Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2006-09-28T00:00:00

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 and their dependents 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, FVAP is responsible for educating and assisting military personnel 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. This testimony, which draws on prior GAO work, addresses three questions: (1) How did FVAP's assistance efforts differ between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? (2) What actions did DOD take in response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee voting? and (3) What challenges remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those taken for the 2000 election to facilitate absentee voting by military personnel. FVAP distributed more absentee voting materials and improved the accessibility of its Web site, which includes voting information. Also, FVAP conducted 102 more voting training workshops than it did for the 2000 election, and it provided an online training course for Voting Assistance Officers (VAO). FVAP also designed an electronic version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot--an emergency ballot accepted by all states and territories--although its availability was not announced until a few weeks before the election. In assessing its efforts for the 2004 election, using data from its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed increased voter participation rates to an effective voter information and education program. However, in light of low survey response rates, FVAP's estimates and conclusions should be interpreted with caution. DOD has taken actions in response to GAO's prior recommendations regarding voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers. Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented corrective actions that addressed GAO's recommendations. Specifically, the services revised their voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the military's voting assistance program, and emphasis on voting education and awareness increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD. However, the level of assistance continued to vary at the installations GAO visited. 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 plans to continue its efforts to improve absentee voting assistance. Despite efforts of DOD and the states, GAO's April 2006 report identified two major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel: (1) simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multi-step absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and time frames for each state; and (2) developing and implementing a secure electronic registration and voting system. FVAP attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by using its Legislative Initiatives program to encourage states to simplify the multi-step process and standardize their absentee voting requirements. However, the majority of states have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP's 2001 report on the 2000 election. 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. For the 2004 election, FVAP developed an electronic registration and voting experiment. However, it was not used by any voters due to concerns about the security of the system. Because DOD did not want to call into question the integrity of votes that would have been cast via the system, they decided to shut the experiment down prior to its use by any absentee voters. Some technologies--such as faxing, e-mail and the Internet--have been used to improve communication between local jurisdictions and voters.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on military  voting and the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP).  As you know,  the 2000 presidential election brought to light concerns about a number of  issues, including absentee voting by members of the military and civilians  living overseas.  The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting  Act (UOCAVA) established that members of the U.S. military, their  dependents of voting age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a  permanent residence 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 approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not  affiliated with the government (about 2 million of whom are of voting age),  1.4 million military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of  voting age.
As requested, my testimony today will focus on absentee voting for  military servicemembers.  I will address (1) how FVAP’s efforts to  facilitate absentee voting by military personnel differed between the 2000  and 2004 presidential elections, (2) actions taken by the Department of  Defense (DOD) in response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee  voting, and (3) remaining challenges related to military absentee voting.   Mr. Chairman, we should also note that we have just begun work to assess  FVAP’s long term plans to implement and expand electronic voting.  Upon  completion of this work early next year, we will report the results to  Congress.
In preparing for this testimony, we drew extensively from our published  work on the election process and absentee voting for military  servicemembers.We also identified recent changes to DOD voting  guidance that discusses the electronic transmission of voting materials.   All the work on which this testimony is based was performed in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The U.S. election system is highly decentralized and based upon a complex  interaction of people (election officials and voters), processes, and  technology.  Voters, local election jurisdictions, states, and the federal  government all play important roles in ensuring that ballots are  successfully cast in an election.  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 voters. Each state has its own election system with a  somewhat distinct approach.  Within each of these 55 systems, the  guidelines and procedures established for local election jurisdictions can  be very general or specific.  Even when imposing requirements, such as  statewide voter registration systems and provisional voting on the states in  the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 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 designated the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness (USD P&R) as responsible for administering and overseeing 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 for distribution of absentee voting materials to military  servicemembers. 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. The directive also states that the military services are  to designate trained VAOs at every level of command to provide voting  education and assistance 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 civilian  rank GS-12 or higher, or officer pay grade O-4 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.
