Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2006-04-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised concerns about the extent to which members of the military, their dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were able to vote via absentee ballot. In September 2001, GAO made recommendations to address variances in the Department of Defense's (DOD) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). Along with the military services and the Department of State (DOS), FVAP is responsible for educating and assisting military personnel and overseas citizens in the absentee voting process. Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress raised concerns about efforts under FVAP to facilitate absentee voting. Because of broad Congressional interest, GAO initiated a review under the Comptroller General's authority to address three questions: (1) How did FVAP's assistance efforts differ between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? (2) What actions did DOD and DOS take in response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee voting? and (3) What challenges remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens? This review is one of several GAO reviews related to various aspects of the 2004 election. GAO provided DOD and DOS with a draft of this report for comment, and they both generally concurred with the report's contents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel and overseas citizens tools needed to vote by absentee ballot. With 13 full-time staff members and a fiscal year 2004 budget of about $6 million, FVAP distributed more voting materials and modified its Web site, which includes absentee voting information, and made it accessible to more military and overseas citizens worldwide. It also added an online voting assistance training program and an online version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. FVAP also conducted 164 voting training workshops for military servicemembers and overseas citizens, as compared to 62 workshops for the 2000 election. In its 2005 report on the effectiveness of its federal voting assistance program, on the basis of its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed higher 2004 voter participation rates to the effective implementation of its voter outreach program. However, because of low survey response rates, GAO has concerns about FVAP's ability to project changes in voter participation rates between the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD and DOS revise their voting guidance, improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers and overseas citizens. DOD and DOS took actions to implement these recommendations; however, absentee voting assistance continued to vary. Voting Assistance Officers (VAOs) provide voting assistance as a collateral duty. Because of competing demands on VAOs and differences in their understanding and interest in the voting process, some variance in absentee voting assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to continue their efforts to improve absentee voting assistance. Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, GAO identified three challenges that remain in providing absentee voting assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens. One challenge involves simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming, multistep absentee voting process, which has different requirements and time frames established by each state. In attempting to simplify and standardize the absentee voting process, FVAP continued working with the states through its Legislative Initiatives program to facilitate absentee voting for military servicemembers and overseas citizens. Another challenge involves efforts to implement an electronic registration and voting system given persistent issues regarding security and privacy. For the 2004 election, FVAP developed an electronic voting experiment that it planned to make available to the entire military, their dependents, and overseas citizens; however, the experiment was never implemented because of security concerns publicly raised by four of the ten members of a peer review group. A challenge for DOS is having the ability to reach all overseas citizens. Overseas citizens are not required to provide contact information to an embassy or consulate. If these citizens do not provide appropriate contact information, DOS cannot proactively reach these overseas voters.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)  The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)  established that members of the U.S. military, their dependents of voting  established that members of the U.S. military, their dependents of voting  age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a permanent residence  age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a permanent residence  in the United States are eligible to participate by absentee ballot in all  in the United States are eligible to participate by absentee ballot in all  federal elections. The act covers more than 6.5 million people, including  federal elections. The act covers more than 6.5 million people, including  approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not affiliated with the  approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not affiliated with the  government (about 2 million of which are of voting age), 1.4 million  government (about 2 million of which are of voting age), 1.4 million  military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of voting  military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of voting  age. Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary  age. Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary  of Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal  of Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal  functions under UOCAVA. In 2001, we reported that the Department of  functions under UOCAVA. In 2001, we reported that the Department of  Defense’s (DOD) and the Department of State’s (DOS) voting assistance to  Defense’s (DOD) and the Department of State’s (DOS) voting assistance to  military and overseas citizens should be improved. Specifically, the  military and overseas citizens should be improved.
GAO, Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be  Improved, GAO-01-1026 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001). military personnel and overseas citizens. This review is one of several  GAO reviews related to various aspects of elections (see app. II).
To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by  GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Election Assistance Commission, and private  nonprofit organizations that represent military and overseas citizens who  participate in the election process via absentee voting. To determine  differences in FVAP’s voting assistance efforts between the 2000 and 2004  presidential elections, we reviewed relevant FVAP and DOD regulations  and operating procedures related to absentee voting. We also met with a  commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and voting  assistance representatives from FVAP, the military services, and DOS’s  Chief Voting Officer to obtain their views on efforts taken for the 2004  election. We examined projects and special initiatives undertaken by these  organizations to address the absentee voting process. We also reviewed  FVAP’s 2005 report to Congress and the President and assessed its  methodology for conducting its survey of voter participation among  military and overseas citizens for the 2004 presidential election. To  identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in response to prior GAO  recommendations to reduce variance in program implementation, we  reviewed prior GAO reports related to absentee voting. We held  discussions with and reviewed documents from DOD and DOS  representatives concerning actions taken in response to these  recommendations. We also met with VAOs from each of the military  services to discuss their voting assistance efforts and to identify whether  there was consistency or variance in program implementation. To identify  challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel  and overseas citizens, we met with representatives of several  organizations representing members of the military and American citizens  living overseas. We also discussed challenges in providing voting  assistance with VAOs from five judgmentally selected installations. In  addition, we conducted 19 focus group discussions with 173 enlisted  servicemembers and officers from each military service to discuss their  views on challenges to absentee voting. Following each focus group  discussion, we administered a short survey to each participant that  solicited information related to individual absentee voting experiences and  challenges. Comments provided by the focus group members cannot be  projected across the entire military community because the participants  were not selected using a statistically valid sampling methodology. We  determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purpose  of our report. We conducted our review from March 2005 through April  2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is  contained in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised  concerns about the extent to which members of the military, their  dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were able to vote via absentee  ballot. The elections process within the United States is primarily the  responsibility of the individual states and their election jurisdictions.  States have considerable discretion in how they organize the elections  process and this is reflected in the diversity of processes and deadlines  that states have for voter registration and absentee voting, including  diversity in the processes and deadlines that apply to military and overseas  voters. Even when imposing requirements on the states in the Help  America Vote Act of 2002, such as statewide voter registration systems and  provisional voting, Congress left states discretion in how to implement  those requirements and did not require uniformity.
Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary of  Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal  functions under UOCAVA. UOCAVA requires the presidential designee to  (1) compile and distribute information on state absentee voting  procedures, (2) design absentee registration and voting materials, (3) work  with state and local election officials in carrying out the act, and (4) report  to Congress and the President after each presidential election on the  effectiveness of the program’s activities, including a statistical analysis on  UOCAVA voter participation. DOD Directive 1000.4, dated April 14, 2004, is  DOD’s implementing guidance for the federal voting assistance program,  and it assigned the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness (USD P&R) the responsibility for administering the program.  The FVAP office, under the direction of the USD P&R, manages the  program. For 2004, FVAP had a full-time staff of 13 and a fiscal year budget  of approximately $6 million. FVAP’s mission is to (1) inform and educate  U.S. citizens worldwide of their right to vote, (2) foster voting  participation, and (3) protect the integrity of, and enhance, the electoral  process at the federal, state, and local levels.
DOD Directive 1000.4 also sets forth DOD and service roles and  responsibilities in providing voting education and assistance. In  accordance with the directive, FVAP relies heavily upon the military  services and DOS for distribution of absentee voting materials to  individual UOCAVA citizens. According to the DOD directive, each military  service is to appoint a senior service voting representative, assisted by a  service voting action officer, to oversee the implementation of the  service’s voting assistance program. Also, the military services are to  designate trained VAOs at every level of command to carry out voting  education and assistance responsibilities to servicemembers and their  eligible dependents. One VAO on each military installation should be  assigned to coordinate voting efforts conducted by VAOs in subordinate  units and tenant commands. Where possible, installation VAOs should be  of the rank GS-12 civilian or higher, or pay grade O-4 officers or higher. In  accordance with the DOD directive, commanders designate persons to  serve as VAOs. Serving as a VAO is a collateral duty, to be performed along  with the servicemember’s other duties. Similarly, DOS, through its Bureau  of Consular Affairs, embassies and consulates, carries out its voter  assistance responsibilities by designating VAOs to provide assistance. The  Foreign Affairs Manual contains absentee voting guidance for embassy  and consulate VAOs, who also provide voting assistance as a collateral  duty.
FVAP updates the Voting Action Plan—its primary voting guidance to DOD  components and other agencies—every 2 years. The Voting Action Plan  provides detailed guidance on implementing the federal functions of  UOCAVA and DOD Directive 1000.4. It also tasks FVAP, DOD components,  and all other participating federal agencies with specific responsibilities  and provides a timeline for carrying out their roles. FVAP updated the plan  for 2004–05; however, it was never approved by the Secretary of Defense,  and it remained in draft form for the 2004 presidential election. FVAP and  the services referred to the draft Voting Action Plan in implementing their  voting assistance efforts for the 2004 election. To assist voters in the  absentee voting process, FVAP also updates its Voting Assistance Guide  every 2 years. The guide includes state-by-state instructions and timelines  for completing the various voting forms and it also lists addresses for local  election offices within each state.
section_title: FVAP Expanded Its 2004 Voting Assistance Efforts
paragraphs: For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those  taken in the 2000 election by providing military personnel and overseas  citizens with more tools and information needed to vote by absentee  ballot. First, FVAP distributed more voting materials, and improved its  Web site to enable greater access for participants. Second, FVAP increased  absentee voting training opportunities by providing more workshops and  an online training course for the 2004 election. Third, FVAP developed an  electronic version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, which is  accepted by all states and U.S. territories. In its 2005 report to the  Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its federal voting  assistance program, on the basis of its postelection surveys, FVAP  attributed higher 2004 voter participation rates to the effective  implementation of its voter outreach program. However, because of low  survey response rates, GAO has concerns about FVAP’s ability to project  changes in voter participation rates between the 2000 and 2004  presidential elections.
subsections: section_title: FVAP Distributed More Voting Materials and Improved Access to Its Web Site
paragraphs: For the 2000 election, we reported that voting materials, such as the  Federal Post Card Application (FPCA)—the registration and absentee  ballot request form for UOCAVA citizens—were not always available when  needed. We were told by representatives from DOD and DOS that they had  enough 2004 election materials for their potential absentee voters. Each  service reported meeting the DOD requirement of 100 percent in-hand  delivery of FPCAs to each servicemember by January 15. DOS also  targeted 100 percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to citizens employed with  the embassies and consulates. According to DOS, FVAP initially provided  DOS with the quantity of Voting Assistance Guides requested, however,  because of high voter interest, additional copies were needed and obtained  from the military services.
After the 2000 presidential election, FVAP took steps to make its Web site  more accessible to UOCAVA citizens worldwide by changing security  parameters surrounding the site. According to FVAP, prior to the 2004  election, its Web site was within the existing DOD “.mil” domain, which  includes built-in security firewalls. Some overseas Internet service  providers were consequently blocked from accessing this site because  hackers were attempting to get into the DOD system. As a result, FVAP  moved the site out of the DOD “.mil” domain to a less secure domain. In  September 2004, FVAP issued a news release announcing this change and  provided a list of Web site addresses that would allow access to the site.  Nonetheless, representatives of overseas citizens’ organizations continued  to report that some citizens were not able to access the site. FVAP  acknowledged that the site was not accessible at times prior to the 2004  election, but said that this problem was limited to relatively small  geographic areas and occurred because some networks employed  independent protection mechanisms that prevented communication with  FVAP’s system. Representatives from overseas citizens groups  acknowledged that obtaining access to FVAP’s Web site was sometimes  difficult, but this was caused by the Internet service provider and not by  FVAP. They stated that they were able to get to FVAP’s Web site through  other Web sites, such as Democrats and Republicans Abroad.
FVAP also added more election-related links to its Web site to assist  UOCAVA citizens in the voting process. The Web site (which FVAP  considers one of its primary vehicles for disseminating voting information  and materials) provides downloadable voting forms and links to all of  FVAP’s informational materials, such as the Voting Assistance Guide, Web  sites of federal elected officials, state election sites, and U.S. overseas  citizens’ organizations. It also contains contact information for FVAP and  the military departments’ voting assistance programs. The representatives  from overseas citizens’ organizations felt that FVAP’s Web site provided  useful and valuable information concerning absentee voting. Although  FVAP provided more resources to UOCAVA citizens concerning absentee  voting, it is ultimately the responsibility of the voter to be aware of and  understand these resources, and to take the actions needed to participate  in the absentee voting process.
