UO

Voting Trend An

& Risk Assess

Maricopa County, Ar

Federa

Maricopa County Recorder/E
UOCAVA Working Group

• Overall assessment of current Vote By Mai

UOCAVA system was circulated in February year identifying areas of potential vulnerab

• Maricopa County collects data which spea

two of the categories:

– Denial of Service/Misdirected or Diversion– Authentication

• As a background, Arizona has allowed for t

delivery and return of ballots electronically the 2008 election cycle and is an importanelement of this presentation.
Denial of Service/

Misdirected or Diversion

• Discussed as:

– Accidental or malicious failure of the voter 

receiving their ballot either due to inherenqualities of the delivery system of the ballvoter not providing accurate/sufficient/timinformation.

– Competing resources for the delivery of 

necessities (FVAP’s 4B’s: “Beans, Bullets, Bandages, and Ballots”)
Authentication

• For existing VBM systems this is usually 

reference to the signature verification oreturned balloting materials.

• This is a two-fold issue:

– Lack of signature– Signature which does not match
MOVE Act

• It is important to note in this discussion th

analysis is not a comprehensive review of impact of the MOVE Act because the State Arizona did not reduce the coverage perioMOVE allows until this legislative session.

• Therefore, there were still many voters wh

requested to be a covered UOCAVA voter years prior to the 2010 General Election, consequently impacting the efficacy of MCability to successfully transmit a ballot to tvoter.
With that said.

• UOCAVA voting behaviors in Maricopa C

2004-2010

• Review of ballots returned, & their 

dispositions

• Review of who did not return ballots
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Voter Type

Ballot 

Type

Disposition 

Failure

FPCA
UOCAVA BY 

TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOTS2004-2010
2004-2010 UOCAVA Compar

0

10002000300040005000600070008000 

65%

2004

22%

66%

2

2006 2008 2010

Ballots
2004-2010 UOCAVA Compar

0

500

100015002000250030003500

Domestic

Military

Overseas

Military

Overseas

Citizens

Overseas

Employee

2006 OSC 

& OSE were 

grouped 

together
2004-2010 Presidential Cycl

UOCAVA Comparison

0

500

100015002000250030003500

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizens Overse

Others participated at a 

higher rate in 2008

Some participated at a 

higher rate in 2004

Some of the Domestic Military in ‘04 could possibly be 

a portion of the Overseas Military voters 4 years later
2004-2010 Mid-term Cycle

UOCAVA Comparison

0

200400600800

10001200140016001800

Domestic

Military

Overseas

Military

Overseas

Citizens

Overseas

Employee

2006 OSC & OSE 

grouped toget
2004-2010 Overall Return Ra

• Domestic Military 53%• Overseas Military 43%• Overseas Citizen 47%• Overseas Employee 56%• Electronic 68% • Total Military 49%• Total Civilian 51%
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Military

Ballot 

Type

Disposition 

Failure

FPCA
UOCAVA BY 

PERCENTAGE OF BALLOTS
2004-2010 UOCAVA Comparis

% of Ballots Returned by Voter T

0

102030405060708090

100

Domestic

Military

Overseas

Military

Overseas

Citizens

Overseas

Employee
2010 UOCAVA Rate of Retu

• The average return rate for UOCAVA voters 

28%, well below the average return rate of 

• Although faxing was the smallest category, 

the highest rate of return of 80%.

• Notice that providing an electronic mechan

UOCAVA voters to access and return their greatly improved their participation/return 68% over the other UOCAVA Categories:

– Overseas Citizen 26%– Overseas Employee 12%– Overseas Military 18%– Domestic Military 23%
Rate of Return

• General Election 2008 UOCAVA voters 

returned their ballots 64% of the time, ballot return for all early voters was 92%

• General Election 2010 UOCAVA voters 

returned their ballots 28% of the time, ballot return for all early voters was 77%

electronic return was much closer at 68
2010 UOCAVA Requests & Retur

0

200400600800

100012001400

Overseas Cit Overseas

Emp

Overseas

Mil

Domestic

Mil

Electronic 

68%

12%

26%

18%

23%
RETURNED

BALLOT& VOTER TYPE ANALYSISGeneral 2008 & 2010
2008 UOCAVA Returned Ballot T

MilitMilitCiviliCivili

45% 53%
2010 UOCAVA Returned Ballot T

Military Military Civilian Civilian Electro

29%

38%

33%

We had 0FWAB in tElection—handful rvoters alsballots so ones tabuVoters desupport oreturn by return of 
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Disposition 

Failure

FPCA

Standard

Military
2008 UOCAVA vs. Total EV Ret

& Disposition of the Ballot

0

102030405060708090

100

Total EV UOCAVA

0.2% ( 1485)

98%

0.2%

0.3%

1.5% (80)

0.4%

0.1%

99.3%

%
2010 UOCAVA vs. Total EV Ret

& Disposition of the Ballot

0

102030405060708090

100

Total EV UOCAVA

0.1% ( 2680)

97%

0.4%

0.5%

2% ( 29 )

1% (11)

0%

99%

%
2010 UOCAVA Ballots Returned 

DomesOverseOverseOverseElectro

2010 had percentagreturning thowever, received telectronicvoters retuon time. 

