 

because no data was available for 

requested ballots.

Requested Ballots

Cast or Counted Ballots

Percent Cast of Requested

UOCAVA Report 11
Figure 3

Source of UOCAVA Ballots

31%

27%

17%

20%

5%

Figure 3

Source of UOCAVA Ballots

Excluding the States mentioned earlier that reported more 

ballots counted than cast, on average, 77.6 percent of all

UOCAVA ballots that were cast were counted. Overseas

citizens’ ballots fared better, with on average 78.3 percent of

their ballots being eventually counted. On the other hand,

domestic military UOCAVA ballots were counted, on average, 

75.5 percent of the time, overseas military 71.6 percent of th

time, and FWAB ballots 63.7 percent of the time  However

differences between the States are great (see table 21a). Some

States reported that 100 percent of the UOCAVA ballots were 

counted, even for the subcategory groups. On the other hand,

the percentage of ballots counted was very low for some States

This varied by the various subcategories of UOCAVA voters

It is impossible to calculate accurate turnout figures based 

on these survey results because of incomplete information 

provided by the States. By any measure, however, the

number of ballots requested and returned is remarkably low

12 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Uncategorized

31%

Domestic Military

27%

Overseas Military

17%

Overseas

Citizens

20%

FWAB

5%
In summary, for those jurisdictions that were able to report 

the source of the UOCAVA ballots, most States reported 

that domestic military voters were their predominant 

source of UOCAVA ballots. These included the States of

Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, 

North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming.

On the other hand, overseas citizens were the predominant 

source of UOCAVA ballots in the States of Colorado, 

Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, and New 

York. Overseas military voters were the main component

of UOCAVA votes in Arkansas, North Carolina, Utah, 

Virginia, and the American Samoa. States not listed above

were either unable to report the source of UOCAVA ballots, 

or the predominant component was uncharacterized

Thus, some States report relatively small numbers of overseas 

absentee ballots, whether from members of the armed services 

or from citizens residing overseas, while other States deal with 

thousands or tens of thousands of such ballots. Any guidelines

to improve UOCAVA balloting need to incorporate the wide 

ranges of approaches that States will need to take in order to 

comply, given their varied environments

While nearly one-third of all UOCAVA ballots nationwide 

could not be categorized as coming from domestic military, 

overseas military, or overseas citizens, regions of the 

country or states that were able to provide this information 

present some important clues as to the demands on election 

administration in those jurisdictions. There is great

variability in the UOCAVA voting environment. States

wrestle with dramatically different numbers of UOCAVA 

voters and the types of UOCAVA voters. Figure 4 illustrates

the source of the UOCAVA votes for each State with colored 

bars for the States that provided some categorized data.

For example, States with major military bases process 

significant numbers of domestic armed services ballots. The

EAC survey showed that more than one-half of all UOCAVA 

ballots cast in the States of Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and 

Wyoming were from domestic military voters. For these

jurisdictions, UOCAVA balloting may be managed by 

working constructively with base personnel

Other States that serve significant numbers of UOCAVA 

voters face a more challenging electoral environment 

because they have to register UOCAVA citizens, deliver 

ballots to these voters, and make sure ballots are returned 

by these same voters, some of whom may live thousands 

of miles away. In many instances, these voters reside in

localities where telephone, mail, Internet, and/or other 

methods of communication between elections officials 

and citizens are complicated. As shown in Table 20, the

States of Arkansas, American Samoa, and Virginia report 

that more than 40 percent of UOCAVA ballots that were 

counted came from overseas armed services personnel

11 

For these States, working with UOCAVA voters means 

dealing with issues of overseas mail delivery and the 

attendant delays in the delivery and receipt of registration 

information and ballots. This may require new and creative

solutions for election administrators

A third group of States must focus their registration and 

turnout efforts on all three types of UOCAVA voters 

(domestic military, overseas military, and overseas 

civilians). Seven States— Georgia, Kansas, Michigan,

Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Ohio—had greater 

than 20 percent of UOCAVA ballots cast or counted in 

each of the three major subcategories (domestic military, 

overseas military, and overseas citizens). Ohio faces

perhaps the most complex environment with almost 

one-third of its UOCAVA voters in each subcategory.

California would be added to this list if their numbers of 

uncategorized UOCAVA ballots were not so high

Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots 

Under Section 103 of UOCAVA, overseas military and 

civilians are eligible to cast a “back-up” ballot called 

The UOCAVA Environment Faced 

by the States 

11North Carolina is excluded from this discussion because only one jurisdiction provided information on domestic military ballots, thus inflating 

the relative proportion of overseas ballots. The State’s responses to the survey showed that most domestic military ballots are counted as domestic

absentee. This may be a more widespread phenomenon  The States of California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi  New Mexico, Oklahoma, Sout

Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington all process substantial numbers of overseas military ballots but report such high numbers of “uncategorized” 

UOCAVA ballots that it is impossible to make any conclusive statements

UOCAVA Report 13
Figure 4

Share of UOCAVA Ballots by Source

Note: Some states failed to report any categorized data.

0% 100%

14 U.S. Election Assistance Commission East Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Virginia West Virginia National Average Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens National Average
UOCAVA Report 15 Figure 4 Share of UOCAVA Ballots by Source South Arkansas Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Texas National Average Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens 100% 0% National Average Note: Some states failed to report any categorized data.
16 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Figure 4 Share of UOCAVA Ballots by Source Midwest Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio South Dakota National Average Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens 0% 100% National Average Note: Some states failed to report any categorized data.
UOCAVA Report 17 Figure 4 Share of UOCAVA Ballots by Source West Arizona California Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Washington Wyoming National Average Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens Uncategorized Total Domestic Military Overseas Military Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot Overseas Citizens 0% 100% National Average Note: Some states failed to report any categorized data.
the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, or FWAB. These

are available if an absent uniformed services member 

or citizen outside the United States (including APO and 

FPO addresses) requested but did not receive the regular 

absentee ballot from his or her State after having made a 

timely application for the ballot. The FWAB is used to vote

for Federal offices (President/Vice President, U.S. Senator

U.S. Representative, Delegate or Resident Commissioner

in general elections. Some States now allow military and

overseas citizens to use the FWAB in elections other than 

general elections or for offices other than Federal offices

Generally, an absent uniformed services member or citizen 

outside the United States can only use the FWAB under very 

specific conditions. UOCAVA voters may be able to use a

FWAB available through Voting Assistance Officers (VAOs) 

at military installations or at U.S. embassies/consulat

The absent uniformed services voter must:

Be absent from his/her voting residence;

Have applied for a regular ballot early enough so the 

request is received by the appropriate local election 

official not later than the State deadline; or the date that 

is 30 days before the general election; AND

Have not received the requested regular absentee ballot 

from the State

The citizen outside the United States must:

Be located outside the United States (including APO/

FPO addresses);

Have applied for a regular ballot early enough so the 

request is received by the appropriate local election 

official not later than the State deadline; or the date that 

is 30 days before the general election; AND

Have not received the requested regular absentee ballot 

from the State

An online version of the FWAB is available through the 

Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP) website. The online version must be completed,

printed, signed, dated, and mailed to the Local Election 

Official. The online form must be mailed in an envelope

with proper postage, or using the DOD’s prepaid return 

envelope. The voted FWAB must be returned to the local

•

•

•

•

•

•

election official to meet the State or territorial deadline for 

counting. However, these ballots would not be classified as

“sent” from the State, and they may or may not be counted as 

UOCAVA ballots received in the data reported

Additionally, twelve States have expanded the use of 

the FWAB to go beyond what is required in UOCAVA

These States are Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode 

Island, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia

The EAC survey found that the Federal Write-in Absentee 

Ballot program is not being used by many voters. Only

1,451 clearly identifiable FWAB ballots were cast in the 

2006 election (see Table 19), while only 698 were counted 

(Table 20). As noted in Table 21b, FWAB ballots amounted

for only 2.5 percent of all UOCAVA ballots

The low rate at which the FWAB ballots were both cast and 

counted was also revealed in the EAC survey. Only 48.

percent of FWAB ballots were counted—the lowest rate 

of counted ballots of any UOCAVA subcategory of data.

However, this counting rate varies greatly for different 

States (see Table 21a). The State of Arkansas reported that

only 25 percent of their FWAB ballots were counted, while 

eight States reported that all of their FWAB ballots that 

were cast were counted. In addition to Arkansas, the States

of Arizona, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, and 

North Carolina all reported less than 50 percent of their 

FWAB ballots were counted

Advanced Ballots 

The EAC survey also asked for the total number of 

“advanced ballots” transmitted to military and overseas 

citizens for the 2006 general election (question 39, with 

results reported in Table 23). For the purposes of the

survey, advanced ballots were defined as “any special 

Write-In Absentee Ballot, State Write-In Absentee Ballot, 

Special Write-In Early Ballot, or Blank Absentee Ballot 

that is distributed by a State in advance of the publication 

of an official ballot for a Federal election on which military 

and overseas citizens are allowed to write in the name 

of the candidate in each contest for whom they choose 

to vote.” In some ways this would appear to describe a

FWAB ballot, but the numbers reported by some States and 

jurisdictions are much higher than the information provided 

on Tables 19 and 20. It appears that some States and

18 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
jurisdictions reported overall absentee ballots in response to 

this question

Question 40 in the EAC survey specifically asked about 

the number of FWAB ballots received from domestic 

and overseas military, as well as overseas citizens. Yet,

the 86,000 ballots reported in this question were heavily 

dominated by data from Illinois and California that appear 

to have overall absentee ballots reported in their so-called 

UOCAVA totals

Reasons for Not Counting 

UOCAVA Ballots 

Given the unique situation faced by many UOCAVA voters, 

many of whom have to request and return their ballots from 

a great distance, there is special interest in the reasons for 

ballot rejection. Of the nearly 1 million UOCAVA ballots

that were requested, the EAC survey found about 48,600 

were rejected for a variety of reasons (see Table 25a). This

amounts to an average of 4.9 percent nationwide, although

there were wide variations between the States. For

example, the States of Indiana and North Carolina reported 

that more than 40 percent of the requested ballots were 

subsequently rejected, while a number of States reported 

less than 3 percent were rejected

As shown in Table 25a (question 42) and Figure 5, from 

one-third to two-thirds of jurisdictions provided a count 

of the number and reasons for not counting the UOCAVA 

ballots. The biggest reason (over 70 percent) reported by

States and local jurisdictions for not counting the ballots 

was that they were returned as undeliverable. As a result,

the ballots were not even eligible to be cast. A number of

States reported much higher percentages—six States said 

that more than 90 percent of their rejected ballots12 were 

because they were undeliverable. Therefore, for more than

34,000 UOCAVA voters, the ballots never arrived in the 

hands of the voter and could never be cast.

The third largest reason for rejected ballots (after “other 

reason”) was that they were received by the election 

offices after the deadline stipulated by State law. This

accounted for nearly 10 percent of all rejected ballots 

nationwide. But the variation of reasons among the States

was large, and resulted in an average 23.1 percent across

the country

12Of course, technically, these ballots were never rejected because they were never submitted. However, for the sake of consistency and clarity, they

are treated here as if they were all submitted in order to review reasons for not being counted

UOCAVA Report 19
The map in Figure 5 illustrates the predominant reason 

cited by each State for UOCAVA ballots failing to be 

counted. The dominance of red in the map shows the great

number of States that reported a large number of UOCAVA 

ballots that were returned as non-deliverable. The

percentages within each State outline shows what percent of 

the overall rejected ballots were due to the reason cited by 

Figure 5

Predominant Reason for Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots to Not be Counted

color. Although not a predominant response in any State,

other reasons cited were (in descending order of frequency): 

No voter signature

Voter signature was not verifiable or unmatched

No date of notary on the witness signature

Had no date of voter signature

Lacked a postmark

•

•

•

•

•

20 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Too many local election authorities continue to fail to track 

the precise number of ballots they mailed or transmitted 

to their domestic military, overseas military, and overseas 

citizens, as required by HAVA. Provisions in State laws

may contribute to the difficulty in the tracking of ballots

The tracking of these transmitted absentee ballots is 

complicated by the following factors that may artificially 

inflate or deflate the numbers reported in this survey:

If UOCAVA voters do not receive their State ballots 

close to the date of the elections, they can download, 

via the Web, and then send, a Federal Write-In 

Absentee Ballot that indicates his or her preferences for 

known races. These ballots are not classified as “sent”

from the State, and they may or may not be counted as 

UOCAVA ballots received in the data reported.