section_title: FVAP Increased Absentee Voting Training Opportunities
paragraphs: For the 2004 election, FVAP increased the number of VAO training  workshops it conducted to 164. The workshops were conducted at U.S.  embassies and military installations around the world, including  installations where units were preparing to deploy. In contrast, only 62  training workshops were conducted for the 2000 election. FVAP conducts  workshops during years of federal elections to train military and civilian  VAOs in providing voting assistance. In March 2004, FVAP added an online  training course to its Web site as an alternative to its in-person voting  workshops. Military VAOs can take the military version and DOS civilian  VAOs can take the civilian version of the online course, and both are  available on CD-ROM. According to FVAP, completion of the workshop or  the online course meets a DOD requirement that VAOs receive training  every 2 years. Installation VAOs are responsible for monitoring completion  of training. The training gives VAOs instructions for completing voting  forms, discusses their responsibilities, and informs them about the  resources available to conduct a successful voting assistance program.
section_title: FVAP Designed an Electronic Absentee Ballot Form
paragraphs: On October 21, 2004, just a few weeks prior to the election, FVAP issued a  news release announcing an online version of the Federal Write-in  Absentee Ballot, an emergency ballot accepted by all states and territories.  UOCAVA citizens who do not receive their requested state absentee  ballots in time to meet state deadlines for receipt of voted ballots can use  the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. The national defense authorization  act for fiscal year 2005 amended the eligibility criteria for using the  Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. Prior to the change, a UOCAVA citizen  had to be outside of the United States, have applied for a regular absentee  ballot early enough to meet state election deadlines, and not have received  the requested absentee ballot from the state. Under the new criteria, the  Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot can also be used by military  servicemembers stationed in the United States, as well as overseas.  However, overseas civilian citizens cannot mail the Federal Write-in  Absentee Ballot from within the United States.
section_title: FVAP’s Report of Higher Voter Participation Should Be Interpreted with Caution
paragraphs: On the basis of its 2004 postelection surveys, FVAP reported higher voter  participation rates among UOCAVA citizens in its quadrennial report to the  Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its 2004 voting  assistance efforts. The report included a statistical analysis of voter  participation and discussed experiences of uniformed servicemembers,  federal civilians overseas, nonfederally employed overseas citizens, unit  and DOS VAOs, and local election officials during the election, as well as a  description of state-federal cooperation in carrying out the requirements  of UOCAVA. However, the low survey response rates raise concerns about  FVAP’s ability to project increased voter participation rates among all  categories of UOCAVA citizens.
We reported in 2001 that some absentee ballots became disqualified for  various reasons, including improperly completed ballot return envelopes,  failure to provide a signature, or lack of a valid residential address in the  local jurisdiction. We recommended that FVAP develop a methodology, in  conjunction with state and local election jurisdictions, to gather nationally  projectable data on disqualified military and overseas absentee ballots and  reasons for their disqualification. In anticipation of gathering nationally  projectable data, prior to the election, FVAP randomly selected  approximately 1,000 local election officials to receive an advance copy of  the postelection survey so they would know what information to collect  during the election to complete the survey. The survey solicited a variety  of information concerning the election process and absentee voting, such  as the number of ballots issued, received, and counted, as well as reasons  for ballot disqualification. In FVAP’s 2005 report, it cited the top two  reasons for disqualification as ballots were received too late or were  returned as undeliverable.
FVAP also developed a survey for federal civilians overseas, nonfederally  employed overseas citizens, military servicemembers, and VAOs for  military units and DOS, which it sent after the election to elicit voting  experiences with the absentee voting process. Table 1 displays FVAP’s  sample size and response rates for the various survey groups.
FVAP reported higher participation rates for all groups in the 2004  presidential election as compared with those reported for the 2000  election. FVAP attributed the higher voting participation rates to an  effective voter information and education program that included  command support and agency emphasis. State progress in simplifying  absentee voting procedures and increased interest in the election were  also cited as reasons for increased voting participation. However, low  survey response rates raise concerns about FVAP’s ability to project  participation rate changes among UOCAVA citizens. While, according to  FVAP, the 2004 postelection surveys were designed to provide national  estimates, most of the surveys experienced low response rates. Although  FVAP did not include the sample sizes and response rates in its report, five  of the six groups surveyed had response rates that ranged from 16 to 52  percent; the remaining and smallest group surveyed achieved an 87  percent response rate. FVAP did not perform any analysis comparing  those who responded to the surveys with those who did not respond. Such  an analysis would allow researchers to determine if those who responded  to the surveys are different in some way from those who did not respond.  If it is determined that there is a difference between those who responded  and those who did not, then the results cannot be generalized across the  entire population of potential survey participants. In addition, FVAP did no  analysis to account for sampling error. Sampling error occurs when a  survey is sent to a sample of a population rather than to the entire  population. While techniques exist to measure sampling error, FVAP did  not use these techniques in their report. The practical difficulties in  conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors as  well, commonly known as nonsampling errors. For example, errors can be  introduced if (1) respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular  question, (2) respondents have access to different information when  answering a question, or (3) those entering raw survey data make  keypunching errors.
FVAP also faced specific challenges in administering surveys to overseas  citizens who voted absentee. In surveying overseas citizens, only a select  number of embassies were chosen by DOS to administer the survey to  overseas citizens. Because of confidentiality restrictions, FVAP was unable  to obtain a list of federal civilians and nonfederally employed civilians  living overseas, and had to rely on the embassies to select the people who  received the surveys. Only citizens who had previously registered with the  embassy had a chance to participate in the survey. U.S. citizens who lived  overseas and were not registered with the embassy had no chance of being  selected. The absence of a listing of all civilians overseas certainly  contributes to the possibility of error associated with using a sample of the  population. The response rate for nonfederal civilians was the lowest  among all groups surveyed. As such, the views and voting experiences of  the survey participants may not reflect those of and are not generalizable  to all overseas citizens. As a result of known weaknesses in FVAP’s  reporting methodology, its estimates and conclusions should be  interpreted with caution.
section_title: DOD and DOS Implemented Prior Recommendations on Absentee Voting; However, Assistance Continued to Vary
paragraphs: In 2001, we reported that implementation of the federal voting assistance  program by DOD and DOS was uneven due to incomplete service  guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command support. Prior to  the 2004 presidential election, DOD and DOS implemented corrective  actions that addressed our recommendations. However, the level of  assistance continued to vary at the installations we visited and throughout  the overseas civilian community. Because the VAO role is a collateral duty  and VAOs’ understanding and interest in the voting process differ, some  variance in voting assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to  continue their efforts to improve absentee voting assistance.
subsections: section_title: The Services and DOS Revised Their Voting Guidance and Enhanced Program Oversight
paragraphs: In 2001, we reported that the services had not incorporated all of the key  requirements of DOD Directive 1000.4 into their own voting policies, and  that DOD exercised very little oversight of the military’s voting assistance  programs. The report also stated that the oversight of DOS’s voting  assistance program could be improved. These factors contributed to some  installations not providing effective voting assistance. We recommended  that the Secretary of Defense direct the services to revise their voting  guidance to be in compliance with DOD’s voting requirements, and  provide for more voting program oversight through inspector general  reviews and a lessons-learned program.