34%

17%

38%

10%
2010 UOCAVA Ballots Without Sign

DomesOverseOverseOverseElectro

2010 had a percentage returning twithout a sreturned thelectronicanecessary s

45%

18%

27%

9%
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

FPCA

Standard

Military
UNRETURNED BALLOT

VOTER TYPE ANALYSISGeneral 2008 & 2010
2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by Vote

DomeOversOversOvers

33% 27%

22%

18%
2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Vote

DomesOverseOverseOverseElectro

2010 saw picture of returned tA large shiOverseas C–28% com18% in 200

24% 21%20% 28%

6%
‘08 vs. ‘10 UOCAVA Not Returned by Vot

Domestic

Military

Overseas

Military

Overseas

Citizen

Overseas

Employee

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000 Dom. Mil was only slightly 

higher than ‘08

# of Ballots
‘08 vs. ‘10 UOCAVA Not Returned by Vot

As % of All UOCAVA Not Returned

Domestic

Military

Overseas

Military

Overseas

Citizen

Overseas

Employee

05

101520253035

%
FPCA ANALYSIS

2010 General Election
Quick Methodology Narrati

• This query looked at those voters on the v

as of the date of the analysis.

• The data includes: 

– Date of the voter’s FPCA request – History of any election post request– Status of ballot for each election in voter’s his

• Graphs reflect the percentages of ballots f

elections the voter was eligible for by year raw numbers listed.

• Anomalies may be attributed to those vot

are no longer on the voter file. 
0

102030405060

First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth 

% of UOCAVA Ballots 

’08 vs ’10 Effective Ballots Return

Years After FPCA Request
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Returned a

Undeliverable in Years After FPCA R

% of UOCAVA Ballots 

O

w

ye

em

i
0

102030405060708090

First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Sent But Nev

Returned in Years After FPCA Req

% of UOCAVA Ballots 
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Cast by UOCAVA 

at the Polls in Years After FPCA Re

% of UOCAVA Ballots 
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
UNRETURNED BALLOT

VOTER PARTY AFFILIATION ANALYSGeneral 2008 & 2010
2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by 

DReLiO

26%

36%

37%
2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by 

DemocRepublLibertaOther

30% 36%

34%

r
Gen 2008 vs. Gen 2010 

UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat Republican Libertarian Other

0

200400600800

10001200

26%

‘08

‘08

‘08 ‘08

‘10

‘10

‘1

‘10

# of Ballots
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
UNRETURNED BALLOT

AGE OF VOTER ANALYSISBallot Sent, Not Returned2010 General Election
2010 Ballot Sent, Not Returne

Total by Decade of Birth

0

100200300400500600700800900

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 19
2010 Ballot Sent, Not Returne