Additionally, if the UOCAVA voter submits his or her 

•

•

Conclusions

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, and subsequently 

receives his or her full UOCAVA ballot from the State, 

the voter is allowed to vote the full ballot, and the State 

should count those full ballots. That is the fact that

several ballots might legitimately be received from 

one voter further complicates the accuracy of the data 

collected and, as a consequence, State record-keeping 

protocols might inflate the number of ballots received

Finally, when a voter registers to vote using the 

Federal Post Card Application,13 an absentee ballot 

is automatically sent to that voter for the next two 

Federal elections. However, voters may move or change

addresses and ballots may be sent to addressees for 

voters who are no longer residing at that address. This

may be one of the sources of the problem for the large 

number of ballots that were returned to local election 

offices because they were undeliverable

•

13The Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), also known as Standard Form 76 (SF 76), is a postage-free postcard, printed and distributed by 

the FVAP for use by absentee voters covered by UOCAVA. Every election year, the FVAP has a minimum of eight million FPCAs in worldwide

distribution, serving more than six million U.S. citizens covered by UOCA

The quality of information regarding UOCAVA 

ballots is low, making it impossible to sufficiently 

monitor compliance with HAVA mandates. States

must redouble their efforts to make sure that local 

jurisdictions collect the mandated information for 

UOCAVA voters, including:

Appropriately separating domestic civilian and 

domestic military absentee ballots;

Correctly categorizing UOCAVA ballots and not 

employing the “uncategorized” category as a catch-all;

Tracking the reasons for ballot rejection;

Reporting data at the appropriate jurisdictional level 

(county, township, and city) and not just State-wide

More effort needs to be made to ensure that members 

of the armed services and citizens living overseas are 

made fully aware of their voting rights and that any 

1 .

•

•

•

•

2 .

obstacles to voter registration, ballot receipt, and ballot 

return should be reduced, minimized, or eliminated.

When crafting solutions, however, States should attend 

to their unique electoral environments, given the wide 

variation in the number of domestic and overseas 

armed services personnel and overseas citizens

States should work in partnership with the Department 

of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, and 

the Election Assistance Commission, to develop best 

practices and ongoing programs for encouraging voting 

participation among the UOCAVA population

States should be open to legal changes and to new 

technologies that may overcome some of the barriers 

currently faced by UOCAVA voters. For example, States

may consider whether it is necessary to have ballots 

received by Election Day or whether a postmark by 

3 .

4 .

Recommendations

UOCAVA Report 21
Election Day is sufficient. States may wish to explore

new technologies to deliver and receive ballots, such as 

voting by fax, by telephone, or by using the Internet as 

ways to encourage UOCAVA voting, while attending to 

vital issues of ballot integrity and voter privacy

It is unrealistic to keep sending ballots to voters who 

have moved: more than 35,000 ballots were returned 

as undeliverable. Mechanisms need to be set up by the

military whereby a military transfer generates a move 

notice to the local registrar. Additionally, military bases

need to set up programs with State and local elections 

offices whereby an undeliverable registration or ballot 

generates a rapid notification—perhaps by email—to 

the individual voter so that they may respond in a timely 

fashion. Another possibility would be to provide

forwarding exemptions for overseas military ballots

Moving Ahead to 2008

The various processes required of States by UOCAVA 

procedures vary substantially and will be considered 

when promoting further surveys and collecting data. The

following State processes should be considered as EAC 

assesses future data collection efforts:

How States and local election authorities handle 

the sending and the return of ballots. This includes

variations among States in scheduling elections (late or 

early primaries), polices and procedures regarding the 

use of faxes, rules regarding the time allowed to return 

ballots, and early voting policies and procedures

How States and their local election authorities handle 

ballots received from overseas military, domestic 

military on active or inactive duty, overseas citizens, 

and Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots

5 .

•

•

How States count domestic and overseas military 

ballots, overseas citizen ballots, ballots cast early, and 

all absentee and FWAB ballots cast and counted

How States define and assess UOCAVA ballot 

responses through the single State UOCAVA offices, 

and how those offices communicate the recordkeeping 

protocols with local election officials

Continuing efforts by the EAC should be aimed at States 

and their local election authorities to educate them about 

HAVA requirements regarding UOCAVA. The EAC

will continue to coordinate its efforts with the staff of 

the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) at the 

Department of Defense to ensure that both agencies work 

together in providing a service that is effective to States and 

to UOCAVA voters. While it is important to recognize the

tremendous variation in how States and their local election 

authorities handle the mailing and processing of their 

ballots, it is equally important that EAC assist States and 

local election authorities to develop policies and procedures 

that will make them HAVA-compliant

Providing the survey instrument to States well in advance 

of upcoming Federal elections will assist States with their 

collection and reporting of UOCAVA survey data. This

could include sending the survey at least 9-12 months in 

advance of an election.

EAC will continue to work to develop uniform measures for 

the collection and reporting of UOCAVA data. These steps

and measures will be shared with each State’s UOCAVA 

office and will be recommended for use when completing 

future Election Administration and Election Day surveys. It

is anticipated that this type of information will assist States 

with their implementation of effective and efficient methods 

for sending and receiving ballots to UOCAVA voters

•

•

22 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
General Notes

State: In the interest of consistency in these tables, the 

term State includes the District of Columbia and the four 

territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands

Jurisdictions in the Survey: For the 2006 survey, 

information was requested for each county-level election 

administration jurisdiction. The following exceptions apply:

a) in some States, the information was initially compiled 

by town or township; b) in some States, independent cities 

were treated as counties; and c) in some States, the only 

response was one record for the State. States in which the

town/city or township is the initial unit of collection include 

the six States in New England and a handful of States in 

the Midwest. Independent cities were treated as countylevel reporting units for the States of Maryland, Virginia,

Missouri, and Nevada. Selected Election Boards in Illinois

and Missouri were also treated as county jurisdictions

State-level information was provided for Alaska, which 

does not have counties. Coverage for the territories varie

Missing Data: Information for several items remains 

unavailable for several reasons; in general, this is reflected 

by a blank cell in the table. If a calculation is impossible

because of missing information, a separate symbol may be 

indicated, e.g., a series of periods (......). If a calculat

percentage is greater than 100%, it is labeled with a 

different symbol (###). Highlighted information, when

included, will indicate inconsistent values, e.g., the sum o

several columns is greater than 100%. In a few instances,

information was edited to remove obvious inconsistencies 

or to facilitate edits that States were unable to undertake 

due to technical difficulties. States for which these edits

were made are: The “Uncategorized Total” was forced to 

zero in several tables for Alaska, California, Indiana, New 

Jersey, and West Virginia

Sum of Above: The information listed in the tables 

below the State detail is generally the addition of the 

information listed in the table. If the national summary

is labeled as “Sum of Above,” any percentages are 

calculated from the numbers on the summary line. If

the national summary is labeled as “Sum or Average,” 

any percentages are calculated from the State detail; and 

averages will be underlined. Due to inconsistencies in

the data for this report, the Average is simply the Sum 

of Above (sum) divided by the States with non-zero 

responses. In some cases, the term “calc” indicates a

calculation was made to derive the data in the column; 

this may also refer to information from another table (see 

notes below)

Footnotes: In the proofing phase of data for this report, 

data for the full question were provided to the States even 

though only part of the question related to the UOCAVA 

report is included in the tables. Therefore, some footnotes

may include references to information not specifically 

related to the UOCAVA data and/or for information not 

printed in this report

Footnotes to Tables

UOCAVA Report 23
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 19. UOCAVA Ballots Cast by Category

Total number of UOCAVA ballots cast by category.

o Sum of Sum of Dom. Uncat.

State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. FWAB Jur. c Cat. Total Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens FWAB Total

Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Alaska 1 3,182 1 424 1 273 1 8 1 3,887 0 1 3,887 81.9 10.9 7.0 0.2 0.0

Arizona 15 637 10 222 10 811 10 54 9 1,724 228 6 1,952 32.6 11.4 41.5 2.8 11.7Arkansas 75 237 33 159 30 79 28 4 27 479 0 0 479 49.5 33.2 16.5 0.8 0.0California 58 1,946 25 4,231 31 9,777 29 35 12 15,989 9,020 14 25,009 7.8 16.9 39.1 0.1 36.1

Colorado 64 789 59 446 56 1,206 57 49 60 2,490 0 0 2,490 31.7 17.9 48.4 2.0 0.0

Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Delaware 3 166 3 55 3 268 3 2 3 491 0 3 491 33.8 11.2 54.6 0.4 0.0Dst. of Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 1 148 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Florida 67 16,887 64 3,979 64 5,411 64 66 67 26,343 97 67 26,440 63.9 15.0 20.5 0.2 0.4

Georgia 159 5,645 159 2,989 159 2,818 159 0 159 11,452 0 0 11,452 49.3 26.1 24.6 0.0 0.0Hawaii 4 245 3 25 2 500 3 2 3 772 0 0 772 31.7 3.2 64.8 0.3 0.0

Idaho 44 603 44 182 44 159 44 13 44 957 0 44 957 63.0 19.0 16.6 1.4 0.0

Illinois 110 421 4 397 31 40 2 0 0 858 431 36 1,289 32.7 30.8 3.1 0.0 33.4

Indiana 92 1,827 90 387 90 718 90 357 90 3,289 46 1 3,335 54.8 11.6 21.5 10.7 1.4Iowa 99 1,739 99 263 99 768 99 0 0 2,770 0 0 2,770 62.8 9.5 27.7 0.0 0.0Kansas 105 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1,244 104 1,244 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 120 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

Louisiana 64 437 64 115 64 233 64 0 6 785 0 0 785 55.7 14.6 29.7 0.0 0.0Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 16 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Maryland 24 500 24 347 24 2,202 24 65 24 3,114 0 0 3,114 16.1 11.1 70.7 2.1 0.0

Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Michigan 83 1,738 83 1,140 83 1,144 83 214 83 4,236 0 0 4,236 41.0 26.9 27.0 5.1 0.0Minnesota 87 0 0 1,276 87 1,886 87 14 85 3,176 0 4 3,176 0.0 40.2 59.4 0.4 0.0Mississippi 82 98 46 164 45 8 45 17 41 287 3 29 290 33.8 56.6 2.8 5.9 1.0

Missouri 116 1,726 116 763 116 766 116 71 116 3,326 0 0 3,326 51.9 22.9 23.0 2.1 0.0

Montana 56 699 56 174 56 220 56 28 56 1,121 0 56 1,121 62.4 15.5 19.6 2.5 0.0Nebraska 93 214 52 184 41 123 35 0 2 521 130 2 651 32.9 28.3 18.9 0.0 20.0Nevada 17 866 14 569 13 242 14 19 14 1,696 1,515 4 3,211 27.0 17.7 7.5 0.6 47.2New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

New Jersey 21 6,785 18 6,808 17 2,161 19 0 18 15,754 8,466 13 24,220 28.0 28.1 8.9 0.0 35.0

New Mexico 33 223 12 174 13 9 12 0 10 406 1,077 5 1,483 15.0 11.7 0.6 0.0 72.6

New York 58 2,621 58 0 0 14,755 58 0 0 17,376 0 0 17,376 15.1 0.0 84.9 0.0 0.0

North Carolina 100 0 0 2,470 100 575 100 28 100 3,073 0 0 3,073 0.0 80.4 18.7 0.9 0.0

North Dakota 53 79 53 59 53 30 53 3 53 171 0 7 171 46.2 34.5 17.5 1.8 0.0Ohio 88 2,158 86 1,901 86 1,857 86 42 88 5,958 0 5 5,958 36.2 31.9 31.2 0.7 0.0Oklahoma 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 68 20 1,153 77 1,173 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 98.3Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 9,282 36 9,285 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,970 66 21,970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

South Carolina 46 45 3 2 2 14 2 0 0 61 0 0 61 73.8 3.3 23.0 0.0 0.0

South Dakota 66 819 44 110 41 54 38 1 33 984 8,296 20 9,280 8.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 89.4

Tennessee 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Texas 254 9,232 254 6,328 254 66 254 40 254 15,666 0 0 15,666 58.9 40.4 0.4 0.3 0.0

Utah 29 80 24 305 23 93 24 0 15 478 359 24 837 9.6 36.4 11.1 0.0 42.9Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0Virginia 134 0 1 3,887 130 3,666 133 208 94 7,761 0 0 7,761 0.0 50.1 47.2 2.7 0.0

Washington 39 860 19 949 18 683 19 77 38 2,569 13,136 39 15,705 5.5 6.0 4.3 0.5 83.6

West Virginia 55 567 41 132 26 87 14 3 4 789 23,578 6 24,367 2.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 96.8Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,303 72 1,303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Wyoming 23 432 20 123 18 103 19 2 20 660 0 20 660 65.5 18.6 15.6 0.3 0.0

American Samoa 1 15 1 115 1 103 1 0 1 233 0 1 233 6.4 49.4 44.2 0.0 0.0Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 22 1 19 1 1 1 0 0 42 0 0 42 52.4 45.2 2.4 0.0 0.0

Sum or Average 3,123 64,540 1,685 41,873 1,933 53,909 1,947 1,451 1,814 161,773 102,020 902 263,793 27.9 18.5 19.9 5.1 28.5

Question q33dm q33om q33oc q33f sum q33uototal calc

Overseas Domestic Overseas

Uncategorized Categorized UOCAVA Ballots Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA

24 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
UOCAVA Report 25

Specific Notes for the Tables:Table 19. UOCAVA Ballots Cast by Category. Question 33. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction, for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections of ballots cast.