Subsequent to DOD’s revision of Directive 1000.4, the services revised  their guidance to reflect DOD’s voting requirements. In the 2002–03 Voting  Action Plan, FVAP implemented a best practices program to support the  development and sharing of best practices used among VAOs in operating  voting assistance programs. FVAP included guidance on its Web site and  in its Voting Assistance Guide on how VAOs could identify and submit a  best practice. Identified best practices for all the services are published on  the FVAP Web site and in the Voting Information News—FVAP’s monthly  newsletter to VAOs.
We also recommended that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant  Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to take a more active role in  overseeing the voting assistance program by establishing    processes for improving oversight and consistency across embassies and  consulates, including reminding posts more frequently to use the Foreign  Affairs Manual and related guidance for ordering supplies and to use the  military postal system and the diplomatic pouch, and  initiatives to improve outreach, including identifying best practices in a  forum accessible to embassies and consulates, such as the Consular  Affairs Web site.
In responding to these recommendations, DOS began maintaining a global  listing of all of its VAOs and voting assistants and provided instructions to  posts on administering their voting assistance programs. DOS revised  chapter 7, which covers voting assistance, in its Foreign Affairs Manual  and posted the manual, its 2004–05 Voting Action Plan, and other guidance  on its intranet Web site for access by all its embassies and consulates.  Although the revised version of this chapter was in draft form during the  2004 election and awaiting approval by the various DOS directorates, it  was put on the DOS Web site in early 2004 for use by the embassies and  consulates. The draft was approved in January 2006.
Representatives at the embassies and consulates also conducted  numerous outreach efforts through warden messages, embassy Web sites,  and town hall meetings. The department’s Chief Voting Officer maintained  contact with the various embassy VAOs and voting assistants throughout  the year, providing information on absentee voting procedures, voter  education and outreach campaigns, and various registration and voting  deadlines. The DOS Chief Voting Officer also received periodic updates on  the status of the embassies’ voting assistance efforts. While DOS did not  develop a formal lessons-learned program, the Chief Voting Officer said  that he solicited ideas and best practices from each of the embassies and  consulates. These practices were incorporated into instructions for the  2004 election that were distributed throughout the organization via its Web  site and e-mail traffic.
section_title: Top-level Command Emphasis Increased
paragraphs: For the 2004 election, emphasis on voting education and awareness  increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD and DOS. In  2001, we reported that lack of DOD command support contributed to the  mixed success of the services’ voting programs and recommended that the  Senior Service Voting Representatives monitor and periodically report to  FVAP on the level of installation command support. To ensure command  awareness and involvement in implementing the voting assistance  program, in late 2003 the USD P&R began holding monthly meetings with  FVAP and the Senior Service Voting Representatives and discussed the  status of service voting assistance programs. In 2001, we also reported that  some installations and units did not appoint VAOs as required by DOD  Directive 1000.4. In March 2004, the Secretary of Defense and Deputy  Secretary of Defense issued memorandums to the Secretaries of the  military departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and  Commanders of the Combatant Commands, directing them to support  voting at all levels of command. These memorandums were issued to  ensure that voting materials were made available to all units and that  VAOs were assigned and available to assist voters. Also, the Chairman of  the Joint Chiefs of Staff recorded a DOD-wide message regarding the  opportunity to vote and ways in which VAOs could provide assistance.  This message was used by FVAP in its training presentations and was  distributed to military installations worldwide. During our review, we  found that each service reported to DOD that it assigned VAOs at all levels  of command.
Voting representatives from each service utilized a variety of servicewide  communications to disseminate voting information and stressed the  importance of voting. For example, the Marine Corps produced a  videotaped interview stressing the importance of voting that was  distributed throughout the Marine Corps. The Army included absentee  voting information in a pop-up message that was included on every  soldier’s e-mail account. In each service, the Voting Action Officer sent  periodic messages to unit VAOs, reminding them of key voting dates and  areas to focus on as the election drew closer. Throughout the  organizational structure, these VAOs contacted servicemembers through  servicewide e-mail messages, which contained information on how to get  voting assistance and reminders of voting deadlines. According to service  voting representatives, some components put together media campaigns  that included reminders in base newspapers, billboards, and radio and  closed circuit television programs. They also displayed posters in areas  frequented by servicemembers (such as exchanges, fitness centers,  commissaries, and food court areas).
DOS’s top-level leadership also increased its emphasis on absentee voting  for the 2004 election. The department’s Senior Voting Representative  provided an article in the September 2003 issue of FVAP’s Voting  Information News, which was available on FVAP’s Web site. This article  reminded overseas voters of the upcoming presidential primary election  and the time frame for registering and requesting absentee ballots. It also  reminded all involved that starting early in the process was key to a  successful program. Identifying and training volunteers from the civilian  American community were also emphasized as ways to multiply the  effectiveness of the VAO. Also discussed was the availability of the  embassy community and its resources, meetings with local communities,  and using local media to get the word out on absentee voting. Throughout  the year, the Chief Voting Officer sent messages to the posts concerning  the absentee voting process and various deadlines. DOS also used its  embassies and consulates, various private organizations, and the local  media to disseminate FVAP voting materials and information. These  organizations conducted various outreach efforts, including holding town  hall meetings, sending messages from the VAO to overseas citizens  concerning absentee voting, and holding voter registration drives. As the  election deadline approached, the department intensified its efforts to  assist overseas citizens in voting absentee. For example, in early October  2004, a consular general placed hundreds of Federal Write-in Absentee  Ballots on a supply plane headed to Antarctica and sent an e-mail message  to overseas citizens there, urging them to drop off completed ballots or fill  out emergency ballots while the plane was on the ground in that country.  In late October 2004, one consulate sent an e-mail containing last-minute  voting information to all Americans in the district and attempted to  telephone those who could not be reached by e-mail.