section_title: Differences in FVAP’s Efforts Between the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections
paragraphs: For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those  taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel tools needed to  vote by absentee ballot. FVAP distributed more absentee voting materials  and improved the accessibility of its Web site, which includes voting  information. Also, FVAP conducted 102 more voting training workshops  for its VAOs than it did for the 2000 election.  FVAP also provided an  online training course for them. FVAP also designed an electronic version  of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot—an emergency ballot accepted by  all states and territories—although its availability was not announced until  a few weeks before the election. In assessing its efforts for the 2004  election, using data from its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed  increased voter participation rates to an effective voter information and  education program. However, in light of low survey response rates, FVAP’s  estimates and conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
subsections: section_title: FVAP Distributed More Voting Materials and Improved Access to Its Web Site
paragraphs: In preparing for the 2004 election, FVAP distributed more absentee voting  materials and improved the accessibility of its Web site. 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. DOD officials  stated 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.
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.
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, and state election sites. It also contains  contact information for FVAP and the military departments’ voting  assistance programs. 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 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 VAOs in providing voting assistance. As an  alternative to its in-person voting workshops, in March 2004 FVAP added  an online training course to its Web site. This course was also 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 electronic 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.
section_title: FVAP’s Report of Higher Voter Participation Should Be Interpreted with Caution
paragraphs: On the basis of its 2004 postelection survey, FVAP reported higher voter  participation rates among uniformed service members in its quadrennial  report to 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  during the election, as well as a description of state and federal  cooperation in carrying out the requirements of UOCAVA. However, the  low survey response rate raises concerns about FVAP’s ability to project  increased voter participation rates among military servicemembers.
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 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 reported higher participation rates for military servicemembers in  the 2004 presidential election as compared with the rate reported for the  2000 election. FVAP attributed the higher voting participation rate 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, a low  survey response rate raises concerns about FVAP’s ability to project  participation rate changes among uniformed servicemembers.  According  to FVAP, while the 2004 postelection survey was designed to provide  national estimates, the survey experienced a low response rate, 27  percent. FVAP did not perform any analysis comparing those who  responded to the survey with those who did not respond. Such an analysis  would allow researchers to determine if those who responded to the  survey 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.
section_title: Actions Taken in Response to Prior Recommendations
paragraphs: DOD has taken actions in response to our prior recommendations  regarding voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, we recommended  that DOD revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and  increase command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to  military servicemembers. In 2001, we reported that implementation of the  federal voting assistance program by DOD was uneven due to incomplete  service guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command support.  Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented corrective  actions, such as revising voting guidance and increasing emphasis on  voting education at top command levels to address our recommendations.  However, the level of assistance continued to vary at the installations we  visited. 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 plans to continue its efforts to improve  absentee voting assistance.
subsections: section_title: The Services Revised Their Voting Guidance and Enhanced Program Oversight
paragraphs: In response to our recommendations in 2001, the services revised their  voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the military’s voting assistance  program. 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. 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.
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. 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 memoranda were issued to ensure  that voting materials were made available to all units and that VAOs were  assigned and available to assist voters. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of  Staff also 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 used 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).
section_title: Remaining Challenges Related to Absentee Military Voting
paragraphs: Despite the efforts of DOD and the states, our April 2006 report identified  two major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military  personnel, which are: simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep  absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and  time frames for each state; and developing and implementing a secure electronic registration and  voting system.
subsections: section_title: Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting Process
paragraphs: FVAP attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by  encouraging states through its Legislative Initiatives program, to simplify  the multi-step process and standardize their absentee voting requirements.  Many military personnel we spoke to after the 2000 and 2004 general  elections expressed concerns about the varied state and local  requirements for absentee voting and the short time frame provided by  many states and local jurisdictions for sending and returning ballots.   FVAP’s Legislative Initiatives program encouraged states to adopt changes  to improve the absentee voting process for military personnel.  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. 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 1 shows the  number of agreements with the initiatives since the 2001 report. According  to FVAP records, one state withdrew its support for the 40 to 45-day ballot  transit time initiative. 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.