The column labeled ‘Sum of UOCAVA’ is calculated from the count of the categorized breakouts and the uncategorized total. States differed as to how to 

respond to this ‘uncategorized’ item and also as to what should be included in the item. A review was undertaken to check for possible erroneous or double reporting. See the notes at the beginning of this section. Alabama – Montgomery reported: Provisional Ballots included in ‘At Polls’ number. Arizona – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic civilian absentee ballot, domestic military, overseas military, overseas citizens, and FWAB data are not accessible 

because it was purged. Several jurisdictions reported: Did not separate domestic civilian absentee ballots from other UOCAVA voters. Another jurisdiction reported: Included UOCAVA voters in Domestic civilian absentee voters. 

Arkansas – One jurisdiction reported: 197 total Absentees were cast and counted. Another jurisdiction reported: Provisional Ballots included in ‘At Polls’ 

number. 

California – One jurisdiction reported: Q33: Domestic Military and Overseas Military are added together, 102; they do not track the separation. Another 

reported: FWAB - Box checked with an X only, but no number given. Los Angeles County reported: Military are both domestic and overseas, no way of separating them. 

Colorado – One jurisdiction reported: Military vs. Civilian status not flagged in our system. Jefferson County reported: Overseas military and Overseas Civilian 

counted same as Domestic Military. 

Connecticut – There is only data for total ballots cast. Florida – Miami-Dade reported: A total of 65,955 - Absentee Ballots were cast during the 2006 General Election. The UOCAVA Votes are included with the 

Domestic Civilian Absentee Ballots. Another jurisdiction reported: Domestic civilian absentee ballots and UOCAVA ballots have been combined. 

Another reported: The totals above include absentee ballots returned with errors (rejected) and all provisional ballots received in the Clay County Supervisor of Elections' office whether they were counted or not. Volusia County reported: Under Provisional Ballots, total of 662 included 526 accepted and 136 rejected. The State reported that the following counties did not break out domestic civilian absentee ballots from the total UOCAVA amount; the domestic civilian ballot amounts are included in the combined UOCAVA amount: Miami-Dade; Walton. Also: In totaling the number of absentee ballots cast and counted, several Florida counties did not make a distinction between domestic civilian absentee ballots and UOCAVA ballots 

(domestic military, overseas military, overseas citizens and Federal Write-in Ballots). As a result, it is not possible to accurately calculate the percentage of UOCAVA ballots cast and counted compared to the total number of ballots cast and counted. 

Idaho – A number of jurisdictions reported: Ballots cast for domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens are the number of absentee ballots cast 

by each group. 

Indiana – Nearly all jurisdictions reported: The number provided in the 'At the Polls' box indicates the voter turnout tracked in Indiana. 

Illinois – One jurisdiction reported: 328 total absentees were requested – this number was not broken down by category. Another jurisdiction reported: The 

County did not break down this data into categories – total ballots cast on Election Day. 

New Jersey – One jurisdiction reported: Combined with Absentee total. Several jurisdictions reported: Domestic Civilian absentee ballot, Domestic Military, 

Overseas Military, Overseas citizens totals are combined. Another reported: Domestic Civilian Absentee Ballots, Domestic Military, Overseas Military 

totals are combined. A number of jurisdictions reported: Domestic Military and Overseas Military are combined totals. 

Kansas – One jurisdiction reported: Did not breakout Federal Services Absentee Voting. Several jurisdictions reported: Federal Services Absentee Voting not 

broken out. Another reported: Only designation was Federal Services Absentee Voting; could not match a category. 

Kentucky – The number of ballots cast is not available for any jurisdiction. Maine – One jurisdiction reported: All absentee ballots are cast at the polls (or at a central polling place). Therefore, the number of absentee ballots included in 

the above number of absentee ballots cast are also included in the total number of ballots cast at the polls. Municipalities report the total number of absentee ballots cast and how many of those ballots were cast by UOCAVA voters. We do not require the towns to report how many FWAB are cast, but those ballots would be included in total number of military/overseas absentee ballots cast. 
26 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

broken out. Another reported: Only designation was Federal Services Absentee Voting; could not match a category. 

Kentucky – The number of ballots cast is not available for any jurisdiction. Maine – One jurisdiction reported: All absentee ballots are cast at the polls (or at a central polling place). Therefore, the number of absentee ballots included in 

the above number of absentee ballots cast are also included in the total number of ballots cast at the polls. Municipalities report the total number of absentee ballots cast and how many of those ballots were cast by UOCAVA voters. We do not require the towns to report how many FWAB are cast, but those ballots would be included in total number of military/overseas absentee ballots cast. 

Massachusetts – Massachusetts does not have early voting. All ballots are totaled together. No separate count is made for absentee ballots of any kind or 

provisional ballots. 

Minnesota – Minnesota is exempt from provisional balloting requirements under HAVA 302 (a) Missouri – Grundy County says regarding 33d and e, 'some were sent out but were not received prior to election day closing deadline.' Jackson County reports 

that 33d and 33e are a combined total. 

Montana – Montana does not have early voting. Nebraska – One jurisdiction reported: 15 precincts vote by mail - so 941 'at polls' voters actually voted by mail. New Hampshire – One jurisdiction reported: Information not submitted by categories; only provided the overall total ballots cast. Another jurisdiction reported: 

The above information was not broken down in categories. Another reported: The county included in its total the number of regular and absentee ballots cast in the November 7, 2006, federal general election. Another reported: The total for ballot cast was not broken down in categories. Another 

reported: This total is for all ballots cast, this information is not separate, i.e., total FWAB, Provisional ballots, etc. 

New Mexico – Once the ballots were canvassed, provisional and different types of fed absentee ballots were no longer separated. One jurisdiction reported: 

Reporting Total combines ALL Absentee Voters. 

New York – The number provided for domestic military voters above is for both domestic and overseas military voters Nevada – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic and overseas military have been combined under domestic military. Another reported: Domestic citizen 

absentee ballots also includes 386 ballots from mail-in precincts. Another reported: for 'At Polls' 258 ballots were cast in mail-in precincts. 

Ohio – Ohio does not offer early voting. One jurisdiction reported: Domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens included in the 15,716 total. 

Oklahoma – One Jurisdiction reported: County provided no separation for domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens. Another reported: 

Includes data for domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens. Another reported: Overall total given for UOCAVA voters. 

Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic civilian absentee, domestic military, overseas military citizen, and overseas citizens. All categories 

are included in UOCAVA. 

South Dakota – One jurisdiction reported: 1 military overseas, 10 civilian overseas Tennessee – Most jurisdictions reported: Do not collect. Virginia – Military voters are only tracked by the reason they requested to vote by absentee ballot which is active duty military or a spouse or dependent 

thereof. As there is no place to provide a general comment, this comment covers all 134 entries. As neither the FPCA nor the VA absentee application requires an applicant to State if they are domestic or overseas, VA does not classify military into these two categories. All questions pertaining to the military and answers for all 134 localities are answered in the overseas military response. 

Washington – One jurisdiction reported: 23 votes cast on Disability Access Units (DREs), another reported: 8 votes 'at the polls' were cast on disability access 

units. Another reported: early votes are cast on disability access units 

West Virginia – One jurisdiction reported: Provisional ballots are included in the at the polls total. Wisconsin – All voters given a number at the polling place who cast Ballots; Provisional ballots and absentee ballots, absentee military etc., are considered 

counted at the Polling Place and are contained in the Total number of Ballots cast. Wisconsin does not have early voting. Wisconsin does have no excuse absentee voting. 

American Samoa – Early voting is also identified as absentee voting. 
UOCAVA Report 27

thereof. As there is no place to provide a general comment, this comment covers all 134 entries. As neither the FPCA nor the VA absentee application requires an applicant to State if they are domestic or overseas, VA does not classify military into these two categories. All questions pertaining to the military and answers for all 134 localities are answered in the overseas military response. 

Washington – One jurisdiction reported: 23 votes cast on Disability Access Units (DREs), another reported: 8 votes 'at the polls' were cast on disability access 

units. Another reported: early votes are cast on disability access units 

West Virginia – One jurisdiction reported: Provisional ballots are included in the at the polls total. Wisconsin – All voters given a number at the polling place who cast Ballots; Provisional ballots and absentee ballots, absentee military etc., are considered 

counted at the Polling Place and are contained in the Total number of Ballots cast. Wisconsin does not have early voting. Wisconsin does have no excuse absentee voting. 

American Samoa – Early voting is also identified as absentee voting. 
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 20. UOCAVA Ballots Counted by Category

Total number of UOCAVA ballots counted by category.

o Sum of Sum of Dom. Uncat.

State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. FWAB Jur. c Cat. Total Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens FWAB Total

Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Alaska 1 1,473 1 412 1 155 1 4 1 2,044 571 1 2,615 56.3 15.8 5.9 0.2 21.8

Arizona 15 624 11 209 11 594 11 14 10 1,441 228 7 1,669 37.4 12.5 35.6 0.8 13.7Arkansas 75 194 46 204 47 66 43 1 37 465 0 0 465 41.7 43.9 14.2 0.2 0.0California 58 1,591 21 1,591 28 2,446 25 34 10 5,662 29,547 16 35,209 4.5 4.5 6.9 0.1 83.9

Colorado 64 738 59 352 56 1,117 57 39 59 2,246 0 0 2,246 32.9 15.7 49.7 1.7 0.0

Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Delaware 3 122 3 49 3 242 3 0 3 413 0 3 413 29.5 11.9 58.6 0.0 0.0Dst. of Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 1 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Florida 67 13,591 59 3,238 59 4,260 59 59 67 21,148 659 67 21,807 62.3 14.8 19.5 0.3 3.0

Georgia 159 1,293 159 581 159 859 159 3 159 2,736 0 0 2,736 47.3 21.2 31.4 0.1 0.0

Hawaii 4 121 1 0 0 422 1 2 3 545 0 0 545 22.2 0.0 77.4 0.4 0.0Idaho 44 429 44 115 44 124 44 0 44 668 0 44 668 64.2 17.2 18.6 0.0 0.0Illinois 110 163 8 286 28 8 1 0 0 457 999 36 1,456 11.2 19.6 0.5 0.0 68.6Indiana 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Iowa 99 1,679 99 263 99 768 99 0 0 2,710 0 0 2,710 62.0 9.7 28.3 0.0 0.0Kansas 105 431 104 233 104 477 104 0 0 1,141 0 0 1,141 37.8 20.4 41.8 0.0 0.0Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 1,285 120 1,285 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Louisiana 64 393 64 88 64 197 64 0 4 678 0 0 678 58.0 13.0 29.1 0.0 0.0Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 16 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Maryland 24 444 24 304 24 2,015 24 27 24 2,790 0 0 2,790 15.9 10.9 72.2 1.0 0.0Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 2 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Michigan 83 1,414 83 826 83 962 83 129 83 3,331 0 0 3,331 42.4 24.8 28.9 3.9 0.0Minnesota 87 0 0 1,072 87 1,623 87 14 86 2,709 0 4 2,709 0.0 39.6 59.9 0.5 0.0Mississippi 82 75 46 142 46 5 45 6 42 228 145 35 373 20.1 38.1 1.3 1.6 38.9

Missouri 116 1,347 116 543 116 653 116 32 116 2,575 0 0 2,575 52.3 21.1 25.4 1.2 0.0

Montana 56 629 56 142 56 204 56 26 56 1,001 0 56 1,001 62.8 14.2 20.4 2.6 0.0Nebraska 93 180 50 130 37 118 36 0 2 428 116 2 544 33.1 23.9 21.7 0.0 21.3Nevada 17 756 14 449 13 215 14 6 14 1,426 1,334 4 2,760 27.4 16.3 7.8 0.2 48.3New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