DOS encouraged all of its VAOs and voting assistants to set a goal of 100  percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to the official American community by  approximately June 30, 2004. It defined this community as the U.S. citizens  employed at the embassies, consulates, or other U.S. missions in the  various countries for whom they had appropriate contact information. In  addition to this goal, the Chief Voting Officer also suggested that officers  transferring to a post should receive FPCAs as part of their post welcome  kit or shortly after their arrival at a post.
DOS also worked with courier services to obtain discounted or free  delivery of requests for ballots and voted ballots. While the arrangements  varied by country, generally the courier would allow overseas citizens,  with proper identification, to ship ballot materials to their local election  offices at reduced or no cost. The voter was required to go to a shipping  office of the courier and complete the shipping paperwork, and the  package would be mailed.
section_title: Voting Assistance Continued to Vary
paragraphs: The services and DOS revised their voting guidance, increased top-level  support, and improved program oversight. However, voting assistance to  servicemembers and overseas citizens continued to vary. Based on our  analysis of information from our focus groups, we determined that the  voting assistance that servicemembers received varied from unit to unit  for several reasons, including (1) the fact that the VAO role is a collateral  duty, (2) varying individual VAO understanding and interest in the voting  process, (3) differing levels of VAO training, and (4) the command’s  mobilization status. Also, in discussions with DOS’s Chief Voting Officer,  we were told that the level of DOS voting assistance varied according to  the level of development in the country, the security climate, and the  quality of the host country’s infrastructure. The variation in voting  assistance provided by DOD and DOS may have caused some potential  voters to be unaware of relevant voting tools. Given these factors, some  variance in absentee voting assistance may always exist; however, DOD  and DOS plan to continue efforts to improve the process.
VAOs play a crucial role in informing citizens of the availability and  usefulness of FVAP’s resources. Providing voting assistance is a collateral  duty; those appointed are faced with time constraints in providing voting  assistance to military servicemembers and overseas citizens, and are  expected to fulfill these duties in addition to their primary duties as  warfighters and mission support staff. Furthermore, military personnel  rotate to new assignments periodically, creating turnover in the voting  assistance program. VAOs at each installation we visited commented that  it was difficult to be effective because of the normal but competing  mission requirements they had to fulfill while simultaneously performing  their VAO responsibilities. For example, VAOs at two installations said  their workload increased because of additional tasks that included  responding to voting-related requirements from the head of the service,  answering surveys on whether servicemembers were being educated on  voting, and completing numerous reports on contacts with  servicemembers.
The level of understanding and interest shown by some VAOs toward their  duties may have also affected the voting assistance they provided. At one  installation we visited, VAOs said they were directed by their commanding  officer to serve as VAOs, while at two other installations we visited, some  VAOs said they had volunteered for the role. VAOs who volunteered  appeared to be more interested and took the initiative to learn more about  voting than some of the VAOs who were appointed. At one installation we  visited, disinterest in being a VAO was evident in VAOs who thought it was  the responsibility of the voter to get the necessary information to vote via  absentee ballot.
While the VAOs we spoke with were generally knowledgeable about  DOD’s voting requirements, we found that the extent to which they were  trained to provide voting assistance varied, as we reported in September  2001. At four of the installations we visited, none of the VAOs we met with  had attended an FVAP workshop and VAOs at one of these installations  said they had not received any training. A Voting Action Officer from one  service stated that travel to a workshop location was a problem because  there was no specific funding for VAO training. At one installation, VAOs  cited time constraints and high turnover as reasons for not being trained  to provide voting assistance. VAOs from another installation suggested  that voting training should be shortened to include only the key items  VAOs need to know to provide assistance, such as instructions for  completing the FPCA. At one other installation, many VAOs had attended  an FVAP workshop and others had taken the online training. A VAO  unable to attend a workshop is allowed by DOD Directive 1000.4 to take  the online training course to meet the requirement for VAO training. Our  review of FVAP’s online course showed that it provided an overview of  VAO roles and responsibilities, included a section on using the Federal  Write-in Absentee Ballot, and cited several other resources available for  absentee voting assistance, such as the Voting Assistance Guide, FVAP’s  Web site, and the Voting Information News—resources that we found to  be helpful in providing voting assistance. For example, the Voting  Assistance Guide has a chapter titled Instructions for Voting Assistance  Officers, which provides instructions on 23 areas related to absentee  voting.
The extent of training had an effect on the level of voting assistance  provided to potential voters in some locations. For example, we found one  installation VAO who was not aware of the online Federal Write-in  Absentee Ballot or the revised criteria for its use, and therefore was  unable to assist other VAOs and servicemembers in using the online form.  However, a VAO at another installation said he was aware of the ability to  use this ballot, and his unit used as many as 125 during the 2004  presidential election.
At one installation, some VAOs said the online training was more useful  than the workshop but at another installation some VAOs did not find the  online training very helpful, commenting that it was difficult to find on  FVAP’s Web site, was not user-friendly, or took too much time to  complete. At another installation, VAOs commented that training  workshops tailored to specific installations would be beneficial and would  cause more VAOs to attend. For example, this training could include  specific tasks related to new recruits at a training installation.  Additionally, VAOs commented that training is good only for a limited  time. By the time a presidential election occurs, much of the training they  received earlier in the year is forgotten.
The command’s mobilization status also affected the level of voting  assistance provided by VAOs. Specifically, one location we visited had  many ground units deployed or preparing to deploy during the 2004  election and absentee voting was not a priority. Officials stated that voting  was mentioned but was not a top priority when compared with other  deployment issues, such as preparing powers-of-attorney and wills and  concentrating on troop movements while in theater. Conversely, we were  told by ship-based servicemembers that they had no reason to be unaware  of absentee voting, given the enclosed boundaries of their ship, even while  deployed. During our review, a few servicemembers who were deployed  during the election told us that voting was mentioned at their deployed  location but there were other things going on that took priority.
According to the DOS Chief Voting Officer, the level of voter assistance for  overseas citizens also varied according to the level of development in the  country, the security climate, and the quality of the host country’s  infrastructure. For example, the reliability of the mail system, working  telephones, passable road networks, and even the existence of electric  power grids play important roles, and require VAOs to use different means  in different places to help citizens register and vote. Also, in industrial  locations within a country, e-mail and warden messages could be an  effective primary means of communication, whereas in rural locations  within the same country, the means of communication might be a person  on foot taking information to an American citizen. According to the  department’s Senior Voting Representative, most embassies, consulates,  and U.S. news organizations reported extraordinary increases in the  number of Americans abroad who registered and planned to vote in the  2004 general election. Contributing factors to this increase appear to be  greatly expanded voter education and outreach, the closeness of the vote  in the 2000 election, and reaction to world events over the past 4 years.