By Decade & Voter Type

0

50

100150200250300350

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE 

ANALYSIS2010 General Election
2010 Returned Undeliverabl

Voting History

0

102030405060708090

100

Domestic Military

202020202020

% of Ballots Cast in Each Election Do

ba

un

eq

v

ef

200

not 

2
2010 Returned Undeliverabl

Voting History

0

102030405060708090

100

Overseas Military

2008 VOTED2008 SENT2008 NA2006 VOTED2006 SENT2006 NA

% of Ballots Cast in Each Election Overseas M

returned sa

effective ba

were not U

while 100% o

UOCAVA v
2010 Returned Undeliverabl

Voting History

0

102030405060708090

100

Overseas Citizen

2008 VOTED2008 SENT2008 NA2006 VOTED2006 SENT2006 NA

% of Ballots Cast in Each Election All of the bal

undeliverab

Citizens were 

returned bal

none had req

2006 Gene
2010 Returned Undeliverabl

Voting History

0

102030405060708090

100

Overseas Employee

2008 VOTED2008 SENT2008 NA2006 VOTED2006 SENT2006 NA

% of Ballots Cast in Each Election All of the bal

undeliverab

Employees w

who returned 

the 2008 a

Genera
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION

OF NON-MILITARY UOCAVA VOSpring 2011
ALL NON-MILITARY UOCAVA VO

0

50

100150200250

CANADA

MEXICO

INDIA

SINGAPORE

IRELAND

COSTA RICA

SAUDI ARABIA

TURKEY

KUWAIT

ALBANIA

GHANA

PERU

BELIZE

VIETNAM

BURMUDA

HAITI

MACEDONIA

TRINIDAD TOBAGO

CAMBODIA

FIJI ISLANDS
101+ VOTERS BY COUNTR

CANADA UNITED

KINGDOM

GERMANY CHINA A

0

50

100150200250

229
51-100 VOTERS BY COUNTR

0

102030405060708090

MEXICO FRANCE JAPAN ISRAEL 
25-50 VOTERS BY COUNTR

0

102030405060
11-24 VOTERS BY COUNTR

05

1015202530
5-10 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

02468

1012
4 VOTERS

• ECUADOR• GHANA• HUNGARY• LUXEMBOURG• MONOCCO• NICARAGUA• PERU• QUATAR• UKRAINE• VENEZUELA

• BANGLADESH• BELIZE• EL SALVADOR• MONGOLIA• SCOTLAND• SUDAN• VIETNAM• ZAMBIA

3 VOTERS 2 VOTERS 1 

• AFGHANISTAN 

• BAHAMAS• BANGALORE• BURMUDA• BOSNIA 

HERZEGOVINA

• BRITISH WEST 

INDIES

• CROATIA• GUADEMALA• HAITI• KINGDOM OF 

BAHRAIN

• KYRGYZSTAN • LATVIA• LIBERIA• MACEDONIA• RWANDA• SENEGAL• SRI LANKA• TANZANIA• TRINIDAD TOBAGO• URUGUAY

• BO• BO• BU• CA• CA• CY• ET• FE

M

• FI• FI• GA• HO• IV• LIT• M• M• M• M• NA• N• PA• RE• SE• SL• SY• TU• UG• W• ZA
CITIZENS & EMPLOYEES
VOTER TYPES

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

38%

61%
COUNTRIES WITH MORE 

THAN 100 VOTERSVOTER TYPES
CANADA: 229 VOTERS

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

19%

81%
UNITED KINGDOM: 214 VOT

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

35%

65%
GERMANY: 144 VOTERS

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

27%

73%
CHINA: 136 VOTERS

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

58% 42%

China has 

temporary U

voters tha

other cou
AUSTRALIA: 118 VOTERS

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

26%

74%
MEXICO: 81 VOTERS

OVERSEAS OVERSEAS 

33%

67%
DOES THE UOCAVA VOTER AT R

PROFILED ACCESS ONLINE SERV

Presidential Election 2008
Data Source: MCED MILOS (MILitary and 

Over 

Seas)

• All UOCAVA emails go to a single email ad

this includes directly from the voter, as weinquiries made via the SOS or MCED webs

• The email information was then exported 

Outlook into Excel for sorting, categorizingrecording.

• Some emails were difficult to allocate as t

voter failed to select or mention what theinquiry was for, they simply provided their information.

• This summary is presented as a general sn

of online traffic from UOCAVA voters.
% of UOCAVA Online Voters

48%

4%

2%

13%

1%

2%

4% 8%

APO= 

13%

FPO= 

3%

DPO= 

1%
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
Decade of Birth of UOCAVA Online 

(From the SOS data)

0

50

100150200250300

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 n
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
Requesting to Register to Vo

36%

64%
Timeline for using SOS site in m

leading up to the election for 

26-Sep

28-Sep

30-Sep

2-Oct

4-Oct

6-Oct

8-Oct

10-Oct

12-Oct

14-Oct

16-Oct

18-Oct

20-Oct

22-Oct

24-Oct

26-Oct

28-Oct

05

1015202530

29 voters used the service to regi

after standard deadline on Octobe
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
Requesting an Early Ballot

87%

13%
Timeline for using SOS site in m

leading up to the election for 

26-Sep

28-Sep

30-Sep

2-Oct

4-Oct

6-Oct

8-Oct

10-Oct

12-Oct

14-Oct

16-Oct

18-Oct

20-Oct

22-Oct

24-Oct

26-Oct

28-Oct

0

102030405060 

s

b
UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned 

Late

After 1 

year of 

FPCA

Standard

Military
Conclusion

• The existing VBM system has inherent ris

impact all UOCAVA voters, but in MaricoCounty we have isolated particular voter characteristics which are more vulnerabl

• Providing online access to information an

services aid in mitigating the impact of thrisks.

• We are undergoing enhancements to ou

system and data collection and have set expectations high for 2012 voter particip