New Jersey 21 15,821 18 15,801 18 11,174 18 0 19 42,796 134 12 42,930 36.9 36.8 26.0 0.0 0.3

New Mexico 33 153 11 112 12 6 10 0 7 271 1,074 4 1,345 11.4 8.3 0.4 0.0 79.9

New York 58 2,420 58 0 0 12,525 58 0 0 14,945 0 0 14,945 16.2 0.0 83.8 0.0 0.0

North Carolina 100 357 1 1,278 99 498 100 10 100 2,143 0 0 2,143 16.7 59.6 23.2 0.5 0.0

North Dakota 53 68 53 53 53 28 53 3 53 152 0 7 152 44.7 34.9 18.4 2.0 0.0Ohio 88 1,341 86 1,301 86 1,168 86 32 88 3,842 0 6 3,842 34.9 33.9 30.4 0.8 0.0Oklahoma 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 60 18 1,070 74 1,088 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 98.3Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 9,096 36 9,099 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,331 64 9,331 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0South Carolina 46 33 2 1 2 14 2 0 0 48 0 0 48 68.8 2.1 29.2 0.0 0.0South Dakota 66 268 38 102 36 46 33 1 28 417 14,901 27 15,318 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 97.3

Tennessee 95 62 2 28 3 255 4 0 1 345 2,232 42 2,577 2.4 1.1 9.9 0.0 86.6

Texas 254 14,420 254 4,528 254 2,692 254 32 254 21,672 0 0 21,672 66.5 20.9 12.4 0.1 0.0

Utah 29 77 23 297 22 83 21 0 14 457 356 24 813 9.5 36.5 10.2 0.0 43.8Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Virginia 134 0 0 3,769 127 3,621 125 122 77 7,512 0 0 7,512 0.0 50.2 48.2 1.6 0.0

Washington 39 838 19 939 19 678 19 74 39 2,529 12,848 39 15,377 5.4 6.1 4.4 0.5 83.6

West Virginia 55 522 39 97 25 65 13 3 3 687 535 4 1,222 42.7 7.9 5.3 0.2 43.8

Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,303 72 1,303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Wyoming 23 401 18 109 17 96 18 2 19 608 59 21 667 60.1 16.3 14.4 0.3 8.8

American Samoa 1 15 1 112 1 103 1 0 1 230 0 0 230 6.5 48.7 44.8 0.0 0.0Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 19 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 24 0 0 24 79.2 16.7 4.2 0.0 0.0

Sum or Average 3,123 64,502 1,692 39,760 1,940 50,583 1,948 698 1,705 155,543 88,484 938 244,027 27.6 16.5 21.3 2.6 32.1

Question q34dm q34om q34oc q34f sum q34uototal calc

Overseas Domestic Overseas

Categorized UOCAVA Ballots Uncategorized Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA

28 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Table 20. UOCAVA Ballots Counted by Category 

Question 34. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction, for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections of ballots counted.The column labeled ‘Sum of UOCAVA’ is calculated from the count of the categorized breakouts and the uncategorized total. States differed as to how to 

respond to this ‘uncategorized’ item and also as to what should be included in the item. A review was undertaken to check for possible erroneous or double reporting. See the notes at the beginning of this section. Arizona – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic civilian absentee ballot, domestic military, overseas military, overseas citizens, and FWAB data are not accessible 

because it was purged. Several jurisdictions reported: Did not separate domestic civilian absentee ballots from other UOCAVA voters. 

Connecticut – There is only data for total ballots counted. Florida – Miami-Dade reported: A total of 64,774 Absentee Ballots were cast during the 2006 General Election. The UOCAVA Votes are included with the 

Domestic Civilian Absentee Ballots. Another jurisdiction reported: Absentee Ballots are counted as a single category. Another jurisdiction reported: All 

absentee ballots were counted per SOE. Another jurisdiction reported: Domestic Civilian absentee ballots, Domestic Military, Overseas Military, and Overseas Citizens are added together. Another jurisdiction reported: FWAB'S were counted with overseas military/civilian absentees. Provisional ballots were counted with 'at the polls.' Another jurisdiction reported: The totals above do not include ballots returned with errors (rejected). Several jurisdictions reported: This county did not report an amount for domestic civilian absentee ballots because they are included in the combined UOCAVA amount. Also: In totaling the number of absentee ballots cast and counted, several Florida counties did not make a distinction between domestic 

civilian absentee ballots and UOCAVA ballots (domestic military, overseas military, overseas citizens and Federal Write-in Ballots). As a result, it is not 

possible to accurately calculate the percentage of UOCAVA ballots cast and counted compared to the total number of ballots cast and counted. 

Hawaii – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic military and overseas military counts are combined. Idaho – Ballots counted for domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens are the number of absentee ballots counted by each group. 

Indiana – The State of Indiana has provided UOCAVA information, but due to technical difficulties with the survey response collection process, these totals were 

not captured accurately. 

Maine – All absentee ballots are counted at the polls (or at a central polling place). Therefore, the number of absentee ballots included in the number of 

absentee ballots counted are also included in the total number of ballots counted at the polls. Municipalities report the total number of absentee 

ballots counted and how many of those ballots were cast by UOCAVA voters. We do not require the towns to report how many FWAB are counted, 

but those ballots would be included in total number of military/overseas absentee ballots counted. 

Massachusetts – Massachusetts does not have early voting. All ballots are totaled together. No separate count is made for absentee ballots of any kind or 

provisional ballots. 

Minnesota – Minnesota does not have early voting. Minnesota is exempt from provisional balloting. Missouri – One jurisdiction reported: Comment on FWAB number – Boone County says, 'Regular ballot received.' Osage County reports, 'Much of the 

information requested by your agency and others is either non-existent or has been impossible to find. We have gone through many files here in the office and have not been able to find information to aid us in completing questions 26, 27, and 34h.' 

UOCAVA Report 29
30 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Montana – Montana does not have early voting. Nevada – Domestic and overseas military have been combined under domestic military. New Hampshire – Information not submitted by categories; only submitted by total votes counted. One jurisdiction reported: The county included in its total the number of regular and absentee ballots counted for the November 7, 2006, federal general election. New Jersey – One jurisdiction reported: Combined Overseas Military, Overseas Civilian, Domestic Military and Domestic Civilian. Several jurisdictions reported: Domestic Civilian Absentee Ballots, Domestic Military, Overseas Military totals are combined. One jurisdiction reported: Problems with Sequoia reporting software - delays encountered New Mexico – Totals were retrieved from the FINAL Reporting Tool, which combines ALL Absentee Voters. New York – the number provided for domestic military voters above is for both domestic and overseas military voters Ohio – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic military, overseas military and overseas citizens included in total. Oklahoma – One jurisdiction reported: No breakdown provided for UOCAVA voters. Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic civilian absentee, domestic military, overseas military citizen, and overseas citizens. All categories are included in UOCAVA. Texas – Several jurisdictions reported: domestic civilian absentee ballots = regular applications for ballot by mail. One jurisdiction reported: Information has already been packed and stored for retention period. Wisconsin – All voters given a number at the polling place who cast Ballots, Provisional ballots and absentee ballots, absentee military etc., are considered counted at the Polling Place and are contained in the Total number of Ballots cast. Wisconsin does not have early voting. Wisconsin does have no excuse absentee voting. Ballots casts contains all the ballots acceptable for counting. American Samoa – Ballots cast was 11,182, and ballots counted 11,032.
UOCAVA Report 31 This page intentionally blank.
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 21a. Ballots Counted as % Cast, By Category

Ballots counted as a percentage of ballots cast, by category.

Uncat. UOCAVA UOCAVA Counted Not

State Jur.o Military Military Citizens FWAB Total Cast Counted % Cast Counted

Alabama 67 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... .....Alaska 1 46.3 97.2 56.8 50.0 81.0 3,887 2,615 67.3 1,272Arizona 15 98.0 94.1 73.2 25.9 100.0 1,952 1,669 85.5 283

Arkansas 75 81.9 ### 83.5 25.0 ..... 479 465 97.1 14California 58 81.8 37.6 25.0 97.1 ### 25,009 35,209 ### .....

Colorado 64 93.5 78.9 92.6 79.6 ..... 2,490 2,246 90.2 244

Connecticut 8 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... .....Delaware 3 73.5 89.1 90.3 0.0 ..... 491 413 84.1 78Dst. of Columbia 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... 83.8 148 124 83.8 24Florida 67 80.5 81.4 78.7 89.4 ### 26,440 21,807 82.5 4,633

Georgia 159 22.9 19.4 30.5 ..... ..... 11,452 2,736 23.9 8,716Hawaii 4 49.4 0.0 84.4 100.0 ..... 772 545 70.6 227Idaho 44 71.1 63.2 78.0 0.0 ..... 957 668 69.8 289

Illinois 110 38.7 72.0 20.0 ..... ### 1,289 1,456 ### .....

Indiana 92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,335 0 0.0 3,335

Iowa 99 96.5 100.0 100.0 ..... ..... 2,770 2,710 97.8 60

Kansas 105 ..... ..... ..... ..... 0.0 1,244 1,141 91.7 103Kentucky 120 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 1,285 ..... .....Louisiana 64 89.9 76.5 84.5 ..... ..... 785 678 86.4 107Maine 16 ..... ..... ..... ..... 100.0 500 500 100.0 .....Maryland 24 88.8 87.6 91.5 41.5 ..... 3,114 2,790 89.6 324Massachusetts 14 ..... ..... ..... ..... 97.4 38 37 97.4 1Michigan 83 81.4 72.5 84.1 60.3 ..... 4,236 3,331 78.6 905Minnesota 87 ..... 84.0 86.1 100.0 ..... 3,176 2,709 85.3 467Mississippi 82 76.5 86.6 62.5 35.3 ### 290 373 ### .....Missouri 116 78.0 71.2 85.2 45.1 ..... 3,326 2,575 77.4 751Montana 56 90.0 81.6 92.7 92.9 ..... 1,121 1,001 89.3 120Nebraska 93 84.1 70.7 95.9 ..... 89.2 651 544 83.6 107Nevada 17 87.3 78.9 88.8 31.6 88.1 3,211 2,760 86.0 451New Hampshire 10 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... .....New Jersey 21 ### ### ### ..... 1.6 24,220 42,930 ### .....

New Mexico 33 68.6 64.4 66.7 ..... 99.7 1,483 1,345 90.7 138

New York 58 92.3 ..... 84.9 ..... ..... 17,376 14,945 86.0 2,431

North Carolina 100 ..... 51.7 86.6 35.7 ..... 3,073 2,143 69.7 930

North Dakota 53 86.1 89.8 93.3 100.0 ..... 171 152 88.9 19Ohio 88 62.1 68.4 62.9 76.2 ..... 5,958 3,842 64.5 2,116

Oklahoma 77 ..... ..... ..... 90.0 92.8 1,173 1,088 92.8 85

Oregon 36 ..... ..... ..... 100.0 98.0 9,285 9,099 98.0 186Pennsylvania 67 ..... ..... ..... ..... 42.5 21,970 9,331 42.5 12,639

Rhode Island 5 ..... ..... ..... 100.0 ..... 2 2 100.0 .....South Carolina 46 73.3 50.0 100.0 ..... ..... 61 48 78.7 13South Dakota 66 32.7 92.7 85.2 100.0 ### 9,280 15,318 ### .....

Tennessee 95 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 2,577 ..... .....

Texas 254 ### 71.6 ### 80.0 ..... 15,666 21,672 ### .....

Utah 29 96.3 97.4 89.2 ..... 99.2 837 813 97.1 24Vermont 14 ..... ..... ..... 0.0 ..... 4 0 0.0 4Virginia 134 ..... 97.0 98.8 58.7 ..... 7,761 7,512 96.8 249

Washington 39 97.4 98.9 99.3 96.1 97.8 15,705 15,377 97.9 328

West Virginia 55 92.1 73.5 74.7 100.0 2.3 24,367 1,222 5.0 23,145

Wisconsin 72 ..... ..... ..... ..... 100.0 1,303 1,303 100.0 .....

Wyoming 23 92.8 88.6 93.2 100.0 ..... 660 667 ### .....

American Samoa 1 100.0 97.4 100.0 ..... ..... 233 230 98.7 3Guam 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 86.4 21.1 100.0 ..... ..... 42 24 57.1 18

Sum or Average 3,123 75.5 71.6 78.3 63.7 70.7 263,793 244,027 77.6 19,766

Question q34dm q34om q34oc q34f q34uototalTable 19 Table 20

Domestic

Percentage of Ballots Cast

Overseas

Cast compared to Counted

32 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 21b. Ballots Counted as % All UOCAVA Ballots, By Category

Ballots counted as a percentage of all UOCAVA ballots, by category.