Despite the outreach effort of DOS for the 2004 election, representatives of  some overseas citizens’ groups we spoke with believed there was still a  lack of adequate DOS outreach to overseas citizens, especially in  comparison with the outreach they believe was provided to military  servicemembers. DOS reported that it received relatively few complaints  from Americans abroad and that most complaints were from infrequent or  first-time voters confused by the absentee voting process. Some voters  complained that they failed to receive a ballot from their local election  officials, and a few claimed they experienced difficulties when attempting  to contact embassies or consulates by phone. DOS reported that it acted  quickly to address each of these concerns.
section_title: Some Challenges Remain in Providing Absentee Voting Assistance
paragraphs: Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, we identified three challenges  that remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel and  overseas citizens, which are:    simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep absentee  voting process, which includes different requirements and time frames for  each state;    developing and implementing a secure electronic registration and voting  system; and    proactively reaching all overseas citizens.
subsections: section_title: Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting Process
paragraphs: The simplest and most truthful answer is that it all depends. Does the voter want to  participate in Presidential primary elections, state primary elections, run-off elections,  special elections and the November general election? To answer that question, you’ll need  to ask several questions. (1) What is the voter’s state of voting residence? (2) Is the voter  already or still registered to vote? (3) Does the voter’s state send out absentee ballots early  or late? and (4) Are remoteness or poor mail service considerations for the voter?
Answering these questions is also a challenge for voters, given that each  state has its own deadlines for receipt of FPCAs, and the deadline is  different depending on whether or not the voter is already registered. For  example, according to the Voting Assistance Guide, Montana requires a  voter that has not previously registered to submit an FPCA at least 30 days  prior to the election. A voter who is already registered must ensure that  the FPCA is received by the County Election Administrator by noon on the  day before the election. For Idaho voters, the FPCA must be postmarked  by the 25th day before the election, if they are not currently registered. If  they are registered, the County Clerk must receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m.  on the 6th day before the election. For Virginia uniformed services voters,  the FPCA must arrive not later than 5 days before the election, whether  already registered or not. However, overseas citizens that are not already  registered must submit an FPCA to the General Registrar not later than 29  days before the election. Those overseas voters who are already registered  must ensure that the FPCA arrives to the General Registrar not later than 5  days before the election. Using different deadlines for newly registered  and previously registered voters to return their absentee ballots may have  some administrative logic and basis. For example, verifying the eligibility  of a newly registered voter may take longer than that of previously  registered voters, and if there is some question about the registration  information provided, the early deadlines provide some time to contact the  voter and get it corrected.
DOD encourages potential voters to complete and mail the FPCA early, in  order to receive absentee ballots for all upcoming Federal elections during  the year. Military and international mail and the U.S. postal service are the  primary means for transmitting voting materials, according to  servicemembers with whom we spoke. A challenge for military service  members in completing the FPCA is to know where they will be located  when the ballots are mailed by the local election official. If the voter  changes locations after submitting the FPCA and does not notify the local  election official, the ballot will be sent to the address on the FPCA and not  the voter’s new location. This can be further complicated by a 2002  amendment to UOCAVA, which allowed military personnel and overseas  citizens to apply for absentee ballots for two federal elections. If  servicemembers request ballots for the next two federal elections, they  must project up to a 4-year period where they will be located when the  ballots are mailed. DOD recommended that military servicemembers and  overseas citizens complete an FPCA annually in order to maintain  registration and to receive ballots for upcoming elections.
After a valid FPCA has been received by the local election official, the next  step for the voter is to receive the absentee ballot. The determination of  when the state mails its ballots sometimes depends on when the state  holds its primary elections. FVAP has an initiative encouraging a 40–45-day  transit time for mailing and returning absentee ballots; however, 14 states  have yet to adopt this initiative. During our focus group discussions, some  servicemembers commented that they either did not receive their absentee  ballot or they received it so late that they did not believe they had  sufficient time to complete and return it in time to be counted.
After the voter completes the ballot, the voted ballot must be returned to  the local election official within time frames established by each state. As  we reported in 2004, deployed military servicemembers face numerous  problems with mail delivery, such as military postal personnel who were  inadequately trained and initially scarce because of late deployments, as  well as inadequate postal facilities, material-handling equipment, and  transportation assets to handle mail surge. In December 2004, DOD  reported that it had taken actions to arrange for transmission of absentee  ballot materials by Express Mail through the Military Postal Service  Agency and the U.S. Postal Service. However, during our focus group  discussions, servicemembers cited problems with the mail, such as it being  a low priority when a unit is moving from one location to another;  susceptibility of mail shipments to attack while in theater; and the absence  of daily mail service on some military ships. For example, some  servicemembers said that mail sat on the ships for as long as a week,  waiting for pick up. Others stated that in the desert, mail trucks are  sometimes destroyed during enemy attacks. The DOS Chief Voting Officer  characterized some overseas mail systems as not functioning. To  compensate for some of the mail delivery challenges, DOS negotiated with  international courier companies to establish reduced rates and expedited  service for voting materials from overseas citizens.
In attempting to simplify and standardize the absentee voting process,  FVAP continued working with the states, through its Legislative Initiatives  program, to facilitate the absentee voting process for military  servicemembers and overseas citizens. However, the majority of states  have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP’s 2001 report to  Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its efforts during the  2000 election. The Legislative Initiatives program is designed to make it  easier for military servicemembers and overseas citizens to vote by  absentee ballot. FVAP is limited in its ability to affect state voting  procedures because it lacks the authority to require states to take action  on absentee voting initiatives. In the 1980s, FVAP began its Legislative  Initiatives program with 11 initiatives, and as of December 2005 it had not  added any others. Two of the 11 initiatives—(1) accept one FPCA as an  absentee ballot request for all elections during the calendar year and   (2) removal of the not-earlier-than restrictions for registration and  absentee ballot requests—were made mandatory for all states by the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and the Help  America Vote Act of 2002, respectively. According to FVAP, this action  was the result of state election officials working with congressional  lawmakers to improve the absentee voting process.