The absentee voting process requires the potential voter to take the  following five steps: (1) register to vote, (2) request an absentee ballot,  (3) receive the ballot from the local election office, (4) correctly complete  the ballot, and (5) return it (generally through the mail) in time to be  counted for the election.  (See fig. 1.)  There are several ways for military  servicemembers to accomplish these steps.  Military voters must plan  ahead, particularly when deployed during elections. Moreover, military  voters require more time to transmit voting materials because of distance.
Military servicemembers are encouraged to use the Federal Post Card  Application (FPCA) to register to vote and to request an absentee ballot.   Servicemembers can obtain the FPCA from several sources, including the  unit VAO, from the Internet via FVAP’s Web site, or from their local  election office.  DOD Directive 1000.4, Federal Voting Assistance Program,  requires the in-hand delivery of a FPCA to eligible voters and their voting  age dependents by January 15th of each year.  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 mail  and the U.S. postal service are the primary means for transmitting voting  materials, according to servicemembers with whom we spoke.
Knowing when to complete the first step of the election process can be  challenging since 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 required a voter that had not previously registered to submit an  FPCA at least 30 days prior to the election. A voter who was already  registered had to ensure that the FPCA was received by the County  Election Administrator by noon on the day before the election. For Idaho  voters, the FPCA had to be postmarked by the 25th day before the  election, if they were not registered. If they were registered, the County  Clerk had to receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. on the 6th day before the  election. For Virginia uniformed services voters, the FPCA had to arrive  not later than 5 days before the election, whether already registered or  not. Using different deadlines for newly registered and previously  registered voters to return their absentee ballots may have some  administrative logic and basis. For example, the process of verifying the  eligibility of a newly registered voter might take longer than the process  for previously registered voters, and if there was some question about the  registration information provided, the early deadlines provide some time  to contact the voter and get it corrected.
For the November 2004 general election, according to our site survey, nine  states reported having absentee ballot deadlines for voters outside the  United States that were more lenient than the ballot deadlines for voters  inside the United States. Table 2 lists these nine states and the difference  between the mail-in ballot deadline from inside the United States and the  mail-in absentee ballot deadline from outside the United States.
Another 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 to apply for absentee ballots for the next 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 complete an FPCA annually in order to maintain  registration and 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.  Prior to mailing the  ballot, the local election jurisdiction must process the FPCA.  Based on  one of our recent reports, local election jurisdictions reported  encountering problems in processing FPCAs. For example, 39 percent of  the jurisdictions received the FPCA too late to process—a problem also  encountered with other state-provided absentee ballot applications.  An  estimated 19 percent of local jurisdictions encountered the problem of  receiving the FPCA too late to process more frequently than the other  problems.  Other reported problems with FPCAs included (1) missing or  inadequate voting residence address, (2) applied to wrong jurisdiction, (3)  missing or inadequate voting mailing address, (4) missing or illegible  signature, (5) application not witnessed, attested, or notarized, and (6)  excuse for absence did not meet state law requirements.
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 to 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.
Voters must also cope with registration requirements that vary when local  jurisdictions interpret state requirements differently.  We found variation  in the counties we visited in several states as to how they implemented  state laws and regulations, with some holding strictly to the letter of the  law and others applying more flexibility in accepting registration  applications and ballots.  For example: In Florida, officials in three counties told us they allow registration of  applicants who have never lived in the county, while the fourth county  said they require a specific address where the applicant actually lived.
In New Jersey, officials in three counties said they accepted any ballot  that showed a signature anywhere on the envelope while the fourth  county disqualified any ballot that did not strictly meet all technical  requirements.
Some local election officials in the states we visited took actions to help  absentee voters comply with state and local voting requirements by  tracking down missing information on the registration form or ballot  envelope and ensuring that applications and ballots went to the right  jurisdiction.  However, local officials told us they must balance voting  convenience with ensuring the integrity of the voting process.  This  balance often requires the exercise of judgment on the part of local  election officials.
section_title: Developing and Implementing a Secure Electronic Registration and Voting System
paragraphs: Developing and implementing a secure 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 developed 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 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.
For the 2004 election, FVAP developed a secure registration and voting  experiment. However, it was not used by any voters. The National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed DOD to conduct an  electronic voting experiment and gather data to make recommendations  regarding the continued use of Internet registration and voting. In  response to this requirement, FVAP developed the Secure Electronic  Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE), an Internet-based  registration and voting system for UOCAVA citizens. The experiment was  to be used for the 2004 election by UOCAVA citizens from seven  participating states, with the eventual goal of supporting the entire  military population, their dependents, and overseas citizens.
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, after the minority group issued its report, 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.
Communications technologies, such as faxing, e-mail, and the Internet, can  improve communication between local jurisdictions and voters during  some portions of the election process.  For example, FVAP’s Electronic  Transmission Service (ETS) has been in existence since the 1990s, and is  used by UOCAVA citizens and state and local officials to fax election  materials when conditions do not allow for timely delivery of materials  through the mail.  For the November 2004 general election, FVAP’s Voting  Assistance Guide showed that the states allowed some form of electronic  transmission of the FPCA, blank absentee ballot and the voted ballot.   However, it is important to note that of the 10,500 local government  jurisdictions responsible for conducting elections nationwide, particular  local jurisdictions might not offer all of the options allowed by state  absentee ballot provisions.  As shown in Table 3, for the November 2004  presidential election, 44 states allowed the FPCA to be faxed to the local  election jurisdiction for registration and ballot request.  In each of these  states, the completed FPCA also had to be mailed to the local election  jurisdiction.  In one state, the completed FPCA had to be mailed or  postmarked the same day that the FPCA was faxed.  A smaller number of  states allowed the blank absentee ballot to be faxed to the voter and an  even smaller number of states allowed the voted ballot to be sent back to  the local election jurisdiction.  According to FVAP’s records, in calendar  year 2004 ETS processed 46,614 faxes, including 38,194 FPCAs, 1,844  blank ballots to citizens, and 879 voted ballots to local election officials.   Total costs to operate ETS in 2004 were about $452,000.  According to  FVAP’s revised Voting Assistance Guide for 2006-2007, only one  additional state allowed the faxing of the FPCA for registration and ballot  request.  Table 3 also shows options allowed by each state and territory for  electronic transmission of election materials for the November 2006  election.  Two additional states also allowed the faxing of the blank ballot.
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 voters. IVAS was open to active duty  servicemembers, 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, 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.  According  to FVAP, many states did not participate in IVAS for a variety of reasons  including state legislative restrictions, workload surrounding regular  election responsibilities and additional Help America Vote Act  requirements, lack of technical capability, election procedural  requirements and barriers, and unavailability of Internet access.
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: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The federal government, states, and local election jurisdictions have a  shared responsibility to help increase military voters’ awareness of  absentee voting procedures and make the process easier while protecting  its integrity.  The election process within the United States is primarily the  responsibility of the individual states and their election jurisdictions.   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. The ability to  transmit and receive voting materials electronically provides military  servicemembers another option to submit a ballot in time to participate in  an election.  Although state law may allow electronic transmission of  voting materials, including voted ballots, the 10,500 local election  jurisdictions must be willing and equipped to accommodate this  technology.  The integration of people, processes and technology are very  important to the United States’ election system.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I would be pleased to answer  any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have at  this time.
section_title: Appendix I: Related GAO Reports
paragraphs: Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,  2006  Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens  Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain.  GAO-06- 521.  Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
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.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should  Be Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election  Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.