Uncat. UOCAVA

State Jur.o Military Military Citizens FWAB Total Counted

Alabama 67 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Alaska 1 56.3 15.8 5.9 0.2 21.8 2,615

Arizona 15 37.4 12.5 35.6 0.8 13.7 1,669Arkansas 75 41.7 43.9 14.2 0.2 0.0 465California 58 4.5 4.5 6.9 0.1 83.9 35,209

Colorado 64 32.9 15.7 49.7 1.7 0.0 2,246

Connecticut 8 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Delaware 3 29.5 11.9 58.6 0.0 0.0 413Dst. of Columbia 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 124Florida 67 62.3 14.8 19.5 0.3 3.0 21,807

Georgia 159 47.3 21.2 31.4 0.1 0.0 2,736

Hawaii 4 22.2 0.0 77.4 0.4 0.0 545Idaho 44 64.2 17.2 18.6 0.0 0.0 668Illinois 110 11.2 19.6 0.5 0.0 68.6 1,456Indiana 92 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Iowa 99 62.0 9.7 28.3 0.0 0.0 2,710Kansas 105 37.8 20.4 41.8 0.0 0.0 1,141Kentucky 120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1,285Louisiana 64 58.0 13.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 678Maine 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 500Maryland 24 15.9 10.9 72.2 1.0 0.0 2,790Massachusetts 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 37Michigan 83 42.4 24.8 28.9 3.9 0.0 3,331Minnesota 87 0.0 39.6 59.9 0.5 0.0 2,709Mississippi 82 20.1 38.1 1.3 1.6 38.9 373

Missouri 116 52.3 21.1 25.4 1.2 0.0 2,575

Montana 56 62.8 14.2 20.4 2.6 0.0 1,001Nebraska 93 33.1 23.9 21.7 0.0 21.3 544Nevada 17 27.4 16.3 7.8 0.2 48.3 2,760New Hampshire 10 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0

New Jersey 21 36.9 36.8 26.0 0.0 0.3 42,930

New Mexico 33 11.4 8.3 0.4 0.0 79.9 1,345

New York 58 16.2 0.0 83.8 0.0 0.0 14,945

North Carolina 100 16.7 59.6 23.2 0.5 0.0 2,143

North Dakota 53 44.7 34.9 18.4 2.0 0.0 152Ohio 88 34.9 33.9 30.4 0.8 0.0 3,842Oklahoma 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 98.3 1,088Oregon 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9,099Pennsylvania 67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9,331Rhode Island 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2South Carolina 46 68.8 2.1 29.2 0.0 0.0 48South Dakota 66 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 97.3 15,318

Tennessee 95 2.4 1.1 9.9 0.0 86.6 2,577

Texas 254 66.5 20.9 12.4 0.1 0.0 21,672

Utah 29 9.5 36.5 10.2 0.0 43.8 813Vermont 14 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Virginia 134 0.0 50.2 48.2 1.6 0.0 7,512

Washington 39 5.4 6.1 4.4 0.5 83.6 15,377

West Virginia 55 42.7 7.9 5.3 0.2 43.8 1,222

Wisconsin 72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1,303Wyoming 23 60.1 16.3 14.4 0.3 8.8 667American Samoa 1 6.5 48.7 44.8 0.0 0.0 230Guam 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Puerto Rico 1 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0Virgin Islands 1 79.2 16.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 24

Sum or Average 3,123 27.6 16.5 21.3 2.6 32.1 244,027

Question q34dm q34om q34oc q34f q34uotot calc

Domestic

Percentage of Ballots Counted

Overseas

UOCAVA Report 33
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 21c. UOCAVA Ballots: Maximum Cast or Counted by Category

The maximum number of UOCAVA ballots cast or counted by category.

o Sum of Sum of Dom. Uncat.

State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. FWAB Jur. c Cat. Total Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens FWAB Total

Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Alaska 1 3,182 1 424 1 273 1 8 1 3,887 705 1 4,592 69.3 9.2 5.9 0.2 15.4

Arizona 15 637 11 222 11 811 11 54 10 1,724 228 7 1,952 32.6 11.4 41.5 2.8 11.7Arkansas 75 237 46 204 47 79 43 4 37 524 0 0 524 45.2 38.9 15.1 0.8 0.0California 58 1,946 25 4,231 31 9,777 29 35 12 15,989 29,547 16 45,536 4.3 9.3 21.5 0.1 64.9

Colorado 64 789 59 446 56 1,206 57 49 60 2,490 0 0 2,490 31.7 17.9 48.4 2.0 0.0

Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Delaware 3 166 3 55 3 268 3 2 3 491 0 3 491 33.8 11.2 54.6 0.4 0.0Dst. of Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 1 148 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Florida 67 16,887 64 3,979 64 5,411 64 66 67 26,343 659 67 27,002 62.5 14.7 20.0 0.2 2.4

Georgia 159 5,645 159 2,989 159 2,818 159 3 159 11,455 0 0 11,455 49.3 26.1 24.6 0.0 0.0Hawaii 4 245 3 25 2 500 3 2 3 772 0 0 772 31.7 3.2 64.8 0.3 0.0Idaho 44 603 44 182 44 159 44 13 44 957 0 44 957 63.0 19.0 16.6 1.4 0.0Illinois 110 421 8 397 31 40 2 0 0 858 999 36 1,857 22.7 21.4 2.2 0.0 53.8

Indiana 92 1,827 90 387 90 718 90 357 90 3,289 0 92 3,289 55.5 11.8 21.8 10.9 0.0Iowa 99 1,739 99 263 99 768 99 0 0 2,770 0 0 2,770 62.8 9.5 27.7 0.0 0.0Kansas 105 431 104 233 104 477 104 0 0 1,141 1,244 104 2,385 18.1 9.8 20.0 0.0 52.2Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 1,285 120 1,285 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Louisiana 64 437 64 115 64 233 64 0 6 785 0 0 785 55.7 14.6 29.7 0.0 0.0Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 16 500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Maryland 24 500 24 347 24 2,202 24 65 24 3,114 0 0 3,114 16.1 11.1 70.7 2.1 0.0Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Michigan 83 1,738 83 1,140 83 1,144 83 214 83 4,236 0 0 4,236 41.0 26.9 27.0 5.1 0.0Minnesota 87 0 0 1,276 87 1,886 87 14 86 3,176 0 4 3,176 0.0 40.2 59.4 0.4 0.0Mississippi 82 98 46 164 46 8 45 17 42 287 145 35 432 22.7 38.0 1.9 3.9 33.6

Missouri 116 1,726 116 763 116 766 116 71 116 3,326 0 0 3,326 51.9 22.9 23.0 2.1 0.0

Montana 56 699 56 174 56 220 56 28 56 1,121 0 56 1,121 62.4 15.5 19.6 2.5 0.0Nebraska 93 214 52 184 41 123 36 0 2 521 130 2 651 32.9 28.3 18.9 0.0 20.0Nevada 17 866 14 569 13 242 14 19 14 1,696 1,515 4 3,211 27.0 17.7 7.5 0.6 47.2New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

New Jersey 21 15,821 18 15,801 18 11,174 19 0 19 42,796 8,466 13 51,262 30.9 30.8 21.8 0.0 16.5

New Mexico 33 223 12 174 13 9 12 0 10 406 1,077 5 1,483 15.0 11.7 0.6 0.0 72.6

New York 58 2,621 58 0 0 14,755 58 0 0 17,376 0 0 17,376 15.1 0.0 84.9 0.0 0.0

North Carolina 100 357 1 2,470 100 575 100 28 100 3,430 0 0 3,430 10.4 72.0 16.8 0.8 0.0

North Dakota 53 79 53 59 53 30 53 3 53 171 0 7 171 46.2 34.5 17.5 1.8 0.0Ohio 88 2,158 86 1,901 86 1,857 86 42 88 5,958 0 6 5,958 36.2 31.9 31.2 0.7 0.0Oklahoma 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 68 20 1,153 77 1,173 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 98.3Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 9,282 36 9,285 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,970 66 21,970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0South Carolina 46 45 3 2 2 14 2 0 0 61 0 0 61 73.8 3.3 23.0 0.0 0.0South Dakota 66 819 44 110 41 54 38 1 33 984 14,901 27 15,885 5.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 93.8Tennessee 95 62 2 28 3 255 4 0 1 345 2,232 42 2,577 2.4 1.1 9.9 0.0 86.6

Texas 254 14,420 254 6,328 254 2,692 254 40 254 23,480 0 0 23,480 61.4 27.0 11.5 0.2 0.0

Utah 29 80 24 305 23 93 24 0 15 478 359 24 837 9.6 36.4 11.1 0.0 42.9Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0Virginia 134 0 1 3,887 130 3,666 133 208 94 7,761 0 0 7,761 0.0 50.1 47.2 2.7 0.0

Washington 39 860 19 949 19 683 19 77 39 2,569 13,136 39 15,705 5.5 6.0 4.3 0.5 83.6

West Virginia 55 567 41 132 26 87 14 3 4 789 23,578 6 24,367 2.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 96.8Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,303 72 1,303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Wyoming 23 432 20 123 18 103 19 2 20 660 59 21 719 60.1 17.1 14.3 0.3 8.2

American Samoa 1 15 1 115 1 103 1 0 1 233 0 1 233 6.4 49.4 44.2 0.0 0.0Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 22 1 19 1 1 1 0 0 42 0 0 42 52.4 45.2 2.4 0.0 0.0

Sum or Average 3,123 79,614 1,809 51,172 2,060 66,280 2,071 1,454 1,837 198,520 134,659 1,052 333,179 26.5 16.9 19.7 4.9 32.0

Question Maxdm Maxom Maxoc Maxf sum Maxuototal calc

Overseas Domestic Overseas

Categorized UOCAVA Ballots Uncategorized Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA

34 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
UOCAVA Report 35 Tables 21a, b, and c. Ballots Counted as % of Cast; Ballots Counted as % of all UOCAVA Ballots; and Maximum Ballots Cast or Counted The ‘UOCAVA Cast’ is from Table 19; the “UOCAVA Counted’ is from Table 20. Table 21c calculates the maximum value for Cast and Counted in an attempt to address the inconsistency evident in some jurisdictions which may have reported one but not the other. 
36 U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey Table 22. UOCAVA Ballots Requested Total number of UOCAVA ballots requested by category. Sum of Total Sum of Dom. Uncat. State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. Cat. Uncat. Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens Total Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Alaska 1 2,060 1 582 1 195 1 2,837 777 1 3,614 57.0 16.1 5.4 21.5 Arizona 15 2,103 11 1,528 11 3,003 11 6,634 536 9 7,170 29.3 21.3 41.9 7.5 Arkansas 75 595 52 660 53 222 53 1,477 0 0 1,477 40.3 44.7 15.0 0.0 California 58 6,844 27 16,725 32 18,942 32 42,511 114,072 16 156,583 4.4 10.7 12.1 72.9 Colorado 64 3,156 60 2,290 59 3,844 61 9,290 0 0 9,290 34.0 24.7 41.4 0.0 Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Delaware 3 504 3 183 3 579 3 1,266 0 3 1,266 39.8 14.5 45.7 0.0 Dst. of Columbia 1 18 1 24 1 233 1 275 0 0 275 6.5 8.7 84.7 0.0 Florida 67 39,991 65 13,465 65 13,355 65 66,811 29,654 67 96,465 41.5 14.0 13.8 30.7 Georgia 159 5,645 159 2,989 159 2,818 159 11,452 0 54 11,452 49.3 26.1 24.6 0.0 Hawaii 4 1,813 3 66 2 822 3 2,701 0 0 2,701 67.1 2.4 30.4 0.0 Idaho 44 1,011 44 431 44 332 44 1,774 0 44 1,774 57.0 24.3 18.7 0.0 Illinois 110 58 2 7,881 40 0 0 7,939 62,124 105 70,063 0.1 11.2 0.0 88.7 Indiana 92 1,721 92 316 92 626 92 2,663 0 0 2,663 64.6 11.9 23.5 0.0 Iowa 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Kansas 105 1,790 103 1,147 104 1,312 103 4,249 0 0 4,249 42.1 27.0 30.9 0.0 Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,963 120 3,963 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Louisiana 64 3,124 64 812 64 1,237 64 5,173 0 1 5,173 60.4 15.7 23.9 0.0 Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,086 16 1,086 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Maryland 24 2,313 24 1,475 24 6,018 24 9,806 0 0 9,806 23.6 15.0 61.4 0.0 Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 2 88 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Michigan 83 2,702 83 1,787 83 1,671 83 6,160 0 0 6,160 43.9 29.0 27.1 0.0 Minnesota 87 0 0 5,844 87 6,077 86 11,921 0 1 11,921 0.0 49.0 51.0 0.0 Mississippi 82 211 46 95 47 16 44 322 4,562 36 4,884 4.3 1.9 0.3 93.4 Missouri 116 4,150 116 2,032 116 1,523 116 7,705 0 1 7,705 53.9 26.4 19.8 0.0 Montana 56 1,878 56 496 56 436 56 2,810 3 56 2,813 66.8 17.6 15.5 0.1 Nebraska 93 47 16 17 7 5 4 69 1,800 49 1,869 2.5 0.9 0.3 96.3 Nevada 17 2,027 13 937 11 307 13 3,271 1,617 5 4,888 41.5 19.2 6.3 33.1 New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... New Jersey 21 1,473 13 1,427 13 1,791 13 4,691 1,568 11 6,259 23.5 22.8 28.6 25.1 New Mexico 33 217 12 232 12 14 10 463 5 10 468 46.4 49.6 3.0 1.1 New York 58 6,280 58 0 0 30,509 58 36,789 0 0 36,789 17.1 0.0 82.9 0.0 North Carolina 100 0 0 9,621 97 1,202 99 10,823 0 0 10,823 0.0 88.9 11.1 0.0 North Dakota 53 128 53 95 53 48 53 271 0 34 271 47.2 35.1 17.7 0.0 Ohio 88 5,478 88 2,731 87 4,322 88 12,531 0 6 12,531 43.7 21.8 34.5 0.0 Oklahoma 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,206 77 4,206 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,477 36 12,477 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,304 66 30,304 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Rhode Island 5 472 5 17 5 422 5 911 0 0 911 51.8 1.9 46.3 0.0 South Carolina 46 3,973 45 875 42 1,364 35 6,212 0 0 6,212 64.0 14.1 22.0 0.0 South Dakota 66 711 41 321 38 230 33 1,262 7,833 26 9,095 7.8 3.5 2.5 86.1 Tennessee 95 2,866 49 872 44 706 38 4,444 21,889 46 26,333 10.9 3.3 2.7 83.1 Texas 254 29,237 254 17,192 254 10,001 254 56,430 125,207 118 181,637 16.1 9.5 5.5 68.9 Utah 29 175 22 369 23 171 24 715 197 25 912 19.2 40.5 18.8 21.6 Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Virginia 134 0 0 7,795 129 9,129 131 16,924 0 0 16,924 0.0 46.1 53.9 0.0 Washington 39 2,760 19 3,276 20 2,094 20 8,130 21,704 18 29,834 9.3 11.0 7.0 72.7 West Virginia 55 523 41 220 26 89 15 832 3,103 24 3,935 13.3 5.6 2.3 78.9 Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,573 72 168,573 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Wyoming 23 3,226 18 490 18 144 18 3,860 7 23 3,867 83.4 12.7 3.7 0.2 American Samoa 1 15 1 115 1 103 1 233 0 1 233 6.4 49.4 44.2 0.0 Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... Virgin Islands 1 22 1 19 1 1 1 42 0 0 42 52.4 45.2 2.4 0.0 Sum of Above 3,123 141,317 1,761 107,449 2,024 125,913 2,014 374,679 617,355 1,179 992,034 14.2 10.8 12.7 62.2 Question q38dm q38om q38oc sum q38uototal calc Domestic Overseas Uncategorized Overseas Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA Categorized
UOCAVA Report 37 Table 22. UOCAVA Ballots Requested Question 38. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of absentee ballots requested (do not include FWAB) for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections (includes ballots transmitted by mail, fax, e-mail, or courier). The column labeled ‘Sum of UOCAVA’ is calculated from the count of the categorized breakouts and the uncategorized total. States differed as to how to respond to this ‘uncategorized’ item and also as to what should be included in the item. A review was undertaken to check for possible erroneous or double reporting. See the notes at the beginning of this section. California – One jurisdiction reported: Overseas Citizens: No information provided. Connecticut – Spreadsheet categories did not fit the categories on this site. Here are spreadsheet numbers. Fairfield County: Total Civilian: 19853; Total Military: 448; Total 90 Day: 64; Total Overseas: 117; Total Absentees: 20482. Hartford County: Total Civilian: 16122; Total Military: 595; Total 90 Day: 233; Total Overseas: 204; Total Absentees: 17154. Litchfield County: Total Civilian: 4685; Total Military: 128; Total 90 Day: 18; Total Overseas: 40; Total Absentees: 4871. Middlesex County: Total Civilian: 4525; Total Military: 172; Total 90 Day: 9; Total Overseas: 9; Total Absentees: 29. New Haven County: Total Civilian: 16918; Total Military: 702; Total 90 Day: 82; Total Overseas: 137; Total Absentees: 17839. New London County: Total Civilian: 5308; Total Military: 434; Total 90 Day: 45; Total Overseas: 21; Total Absentees: 5808. Tolland County: Total Civilian: 2575; Total Military: 133; Total 90 Day: 14; Total Overseas: 23; Total Absentees: 2745. Windham County: Total Civilian: 1742; Total Military: 72; Total 90 Day: 26; Total Overseas: 28; Total Absentees: 1868. Florida – One jurisdiction reported: Totals include any replacement ballots issued also. Hawaii – Several jurisdictions reported: Domestic military and overseas military totals are combined. Illinois – Several jurisdictions reported: Not broken down by categories. Kansas – The numbers reported here are for UOCAVA absentee voters only; all other early voting and voting by mail are included in Kansas' advance voting totals. Maine – The State asks the municipal clerks to report the number of ballots issued to voters. Jurisdictions are not required to report the number of applications that are rejected. Missouri – Boone County reported: Includes ballots sent when no application received but on two year auto cycle. New Jersey – Several jurisdictions reported: Combined Domestic Military and Overseas Military. Another jurisdiction reported: Domestic Military, Overseas Military and Overseas Citizens totals have been combined. New Mexico – One jurisdiction reported: Sorry, I've hit the fun barrier with this one. We're busy running elections, not collecting information. New York – the number provided for domestic military voters above is for both domestic and overseas military voters Nevada – One jurisdiction reported: Domestic and overseas military have been combined under domestic military. Oklahoma – Several jurisdictions reported: County did not separate the UOCAVA voters into categories. Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic military, overseas military citizen, and overseas citizens. All categories are included in UOCAVA. Texas – One jurisdiction reported: Civilian Ballots by mail may come in person and by mail. Statistics are not available to separate mail requests. Another jurisdiction reported: I am not certain how many went to Domestic we did not keep a separate list on overseas and domestic military. Another jurisdiction reported: Information has already been packed and stored for retention period. Another jurisdiction reported: These were FPCA applications requested for the last presidential election that were still good. Many of the people were no longer at the original address. Washington – One jurisdiction reported: Ballots are mailed automatically in this vote-by-mail county. West Virginia – Several jurisdictions noted they were unable to provide breakdowns of the data, only totals. 
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 23. Advanced Ballots Transmitted

Total number of advanced ballots transmitted by category.

Sum of Total Sum of Dom. Uncat.

State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. Cat. Uncat. Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens Total

Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Alaska 1 96 1 79 1 28 1 203 107 1 310 31.0 25.5 9.0 34.5

Arizona 15 78 12 61 13 1,636 12 1,775 375 11 2,150 3.6 2.8 76.1 17.4

Arkansas 75 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....California 58 1,817 13 11,575 20 10,873 19 24,265 15,672 15 39,937 4.5 29.0 27.2 39.2

Colorado 64 501 61 363 61 741 61 1,605 0 0 1,605 31.2 22.6 46.2 0.0

Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Delaware 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Dst. of Columbia 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Florida 67 655 65 420 65 606 65 1,681 0 66 1,681 39.0 25.0 36.0 0.0Georgia 159 1 129 17 129 8 127 26 0 81 26 3.8 65.4 30.8 0.0

Hawaii 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Idaho 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Illinois 110 0 0 778 8 0 0 778 55,291 98 56,069 0.0 1.4 0.0 98.6

Indiana 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Iowa 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Kansas 105 1,804 104 1,147 104 1,318 104 4,269 0 0 4,269 42.3 26.9 30.9 0.0

Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Louisiana 64 3,091 64 807 64 1,231 63 5,129 0 0 5,129 60.3 15.7 24.0 0.0

Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Maryland 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Michigan 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Minnesota 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Mississippi 82 25 47 13 46 1 44 39 3 36 42 59.5 31.0 2.4 7.1

Missouri 116 22 116 56 116 6 116 84 0 0 84 26.2 66.7 7.1 0.0Montana 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 0 27 56 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Nebraska 93 5 4 7 3 2 3 14 3 3 17 29.4 41.2 11.8 17.6Nevada 17 8 14 6 14 0 13 14 0 4 14 57.1 42.9 0.0 0.0New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....New Jersey 21 19 8 11 8 31 8 61 11 10 72 26.4 15.3 43.1 15.3New Mexico 33 3 14 0 13 0 13 3 0 9 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0New York 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....North Carolina 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....North Dakota 53 2 53 4 53 0 53 6 0 51 6 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0Ohio 88 0 19 0 20 0 20 0 0 2 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Oklahoma 77 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 91 19 91 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 35 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,654 65 12,654 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Rhode Island 5 472 5 17 5 422 5 911 0 0 911 51.8 1.9 46.3 0.0South Carolina 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....South Dakota 66 55 44 7 44 0 43 62 2 32 64 85.9 10.9 0.0 3.1Tennessee 95 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 5 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Texas 254 6,752 254 1,203 254 543 254 8,498 168 254 8,666 77.9 13.9 6.3 1.9

Utah 29 5 20 6 19 2 19 13 0 16 13 38.5 46.2 15.4 0.0Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Virginia 134 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Washington 39 0 18 0 18 24 18 24 292 19 316 0.0 0.0 7.6 92.4

West Virginia 55 14 3 16 4 4 2 34 322 2 356 3.9 4.5 1.1 90.4

Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,303 72 1,303 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Wyoming 23 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 0 21 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

American Samoa 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Sum of Above 3,123 15,425 1,178 16,593 1,191 17,476 1,172 49,494 86,325 1,106 135,819 11.4 12.2 12.9 63.6

Question q39dm q39om q39oc sum q39uototal calc

Categorized Uncategorized Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA

Overseas Domestic Overseas

38 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Table 23. Advanced Ballots Transmitted 

Question 39. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of advanced ballots transmitted to military and overseas citizens for the 

November 7, 2006 Federal general elections. (Advanced ballot means any special Write-In Absentee Ballot, State Write-In Absentee Ballot, Special WriteIn Early Ballot, or Blank Absentee Ballot that is distributed by a State in advance of the publication of an official ballot for a federal election on which military 

and overseas citizens are allowed to write in the name of the candidate in each contest for whom they choose to vote.) 

The column labeled ‘Sum of UOCAVA’ is calculated from the count of the categorized breakouts and the uncategorized total. States differed as to how to 

respond to this ‘uncategorized’ item and also as to what should be included in the item. A review was undertaken to check for possible erroneous or double 

reporting. See the notes at the beginning of this section. California – Los Angeles reported: Our Election Management System does not separate Domestic Military from Overseas Military Voters. Therefore, these two 

categories totals are combined. 

Connecticut – This information was not included in the spreadsheet. Florida – Clay County is longer required to send advanced ballots anymore since the 2nd Primary Election was done away with. Another jurisdiction reported: 

Difference between requests and transmitted is due to cancelled or ineligible requests. Another jurisdiction reported: We received our regular 

absentee ballots and mailed them before the 35-day deadline. 

Idaho – Idaho does not have advanced ballots. Illinois – Several jurisdictions reported: County did not break down in categories. Maine – The number of advanced ballots issued is included in the number provided in Question 38. We do not require municipalities to report separately the 

number of advanced ballots issued. 

Maryland – Maryland does not send advanced ballots. Minnesota – Minnesota does not provide advance ballots. Montana – These are not used in Montana. New Jersey – One jurisdiction reported: Combined Domestic Military, Overseas Military, and Overseas Citizens. Ohio – Ohio does not issue 'advanced ballots.' Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic military, overseas military citizen, and overseas citizens. All categories are included in UOCAVA. 

American Samoa – Ballots are only advanced when requested. 

UOCAVA Report 39
2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey

Table 24. Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) Received

Total number of FWABs received by category.