Between FVAP’s 2001 and 2005 reports to Congress and the President, the  majority of the states had not agreed to any of the remaining nine  initiatives. Since FVAP’s 2001 report, 21 states agreed to one or more of  the nine legislative initiatives, totaling 28 agreements. Table 2 shows the  number of agreements with the initiatives since the 2001 report. According  to FVAP records, one state withdrew its support for the 40–45-day ballot  transit time initiative, and another state withdrew support for  enfranchising citizens who had never resided in the United States.  Initiatives with the most state support were (1) the removal of the notary  requirement on election materials and (2) allowing the use of electronic  transmission of election materials. We also found a disparity in the number  of initiatives that states have adopted. For example, Iowa is the only state  to have adopted all nine initiatives, while Vermont, American Samoa, and  Guam have adopted only one initiative each.
Despite some progress by FVAP in streamlining the absentee voting  process, absentee voting requirements and deadlines continue to vary  from state to state. While it is ultimately the responsibility of the voter to  understand and comply with these deadlines, varying state requirements  can cause confusion among voters and VAOs about deadlines and  procedures for registering and voting by absentee ballot. However, the  election process within the United States is primarily the responsibility of  the individual states and their election jurisdictions.
section_title: Developing a Secure Electronic Registration and Voting System
paragraphs: Developing and implementing an electronic registration and voting system,  which would likely improve the timely delivery of ballots and increase  voter participation, has proven to be a challenging task for FVAP. Eighty- seven percent of servicemembers who responded to our focus group  survey said they were likely to vote over the Internet if security was  guaranteed. However, FVAP has not been able to develop a system that  would protect the security and privacy of absentee ballots cast over the  Internet. For example, during the 2000 presidential election, FVAP  conducted a small proof of concept Internet voting project that enabled  only 84 voters to vote over the Internet. While the project demonstrated  that it was possible for a limited number of voters to cast ballots online,  FVAP’s project assessment concluded that security concerns needed to be  addressed before expanding remote (i.e., Internet) voting to a larger  population. In 2001, we also reported that remote Internet-based  registration and voting are unlikely to be implemented on a large scale in  the near future because of security risks with such a system.
The real barrier to success is not a lack of vision, skill, resources, or dedication, it is the  fact that, given the current Internet and PC security technology, and the goal of a secure,  all-electronic remote voting system, the FVAP has taken on an essentially impossible task.
According to FVAP, the full peer review group did not issue a final report.  Also, because DOD did not want to call into question the integrity of votes  that would have been cast via SERVE, they decided to shut it down prior  to its use by any absentee voters. FVAP could not provide details on what  it received for the approximately $26 million that it invested in SERVE.  FVAP officials stated that they received some services from the  contractor, but no hardware or other equipment.
In September 2004, DOD implemented the Interim Voting Assistance  System (IVAS), an electronic ballot delivery system, as an alternative to  the traditional mail process. Although IVAS was meant to streamline the  voting process, its strict eligibility requirements prevented it from being  utilized by many military or civilian voters. IVAS was open to active duty  military members, their dependents, and DOD overseas personnel who  were registered to vote. These citizens also had to be enrolled in the  Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), and had to  come from a state and county participating in the project. FVAP officials  said the system was limited to DOD members because their identities  could be verified more easily than those of nonmilitary overseas citizens.  Voters would obtain their ballots through IVAS by logging onto  www.MyBallot.mil and requesting a ballot from their participating local  election jurisdiction. One hundred and eight counties in eight states and  one territory agreed to participate in IVAS; however, only 17 citizens  downloaded their ballots from the site during the 2004 election.
Despite low usage of the electronic initiatives and existing security  concerns, we found that servicemembers and VAOs at the installations we  visited strongly supported some form of electronic transmission of voting  materials. During our focus group discussions, servicemembers stated that  election materials for the 2004 presidential election were most often sent  and received through the U.S. postal system. Servicemembers also  commented that the implementation of a secure electronic registration  and voting system could increase voter participation and possibly improve  confidence among voters that their votes were received and counted.  Additionally, servicemembers said that an electronic registration and  voting system would improve the absentee voting process by providing an  alternative to the mail process, particularly for those servicemembers  deployed on a ship or in remote locations. However, at one location, some  servicemembers were more comfortable with the paper ballot system and  said that an electronic voting system would not work because its security  could never be guaranteed.
section_title: DOS Cannot Reach All Overseas Citizens
paragraphs: Although DOS set a goal of 100 percent in-hand delivery of an FPCA to  overseas citizens employed with an embassy or consulate, it does not have  the ability to reach every overseas citizen. While DOS’s Web site is  available for overseas citizens to access, DOS does not have the ability to  proactively reach the estimated 2 million overseas United States citizens of  voting age. According to DOS, about 67 percent of overseas citizens live in  about 10 countries, and the remaining 1.2 million overseas citizens are  spread throughout the world. If these citizens do not contact the embassy  or consulate and provide DOS with appropriate contact information, DOS  cannot proactively reach them. DOS has assigned a VAO and voting  assistant at each of its approximately 240 embassies and consulates.  According to the DOS Chief Voting Officer, it is impossible to know where  all eligible overseas voters are located or to directly provide them  information on absentee voting. Also, he stated that some overseas  citizens could be located hundreds of miles from the embassy. Even for  those citizens within proximity to the embassy, the heightened security  environment could preclude easy embassy access to obtain voting  information. DOS emphasized that it cannot and should not force people  to vote, but it should get the forms and information to them as early as  possible.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally agreed with  our description of their voting assistance efforts. DOD expressed concerns  that our information from the focus group discussions may be presented in  a way that can be misinterpreted. In our report, we acknowledged that our  focus group responses could not be projected across the military  community because participants were not selected using a statistically  valid sampling methodology. DOD also stated that Congress instructed the  department to pursue an electronic absentee voting project upon the  release of guidelines for electronic voting from the Election Assistance  Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As  required by the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2005,  DOD may delay the implementation of another electronic voting project  until the new electronic absentee voting guidelines are issued by the  Election Assistance Commission. At the time of our review, the Executive  Director of the Commission informed us that the Commission was waiting  for the report from FVAP on its internet voting project prior to  establishing the guidelines. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their  entirety in appendix III. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOS  also generally agreed with our report and provided a few clarifying  comments which we incorporated into our final report as appropriate.  First, DOS wanted us to quantify the approximate voting age population of  overseas citizens at about 2 million. Next, DOS stated the challenge to  reaching overseas citizens relates to citizens having no obligation to  contact the embassies or consulates versus the geographic dispersion of  overseas citizens. If citizens do not contact the embassy or consulate and  provide DOS with appropriate contact information, DOS cannot  proactively reach them. DOS’s description of the challenge further  supports our statements that they cannot reach all overseas citizens.  