Sum of Total Sum of Dom. Uncat.

State Jur. Military Jur. Military Jur. Citizens Jur. Cat. Uncat. Jur. UOCAVA Military Military Citizens Total

Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Alaska 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 6 0 0 6 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0Arizona 15 4 12 7 12 4 12 15 56 12 71 5.6 9.9 5.6 78.9Arkansas 75 22 51 16 52 2 51 40 0 0 40 55.0 40.0 5.0 0.0California 58 16 3 317 6 12 4 345 25,820 11 26,165 0.1 1.2 0.0 98.7

Colorado 64 5 61 14 61 45 61 64 0 0 64 7.8 21.9 70.3 0.0Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Delaware 3 0 3 1 3 1 3 2 0 3 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0Dst. of Columbia 1 10 1 10 1 128 1 148 0 0 148 6.8 6.8 86.5 0.0Florida 67 7 59 20 59 21 59 48 28 65 76 9.2 26.3 27.6 36.8Georgia 159 0 155 1 155 2 155 3 0 106 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0

Hawaii 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Idaho 44 0 44 13 44 0 44 13 0 44 13 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0Illinois 110 1 1 1,984 47 12 1 1,997 54,648 91 56,645 0.0 3.5 0.0 96.5

Indiana 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Iowa 99 0 0 212 17 0 0 212 212 17 212 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Kansas 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Kentucky 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 117 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Louisiana 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Maryland 24 1 24 13 24 51 24 65 0 0 65 1.5 20.0 78.5 0.0

Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Michigan 83 98 83 73 83 50 83 221 0 0 221 44.3 33.0 22.6 0.0

Minnesota 87 0 1 2 87 12 87 14 0 76 14 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0Mississippi 82 4 45 4 46 0 44 8 0 37 8 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

Missouri 116 12 116 36 116 8 116 56 0 0 56 21.4 64.3 14.3 0.0Montana 56 4 56 2 56 5 56 11 137 56 148 2.7 1.4 3.4 92.6Nebraska 93 2 2 1 3 1 3 4 0 1 4 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0Nevada 17 10 13 11 14 5 14 26 0 4 26 38.5 42.3 19.2 0.0New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

New Jersey 21 4 10 0 9 936 11 940 641 12 1,581 0.3 0.0 59.2 40.5

New Mexico 33 0 14 0 13 0 14 0 0 10 0 ..... ..... ..... .....New York 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....North Carolina 100 0 0 23 99 15 99 38 0 0 38 0.0 60.5 39.5 0.0North Dakota 53 0 53 2 53 2 53 4 0 50 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0Ohio 88 3 88 12 88 48 88 63 0 6 63 4.8 19.0 76.2 0.0Oklahoma 77 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 20 10 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Oregon 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 1 79 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0South Carolina 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....South Dakota 66 2 47 5 47 0 45 7 2 32 9 22.2 55.6 0.0 22.2Tennessee 95 17 9 6 9 3 8 26 15 7 41 41.5 14.6 7.3 36.6Texas 254 347 254 23 254 40 254 410 74 254 484 71.7 4.8 8.3 15.3Utah 29 2 23 2 23 2 23 6 2 21 8 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Virginia 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 33 205 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Washington 39 2 20 10 20 2 20 14 18 18 32 6.3 31.3 6.3 56.3

West Virginia 55 1 1 3 2 1 1 5 5 3 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 100.0Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Wyoming 23 0 21 0 22 2 22 2 0 23 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

American Samoa 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....Virgin Islands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... .....

Sum of Above 3,123 575 1,276 2,825 1,529 1,413 1,462 4,813 81,971 1,156 86,567 0.7 3.3 1.6 94.7

Question q40dm q40om q40oc sum q

Uncategorized

40uototal calc

Percentages of Sum of UOCAVA

Overseas

Categorized

Domestic Overseas

40 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Table 24. Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots (FWAB) Received 

Question 40. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots (FWAB) RECEIVED from each of the following categories of voters for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections. The column labeled ‘Sum of UOCAVA’ is calculated from the count of the categorized breakouts and the uncategorized total. States differed as to how to 

respond to this ‘uncategorized’ item and also as to what should be included in the item. A review was undertaken to check for possible erroneous or double reporting. See the notes at the beginning of this section. Arizona – Pima County reported: Many voters also submitted a regular absentee ballot, so most FWABs weren't counted. One jurisdiction reported: Did not 

track UOCAVA voters. Another jurisdiction reported: Does not separate UOCAVA voters out by category. 

Connecticut – Spreadsheet data does not make a distinction between domestic and overseas ballots, for either civilians or military personnel. Here are 

spreadsheet numbers. Hartford County: Civilian Returned: 12835; Mil/Overseas Returned: 71. Fairfield County: Civilian Returned: 17479; Mil/Overseas Returned: 308. Litchfield County: Civilian Returned: 3887; Mil/Overseas Returned: 62. Middlesex County: Civilian Returned: 4232; Mil/Overseas Returned: 45. New Haven County: Civilian Returned: 15431; Mil/Overseas Returned: 163. New London County: Civilian Returned: 5103; Mil/Overseas Returned: 26. Tolland County: Civilian Returned: 2463; Mil/Overseas Returned: 33. Windham County: Civilian Returned: 1701; Mil/Overseas Returned: 28. 

Florida – One jurisdiction reported: Collected as a single category. Illinois – Several Counties reported: Not broken down by categories. Maine – The number of FWAB ballots received is included in the number provided in Question 38. We do not require municipalities to report separately the 

number of FWAB received. 

Oregon – Multnomah County reported: According to the Director of Elections, some FWAB were received, but the number received was not tracked. Several 

jurisdictions reported: We are currently unable to separate out domestic military, overseas military citizen, and overseas citizens. All categories are 

included in UOCAVA. 

American Samoa – We did not receive any FWABs. 

Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic civilian absentee, domestic military, overseas military citizen, overseas citizens and federal write-in 

absentee ballots. All categories are included in the answers to Question 41. 

Texas – One jurisdiction reported: Ballots returned were due to military transfers. New addresses provided apparently were not good addresses as these were 

returned also. Several jurisdictions reported: ballots were never returned. Another jurisdiction reported: Did not have any military rejects. 

UOCAVA Report 41
42 U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey Table 25a. Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected by Reason Total number of military and overseas absentee ballots rejected by reason. [1] [2] [3] [4] No Date No Date Lacking No Voter Retd. Unmatch. Untimely Other Total Total Jur. Rejects State Jur. Wit. Sig. Jur. Vot. Sig. Jur. Postmark Jur. Sig. Jur. Undeliv. Jur. Sig. Jur. Receipt Jur. Reason Jur. Rejected Requested Req. % Req. Alabama 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Alaska 1 82 1 0 0 3 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 114 3,614 1 3.2 Arizona 15 0 0 0 11 0 11 0 11 46 11 0 11 16 11 221 10 283 7,170 11 3.9 Arkansas 75 0 37 0 37 0 37 11 38 158 41 4 36 21 39 78 7 272 1,477 53 18.4 California 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 11 3,202 27 21 9 748 28 95 7 4,165 156,583 32 2.7 Colorado 64 0 3 0 3 0 3 6 7 1,362 18 3 6 154 23 109 7 1,634 9,290 61 17.6 Connecticut 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Delaware 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 23 3 0 3 45 3 10 3 78 1,266 3 6.2 Dst. of Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 13 1 0 1 9 1 1 1 25 275 1 9.1 Florida 67 0 67 0 67 0 67 79 67 2,477 67 67 67 580 67 423 67 3,626 96,465 67 3.8 Georgia 159 0 140 3 156 0 140 11 156 874 156 2 156 49 156 496 153 1,435 11,452 159 12.5 Hawaii 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 907 2 0 0 85 2 0 0 997 2,701 3 36.9 Idaho 44 0 44 0 44 0 44 15 44 187 44 0 44 66 44 21 44 289 1,774 44 16.3 Illinois 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327 28 327 70,063 105 0.5 Indiana 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,263 90 1,263 2,663 92 47.4 Iowa 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 99 4 99 0 0 20 99 13 99 48 0 0 ..... Kansas 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 104 1,051 104 5 104 86 104 0 1 1,158 4,249 104 27.3 Kentucky 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 0 82 0 3,963 120 0.0 Louisiana 64 4 3 0 0 0 0 10 10 905 36 6 4 160 23 175 36 1,260 5,173 64 24.4 Maine 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,086 16 0.0 Maryland 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 24 982 24 0 0 233 24 73 24 1,307 9,806 24 13.3 Massachusetts 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 88 2 2.3 Michigan 83 0 83 0 83 0 83 11 83 385 83 1 83 404 83 405 83 1,206 6,160 83 19.6 Minnesota 87 28 86 0 0 0 1 28 86 1,808 87 18 85 223 86 157 85 2,262 11,921 87 19.0 Mississippi 82 0 35 0 35 0 36 0 36 10 37 0 36 7 37 22 14 39 4,884 47 0.8 Missouri 116 18 116 0 116 0 116 12 116 1,123 116 0 116 308 116 339 62 1,800 7,705 116 23.4 Montana 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 1 56 1,039 56 0 56 40 56 10 3 1,090 2,813 56 38.7 Nebraska 93 0 2 0 2 0 2 4 5 280 19 0 2 25 8 3 3 312 1,869 49 16.7 Nevada 17 0 12 0 12 0 12 3 12 202 15 0 12 60 13 1 7 266 4,888 13 5.4 New Hampshire 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... New Jersey 21 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 34 9 0 7 34 6,259 13 0.5 New Mexico 33 0 12 0 12 0 13 0 12 13 11 0 12 5 12 0 5 18 468 12 3.8 New York 58 0 0 0 0 118 58 337 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,976 58 2,431 36,789 58 6.6 North Carolina 100 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 99 3,093 98 0 0 212 97 1,196 98 4,520 10,823 99 41.8 North Dakota 53 0 53 0 53 2 53 1 53 1 53 0 53 5 53 0 14 9 271 53 3.3 Ohio 88 0 79 0 79 0 79 8 86 1,994 87 2 87 217 87 158 75 2,379 12,531 88 19.0 Oklahoma 77 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 69 23 13 9 82 4,206 77 1.9 Oregon 36 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 12,477 36 0.0 Pennsylvania 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,304 66 0.0 Rhode Island 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 911 5 0.0 South Carolina 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 11 0 0 62 6,212 45 1.0 South Dakota 66 0 27 0 27 0 27 2 28 210 39 1 27 37 36 136 17 386 9,095 41 4.2 Tennessee 95 0 2 0 2 0 2 4 5 624 37 1 3 104 33 3 4 736 26,333 49 2.8 Texas 254 0 139 0 140 0 139 35 254 9,562 254 27 254 316 254 521 254 10,461 181,637 254 5.8 Utah 29 0 23 0 23 0 22 74 24 15 23 0 23 8 23 0 15 97 912 25 10.6 Vermont 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Virginia 134 1 3 0 2 0 2 6 7 457 33 0 2 0 2 19 15 483 16,924 131 2.9 Washington 39 0 33 0 34 1 33 7 34 804 32 43 33 15 33 17 32 887 29,834 20 3.0 West Virginia 55 0 0 20 1 0 0 1 1 73 12 0 0 9 4 3 1 106 3,935 41 2.7 Wisconsin 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,573 72 0.0 Wyoming 23 0 23 0 23 0 23 1 23 573 22 0 22 74 23 0 17 648 3,867 23 16.8 American Samoa 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 233 1 1.3 Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... Virgin Islands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 0 28 42 1 66.7 Sum of Above 3,123 133 1,232 23 1,169 124 1,212 856 1,803 34,458 1,894 201 1,495 4,547 1,861 8,286 1,539 48,628 992,034 2,623 4.9 Question q42dnws q42dvs q42lp q42nvs q42r q42v q42w q42o q42total calc [A] [F] [G] [H] [B] [C] [D] [E]
UOCAVA Report 43 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey Table 25b. Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected by Reason-Percentages Percentage of military and overseas absentee ballots rejected by reason (pcts.). No Date No Date Lacking No Voter Retd. Unmatch. Untimely Other Total State Jur. Wit. Sig. Jur. Vot. Sig. Jur. Postmark Jur. Sig. Jur. Undeliv. Jur. Sig. Jur. Receipt Jur. Reason Jur. Rejected Jur. Alabama 67 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 67 Alaska 1 71.9 1 0.0 0 2.6 1 15.8 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.6 1 0.0 0 114 1 Arizona 15 0.0 0 0.0 11 0.0 11 0.0 11 16.3 11 0.0 11 5.7 11 78.1 10 283 15 Arkansas 75 0.0 37 0.0 37 0.0 37 4.0 38 58.1 41 1.5 36 7.7 39 28.7 7 272 75 California 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.4 11 76.9 27 0.5 9 18.0 28 2.3 7 4,165 58 Colorado 64 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.4 7 83.4 18 0.2 6 9.4 23 6.7 7 1,634 64 Connecticut 8 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 8 Delaware 3 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 3 29.5 3 0.0 3 57.7 3 12.8 3 78 3 Dst. of Columbia 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.0 1 52.0 1 0.0 1 36.0 1 4.0 1 25 1 Florida 67 0.0 67 0.0 67 0.0 67 2.2 67 68.3 67 1.8 67 16.0 67 11.7 67 3,626 67 Georgia 159 0.0 140 0.2 156 0.0 140 0.8 156 60.9 156 0.1 156 3.4 156 34.6 153 1,435 159 Hawaii 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.5 1 91.0 2 0.0 0 8.5 2 0.0 0 997 4 Idaho 44 0.0 44 0.0 44 0.0 44 5.2 44 64.7 44 0.0 44 22.8 44 7.3 44 289 44 Illinois 110 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 28 327 110 Indiana 92 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 90 1,263 92 Iowa 99 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 22.9 99 8.3 99 0.0 0 41.7 99 27.1 99 48 99 Kansas 105 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.4 104 90.8 104 0.4 104 7.4 104 0.0 1 1,158 105 Kentucky 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 120 ..... 82 0 120 Louisiana 64 0.3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.8 10 71.8 36 0.5 4 12.7 23 13.9 36 1,260 64 Maine 16 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 16 Maryland 24 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.5 24 75.1 24 0.0 0 17.8 24 5.6 24 1,307 24 Massachusetts 14 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 2 2 14 Michigan 83 0.0 83 0.0 83 0.0 83 0.9 83 31.9 83 0.1 83 33.5 83 33.6 83 1,206 83 Minnesota 87 1.2 86 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 86 79.9 87 0.8 85 9.9 86 6.9 85 2,262 87 Mississippi 82 0.0 35 0.0 35 0.0 36 0.0 36 25.6 37 0.0 36 17.9 37 56.4 14 39 82 Missouri 116 1.0 116 0.0 116 0.0 116 0.7 116 62.4 116 0.0 116 17.1 116 18.8 62 1,800 116 Montana 56 0.0 56 0.0 56 0.0 56 0.1 56 95.3 56 0.0 56 3.7 56 0.9 3 1,090 56 Nebraska 93 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 2 1.3 5 89.7 19 0.0 2 8.0 8 1.0 3 312 93 Nevada 17 0.0 12 0.0 12 0.0 12 1.1 12 75.9 15 0.0 12 22.6 13 0.4 7 266 17 New Hampshire 10 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 10 New Jersey 21 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0 7 100.0 9 0.0 7 34 21 New Mexico 33 0.0 12 0.0 12 0.0 13 0.0 12 72.2 11 0.0 12 27.8 12 0.0 5 18 33 New York 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.9 58 13.9 58 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 81.3 58 2,431 58 North Carolina 100 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 99 68.4 98 0.0 0 4.7 97 26.5 98 4,520 100 North Dakota 53 0.0 53 0.0 53 22.2 53 11.1 53 11.1 53 0.0 53 55.6 53 0.0 14 9 53 Ohio 88 0.0 79 0.0 79 0.0 79 0.3 86 83.8 87 0.1 87 9.1 87 6.6 75 2,379 88 Oklahoma 77 0.0 4 0.0 4 0.0 4 0.0 4 0.0 4 0.0 4 84.1 23 15.9 9 82 77 Oregon 36 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 15 ..... 0 0 36 Pennsylvania 67 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 67 Rhode Island 5 ..... 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 ..... 0 ..... 1 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 5 South Carolina 46 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 11 0.0 0 62 46 South Dakota 66 0.0 27 0.0 27 0.0 27 0.5 28 54.4 39 0.3 27 9.6 36 35.2 17 386 66 Tennessee 95 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.5 5 84.8 37 0.1 3 14.1 33 0.4 4 736 95 Texas 254 0.0 139 0.0 140 0.0 139 0.3 254 91.4 254 0.3 254 3.0 254 5.0 254 10,461 254 Utah 29 0.0 23 0.0 23 0.0 22 76.3 24 15.5 23 0.0 23 8.2 23 0.0 15 97 29 Vermont 14 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 14 Virginia 134 0.2 3 0.0 2 0.0 2 1.2 7 94.6 33 0.0 2 0.0 2 3.9 15 483 134 Washington 39 0.0 33 0.0 34 0.1 33 0.8 34 90.6 32 4.8 33 1.7 33 1.9 32 887 39 West Virginia 55 0.0 0 18.9 1 0.0 0 0.9 1 68.9 12 0.0 0 8.5 4 2.8 1 106 55 Wisconsin 72 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 72 Wyoming 23 0.0 23 0.0 23 0.0 23 0.2 23 88.4 22 0.0 22 11.4 23 0.0 17 648 23 American Samoa 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 33.3 1 0.0 1 66.7 1 0.0 0 3 1 Guam 1 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 1 Puerto Rico 1 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 1 Virgin Islands 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0 28 1 Sum or Average 3,123 1.7 1,232 0.4 1,169 0.7 1,212 4.1 1,803 50.4 1,894 0.3 1,495 23.1 1,861 19.3 1,539 48,628 3,123 Question q42dnws q42dvs q42lp q42nvs q42r q42v q42w q42o q42total [F] [G] [H] [B] [C] [D] [E] [A] [1]
Tables 25a,b. Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots Rejected, by Reason 