Finally, DOS said that variance in voting assistance was not a result of the  size and location of the embassy but related to other issues such as (1) the  level of development of the country, (2) the security climate, and (3) the  quality of the host country’s infrastructure. They stated that the reliability  of the mail system, working telephones, passable road networks, and even  the existence of electric power grids play far more important roles, and  require the VAOs to use different means in different places to help citizens  register and vote. DOS’s written comments are printed in their entirety in  appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the  Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of  the Marine Corps; the Secretary of State; and other interested parties. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov or George F. Poindexter at (202) 512- 7213 or poindexterg@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our overall objectives, we reviewed relevant reports prepared  by GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Inspectors General of each service and DOD, the  Election Assistance Commission, and private nonprofit organizations that  represent military and overseas citizens who participate in the election  process via absentee voting. Specifically, to determine differences in  FVAP’s efforts between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, we  reviewed our 2001 report to obtain an assessment of FVAP’s efforts for the  2000 election and compared that assessment with actions taken by FVAP  for the 2004 election. We reviewed Section 1973ff. et seq. of Title 42,  United States Code, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act  to identify specific federal responsibilities for absentee voting and  compared these responsibilities with actions taken by the responsible  parties. We also reviewed relevant FVAP, DOD, and DOS regulations,  operating procedures, and reports to determine how UOCAVA  requirements had been incorporated. This included reviewing DOD  Directive 1000.4, Federal Voting Assistance Program; Air Force Instruction  36-3107, Voting Assistance Program; Army Regulation 608-20, Army Voting  Assistance Program; Operations Navy Instruction 1742.1A, Navy Voting  Assistance Program; Marine Corps Order 1742.1A, Voter Registration  Program; and DOS’s Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1500, Overseas Voting  Program; which list the specific responsibilities of each of the respective  organizations for implementing the provisions of UOCAVA. We discussed  these requirements with representatives from each organization to  determine actions they took in implementing them. We met with a  commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and Voting Action  Officers for each of the military services and the DOS’s Chief Voting  Officer to obtain their opinions on efforts taken for the 2004 election. We  also examined projects and special initiatives undertaken by these  organizations to address the absentee voting process. We also reviewed  FVAP’s Voting Assistance Guide and its Web site to document the type of  information provided to UOCAVA citizens for participating in the absentee  voting process. Also in determining FVAP’s efforts for the 2004 election,  we met with the Deputy Director of FVAP and discussed actions they took  to facilitate absentee voting for UOCAVA citizens. We also reviewed  FVAP’s 2005 report to Congress and the President and assessed its  methodology for conducting its survey of voter participation among  military and overseas citizens for the 2004 presidential election.
To identify actions taken in response to prior GAO recommendations to  reduce variance in program implementation, we reviewed prior GAO  reports on absentee voting. We held discussions with officials from DOD  and DOS to identify actions they took in responding to these  recommendations. We reviewed updated DOD and military service voting  assistance policies and guidance and determined whether requirements  included in DOD’s overarching guidance had been included in the services’  guidance. We reviewed DOS’s guidance to see whether it included  requirements for increased program oversight and outreach to overseas  citizens. In addition, we reviewed voting messages sent to  embassies/consulates from DOS’s Chief Voting Officer to identify actions  taken to assist absentee voters. We also held discussions with VAOs from  the military services to discuss their voting assistance efforts and to  identify variance in program implementation. We also visited the Marine  Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, to discuss actions  taken at the service level to provide absentee voting training to new  recruits. We held discussions with VAOs concerning whether and how  they provided absentee voting training during recruit training and we  reviewed the training syllabus to identify training related to absentee  voting.
To identify challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to  military personnel and overseas citizens, we met with leaders of  organizations representing members of the military and American citizens  living overseas to obtain their opinions on assistance efforts provided by  FVAP, DOD, and DOS for the 2004 presidential election. These  organizations included the National Defense Committee, the Federation of  American Women’s Clubs Overseas, the Association of Americans  Resident Overseas, and the Overseas Vote Foundation. We also reviewed  reports produced by these organizations to gain insights on absentee  voting assistance for the 2004 election and to identify remaining  challenges. To obtain servicemembers’ opinions on assistance received for  the 2004 election and to identify challenges to absentee voting, we  conducted 19 focus group discussions, which included 173 participants  consisting of enlisted servicemembers and officers from each service. In  an attempt to provide an open discussion environment for participants, the  groups were ranked according to grade; enlisted 1–4, enlisted 5–9, and  officers. In selecting the installations to conduct the focus group  discussions, we identified the top nine states that had the largest number  of military servicemembers. From this list, we judgmentally selected one  installation for each service, except for the Air Force in which we selected  two installations. One Air Force location was selected as our test site and  we used the results in our totals. Locations selected were Ft. Stewart,  Georgia; Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia;  Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  To select focus group participants, at each site we asked the installation  VAO to send out notices requesting volunteers to participate in our focus  group discussions. The basic criterion used in soliciting volunteers was  that they were eligible to participate in the 2004 election. Topics of  discussion for the focus groups included the command’s view on absentee  voting, each participant’s awareness and their opinion on the usefulness of  FVAP’s absentee voting resources, and challenges faced by  servicemembers in voting by absentee ballot. Following each focus group  discussion, we administered a short survey to each participant which  solicited information related to their absentee voting experiences and  challenges. Comments provided by the focus group members cannot be  projected across the entire military community because the participants  were not selected using a statistically valid sampling methodology.
We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the  purpose of our report. We conducted our review from March 2005 through  April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Related GAO Reports
paragraphs: Election Reform: Nine States’ Experiences Implementing Federal  Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists.  GAO-06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter  Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.  Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of  Electronic Voting Systems Are Underway, but Key Activities Need to be  Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections  Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478.  Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related  Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14,  2004.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents  Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, George F. Poindexter; Connie  W. Sawyer, Jr.; Margaret Holihan; Jennifer Thomas; Terry Richardson;  Amanda Miller; Cheryl Weissman; and Julia Matta made key contributions  to this report.