Question 42. Total number Statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of military and overseas absentee ballots rejected for each of the 

following reasons for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections. The ‘Total Requested’ is from Table 22: ‘Sum of UOCAVA’. Note that ballots 

returned as undeliverable [E] are included in the ‘Total Rejected’ even though they were not submitted by the voter. Arizona – Several jurisdictions reported: Not tracked. Connecticut – Spreadsheet data does not make a distinction between civilian and military rejected absentee ballots. District of Columbia – 102 of these ballots were not returned. Florida – One jurisdiction reported: All these numbers are included with above domestic civilian, as they are not separated for canvassing purposes. Another 

reported: Clay County does not enter ballots into the system at all that are not received by the State deadline. 

Idaho – There is no requirement within Idaho Code to require a signature of a witness or notary on an absentee ballot that is returned by UOCAVA voters. 

Indiana – Reason codes for rejected ballots are tracked on an individual voter basis, but are not aggregated at the county or State level. Iowa – Not sealed: 5, Returned not voted: 4, Voter deceased: 2, Wrong voting address: 1. Kansas – The returned as undeliverable contains federal service ballots that were not delivered. Kentucky – The State reported: Our number of rejected absentee ballots can not be broken down into subcategories like domestic civilian and military/overseas 

ballots. Therefore, all rejected absentee were put in the domestic civilian category as the survey design does not provide us with any other option to 

report our numbers. 

Maine – The State does not require municipalities to report the reason that ballots were rejected. Once the State's CVR is fully implemented, the State will 

have visibility of the reasons that ballots were rejected as clerks will be required to update their list of absentee voters after the polls are closed on 

Election Night. 

Maryland – The following rejection reasons are not valid reasons for rejection under Maryland law: [A] and [F]. Neither of the reasons [B] or [C] by itself is a 

valid rejection reason under Maryland law. If the absentee ballot is not received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, the local board uses the postmark on 

the envelope to determine whether the ballot was mailed before Election Day. If the postmark is not legible, the date the voter signed the affidavit is used to determine if the absentee ballot is timely. 

Massachusetts – This office does not collect the reasons why absentee ballots were rejected. New Jersey – One jurisdiction reported: County does not separate reasons. North Carolina – “Other” consists of various reasons. Oklahoma – Ballot was returned after 7pm. 

Oregon – We are currently unable to separate out domestic civilian absentee, domestic military, overseas military citizen, overseas citizens and federal write-in 

absentee ballots. All categories are included in the answers to Question 41. 

Texas – One jurisdiction reported: Ballots returned were due to military transfers. New addresses provided apparently were not good addresses as these were 

returned also. Several jurisdictions reported: ballots were never returned. Another jurisdiction reported: Did not have any military rejects. 

44 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
CROSS REFERENCE OF SURVEY QUESTIONS TO TABLES 

Questions 1-31. See NVRA Report Question 32. See Election Day Report Question 33. Total number of ballots cast 

See Table 19. UOCAVA Ballots Cast by Category 

Question 34. Total number of ballots counted 

See Table 20. UOCAVA Ballots Counted by Category 

Question 35-37. See Election Day Report Question 38. Absentee Ballots Requested 

See Table 22. UOCAVA Ballots Requested 

Question 39. Advanced Ballots Transmitted 

See Table 23. Advanced Ballots Transmitted 

Question 40. Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots Received 

See Table 24. FWAB Ballots Received 

Question 41. See Election Day Report Question 42. Military and Overseas Ballots Rejected 

See Tables 25a,b. Military and Overseas Ballots Rejected by Reason 

Questions 43-58. See Election Day Report 

UOCAVA Report 45
NOVEMBER 7, 2006, ELECTION RESULTS

33.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction, for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections of BALLOTS CAST:

At the polls: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Early voting: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Domestic civilian

absentee ballot: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Domestic military: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas military: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas citizens: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

FWAB: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Provisional ballots:* 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

*The number provided in response to this question should include the total number of ballots cast in the State’s program for contingent or 

provisional ballots that comply with Section 302(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

 UOCAVA voters: If you are not able to separate ballots cast for UOCAVA voters into the categories above, please, provide the 

combined total statewide and by county/local jurisdiction:

Total: 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this da

Comments: 

34.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction, for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections of BALLOTS COUNTED:

At the polls: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Early voting: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Domestic civilian

absentee ballot: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Domestic military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas citizens:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

FWAB: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Provisional ballots: 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

UOCAVA voters: If you are not able to separate ballots counted for UOCAVA voters into the categories above, please, provide 

the combined total statewide and by county/local jurisdiction:

Total: 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this da

Comments: 

Extract of Questions from 2006 

Election Administration and Voting Survey

46 U.S. Election Assistance Commission
38.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of absentee ballots REQUESTED (do not include FWAB) for the November 7, 

2006, Federal general elections (includes ballots transmitted by mail, fax, e-mail, or courier):

Domestic civilian

absentee ballot:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Domestic military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas citizens:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

UOCAVA voters: If you are not able to separate absentee ballots requested for UOCAVA voters into the categories above, 

please, provide the combined total statewide and by county/local jurisdiction:

Total:                 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this da

Comments:                                                                                 

39.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of advanced ballots TRANSMITTED to military and overseas citizens for the 

November 7, 2006 Federal general elections: (Advanced ballot means any special Write-In Absentee Ballot, State Write-In Absentee Ballot, 

Special Write-In Early Ballot, or Blank Absentee Ballot that is distributed by a state in advance of the publication of an official ballot for 

a federal election on which military and overseas citizens are allowed to write in the name of the candidate in each contest for whom they 

choose to vote.)

Domestic military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas citizens:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

UOCAVA voters: If you are not able to separate advance ballots transmitted for UOCAVA voters into the categories above, 

please, provide the combined total statewide and by county/local jurisdiction:

Total:                 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this da

Comments:                                                                                 

40.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots (FWAB) RECEIVED from each of the 

following categories of voters for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections:

Domestic military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas military:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Overseas citizens:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

UOCAVA voters: If you are not able to separate the FWAB received for UOCAVA voters into the categories above, please, 

provide the combined total statewide and by county/local jurisdiction:

Total:                 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this da

Comments:                                                                                 

UOCAVA Report 47
42.	 Total number statewide and by county/local jurisdiction of military and overseas absentee ballots REJECTED for each of the following 

reasons for the November 7, 2006, Federal general elections:

Had no date of notary/

witness signature:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Had no date of 

voter signature:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Lacked a postmark:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

No voter signature:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Returned as

undeliverable:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Voter signature not

verifiable:	 	                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Was received after

the state deadline:                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Other 

(please, specify):                	 Don’t know	 Check if your office does not collect this data

Comments:                                                                                 

48 U.S. Election Assistance Commission

U.S. Election Assistance C

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Ave., N

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

1-866-747-1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.go

www.eac.g

EAC Commissioners

Chair Donetta L. Davidso

Vice Chair Rosemary E. Rodrigue

Commissioner Caroline Hunter

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillma

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel