[Senate Hearing 109-883]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-883
MILITARY VOTING AND THE FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-169 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
Charles S. Abell, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Military Voting and the Federal Voting Assistance Program
march 8, 2006
Page
Chu, Dr. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense............................... 5
Markowitz, Deborah L., President, National Association of
Secretaries of State, Vermont.................................. 20
DeGregorio, Paul, Chairman, United States Election Assistance
Commission, Washington, DC..................................... 36
Stewart, Derek B., Director, Military and Department of Defense
Civilian Personnel Issues, Government Accountability Office.... 43
(iii)
MILITARY VOTING AND THE FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m. in room
SR-228, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Talent, Thune,
and Dayton.
Other Senator present: Senator Burns.
Majority staff member present: Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, minority
counsel; and Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: David G. Collins, Jessica L.
Kingston, and Jill L. Simodejka.
Committee members' assistants present: Jeremy Shull,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; Stuart C. Mallory, assistant to
Senator Thune; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; and Luke Ballman, assistant to Senator Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. My apologies for tardiness. This is my
28th year to serve my Commonwealth of Virginia and be a
Senator. I've come to observe one thing. Often we try to do
everything at the same time, and this is one of those days.
Presumably the Senators want to recess, so there are an awful
lot of things going on at this time.
Senator Burns, won't you join me?
Senator Burns. Where do you want me?
Chairman Warner. Sit right here.
Senator Burns. What if Senator McCain shows up?
Chairman Warner. I'll handle that.
Senator Burns. He was a ranking officer, I was just
enlisted.
Chairman Warner. I understand that. But I welcome you.
That's the first line I have in this opening statement.
I visited the Malmstrom Air Force Base last month and had
the pleasure of spending some time in that part of the country.
Montana is a State that has embraced technological advances and
sought to put the internet and e-mail to work to make it easier
for absentee voters and military personnel, in particular, to
vote in State and Federal elections.
Senator Burns, thank you for attending today. We assured
you that our committee wanted to receive the benefit of your
views on this situation, and to bring forth from the Department
of Defense (DOD) the witnesses that are most appropriately able
to address it.
I welcome our four witnesses this morning. First, Dr. Chu,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Dr.
Chu has responsibility for the Federal Voting Assistance
Program (FVAP) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We
look forward to your testimony about the Department's efforts
to assist military overseas voters. After all, a vote is that
support that keeps our Republic and freedom where it is today,
and hopefully for generations to come. We want to afford our
men and women in the Armed Forces every opportunity to exercise
freely their desire to vote, no matter where they are in the
world. No matter what they are doing. They--if they so desire--
should be given that opportunity, and we should do everything
we can to facilitate it.
Paul DeGregorio is the Chairman of the Election Assistance
Commission, which was established by the Help America Vote Act
in 2002. The Commission serves as a national clearinghouse and
resource for information and review of procedures with respect
to the administration of Federal elections. He is an expert on
election administration, democracy building, and international
elections. We thank you for joining us today.
Deborah Markowitz is serving as the 37th Secretary of State
of Vermont, and is the officer chiefly responsible for
Vermont's elections. As the President of the National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), she helps to ensure
the exchange of information among the various Secretaries of
State regarding their administration and voting.
Derek Stewart is the Director of Military and DOD Civilian
Personnel Issues within the Government Accountability Office
(GAO). The GAO has performed several studies on military
voting, and we look forward to your testimony about their
findings and recommendations.
The FVAP affects the Department's commitment to ensure that
military personnel and their families--particularly those who
are deployed and stationed overseas--are provided with the
information and assistance they need to participate in State
and Federal elections. The Secretary of Defense is responsible
for administrating the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act, and an important part of that responsibility is
ensuring that U.S. civilians living and working overseas are
also, I repeat also, given the tools needed to ensure they can
submit absentee ballots on time and in conformance with all
requirements of the 55 jurisdictions they call home.
I will put the balance of my statement in the record, I
must inform the witnesses that I'm managing the Detainee Bill
on the floor and we resume that bill--we went into the night
last night until 10 o'clock--I'll ask you to chair this
hearing, but we first call on our distinguished acting ranking
member, Mr. Dayton, Senator from Minnesota. I hope to rejoin
you at some point in this hearing. I thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. I have another hearing and I have a meeting.
Chairman Warner. All right, we'll have somebody by that
time. Can you spend 15 minutes?
Senator Burns. You bet. You got it.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Please, Mr. Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine I'd even get to be
acting ranking member for a day before I depart in 3 months,
but it's a great honor to sit next to you, sir. I'd be the
first to say, I'm no Senator Levin, who is also on the floor.
Before you leave, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that, as I
said last night, you and Senator Levin are two of the finest
men I've ever met anywhere and had the privilege to serve with,
so I want the public record to show that.
I join with the chairman today in welcoming our witnesses.
Military absentee voting is especially important in today's
war-time environment. Thanks to the chairman's leadership and
that of our ranking member, Senator Levin, this is not the
first time this committee has examined this issue. It continues
to be a work in progress.
Voting is one of the most essential rights we have as
American citizens. As we have asked our servicemembers to
heroically shoulder so much of the burden and sacrifice in
defending this Nation's values, it is critically important that
we ensure their continued ability to vote.
Secretary Chu, Ms. Markowitz, Mr. DeGregorio, and Mr.
Stewart, welcome. We look forward to hearing from you to better
understand the progress which has been made, and the problems
which still remain to ensure all servicemembers and their
dependents are able to exercise their right, and have their
opportunities, to vote.
Several times since the 2000 election, the GAO and the DOD
have highlighted the challenges that remain in ensuring every
servicemember and dependent's ability to vote. While Congress
does have some authority pertaining to Federal elections, most
voting activities fall under State regulations and laws.
Traditionally, voting by servicemembers is properly a personal
choice, not a military order. That makes measuring the DOD's
success an inexact science.
Moreover, voting difficulties increase for our troops who
are deployed away from their home stations. Similarly, the
military postal system faces additional challenges in war
zones.
Nevertheless we can, and we must, try to do better. We must
make every possible effort to ensure that every servicemember
and dependent is provided the opportunity to vote, unburdened
by unnecessary administrative barriers, and in a timely manner
so that their votes will be counted and will count.
We must continue to make progress in using technology to
simplify and expedite the voting process for them. Again, Mr.
Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
their thoughts on where this process stands, the improvements
that have been made, and how we can still make it better.
I welcome our witnesses and I look forward to your
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns [presiding]. Thank you. I don't see how he
can say that, I'm not even a member of the committee, and here
they put me in as chairman of this hearing. That's sort of
funny, but thank you, Senator Dayton. I certainly appreciate
that very much.
Senator Dayton. You certainly progressed up the ladder
faster than I.
Senator Burns. I know. It makes me feel kind of funny. It
would seem to me that what we're going to be talking about
today is that we can get bills owed by our military personnel
to them, but we can't get a ballot to them. Now something is
wrong, and our priorities are in the wrong place. I'd like to
thank Chairman Warner and all the members of this committee for
recognizing the importance of this issue, military
disenfranchisement, and holding this hearing today. I'd like to
thank the witnesses and the National Defense Committee and Bob
Carey for his testimony, which I understand will be submitted.
I also want to extend a special thanks to members of the
Business Transformation Agency who are in attendance today.
They did a marvelous job in executing the Interim Voting
Assistance System (IVAS) electronic ballot system in about 2
weeks. Those folks will be available to demonstrate their
program after this hearing if anybody is interested.
I could go on about the details of the problems facing our
men and women in the armed services who are disenfranchised by
the inefficiency of a bureaucracy that is still operating the
same way that it operated during the Korean War. About $25
million spent on the aborted 2004 Secure Electronic
Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) program and on, and
on, and on it goes.
Everyone that follows this issue, and certainly anyone who
has served this country, already knows that. Instead I'd like
for you to hear the words of Brenda Olmith. She lives in
Billings, Montana, where I live, and she is a mother of a
Marine corporal who is serving in Iraq. Brenda called my office
yesterday because she was so frustrated. She said, ``My son is
serving his country, and he can't vote. His ballot came too
late for him to vote in the primary and now his ballot has
arrived at my home and a local official will not take my word
that his address is overseas.''
Now nobody could say it better than she did. She said he
deserves, and everybody deserves, a right to vote no matter
where you are. I would say right now I am doubtful that there
will be enough time to get this young corporal his ballot
because he is deployed in Iraq.
I have often said I felt sorry for people who never served
in the military, because they somehow feel disenfranchised from
this country because they don't think they own a part of it.
This is practically true when you're not allowed to vote. You
move further out into that abyss.
In 2000, I remember seeing military ballots that were
disqualified in Florida. I can remember it. There were sacks of
them. I spoke with servicemembers who have been disenfranchised
and they either received their ballots too late or they did not
return them on time or they never received them at all.
Now this corporal, this Marine corporal, is not an
absentee. He and all others of the military are not on
vacation. They are serving their country and they have been
deployed overseas. It's not that they won't be home in
November. They can't be home in November. They have orders to
serve. We owe them their right to vote and making sure that
they can vote. $3 trillion are transmitted every day on the
internet, but time and time again the bureaucrats of DOD
Personnel and Readiness have told us that getting a blank
ballot to our troops electronically is just too difficult. Give
me a break. I don't believe that, they are wrong. We have
proven them wrong. The technology does exist to deliver ballots
to our soldiers electronically without the risk of identity
theft or tampering for both the soldier and the local election
official (LEO). It only requires a Web browser and about as
much effort as ordering a book on Amazon.com.
Despite naysayers and the bureaucrats, and thanks to a
concerted bipartisan effort, this IVAS technology is up and
operational today. It was authorized by the fiscal year 2007
Supplemental Appropriations Act and by this committee and has
been funded. It was contracted and executed in less than a
month as a commercial off-the-shelf solution by the Business
Transformation Agency and a company called PostX, who developed
it at risk. Unfortunately, that's not the end of the story.
It's not the end of the story, because the bureaucrats have yet
to listen.
It was not enough when I and a bipartisan group of 16 other
Senators asked the DOD to execute this program. It was not
enough when Congress passed the law and funded the program, and
it was not enough when the committee added specific authorizing
language that directed the DOD to execute this program.
I've had enough, and I think some of our folks that serve
in the military Services have had enough. I believe this
committee has had enough. This bureaucracy will change and we
will do the right thing by our soldiers. If it does not change
then we will change the bureaucrats.
Some people have said to me this is just a small issue. It
is not a small issue. It is the basis of our society. Ensuring
our troops are not denied the vote just because they are
deployed and making sure they get to cast their vote is no
trivial matter. However this issue does have a simple solution,
it's laying in front of us, but we're going to have to fight
for it and we're going to have to hold some peoples' feet to
the fire to make sure that they get it done or they get it.
Maybe they have to get it first.
I want to thank Chairman Warner for this hearing. I look
forward to the testimony and the answers. I have some questions
and I'm sorry, I have to leave. I chair the Aviation
Subcommittee on Commerce and we're talking about Federal
Aviation Administration and reauthorization of that Department.
It's a very important hearing and I won't get to stay for all
of this, but I look forward to your testimony.
Secretary Chu.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Chu. Thank you Senator Burns, Senator Dayton, it's a
privilege to appear before this committee again. I do have a
statement which I'd like to submit for the record, if I may.
As I think members of this committee and this audience
certainly know, DOD is responsible under President Reagan's
Executive Order for carrying out the provisions, as far as the
Federal Government is concerned, of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as it is sometimes
pronounced.
As Senator Burns story of his constituent illustrates,
voting in the United States is ultimately a local
responsibility. Usually at the county level and sometimes at
the township level--they set the rules. Of course it's the
voter's privilege to exercise that franchise. We work with the
55 jurisdictions, 50 States, and 5 additional jurisdictions, at
that level as well as the more than 7,000 LEO elements across
the United States.
As that broad responsibility implies, one of our most
important tasks is education. Education beginning with the
training of our voting assistance officers. Every major unit,
every major installation, has an officer who is responsible for
ensuring that franchise on the part military voters can be
successfully exercised and dealing with, as your comments
indicated, Senator Burns, the myriad rules that pertain at the
local level, that govern how people may request and get an
absentee ballot, and what is necessary to convince the LEO that
the servicemember's address is now in Iraq, and not Missoula.
We also take responsibility for educating our military
personnel themselves on the opportunity to vote. In the Labor
Day week, we emphasized the importance of registering, as well
as the importance of requesting a ballot so it can arrive in a
timely manner. In the Columbus Day week, we emphasized the
importance of sending back the ballot to ensure that it does
get counted, and we have used an e-mail blast to all our
military servicemembers on active duty to ensure they
understand the opportunity in front of them.
Likewise, it's our privilege to work with State and local
officials like Ms. Markowitz on this panel as we deal in
partnership with them with the complexities of American voting
practices. Of course as part of our educational effort we
maintain the Web site, FVAP.gov, in which you can find the
rules governing all 55 of the major jurisdictions as far as
voting is concerned in the United States.
At this season of the year, as Senator Burns' story
indicates, the emphasis is on ballot transmission and the Post
Office remains a key partner of DOD. The bulk of ballots still
move by mail. The Post Office, beginning in the 2004 election
cycle, committed to using Express Mail in the weeks and days
leading up to the election. I am pleased to say that beginning
18 September, all ballot materials from LEOs are supposed to
move from those offices to APO and FPO--that's the Army Post
Office and Fleet Post Office addresses--by Express Mail, and
beginning 1 October, the Post Office will likewise use
expedited procedures to bring the mail back to the United
States.
We have, as the act requires, deployed postmarking
materials to all our major units to ensure that ballots are
marked so that the question of whether they can be counted is
not subject to debate. We have--for the last 16 years--
emphasized as a ballot transmission option use of electronic
means. This began with the use of fax as a an option in the
Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm period in 1990. I am
pleased to say a majority of these 55 jurisdictions now permit
fax receipt. That's important for a reason I'll come to in just
a minute. I'm also pleased that on the order of, anywhere from
6 to 12 jurisdictions, depending on which element of the
process is involved, accept e-mail as a means of transmission
and 18 jurisdictions have responded to our plea that they
establish ballot registration status sites where the voter, the
overseas voter, the military voter, can check on the status of
his or her request.
One of the reasons fax is important is that military
members generally do have access to e-mail and we have--through
our electronic transmission service--made it possible to take
an e-mail message, and convert it to fax, so it is acceptable
to a majority of States that accept fax transmissions.
Finally, as Senator Burns has emphasized, we have deployed
for this 2006 election cycle, two tools that use the internet,
two different protocols that allow you to request and download
a ballot. The ballot still typically has to be sent back by
other means. We used a tool like this in the 2004 election
cycle. We persuaded 108 counties in that election cycle to
employ that tool. I'm pleased to report that in this cycle up
to the present day, up to the last count 2 days ago, we had
500. Over 500 counties have agreed to use one or other of these
tools. They do still require an e-mail address on the part of
the voter.
Ultimately in this business it's results that count. I've
made it a practice, starting in the 2004 election cycle, to
begin meeting monthly as we lead up to the election with the
senior voting representative of each military Service to check
on what they are doing and to ensure that we confront properly
any issues or problems that arise. This is a matter that has
the Secretary of Defense's personal interest and, as he's noted
to me, he is now met in each visit he makes to bases by the
senior voting assistance officer to make sure that he or she
can give a full report on what the base is doing or the unit is
doing.
We can look at the results from our survey, post-election
survey of voters, both military and civilian in 2004. In 2004,
73 percent of the military community indicated they had voted
successfully. That was up 16 percentage points from the results
in the 2000 election, so we have dealt with some of the issues
that Senator Burns has addressed, although challenges still
remain.
Equally important, the proportion of respondents that
indicated they attempted to vote and failed to vote was cut in
half, from 12 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2004. There were
similar improvements in Federal civilians overseas and in non-
Federal Americans overseas who are also part of our
responsibility. Just as a point of reference, the Election
Assistance Commission estimates that 60 percent of the national
population voted in that last 2004 election.
To produce these results, of course, takes a concerted
effort, a team effort, it starts with our commanders and the
emphasis that they put on the importance of voting and the
opportunity that citizens have to elect their representatives.
It does involve a significant partnership with the United
States Postal Service, and I want to take this occasion
publicly to thank the Postal Service for what they did in 2004
and what they're doing in 2006 and, of course, the concomitant
collaboration of the Military Postal Service Agency. It does
sometimes involve the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure
that jurisdictions send ballots out in a timely manner. I know
there are local disagreements over primary results. I respect
that fact, but we do set a standard, a standard we have
advocated with the Governors that you ought to allow 45 days
for the transmission of ballots. Ballots should move 45 days
before the election to the overseas or military voters, so
there is time both to receive the ballot, to think about one's
choices, and to send that ballot back. DOJ has been very
helpful in specific instances where we need to take legal
action. It equally involves a partnership with Department of
State, and, of course, we are very grateful for the support of
Congress for these various efforts.
The issue, of course, in 2006 will be, can we replicate the
significant improvement that was achieved in 2004? That is our
intent. We also hope to use the experience of 2006 to prepare
the Department for 2008, to give added emphasis to
registration, and to participation in primaries in that
election cycle. The planning for that has already begun and
that effort will start in earnest on the morning of November 8.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. David S.C. Chu
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the Federal Voting Assistance Program in the
Department of Defense.
In 1988, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12642 designating
the Secretary of Defense as his agent to implement the provisions of
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and to
discharge the Federal functions required by the act. As Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, I am responsible for administering the
Federal Voting Assistance Program for the Secretary.
BACKGROUND
The UOCAVA safeguards the right to vote for Federal offices by
absent uniformed servicemembers and their families, and overseas U.S.
citizens. As mandated by the act, the Federal Voting Assistance Program
prescribes uniform absentee forms such as the Federal Postcard
Application for registration and ballot request to facilitate these
citizens' Constitutional right to vote. In 2005, the Federal Voting
Assistance Program revised this form, as well as the Federal Write-In
Absentee Ballot form, used by voters as an emergency ballot in cases
where the State ballot does not arrive promptly. The changes make the
forms easier to use by making them more understandable to the citizen
while providing more needed information to election officials, such as
the citizen's e-mail address and his or her alternate mailing address.
In its administration of this law, the Federal Voting Assistance
Program works cooperatively with State and local election officials to
carry out its provisions.
The absentee voting process for UOCAVA citizens requires the
successful completion of several steps. The citizen registers to vote
and requests an absentee ballot from his or her local election official
using the Federal Postcard Application. Upon receipt of the completed
Federal Postcard Application, the local election official determines
the citizen's legal voting residence based on the information provided.
Approximately 45 to 30 days prior to the election, the local election
official provides a State absentee ballot to the citizen. The citizen
then votes the ballot and returns it to his or her local election
official. These steps traditionally are accomplished by using the
United States Postal Service, Military Postal Service Agency, and
foreign postal systems.
RECENT STATUTORY DIRECTION
Title VII of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 required the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations and procedures so that
Voting Assistance Officers are provided time and resources necessary to
perform their duties; implement measures to ensure a postmark or other
official proof of mailing is placed on ballots collected by DOD
overseas or vessels at sea; and develop a standard oath for UOCAVA
voting materials. All of these provisions required by the title have
been successfully implemented.
The Act required States to designate a single office responsible
for UOCAVA citizen procedures; report to the Election Assistance
Commission on the number of UOCAVA absentee ballots sent, received and
cast; extend the effective period of the Federal Postcard Application
through the next two regularly scheduled general elections; inform
UOCAVA voters if their registration or ballot applications were refused
and the reason for the refusal; and accept a Federal Postcard
Application submitted early in the calendar year. The Federal Voting
Assistance Program issued a Help America Vote Act interpretative
memorandum dealing with UOCAVA related issues and sent the memorandum
to State and local election officials in August 2003. These changes to
the law have led to improvements in the absentee voting process by
removing unnecessary obstacles faced by UOCAVA voters.
Title V, Subtitle I of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 expanded the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot to
allow for its use by uniformed servicemembers and their eligible family
members within the United States; allowed all UOCAVA voters to submit
their ballot request for use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot
either 30 days before the general election or the State deadline for
registration and ballot request, whichever is later; and delayed the
electronic voting demonstration project until electronic absentee
voting guidelines and standards have been established by the Election
Assistance Commission.
PROGRESS IN WORKING WITH STATE GOVERNMENTS
State legislatures are also moving forward to facilitate absentee
voting. For many years, the Federal Voting Assistance Program has
proposed legislative initiatives to State officials that would
facilitate absentee voting for UOCAVA citizens. The current top
legislative priorities are for States and Territories to:
Provide at least 45 days between the ballot mailing
date and the date ballots are due.
Give State Chief Election Officials the emergency
authority to alter election procedures in certain circumstances
(e.g., to extend the ballot return deadline, or to allow
electronic transmission of blank or voted ballots)
Allow election officials to provide a State write-in
absentee ballot, to be sent out 90-180 days before all
elections. This State write-in ballot would allow the voter to
cast votes for Federal and State offices.
Further expand the use of electronic transmission of
voting materials.
Currently, 42 States and Territories provide at least 45 days
between the ballot mailing date and the date ballots are due; 16 States
and Territories give State Chief Election Officials the emergency
authority to alter election procedures in certain circumstances; 27
States and Territories allow election officials to provide a State
write-in absentee ballot; and 50 States and Territories provide for the
electronic transmission of voting materials. Additionally, 18 States
and Territories allow for the late counting of absentee ballots sent
prior to the close of polls.
EDUCATING
The Department devotes considerable resources to ensure that UOCAVA
citizens are properly informed and educated about the process of
absentee voting. Education includes formal training of Voting
Assistance Officers, providing information to State and local election
officials, and ensuring that UOCAVA citizens have adequate and proper
access to the necessary materials and the means to request and submit
their absentee ballots.
Federal Voting Assistance Program staff members conduct voting
assistance workshops to prepare for upcoming elections. These workshops
give Voting Assistance Officers the hands-on training they need to
understand their mission and to perform their duties. Since October
2005, Federal Voting Assistance Program staff members have conducted a
total of 110 workshops worldwide to prepare for the 2006 mid-term
elections. These workshops included:
8 workshops open to all Voting Assistance Officers
conducted at the Federal Voting Assistance Program headquarters
in Rosslyn, Virginia.
64 workshops conducted onsite at military
installations around the world for Voting Assistance Officers.
38 workshops conducted at Department of State
installations for State Department Voting Assistance Officers
and for civilians of overseas citizen organizations who assist
other overseas citizens with completing the absentee voting
process.
For Voting Assistance Officers who are unable to attend an in-
person workshop, two E-learning options are available to receive
certified training. Voting Assistance Officers may request a CD-ROM
containing the Federal Voting Assistance Program training from the
Federal Voting Assistance Program or may complete an on-line E-learning
session produced by the Federal Voting Assistance Program and hosted on
the Navy E-learning Web site. A slide presentation for use by Voting
Assistance Officers in their outreach is available online.
In addition to the in-person and online training opportunities, the
Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site provides Voting Assistance
Officers with a wealth of information regarding their responsibilities.
On the Web site there are separate sections for Voting Assistance
Officer training and Voting Assistance Officer information.
Additionally, another section provides specific information for local
election officials.
Since the State and local election officials are the individuals
who administer elections, they are our allies in facilitating absentee
voting. It is important that they be kept abreast of the latest issues
with UOCAVA voting. The Federal Voting Assistance Program regularly
sends memoranda and letters to local election officials providing
education and clarification of UOCAVA issues. In addition, during the
past year Federal Voting Assistance Program staff has addressed
officials at conferences of the National election official
organizations:
National Association of Secretaries of State
National Association of State Election Directors
International Association of Clerks, Recorders,
Election Officials, and Treasurers
National Association of Election Officials (Election
Center) Joint Election Official Liaison Committee
Federal Voting Assistance Program staff also traveled to address
several State conferences of local election officials. This year, the
Federal Voting Assistance Program attended and addressed local election
officials at conferences in:
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
West Virginia
When addressing these State and local election officials, the
Federal Voting Assistance Program recommends practices and procedures
to ensure maximum compliance with UOCAVA. These recommendations
include:
Differentiating between UOCAVA and other State
absentee voters in State and local literature, in State laws
and administrative codes, and on State and local election Web
sites.
Ensuring all employees in local election offices
throughout the State are trained on the provisions of UOCAVA.
Providing a Web site dedicated to UOCAVA citizens and
elections in which UOCAVA citizens can participate.
Preparing a State UOCAVA Voter Guide for publication
on Web site and in hard copy.
Providing sufficient ballot transit time.
Providing simple ballot marking and return
instructions with absentee ballots, including instructions to
return the voted ballot by fax or e-mail where authorized.
INFORMING AND EQUIPPING
The Department works hard to ensure that uniformed service voters
are informed about upcoming elections and the procedures for
registering and requesting an absentee ballot. Department communication
efforts seek to gain maximum exposure for the voting program in a
variety of communications media. Department and Federal Voting
Assistance Program staff publicize absentee voting through commercial
print and broadcast media outlets. Stories on absentee voting are run
on the Pentagon Channel, Armed Forces Radio and Television, through the
Armed Forces Information Service, as well as in print publications such
as Stars and Stripes. Reminders about voting were printed on the leave
and earnings statements of all servicemembers and overseas DOD
personnel. E-mail blasts about voting have been sent to 1.2 million
servicemembers.
Communicating is undertaken through extensive command support.
Particular emphasis is placed on voting awareness to reach individual
members of the unit. Messages regarding absentee voting are included on
Service Web sites, in the Plans of the Day, and at Commander's Call
briefings. Billboards are posted on installations informing members of
their right to vote. Installations support Armed Forces Voters Week
(September 3-9, 2006). Efforts extend to family members through
displays, voter registration drives, and information at Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation Facilities, Family Service Centers, medical
facilities, commissaries and exchanges, and DOD Dependent Schools.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site (www.fvap.gov) is an
asset to uniformed servicemembers, voting age family members, and
overseas citizens providing remote access to voting information
directly on their computer. The site received 1,540,810 hits between
January 1, 2006 and September 7, 2006. During that time period, the
online version of the Federal Postcard Application was downloaded
42,689 times. The online version of the Federal Write-in Absentee
Ballot was downloaded 5,504 times. The site is updated frequently with
information pertinent to absentee voters.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program provides up-to-date
information to Voting Assistance Officers. The Federal Voting
Assistance Program publishes its Voting Information News newsletter
monthly. The Federal Voting Assistance Program issues News Releases
routinely to announce time sensitive information (e.g., changes in
absentee procedures or the holding of special Federal elections). Both
the newsletter and the News Releases are distributed electronically via
e-mail, and posted on the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site.
The newsletter is also made available in a hardcopy format.
The Department provides voters and Voting Assistance Officers the
tools, materials, and information necessary to facilitate registration,
ballot request, and ballot transmission. The Services distribute Voting
Assistance Guides, Federal Postcard Applications and Federal Write-in
Absentee Ballots to their Voting Assistance Officers and individual
voters. From October 1, 2005-September 7, 2006, Federal Voting
Assistance Program distributed 227,000 hard copies of the Federal
Postcard Application and 91,000 hard copies of the Federal Write-In
Absentee Ballot, and the Services distributed additional copies of the
forms through their normal supply chains. Both forms, of course, are
also available through the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site.
FACILITATING BALLOT TRANSMISSION
The Department takes extraordinary steps to ensure that members of
the uniformed services, their family members, and overseas citizens
have an opportunity to vote. Expediting ballots, particularly via mail,
is a very important aspect of the absentee process.
The Department's effort to expedite delivery of ballots starts well
before the election year. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, in
conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service, redesigned the absentee
ballot transmittal and return envelopes in 2005 to minimize the amount
of processing time for absentee ballots moving through modern mail-
handling equipment.
The Military Postal Service Agency ensures that its outlets have
the capabilities to handle absentee ballots. All major military units
in forward deployed roles have postmarking capabilities to ensure that
ballots are postmarked. Weekly messages are sent to military post
offices reminding local workers of the proper procedures in handling
ballots. Surveys of all military post offices are conducted biweekly in
July and August, and weekly from September through November to ensure
no ballots are delayed. Military Postal Service Agency publishes
recommended mailing dates, based on location, to help ensure ballot
receipt by State deadlines and that servicemembers understand when
their absentee ballots need to be returned to their local election
officials.
In 2004 the U.S. Postal Service began handling ballots using
Express Mail procedures while those ballots are within its system. I
want to thank the U.S. Postal Service, particularly Mr. Paul Vogel,
Senior Vice President of Global Business, for the outstanding support
provided in expediting balloting materials so that our service men and
women could exercise their franchise. The Military Postal Service also
used special handling and expediting procedures while transporting
ballots outside the U.S. to Army Post Office and Fleet Post Office
addresses. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, in conjunction with
the U.S. Postal Service, is again ensuring that military absentee
ballots are expedited. Beginning September 18, absentee ballots from
local election officials are handled as Express Mail to Army Post
Office and Fleet Post Office mailing addresses to ensure that absentee
ballots arrive promptly. Beginning October 1, the U.S. Postal Service
will ensure that absentee ballots from Army Post Office and Fleet Post
Office facilities are expedited back to the local election official.
This expedited delivery includes special marking and handling of
absentee ballots and, in the days leading up to the election, the use
of Express Mail for inbound voted absentee ballots.
For those citizens who may not be able to vote because of their
mobility or because of sporadic mail delivery to remote locations, the
use of technology can provide alternative means for voters and local
election officials to send and receive voting materials. In 1990, the
Federal Voting Assistance Program initiated, with the cooperation of
the States and Territories, emergency use of electronic transmission
(facsimile technology) and established the Electronic Transmission
Service so that uniformed servicemembers deployed during Operation
Desert Shield were not disenfranchised. The Electronic Transmission
Service allowed these voters deployed in the Persian Gulf to fax their
registration request application and the local election official to fax
the blank ballot to the voter. Now, faxing is widely accepted.
The Department aggressively promotes the continually expanding use
of technology through electronic transmission alternatives. Fax and e-
mail options for registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot,
receiving the absentee ballot, and returning the voted absentee ballot
greatly reduce the amount of time needed to complete the absentee
voting process, and give UOCAVA voters additional alternatives when
regular mail is slow or unreliable.
Currently, the Electronic Transmission Service exists as a toll-
free option for voters to send their applications, receive their blank
ballots and return voted ballots to local election officials. Voters
have the capability of sending and receiving their absentee balloting
materials through toll-free fax numbers in 51 countries. Uniformed
servicemembers and dependents also have access to a toll-free number
through the Defense Switch Network. Currently:
32 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to
submit a Federal Postcard Application for registration by fax.
50 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to
submit a Federal Postcard Application for absentee ballot
request via fax.
35 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to
receive the blank ballot via fax.
26 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to
return the voted ballot via fax.
Many States and Territories have expanded their electronic
transmission alternative capabilities to include e-mail. The Federal
Voting Assistance Program is aggressively urging States to consider
using e-mail as an integral part of the electronic alternatives made
available to their citizens. Since many forward deployed soldiers have
e-mail capabilities but do not have access to fax capabilities, the
institution of processes that allow for e-mail ballot request, ballot
delivery, and ballot return can be crucial. Currently:
12 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to
submit a Federal Postcard Application for absentee ballot
request via e-mail.
Alaska
Illinois
Iowa (2006 Election)
Montana
Minnesota (Restricted)
Mississippi (for Active-Duty overseas)
North Dakota
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Washington
Wisconsin
6 States and Territories allow UOCAVA voters to submit
a Federal Postcard Application for registration via e-mail.
Alaska
Oregon
Montana
Mississippi (for Active-Duty overseas)
South Dakota
Washington
12 States allow UOCAVA voters to receive the blank
ballot via e-mail.
Alaska
Florida
Illinois
Iowa (2006 election)
Montana
Mississippi (for Active-Duty overseas)
North Dakota
Oregon
South Carolina
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
8 States allow UOCAVA voters to return the voted
ballot via e-mail.
Alaska
Iowa (2006 election)
Mississippi (for Active-Duty overseas)
Missouri (2006 election)
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
Washington
The Department also encourages States and Territories to make
available to citizens online tools that allow voters to check their
registration status. Since 2005, the Federal Voting Assistance Program
has encouraged States and Territories to launch these sites and
promoted the use of such sites to allow voters the opportunity to
promptly know if their absentee ballot has been dispatched and provide
them with the opportunity to take corrective measures if necessary. To
date, ballot registration status sites have been launched in 18 States
and Territories:
Delaware, pollingplace.delaware.gov/
District of Columbia, www.dcboee.org/voterreg/vic--
step1.asp
Georgia, www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/Locator.asp
Indiana,www.indianavoters.com/PublicSite/Public/
PublicVoter Registration.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Kansas, https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/
Kentucky, cdc.ky.gov/VICWeb/index.jsp
Louisiana, sos.louisiana.gov/polllocator/
Maryland. mdelections.umbc.edu
Michigan, michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633-49313--
,00.html
Nebraska, https://www.votercheck.necvr.ne.gov/
North Carolina, www.sboe.state.nc.us/
Ohio, www.sos.state.oh.us/sosapps/elections/
voterquery.aspx
Puerto Rico. www.ceeput.org/serviciosLineas/
estatusEelectoral/index.htm
South Carolina, https://webprod.cio.sc.gov/
SCSECVoterWeb/voterInformationSearch.do
Utah, gva1.utah.gov/elections/polling.aspx
Virginia, www.sbe.state.va.us/VotReg/VR--Confirmation/
Default.html
Washington, www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/lookup.aspx/
West Virginia, www.wvvotes.com/voters/am-i-
registered.php
In 2004, the Department administered the Interim Voting Assistance
System (IVAS). IVAS was a voluntary project implemented in September
2004 to allow eligible absentee voters (Active-Duty military, activated
Guard and Reserve personnel, their dependents, DOD overseas Federal
agency personnel in Central Command and DOD contactors overseas) to
request their absentee ballots via the internet. In order to take
advantage of IVAS, voters must have already been in the Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, be a UOCAVA voter, and must
have been from a State and county that had volunteered to participate.
Using IVAS, the voter could request a ballot over the internet.
After the local election official approved the request, IVAS notified
the voter via e-mail that the ballot was available to download. The
voter then could download and print the ballot, mark it by hand, and
return it by mail to the local election official.
One hundred eight counties in nine States agreed to participate in
IVAS 2004. At the end of the election, 28 of those counties had
actually received and processed ballot requests, and uploaded ballots
for UOCAVA voters to pick up. Voters downloaded 17 ballots.
The Department, as mandated by Congress in Public Law 109-234,
section 1212, is continuing the IVAS effort from 2004. For 2006, IVAS
was renamed and launched as the Integrated Voting Alternative Site,
which provides a feature on the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web
site consolidating information from the 55 States and Territories on
electronic ballot request and delivery alternatives with the goal of
communicating these alternatives to UOCAVA voters.
Additional features of IVAS 2006 are online ballot request and
delivery tools being offered for use by States and Territories through
the Department. The Federal Voting Assistance Program has communicated
with all States and Territories regarding the options that are
available to them regarding this project. States may choose the tool
best suited to the needs of their UOCAVA voters and their State laws
and administrative procedures. The tools are available for use by
uniformed servicemembers, family members, and overseas employees and
contractors.
Tool #1 is an online ballot request system developed by the Defense
Manpower Data Center which allows registered voters to submit a Federal
Postcard Application ballot request to their local election official
via e-mail. That option is being utilized by seven States and
Territories:
Arkansas
Illinois
North Carolina
Puerto Rico
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Washington
Tool #2 is an online ballot request and delivery system, developed
through the Department's Business Transformation Agency and contractor
Post-X which allows registered voters to submit a Federal Postcard
Application ballot request to their local election official and receive
the blank ballot via a secure server. Indiana, Kentucky, and Montana
have agreed to utilize this option.
RESULTS
After each presidential election, the Federal Voting Assistance
Program conducts a statistically-based, random sample survey of UOCAVA
citizens to gather information about their participation in the
absentee voting process. For the 2004 general election, among uniformed
servicemembers (stateside and overseas) 73 percent voted, and an
additional 6 percent attempted to vote (as compared to 57 percent and
12 percent, respectively in 2000). Among Federal civilian employees
overseas, 77 percent voted and an additional 3 percent attempted to
vote (versus 55 percent and 10 percent, respectively in 2000). Among
non-Federal civilians overseas, 53 percent voted and an additional 5
percent attempted to vote (compared to 22 percent and 15 percent,
respectively in 2000).
In contrast, the Election Assistance Commission reports that 60.4
percent of the general public voted in 2004 (51 percent voted in 2000
according to the Federal Election Commission).
The participation results for uniformed servicemembers and U.S.
civilians overseas reflect the concerted efforts to improve the
absentee voting process. Particularly noteworthy in 2004 we reduced by
one half to two-thirds the fraction that unsuccessfully attempted to
vote in each community (uniformed personnel, Federal civilians, and
overseas citizens).
LOOKING FORWARD
Over the last 2 years, the Department has continued to build on the
successes of the 2004 presidential election. While mid-term election
voting participation rates for uniformed servicemembers and overseas
voters are lower than in presidential election years, as with the
participation rates for the general voting age population, efforts of
the Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Justice, the
Department of State, other Federal agencies, and State and local
governments are giving more voters a greater opportunity to participate
in this 2006 election. Through our collective efforts to promote and
implement expanded electronic transmission alternatives, voters will
continue to reap the benefits of these expanded options in this and
future elections.
The Department appreciates the support of Congress for its
initiatives. These initiatives brought focus to the 2004 election
cycle, with significant improvement in military voting participation.
We aim for similar improvement in this year's cycle--taking into
account the realities of mid-term elections. The procedures we try this
year provide a firm foundation for 2008--perhaps even opening the door
on the next challenges; facilitating registration and strengthening
participation in primary elections.
Senator Burns. Secretary Chu, thank you very much. I am
going to ask a couple questions here if that is okay. You put
your statements in, and he'll hear your statements, but I'm
really pushing the envelope now on the other side of the
building here.
I'm going to ask Ms. Markowitz, when you convened your
Secretary of States in July, and DOD met with you at that time,
with those officials, it was almost 1 month after Congress had
directed the DOD to execute the IVAS program. After that DOD
presentation, did you feel that your members had the
information they needed to decide whether or not to adopt the
IVAS program for your States?
Ms. Markowitz. I think our members had a----
Senator Burns. Pull that microphone a little closer to you,
would you? You have such a kind, soft voice here.
Ms. Markowitz. Thank you. It was a good introductory
presentation, but I have to tell you in our experience it took
a phone call from a couple of folks who work for the FVAP to
our office. I actually spoke directly with two of the staff
members with my elections director so that we could think about
how we in Vermont could participate, how we could make this
work given our own local laws. We were able to. I have to say
that that was instrumental, the fact that there was follow-up.
So the meeting alone, I think, wasn't enough. That shouldn't be
the sole method of communicating with the folks who are running
the elections. It requires a follow-up and there are only 55 if
you are thinking about what the scope of the project is. So I
guess I would give, by way of feed-back, that it's those
follow-up calls that really do seal the deal and allow the
election officials to have a real conversation about what the
goal of the project is and how we could make it work in our
States.
Dr. Chu. If I may add, Senator Burns, we did call every one
of the 55 jurisdictions. We also wrote every 1 of the 55, and
in every case where we had any intimation that the jurisdiction
was interested, if we hadn't heard back, we called again.
Senator Burns. We hear that you, Secretary Chu, are
concerned about identity theft and security any time you
transfer or use electronic transfer of information--and we know
that there is a lack of regard, I think, in some cases with the
DOD with regard to these kind of programs. I'm concerned that
you have endorsed a system that has security problems.
The IVAS program does not have security problems and can be
put in place very easily. I don't like any possibility of
identity theft because over in the Commerce Committee we talk
about that every day. So, the continued e-mail approach after
the DOD evaluation of your program showed that vulnerability.
Why do we want to push the same program? Does that make sense?
Dr. Chu. We pay attention, Senator, to security in every
one of our programs. There are different levels of security
obtainable depending on which approach you use. As I think the
security experts will lecture us, there is no perfect security
system. We believe e-mail is reasonably secure for these
purposes. A significant number of States have accepted e-mail.
Even more States have accepted fax.
I do think in this whole enterprise there is, as Ms.
Markowitz's comments indicated, a process in which we all have
to be comfortable with the particular solution adopted. Each
State, each local election office must be comfortable with that
process and that's our intent here, to deploy a variety of
tools so that each State or other jurisdiction, each local
election office, if it comes to that, can be comfortable with
the choice it has made. As I said, I am pleased that between
the 2 tools we've deployed this year, thus far already, over
500 counties, out of what I believe are close to 7,000 counties
and States, have agreed to participate.
Senator Burns. I have a couple other questions, and I'm
really up against it, I have to go, but--and I'm going to turn
this over to Senator Dayton to round this out, but I'm still
concerned whether this program should be put in place, the IVAS
program, and you named a program over the IVAS.
Dr. Chu. We put the tool I think you're most interested in,
in place, Senator, and a number of counties are going to use
it. I am delighted by that. We'll gain further experience with
it. We have experience in 2004. We have experience now in 2006,
and we can use that experience in planning for 2008.
Senator Burns. We'll be watching very closely, but I am
really concerned. It is this business of just getting bogged
down in a bureaucracy that gives us a little bit of pause to be
nervous up here. Especially when we want something done--and
especially if we put it into law--we would like to see it done.
Dr. Chu. We are doing it. We obey the law.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mark.
Senator Dayton [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I--
--
Senator Burns. Oh, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr.
Carey's statement be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carey follows:]
Prepared Statement by Bob Carey
The National Defense Committee wishes to specifically thank Senator
Burns as well for requesting these hearings and for his tireless
efforts on behalf of military voters. Just yesterday, the National
Defense Committee was able to assist a young Marine Lance Corporal from
Yellowstone County in Senator Burns' State of Montana, who had received
his absentee primary ballot after the primary and was afraid of being
disenfranchised again in the general election due to his imminent
overseas deployment. The National Defense Committee was able to alert
him to the availability of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB).
Although the FWAB is a poor substitute for a full absentee ballot,
since this young Marine will still be blocked from voting for State and
municipal candidates, it does give him the opportunity to vote for
Senator Burns, if he so desires.
I also wish to thank Senator McCain for his steadfast support of
the committee's efforts, including those regarding military voter
disenfranchisement. As someone who was disenfranchised for almost a
decade due to enemy action, his passion for protecting the voting
rights of all military servicemembers is evident to the National
Defense Committee every day.
Every week, without fail, the National Defense Committee receives
yet more desperate pleas from disenfranchised military personnel
begging us for assistance in getting ballots, navigating the
unnecessarily complex absentee ballot application system, or finding
out if their vote was, in fact counted. This after Congress has been
unequivocal in its directives to the Department of Defense (DOD) to
institute programs to adequately protect those voting rights. In my
estimation, the DOD has failed miserably.
Nowhere is this failure more acutely demonstrated than with the
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). Despite having a workable,
secure electronic absentee ballot request and transmission system (the
Interim Voting Assistance Solution (IVAS) up and running in 2004, the
FVAP abandoned it. FVAP then tried to foist off on military voters a
significantly less secure, and less capable system, confusingly given
the same IVAS acronym, but which was evaluated by DOD as having little,
if any, capacity for protecting voter identification or against voter
fraud. If I did not know better, I would think that FVAP intended to
fail in this program.
Mr. Chairman, you think I'd have gotten used to this. Voter
disenfranchisement has been a persistent and common occurrence, rather
than the exception, for as long as military personnel were given the
right to vote during World War II. A substantial minority, and in some
cases a majority, of these brave military personnel have regularly
suffered disenfranchisement through no fault of their own.
It's not like this is something we just recently discovered. As
early as 1952, the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections
concluded many of the servicemembers fighting the Korean War were
likely to be disenfranchised in that year's Presidential election. The
Honorable C.G. Hall, then Secretary of State of Arkansas and President
of the National Association of Secretaries of State, testified that
because of late primaries, ballot access lawsuits, and other problems,
election officials did not have ballots printed and ready to mail until
a few days before the election.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The committee report's complete text is available on the
National Defense Committee (NDC) Web site,
www.nationaldefensecommittee.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty four years later, what's changed? Not much. We could take
those exact same words and apply them equally today. From the point of
view of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen out
on patrol, standing watch, and engaging the enemy, it doesn't look like
anyone in the DOD cares.
For the vast majority of your and your fellow Senators'
constituents, military voters are subjected to anachronistic State
requirements to conduct absentee voting the old-fashioned way, by
shipping pieces of paper around the world through the United States
Postal Service and its Defense Department equivalent. Despite the
strong mandates and recommendations of the Help America Vote Act and
Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absent Voters Act (UOCAVA), little has
been done to take advantage of the promise the internet holds to
provide our deployed servicemembers the same voting rights their fellow
citizens back home enjoy.
The result? Like that Lance Corporal from Yellowstone County,
military personnel don't get their ballots in time for elections, they
can't send them back in time to meet ballot deadlines, and as a result,
they are unable to participate in the electoral process. In March 2005,
the National Defense Committee surveyed over 7,800 local election
officials regarding their overseas and military absentee voting rates
for the 2004 general election. NDC found at least a 24 percent
disenfranchisement rate for military absentee voters. In fact, that is
probably an underestimation of the problem as it relied upon the
voluntary reporting of local election officials, and at least 10 States
worth of those officials did not participate, in addition to scores of
local election offices. A copy of that study is attached to this
testimony, and Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request it be entered in
the record of this hearing along with my testimony.
Even more disturbing is when we look at what is supposed to be the
emergency back-up system for military voters, the FWAB. When a
servicemember is reduced to having to use this emergency ballot, we've
already accepted substantial disenfranchisement because it does not
provide them the opportunity to vote in any State or municipal
election. But beyond that, our analysis in 2005 indicated that most of
these ballots were not counted. For example:
California, 278 FWABs received, only 124 counted, a
56-percent disenfranchisement rate.
Florida, 481 FWABs received, only 284 counted, a 49-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
Illinois, 1,165 FWABs received, only 820 counted, a
30-percent disenfranchisement rate.
Maryland, 1,829 FWABs received, only 1,118 counted, a
39-percent disenfranchisement rate.
Missouri, 260 FWABs received, only 169 counted, a 35-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
North Carolina, 285 FWABs received, only 57 counted,
an 80-percent disenfranchisement rate.
New York, 678 FWABs received, only 319 counted, a 53-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
Ohio, 750 FWABs received, only 329 counted, a 56-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
Texas, 2,934 FWABs received, only 727 counted, a 75-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
Tennessee, 161 FWABs received, only 53 counted, a 67-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
Virginia, 207 FWABs received, only 93 counted, a 66-
percent disenfranchisement rate.
When a system so complex is forced on our military men and women
that any where from 30 percent to 80 percent of their votes are
rejected, we are failing them. We are failing to protect their right to
vote just like poll taxes, literacy tests, onerous identification
requirements, and other methods of intentional disenfranchisement led
to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Our results were echoed in the March 2006 Elections Assistance
Commission report on voting disenfranchisement in the 2004 general
election after the passage of the UOCAVA, which found almost 20 percent
of all military and overseas voter absentee ballots were not counted in
the 2004 general election. This represents 200,000 military and
overseas voters who wanted to vote, but whose vote was not counted.
Specific results were even more harrowing, with disenfranchisement
rates breaking 50 percent in Arkansas (50.7 percent), and exceeded
28,000 individual voters in Florida.
While the military nears completion on the universal transition to
PKI certificates and digital signatures for all military information
technology networks, providing near absolute irrefutability of
individual Internet and information technology acts and keystrokes,
local election officials continue to mandate paper ballots and manual
signatures.
For reasons beyond my comprehension, but as you already know, there
are three timeconsuming steps required in absentee voting. First, the
absentee ballot request must travel from the voter to the election
official. Second, the unmarked ballot must travel from the election
official to the voter. Finally, the marked ballot must travel from the
voter back to the election official in the voter's hometown. Each of
these steps can take weeks if the mail must be used, but only seconds
if secure electronic means were authorized.
For the military voter, especially, the most difficult and
problematic step is the second step, the transmission of the unmarked
ballot from the election official to the voter, for two reasons. First,
the election official cannot print, much less mail, absentee ballots
until all uncertainties about who and what go on the ballot have been
resolved. For example, in 2004, in Arkansas, a dispute about whether
Ralph Nader had qualified for the ballot was not resolved until several
days into October. In the meantime, the Arkansas Supreme Court enjoined
local election officials from mailing out ballots, until the State's
high court could hear and decide the matter.
The other problem is that the military voter is a moving target.
Let me take one example--myself. I received military mobilization
orders on October 22, 2004. I reported to my Reserve center on Long
Island on that date, and then reported to a military processing site in
Washington, DC, a week later. I was scheduled to depart for the Middle
East on November 1, but because of a service requirement, was
fortunately able to stay in the United States and go to New York on
Election Day to vote.
If not for that, I would not have been able to vote. I would have
submitted my absentee ballot application on October 22, but where would
the ballot have gone? All I had was an ultimate duty station address in
Bahrain, to where I was not scheduled to report until after the
election. New York law requires the ballot to be postmarked by midnight
the day before the election. Because I answered my Nation's call to
service, I would not have been able to vote if not for a quirk in my
mobilization processing.
The same thing happened upon my return. New York City was having
its Mayoral election in November 2005. I departed Bahrain on November
4, 2005, reported to my outprocessing site on November 6. The election
was November 8. The New York ballots were not available until 32 days
before the election.
Mail regularly took 2 weeks to get to Bahrain and 2 weeks to get
back. Please remember that there is a bifurcated system for delivering
mail to servicemembers and others. The United States Postal Service
(USPS) delivers mail to all addresses within the United States,
including military installations and hospitals. The Military Postal
Service Agency (MPSA), which is part of DOD, is responsible for
delivering mail to Army Post Office (APO) and Fleet Post Office (FPO)
addresses outside the United States. So, even if the ballot was mailed
exactly 32 days prior to the election, it likely wouldn't arrive in
Bahrain until October 23. A delay in receiving his mail of even 10
days, and I would have missed my ballot. So, assuming everything goes
perfectly, I had to mail the ballot by November 1. That gave me only a
week to analyze my votes for all the city candidates in a city of 8.1
million people. Frankly, this is ludicrous. Why do we continue to
accept it?
Every day, billions of dollars are transmitted by secure, but
unclassified electronic means over the Internet. The military routinely
transmit classified information electronically, by means of the
military's Secure Intranet Protocol Routing Network (SIPRNET).
Additionally, all unclassified military IT communications are being
stamped with digital signatures and PKI certificates tied to the
member's military identification card, providing a much higher degree
of user identification than is used at any polling place.
In the interim, we also have the reconstituted original IVAS system
directed by Congress through this summers' supplemental appropriations.
Up and running in only a few weeks, this system is unfortunately only
available to military voters in two Montana counties, in large part
because of the failure of FVAP and the DOD to publicize it. It was also
delayed because it required the concerted efforts of this committee and
Senator Burns to force the DOD to implement this system, even after
directed and funded by Congress. Why, Mr. Chairman? Why is FVAP so
doggedly opposing proven methods of providing our servicemembers
secure, and far easier, means to vote?
I'd also like to lay out a preemptive argument. The National
Defense Committee does not buy the argument that providing such
electronic voting assistance to military personnel would unduly grant
them unequal ballot access. Remember that for most absentee voters,
absentee voting is essentially a voluntary act. Most requirements to be
away from a voter's community on Election Day are actually not
requirements, but conveniences. Business trips and vacations, although
important, are not required of the individual voter requesting an
absentee ballot. The military servicemember does not have that
prerogative. The military servicemember is ordered by Federal action to
leave their locality on Election Day and cannot tell the military they
will not obey because they want to vote. They are required to obey, and
do so in the defense of our country. In my opinion, that fully
justifies specific relief for this special class of individuals.
The 1952 congressional hearing report I discussed before includes a
letter to Congress from President Harry S. Truman. I invite your
attention particularly to the most eloquent opening paragraph of
President Truman's letter:
About 2,500,000 men and women in the Armed Forces are of
voting age at the present time. Many of those in uniform are
serving overseas, or in parts of the country distant from their
homes. They are unable to return to their States either to
register or to vote. Yet these men and women, who are serving
their country and in many cases risking their lives, deserve
above all others to exercise the right to vote in this election
year. At a time when these young people are defending our
country and its free institutions, the least we at home can do
is to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are
being asked to fight to preserve.
What President Truman wrote of those fighting the Korean War in
1952 is equally true of their grandsons and granddaughters, and great-
grandsons and great-granddaughters, fighting the global war on
terrorism today. To summarize:
We know what the problem is, and have known for 54
years.
State and municipal election officials have either
failed or refuse to solve this problem.
Our military personnel are disenfranchised at
unacceptable rates because of that failure.
Because they are Federal military personnel, taken
away from their communities by Federal orders, and because the
States and municipalities have failed to resolve this, Federal
legislative intervention is necessary and appropriate to
preserve the voting rights of military personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I implore you: take action as soon as this Congress
reconvenes after the election. Pass a bill out of this committee that
guarantees easy, secure, internet-based voting for all levels of
elections for every member of the military. We owe them no less.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I consulted with
the committee staff, and it's my understanding that the
committee rules do permit the hearing to continue without a
member of the majority so I will ask for a unanimous consent
that I may be permitted to hear the rest of the witnesses. I
will then confine myself to my own questions unless other
members arrive.
Hearing no objection, Ms. Markowitz would you proceed and
provide other comments you care to make for the record as part
of your formal statement?
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE, VERMONT
Ms. Markowitz. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to
speak on behalf of the Nation's chief elections officials. I'm
Deborah Markowitz, and I'm the Vermont Secretary of State. I'm
currently the President of the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS). It's an honor to appear before you
to talk about this important issue.
As you can imagine, my fellow secretaries around the
country believe that the most precious right of a democracy is
the right to vote and that members of our military are making
extraordinary personal sacrifices for their country and deserve
all of our efforts to make sure that they can exercise this
right.
As an organization, NASS is committed to improving the
voting process and to finding ways to make it easier for those
in the country--and outside of the country--to exercise the
franchise. Unfortunately, State laws sometimes cause barriers.
Some States have postmark requirements. Others, like Vermont,
have late primary dates. There's absentee ballot request
deadlines, voter registration procedures. Vermont actually has
a challenging voter registration procedure in that you have to
take a sworn oath in order to vote. That oath needs to be
notarized, which we make easy because any commissioned officer
can provide the notary, but it's an additional step. It means
somebody can't register to vote online, but note, that's in our
constitution. It's in our State's constitution, so it's not
that easy to change. It's an example of the variety of
challenges that States face in our efforts to make it easy for
people who are overseas, our military in particular, to
register and to vote.
Secretaries of State have been working on this issue. I was
first elected in 1998, so I have been here now for 8 years as
part of this association and, year after year, as we meet we
look at ways that we might make changes to our State laws, make
changes to the way we approach overseas voters and particularly
the military. We have seen improvements. I would say that--I'd
like to commend the FVAP for their partnership in that
conversation. The fact is they do make sure they're at our
meetings talking about this issue. They make sure that it
percolates to the top of our list.
With the Help America Vote Act, we've been extremely busy
on elections. It wouldn't be surprising had this fallen by the
wayside, but it didn't. This issue didn't fall by the wayside
because of the persistence, particularly of Polli Brunelli, who
I think is here today, and I want to personally thank for her
efforts.
NASS as an organization has also been active. In 2004 NASS
passed a resolution urging the Federal Government to implement
an air express ballot delivery plan that would expedite both
the delivery and receipt of ballots for military and overseas
voters. It was our belief, and it still is our belief, that
such a plan would allow a military or overseas voter to deliver
a completed ballot back to the Military Voting Assistance
Officer (VAO) or to an appropriate U.S. embassy official by a
deadline as close as practical to the election, and still have
that ballot delivered in time for it to be counted on election
day or according to the laws of the particular State.
As an organization, we called on the Federal Government to
implement this service because the internet voting project for
military and overseas voters, the SERVE project, had just been
cancelled. We felt this was a very important alternative.
In July 2004, we also did a survey of our members. We asked
our members to put information on their Web sites directed to
military and overseas voters to give those voters an
opportunity to go to one spot to find everything they need to
know so that they could vote. That information was gathered and
also put on the National Association of Secretaries of State
Web site, so there's one portal. There's one place that
somebody in the military or overseas can go to find out about
what they need to do in their States. Actually you should know
that this year we added an additional benefit on that Web site.
We have a Web site called www.canIvote.org, which lets any
voter in the United States or out, come to a central portal to
find out if they're registered, and if they're registered,
where and who they could contact, who their LEO is so they can
contact them to ask for an absentee ballot to be sent. We think
this is a proactive way to try to help our military and
overseas voters be able to participate.
In doing a survey we found that we got some pretty good
information to help us let citizens know what's required of
them in their particular State. It also allows us as
Secretaries of State to see what others are doing because we
learn from each other and when you go to meetings the best part
of the meeting is you talk to peers and get some ideas on how
you might be able to do it better. Incidentally, I've included
with my remarks, my written remarks, copies of those surveys so
that you also can have an idea of the variety of efforts that
are being made across the country.
Senator Dayton. Any supporting documents you wish to submit
will be added to the record at the conclusion of your
statement.
Ms. Markowitz. Thank you, sir. Obviously Secretaries of
State have been very eager to work with Federal agencies to
assist military and overseas voters. Over the years we have
worked very closely with the FVAP on various pilot programs,
including the 2000 Internet Voting Project, the 2004 SERVE
Project, the expedited postal programs, and now IVAS.
We're also working to think about what other choices are
available. We're working with FVAP to help see the variety of
challenges in our localities so that they could possibly do
their job better and reach the people they need to reach more
effectively. I think it's been a tremendous asset to have them
at the table at our meetings, as well. We're excited about the
IVAS initiative. I personally think it's a great addition to
the options. The challenge we all face, though, is timing. For
any program to be successful, it has to be implemented early
enough to be effective. The States need time to put the right
procedures in place. We need time to be able to train our
election officials and, I have to say, because of the Help
America Vote Act, we're less of a hodge-podge across the
country. The Help America Vote Act required the States to have
uniformity within the counties or within the jurisdictions. For
the first time, I, as the chief elections official, really can
put more effort in rules that my localities have to follow. I
think that's a real tool for Secretary Chu and his staff.
That being said, in order to implement a new program, we
need enough time to train those local workers. They need to
know that they may be asked to e-mail out a ballot and that
that's acceptable. We're a small enough State that we've been
able to meet the challenge, but I do know for the larger States
that's a significant hurdle. We have for the first time,
because of the Help America Vote Act and the resources that the
Help America Vote Act has provided us, we have money that is
dedicated to poll worker training, to training those election
officials. Early information would allow us to better
incorporate these programs into that training. So, I would say
looking towards 2008, an early partnership, early information,
I think, would benefit everybody.
In Vermont, just to speak a moment about my State that I'm
very proud of, we have worked very hard to make it possible for
our overseas and military voters to participate. We are one of
the late primary States, which means that we are rarely able to
get ballots sent out in the mail before 30 days before the
election, any earlier than that. That's because with a second
Tuesday in September primary, we need some time to print the
ballots before we can actually send them out. That's a
challenge, and you should know that we have gone to our
legislature to ask for that date to be changed. Two years ago,
actually about 18 months ago, when I was testifying before the
legislature I brought in our National Guard because we have
many National Guardsmen and women deployed, particularly in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and we obviously share a concern they be
able to vote.
We had asked the National Guard to actually do some
research to see what has happened to all of the ballots that
were requested by Guard members in the previous election. They
actually looked up every ballot that was requested. They called
every single town and found that all but a few were returned
and counted in time, and the ones that weren't returned and
counted were not counted, and there's nothing anyone could have
done about it. It's because the National Guard member was so
far out in the field that they weren't getting communication,
they weren't getting mail, they weren't by a telephone and
nothing would have really solved that problem. It was
frustrating for me personally, because I was arguing for moving
this primary date--it was a bad surprise that they came out
saying we're doing just fine the way we are.
But, you should know that really has been Vermont's
experience, that we have some data now to show that we have
been fairly successful. That being said, I know that's not
always going to be the case. We had some very committed service
officers making sure everybody was getting what they needed. We
do fax out ballots, and we did in that election fax out
ballots. We're very happy that now we have the option to e-mail
ballots as well.
I believe that we do need to take an entrepreneurial
approach to this issue and that technology will provide a
solution. Maybe not internet voting. In Vermont, for example,
we're using an innovative voting technology to permit our
citizens who have disabilities, particularly those who are
blind or visually impaired, to vote privately and
independently, and that technology could be used also for our
military and overseas voters. We're hoping to do that in the
future. It's a telephone voting system. It's a secure system. A
voter can call in, have PIN numbers, a special code to bring up
the right ballot. They then can mark the ballot using the
telephone key pad, and it prints out a paper ballot at the end
which is scanned in, read back to the voter so the voter can
say, ``Yes, I like this piece of paper, this ballot says what I
want it to say,'' and then it's cast in our central election
center.
It's new technology, and we're using it for the first time
in this general election. We used it in our primary with great
success. Right now we only use it in our polling places. There
are some, obviously, additional security complexities when you
use it with military and overseas voters, but, this is an
example of how we can be innovative and find additional
solutions. I believe that they are there.
I guess in sum, I'd like to encourage Secretary Chu to
continue working with the States, continuing to look for
innovative technology that might be able to be broadly deployed
to solve what's a serious problem for some of our service men
and women overseas and our overseas citizens. I'd like to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for the invitation to
speak here and if I, or the National Association of Secretaries
of State, can be of any assistance on any of the issues before
you, please don't hesitate to call on us.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Markowitz follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Deborah L. Markowitz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for giving me
this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Nation's chief State
election officials today. My name is Deborah Markowitz. I am the
Vermont Secretary of State and the President of the National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). It is an honor to appear
before you to discuss the status of military voting programs and the
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP).
The members of NASS believe that the most precious right of a
democracy is the right to vote, and that the members of the U.S.
military are making extraordinary personal sacrifices to promote and
defend democracy. As an organization whose members include the Nation's
chief State election officials, NASS is committed to improving the
voting process and to making voting as simple as possible for those
serving our country.
Unfortunately, State laws regarding postmarks, late primary dates,
absentee ballot deadlines and voter registration procedures often
inadvertently make voting more complicated for our military voters and
overseas citizens. For years, those States with late primaries--
including Vermont--have worked to convince our legislatures that our
late primaries make it extremely difficult for us to use the U.S. mail
to get election materials to military and overseas voters in time for
them to vote.
In February 2004, NASS passed a resolution urging the Federal
Government to implement an air express ballot delivery plan that would
expedite both the delivery and receipt of ballots for military and
overseas voters. It is our belief that such a plan would allow a
military or overseas voter to deliver a completed ballot to a military
Voting Assistance Officer or an appropriate U.S. embassy official by a
deadline as close as practical to the election, and still have the
ballot delivered to his or her election official no later than noon on
the Friday or Monday before Election Day. As an organization, we called
on the Federal Government to implement this service because the
Internet voting pilot project for military and overseas voters, SERVE,
had just been cancelled.
In July 2004, we called on the States to include voting information
for military and overseas citizens on their State Web sites. NASS also
included information on our Web site for military and overseas
citizens--including our resolution language, links to all of the
States' election Web sites and to voting information Web sites for each
branch of the Armed Forces, as well as State-by-State surveys on issues
relevant to military and overseas voters.
While our surveys are not scientific, we do find that posting the
results helps us to inform citizens about voting procedures in their
State, while keeping the Secretaries abreast of what other States are
doing. Our ``Single State Office and Method of Delivery for Materials''
survey summary included State-by-State contact information that both
the Secretaries and the general public could use to get answers to
their questions about the States' military and overseas voting
practices. The survey summary also outlined the allowable methods for
submitting absentee ballot requests and for returning voter
registration applications, FPCAs, and completed ballots. In the spring
of 2006, we updated the survey to include the question, ``What are the
allowable methods for sending ballots to military and overseas
voters?''
A copy of the survey and copies of our resolutions have been
included for your review.
The Secretaries have worked in close cooperation with their
legislatures to amend State laws to keep current with technological
advances. The use of e-mail and faxing for much of the information
exchanged between a voter and an election official is now allowed in
most States. However, it is important to note that most States still
require the actual voted ballot be returned by mail or express
delivery.
We are eager to work with the Federal agencies that have been
established to assist military and overseas voters. Over the years, the
States have worked closely with the Federal Voting Assistance Program
(FVAP) on various pilot programs, including the 2000 Internet Voting
project, 2004 SERVE project, Expedited Postal Programs and now IVAS.
NASS is working with the FVAP to determine how best to improve
communication between Federal, State, and local governments. NASS staff
members provide regular updates to the Secretaries by sending out e-
mail notices and summaries about programs at the Federal level. Unlike
Federal agencies, the association isn't constricted by Federal laws
governing written communications, so NASS is able to give its members
advance notice of deadlines and official communications that will be
arriving via U.S. mail from Federal agencies like FVAP, the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). In addition to e-mail communications and updates,
NASS also invites the Federal agencies to present their programs at our
winter and summer conferences each year.
We are very excited about the IVAS initiatives FVAP is implementing
for the November 2006 elections. The challenge we all face is timing.
In order for any program to be successful, it must be implemented
effectively, but it must also be implemented early. The States need
time to put the proper procedures (and in some cases new laws) in place
and time to notify and train local election officials. Our local
election officials will be responsible for ensuring that any new
election practice is successfully implemented.
We also share responsibility with the FVAP for making military and
overseas voters aware of the new services available to them. The States
and localities that are able to implement some or all of the
initiatives this year will be a tremendous resource for those who will
follow them. We all look forward to building on the success of the
programs being utilized this year.
In Vermont we have worked hard to make it possible for our overseas
and military voters to participate. We have found ways to be flexible,
within the context of our State laws, so that ballots can be faxed or
e-mailed overseas so that there can be a great chance of them being
voted and then returned to Vermont by Election Day so that they can be
counted. We have a special page on our Web site for overseas and
military voters so that they can have easy access to all the
information they need to register and vote by mail, and we are very
happy to be participating in the new IVAS project to accept automated
FPCAs.
Looking into the future we are hoping that technology will provide
additional solutions to permit our service men and women, and our
overseas citizens to vote easily and quickly. This year, in Vermont, we
are using the IVS Vote-By-Phone system to permit voters with
disabilities to vote privately and independently at our polling places.
This system permits a voter to use the telephone keypad to mark a paper
ballot which is printed out in our Elections Center, and which can then
be counted with the rest of the ballots on Election Day. I believe that
this technology holds great promise for use by our overseas and
military voters. We have encouraged the FVAP to consider whether this
innovative technology could be broadly deployed to solve what is a
serious problem for our service men and women and for our overseas
citizens.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you again for
the invitation to speak here today. If I or NASS can be of any
assistance on the issues we've discussed, I hope you won't hesitate to
call on us.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Madam Secretary of State. That
was an excellent and impressive overview about what you're
doing in Vermont. I will convey to the authors and champions of
the Help America Vote Act, Senators McConnell, Dodd, and Bond,
the fact that this has made a difference and I know they'll be
very pleased to get that report. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeGregorio, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF PAUL DeGREGORIO, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. DeGregorio. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I am
pleased to be here this morning on behalf of the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission, also known as the EAC, to discuss the
responsibility our agency has in supporting the States and
local governments in serving military and overseas voters.
We are here today to discuss a very important segment of
our electorate, military and overseas citizens. This group of
voters, which is estimated to be over 3 million Americans, has
very specific needs. At the EAC we are working to understand
the needs of these voters and to help election officials
develop practices and procedures that address those needs.
In every election, military and other overseas voters are
not able to cast timely ballots because of the excessive amount
of time that it takes to complete the voting process. According
to several studies, up to 25 percent of these voters are often
disenfranchised. We find this level of disenfranchisement
unacceptable. A significant portion of this percentage is
composed of military voters who simply did not have enough time
to vote, either because they never received their ballot,
received it too late, or couldn't return their ballot by the
required deadline.
In 2004, the EAC conducted the first comprehensive survey
of State practices involving military and overseas voting. The
survey found that many jurisdictions are not tracking how many
ballots are sent to, and received from, these voters as
required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002. These challenges
were highlighted just last week when the EAC conducted a public
meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, focused on issues related to
military and overseas voting. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of
the testimony we received last week and would like to submit
that for the record.
Senator Dayton. Without objection.
Mr. DeGregorio. Thank you. Several salient points were
gleaned from the presentations made at the meeting. First, the
current voting process for these citizens is not working as
well as it should. Second, members of the military and overseas
citizens have very difficult and different issues, needs, and
resources when it comes to voting. Finally, the current methods
for reducing excessive delays in requesting, transmitting, and
receiving ballots from these voters are merely temporary
solutions to a much larger problem.
While DOD has attempted several projects to increase the
use of technology in voting, the receptiveness of the States to
these projects has been limited. Also, often times the dates of
the primary elections dictate the length of time that a
military and overseas voter has to request, receive, and return
a voted ballot. States that continue to hold late primary
elections or finalize their ballots less than 45 days before
the general election make it very difficult for these voters to
receive a ballot, much less vote.
The EAC is working to find solutions to these problems. In
2004, our agency, in conjunction with the FVAP, released a
report on best practices for facilitating voting by military
and other overseas citizens. The EAC recognizes that ballots
for overseas voters are sent and received by the 6,700 local
election authorities and it is there where military and other
overseas voters must ultimately be served. It is with this
concept in mind that the EAC recommends the following best
practices.
First, local officials should mail absentee ballots to
military and overseas voters at least 45 days prior to the
deadline for receipt of voted absentee ballots.
Second, the States should expand the use of fax and e-mail
to distribute absentee ballots to overseas voters more quickly.
Third, the States need to ensure that local jurisdictions
are in compliance with State law for mailing absentee ballots
to military and other overseas voters.
Finally, LEOs need to create a specific point of contact
for these voters in their offices so their needs can be better
served.
Challenges lay ahead for the future of military and
overseas voters. The implementation of technology alone will
not solve the problems that these voters face. This is a
complex problem that requires rethinking the way that elected
and election officials serve this important constituency. These
challenges can be overcome. Every day financial institutions
use secure technology to transmit billions of dollars. The U.S.
military uses secure technology to send sensitive and
classified information. We should utilize these resources with
strategically located personnel to ensure that these voters
have the ability to participate in U.S. elections.
The EAC has contracted for a study of internet voting and
the transmission and receipt of absentee ballots for military
and other overseas voters. This study will include reviewing
the practices of the States and local jurisdictions that use
technology to transmit or accept ballots, which may allow over-
the-internet voting.
In conclusion, over the past 4 years significant changes
have been made to our election administration system. The Help
America Vote Act contemplated the need to modernize election
administration, and we have seen progress serving domestic
voters, however we must turn that same level of attention to
serving the voters who protect the democracy that we cherish by
making sure that they can participate in our elections.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to
address the committee. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeGregorio follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Paul DeGregorio
Good morning Chairman Warner and members of the committee. I am
pleased to be here this morning on behalf of the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) to discuss the responsibility EAC has in
supporting the States and local governments in serving military and
overseas voters.
We are here today to discuss a very important segment of our
electorate, military, and overseas citizens. This group of voters,
which many estimate to be over 3 million Americans, has very specific
and unique needs in comparison to voters who have the ability to vote
in the precincts that are just blocks from their homes. Members of the
armed services are often separated from their home polling places by
time and great distances. Overseas citizens have left their home land
to serve their country in various governmental capacities, or they are
out of country for business, family, or other reasons. None of these
Americans have left behind their right to vote and their ability to
help make decisions about the government of their country of
citizenship. Both of these groups are important to our democracy, their
votes are important to our elections, and it is imperative that we take
steps to assure that their votes are cast and counted. However, the
distances that separate these voters from their election jurisdictions
cannot easily be bridged by our current election processes and
procedures. At EAC, we are working to understand the needs of military
and overseas voters and to help election officials develop practices
and procedures that address those needs.
EAC'S ROLE IN MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING
EAC is a bipartisan commission consisting of four members: Paul
DeGregorio, chairman; Donetta Davidson; and Gracia Hillman. There is
currently one vacancy on the Commission. The EAC was established by the
Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA was a comprehensive piece of
election reform legislation that charges election officials at the
State and local level with implementing improvements to voting
technology, provisional voting, voter registration management, voter
identification, and information provided to voters. However, HAVA did
more than prescribe these changes. Congress, through HAVA, has
appropriated $3.1 billion for States to implement HAVA's election
reforms. EAC was given the responsibility of distributing those funds
to States and providing guidance to States in the implementation of
these new election administration practices. In addition to
responsibilities regarding HAVA's requirements, EAC was also charged
with assuming the duties of administering the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA) and collecting information and conducting
studies of election administration under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).
In 2004, EAC began its work on military and overseas voting by
working with the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) to produce a
set of best practices. In addition, in 2004, EAC for the first time
sought to collect information from all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the 4 Territories on the number of ballots that were sent
to and the number of ballots that were returned by military and
overseas citizen voters. In 2005, EAC continued its work with election
officials to implement the requirements of HAVA that will impact all
voters, including members of the military and overseas citizens. This
work included issuing guidance on the implementation of statewide voter
registration databases and developing standards for voting systems.
Since its inception, the EAC has also met on a continuing basis with
various groups who represent the interests of military and overseas
voters. Most recently, EAC conducted a public meeting in St. Louis,
Missouri that focused on the needs of military and overseas citizen
voters. In 2006 and 2007, EAC will continue its work to support States
in administering elections involving military and overseas citizen
voters by collecting information on the participation of members of the
military and overseas citizens in the November 2006 election and by
conducting a study of electronic means that can be used to facilitate a
faster turn around time in sending out and returning ballots.
THE MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING SYSTEM
Military and overseas citizen voting, just like domestic voting, is
conducted through our distributed system of election administration.
There are a handful of Federal laws that protect the rights of citizens
in voting and that govern certain portions of the administration of
Federal elections. These laws include the Voting Rights Act, the
Accessibility to Elderly and Handicapped Act, the National Voter
Registration Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act, and the Help America Vote Act. The gaps left by these laws are
filled by State laws, procedures, and practices, including laws that
set the time for printing absentee ballots, the means by which absentee
voting is conducted, and the procedures for counting absentee ballots.
By and large, the current system of military and overseas voting is
conducted by mail. Servicemembers and overseas citizens must request a
ballot by mail, must be mailed a ballot for voting, and must return
that ballot by mail for counting--a process that takes at least 45
days. EAC has examined the current system of voting by researching
available resources on the topic, talking to groups that represent
affected voters, collecting information about voter participation
through its 2004 UOCAVA Survey, and holding a public hearing on the
topic in September 2006.
UOCAVA Voters Are Frequently Disenfranchised
In every election, members of the military and U.S. citizens living
overseas are not able to cast timely ballots because of the excessive
amount of time that it takes to complete the voting process. According
to an informal study of local election officials conducted by the
National Defense Committee, disenfranchisement of overseas military
voters for the 2004 presidential election approached 24 percent.
Another study involving nonmilitary overseas voters indicated that they
are also being disenfranchised due to problems with ballot
distribution. According to the Overseas Vote Foundation, 19 percent of
overseas voters who responded to a post-2004 Election Survey never
received the ballots that they requested and another 24 percent
received ballots too late to have them returned and counted. The EAC's
2004 UOCAVA Survey generally supports the conclusion of these studies.
We find this level of disenfranchisement unacceptable. A
significant portion of this percentage is composed of overseas military
voters who simply did not have enough time to vote either because they
never received their ballot, received it too late, or couldn't return
their ballot by the required deadline. Deployed military voters are
moving targets rarely staying in one place for very long, which makes
it extremely difficult to ensure that they are going to get a ballot in
a timely fashion. This fact combined with the late primaries in many
States and late absentee ballot distribution creates an almost
impossible time frame for the voter to receive and return their ballot.
The HAVA requires States to report the number of ballots
transmitted to and returned by UOCAVA voters. It further requires that
EAC develop a tool or form for the collection of that data. In 2004,
EAC conducted the first comprehensive survey of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and 4 territories regarding their practices in
sending and receiving ballots from members of the military and overseas
citizens. A comprehensive survey of this sort had never been
administered in all U.S. election jurisdictions. In the past, FVAP has
conducted a similar survey from a sample of election jurisdictions and
extrapolated those responses to give a picture of how military and
overseas voting was being conducted throughout the country.
The survey showed that in every State there were more UOCAVA
ballots sent than returned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UOCAVA
UOCAVA Absentee
State Absentee Ballots
Ballots Sent* Returned*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK...................................... 14,574 9,839
AL...................................... 8,005 4,234
AR...................................... 5,173 2,539
AZ...................................... 12,046 8,282
CA...................................... 62,468 No data
CO...................................... 10,339 6,669
CT...................................... 6,045 4,489
DC...................................... 2,532 1,722
DE...................................... 1,811 1,273
FL...................................... 122,194 93,524
GA...................................... 16,690 13,216
HI...................................... 3,862 2,492
IA...................................... 5,343 4,920
ID...................................... 4,275 3,874
IL...................................... 30,556 26,639
IN...................................... 8,980 6,811
KS...................................... 6,564 5,084
KY...................................... 6,234 4,912
LA...................................... 12,899 8,631
ME...................................... 3,410 2,649
MD...................................... 12,916 11,306
MA...................................... 125,031 111,017
MI...................................... 13,583 9,916
MN...................................... 12,322 8,757
MS...................................... 2,779 1,683
MO...................................... 15,477 9,006
MT...................................... 4,721 3,490
NE...................................... 3,867 2,775
NV...................................... 5,699 4,420
NH...................................... 4,516 3,727
NJ...................................... 14,256 8,475
NM...................................... 519 348
NY...................................... 55,183 43,699
NC...................................... 18,063 11,996
ND...................................... 1,587 1,117
OH...................................... 14,527 11,768
OK...................................... 7,682 5,737
OR...................................... 18,752 14,307
PA...................................... 36,051 30,042
RI...................................... 21,498 19,046
SC...................................... 168,814 157,990
SD...................................... 3,823 3,288
TN...................................... 19,635 16,609
TX...................................... 88,847 66,374
UT...................................... 4,598 3,817
VT...................................... 1,733 1,340
VA...................................... 29,646 24,463
WA...................................... 37,198 30,446
WV...................................... 4,712 3,745
WI...................................... 10,275 7,146
WY...................................... 3,123 2,594
AS...................................... 326 284
GU...................................... No Response No Response
PR...................................... No Response No Response
VI...................................... No Response No Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Some State numbers may reflect total absentee ballots sent and
received. (UOCAVA and Non-UOCAVA).
EAC learned a great deal from conducting this survey in 2004. Most
importantly, EAC found that many jurisdictions are not tracking how
many ballots are sent to and received from members of the military or
overseas citizens, as required by HAVA. This reality is due to a number
of factors. First, some States do not distinguish between absentee
ballots for these citizens and absentee ballots for state-side,
nonmilitary voters. Second, some did not track the exact number of
ballots that were transmitted to military and overseas voters. Third,
States have different ways of defining key terms that affect the
questions that were asked in the survey. Last, some States did not
respond at all to the survey for one or more reasons. EAC produced a
report based upon the responses that it received from the States in
response to the 2004 survey. That report is available on EAC's Web
site, http://www.eac.gov/docs/UOCAVASurvey%20Report%20-%20Final%203-3-
06.doc.
Using experience gained from the 2004 survey, EAC worked with the
National Association of Secretaries of State and other organizations of
election officials to promote more accurate data collection in 2006. In
addition, the EAC established a working group to help develop its
survey questions for the 2006 Federal elections. EAC is currently
taking comments on its draft survey, which is available on EAC's Web
site, http://www.eac.gov/eav--survey.asp
Challenges for UOCAVA Voters
Members of the military face unique challenges when attempting to
cast a ballot. First, requests for ballots and ballots themselves must
be transmitted using two mail systems, the U.S. Postal Service and
either the Army Post Office or Fleet Post Office. Second, while ballot
request forms are valid for 4 years, members of the military are
frequently transferred, deployed or restationed. Third, for members of
the Armed Services who are deployed in forward areas, access is
sometimes limited to fax machines and computers that may expedite the
voting process. On the contrary, U.S. citizens living overseas are
often less transient and have access to technology that may be used to
expedite the voting process. However, they still face using a slow
international mail system to transmit requests for and actual ballots.
In addition, State laws that require notarization of ballot request
forms require overseas citizens to go to the U.S. Embassy in their
countries. Unless the overseas citizen lives in the area of the
Embassy, he or she must travel to the Embassy on a day when an
appointment is available and wait to have the ballot request form
notarized.
On September 21, 2006, EAC conducted a public meeting in St. Louis,
Missouri, where it focused on issues related to military and overseas
voting. A panel of speakers including representatives of FVAP,
organizations representing the armed services and overseas citizens,
and State and local election officials testified about the problems and
solutions surrounding registering, distributing ballots, and receiving
voted ballots from this group of voters. The complete testimony for
each of these panelists is available on the EAC Web site, http://
www.eac.gov/public--meeting--092106.asp. Several salient points were
gleaned from these presentations:
The current voting process for military and overseas
citizens is not working;
Members of the military and overseas citizens have
very different issues, needs, and resources when it come to
voting;
The voting process requires an average of 45 days for
a military member or overseas citizen to request, obtain, vote,
and return a ballot; and
The current methods for reducing excessive delays in
requesting, transmitting, and receiving ballots from members of
the military and overseas citizens are merely temporary
solutions to a much larger problem.
Representatives from FVAP and State and local election officials
testified about the processes that are in place to reduce the amount of
time needed to request, receive, vote, return, and count a UOCAVA
ballot. The Department of Defense first introduced electronic
transmission service (ETS) to the UOCAVA voting process in 1990.
Military voters who were deployed to the Persian Gulf region could use
a fax to return their ballots. Since that time, the Department of
Defense has attempted several other projects to increase the use of
technology in voting, including the ability to e-mail election
materials and ballots. However, the receptiveness of the States to
these methods has been limited:
12 States allow a voter to submit a request for an
absentee ballot via e-mail;
6 States allow UOCAVA voters to submit a registration
application via e-mail;
12 States allow UOCAVA voters to receive a blank
ballot via e-mail;
8 States allow UOCAVA voters to return a voted ballot
via e-mail;
35 States allow UOCAVA voters to receive a blank
ballot via fax; and
26 States allow UOCAVA voters to return a voted ballot
via fax.
States often require a special order to permit the use of these
forms of technology in UOCAVA voting. Thus, faxing ballots is only
possible to forward areas or when a special order is issued by the
State's governing authority. Other States have laws that are not
consistent with the transient nature of military voters. For example,
it is not uncommon to have ballots returned as undeliverable when a
military voter has been deployed. Some States require that these
voters' requests, generally valid for 4 years, be cancelled
immediately. Many local election jurisdictions continue to require
paper ballots, the U.S. Postal Service and manual signatures. These
methods are aimed at maintaining the security and authenticity of the
voting process, ensuring that the UOCAVA voter is, in fact, eligible.
States set the dates for primary elections and the distribution of
ballots. Oftentimes the dates of the primary election dictate the
length of time that a UOCAVA voter has to request, receive, and return
a voted ballot. Even States that have early primaries can have laws
that dictate a late date to finalize a general election ballot. So, in
States with late primaries and States that finalize their ballots close
to a general election, UOCAVA voters have shortened and often times
impossible windows in which to participate in a general election. In
locations where disputes over the names of candidates on the ballot are
ongoing, the printing of ballots can be further delayed until the suits
are resolved. When delayed printing of ballots impacts the ability to
timely transmit UOCAVA ballots, the Department of Justice has had to
intervene with the States to extend the dates when UOCAVA ballots can
be received. With a UOCAVA voting process that takes an average of 45
days to complete, States that continue to hold late primary elections
or finalize their ballots less than 55 days before the general election
make it very difficult for UOCAVA voters to receive a ballot, much
less, vote. State laws also vary on when ballots must be received in
order to be counted. Some States require all UOCAVA ballots to be
present on Election Day, while others permit the counting of these
ballots even if they are received several days after the election.
Because UOCAVA ballots are transmitted postage-free, it is often
difficult for States to determine when the ballot was actually sent.
Proposed Changes to UOCAVA Voting
EAC is working to find solutions. In September 2004, the EAC in
conjunction with FVAP released a report on the ``Best Practices for
Facilitating Voting by U.S. Citizens covered by UOCAVA.'' The EAC
recognizes that UOCAVA ballots are sent and received by the 6700 local
election authorities in the United States, and it is there where UOCAVA
voters must ultimately be served. Each local election jurisdiction is
also overseen by a State election authority that has certain
responsibilities under State and Federal law to serve the voters in
their State. Thus, this report represents a list of suggestions made to
the States to help them and their local election authorities better
serve UOCAVA voters across the world.
First, the EAC recommended the mailing of absentee ballots at least
45 days prior to the deadline for receipt of voted absentee ballots.
Studies have shown that 45 days is the ideal length of time for voters
to be sent, receive, and return the ballot. While many States allow for
this 45-day period, a significant number do not mail ballots out until
30 days prior to the election. Inadequate ballot transit time through
the mail is the primary obstacle to timely delivery of absentee ballots
to UOCAVA voters. In order to meet this 45-day timeline, States should
consider moving up their primary election date. In several States the
primary election is at such a late date that it is impossible to
create, print, and send the ballots for the general election 45 days
prior to the election.
To further combat this problem of ballot access States should
provide a State write-in absentee Ballot to ensure UOCAVA citizens
without access to regular mail service to cast a ballot. States should
consider automatically mailing these write-in absentee ballots if
regular ballots are not available at least 45 days in advance of an
election.
Second, States should expand the use of fax and e-mail to
distribute absentee ballots to overseas voters more quickly. The ease
and accessibility of e-mail is ideal for UOCAVA voters particularly
those military personnel on the frontlines who often only have access
to the internet and only for a limited time.
Also, States need to continue to work with local post offices to
speed up the ballot distribution process in order to further increase
the amount of time overseas voters have to submit their ballots.
Third, States need to perform an internal survey to ensure that
local jurisdictions are in compliance with State law for mailing
absentee ballots to UOCAVA citizens. In conjunction with this internal
survey States need to ensure that local election offices are aware of
UOCAVA issues arising in their jurisdiction. FVAP offers training
sessions for local election officials at State conferences, as well as
providing a special section on their Web site for local election
officials to reference. FVAP also distributes a monthly memo to State
and county election officials on UOCAVA-related issues.
The EAC also recommended that local jurisdictions create a specific
point of contact for UOCAVA voters to take their questions and concerns
to. This would allow local jurisdictions to better serve UOCAVA voters
while keeping track of UOCAVA specific issues that arise.
Fourth, States need to prepare a UOCAVA voter guide for publication
on their Web site and in hard copy to distribute to voters. This does
not need to be an expensive, time-intensive voter guide. It can be as
simple as a single information page, like the ones used in Minnesota
and Nebraska. The guide needs to simply provide jurisdiction-specific
UOCAVA procedures and local election official contact information.
States also need to update their election Web sites to include
procedures for UOCAVA citizens to follow specific to that State. This
is essential because often for overseas voters the internet is the
fastest and most accessible source of information.
Finally, States that require postmarking on the ballot return
envelope should consider using the date the voter provides on the
envelope with the voter's signature as evidence of when the voter cast
the ballot. If necessary the State may require the voter to sign an
oath attesting to the truth and accuracy of the information provided.
This will eliminate the problem of a ballot return envelope not being
properly postmarked or the postmark being difficult to read and
therefore possibly discarded or not counted.
THE FUTURE OF MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING
The current methods suggested or in place to reduce the amount of
time that it takes to request, receive, cast, and return a ballot do
not address the root of the problem. While electronically transmitted
ballots may save time, this does not address the time involved in
requesting or returning that ballot. Similarly, electronically
transmitting ballots does not address the fact that the transient
nature of military life makes finding the voter complicated. The
ability to return a ballot by fax may also save time in the voting
process, but voters who use this method forfeit the privacy of their
ballot.
The implementation of technology, alone, will not solve the
problems of military and overseas citizen voting. This is a complex
problem that requires rethinking the way that we as elected and
election officials serve this important constituency, the way that we
use available resources, and the ways that we can leverage technology
to create better solutions. The Department of Defense and Department of
State already have vast resources in place in countries all over the
world. For example, every military unit has a voting assistance
officer. Similarly, there are Embassies in virtually every country with
local officials, called wardens, in districts of those countries.
Every day financial institutions around the world use secure
technology to transmit billions of dollars. The U.S. military uses
secure technology to transmit sensitive and, even, classified
information. With the availability of these resources and existing and
strategically located personnel we could do more to ensure that UOCAVA
voters have the ability to participate in U.S. elections.
EAC has contracted for a study of internet voting and the
transmission and receipt of absentee ballots for UOCAVA voters. This
study will include reviewing the practices of States and local
jurisdictions that use technology to transmit or accept ballots and may
allow internet voting. In addition, EAC will survey UOCAVA voters who
have participated in some form of electronic voting. Through this study
we hope to more fully understand the problems, resources and potential
solutions involved in military and overseas citizen voting.
EAC has also been tasked with developing standards for Internet
voting that Department of Defense can use in developing an Internet-
based voting system for UOCAVA voters. Introducing technology seems
like a simple solution to the problem; however there will be
substantial resistance to a technology-only fix for military and
overseas voting. It is important to remember that segments of our
society have a healthy distrust of the security of electronic voting,
particularly when voting systems or methods are connected to the
Internet. Thus, it is critical that we address issues such as how an
Internet-based voting system will provide confidence to the public that
it is not only secure, but also that the person casting the ballot
using that system is an eligible voter.
CONCLUSION
Over the past 4 years, significant changes have been made to our
election administration system. New voting systems have been purchased
and implemented. Each State has adopted a single list of registered
voters to better identify those persons who are eligible to vote.
Provisional voting has been applied across all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and 4 territories. However, one thing has not changed.
Elections are a human function at home or overseas. There are people
involved at every level of the election process, from creating the
ballots, to transmitting the ballots, to casting the votes.
HAVA contemplated the need to modernize election administration,
and we have seen progress serving domestic voters. However, we must
turn that same level of attention to serving voters who protect the
democracy that we cherish by ensuring that they can participate in our
elections.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee today. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart, welcome.
Mr. Stewart. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dayton. Good morning, sir. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DEREK B. STEWART, DIRECTOR, MILITARY AND
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stewart. Thank you for the invitation to be here today
to discuss military voting.
The GAO has reviewed DOD's voting program twice. In the
aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, Congress asked us
to review DOD's military and overseas absentee voting program.
Based on this review, we issued a report in September 2001. The
report contained several recommendations, and DOD agreed or
partially agreed with all of our recommendations.
Following the 2004 presidential election, Congress again
asked us to review DOD's efforts to facilitate absentee
military voting. I should note, we have undertaken a third
review, which will focus on DOD's long-term plans for
electronic voting. So, we haven't reviewed that piece that we
are focusing on today, but we have work underway.
Today, I would just like to briefly touch on three areas.
How DOD's efforts to facilitate absentee voting differed
between the 2000 and 2004 presidential election; actions taken
by DOD to respond to our recommendations in the 2001 report;
and the remaining challenges related to absentee voting.
For the 2004 presidential election, our review showed that
DOD expanded its efforts beyond what was taken for the 2000
election. Among other things, DOD conducted 100 more training
workshops; provided online training for VAOs; improved the
access to their Web site for voting information; and
distributed more voting materials. These are just some of the
activities that they expanded.
We heard Dr. Chu say that the result is what counts and
that the voting for uniformed servicemembers was up 16 percent.
We at GAO would have liked to have seen a larger response rate
to the post-election surveys. For uniform servicemembers there
was a 27-percent response rate, so we would just urge that the
results be interpreted with caution there.
In our 2001 report, we recommended, and DOD took corrective
actions to assist the Services in revising their voting
guidance; improving oversight of installation voting assistance
programs; and, increasing command emphasis on voter education
and awareness. These were huge steps, Mr. Chairman, and DOD
deserves a lot of credit for taking those actions.
Despite these improvements, our limited visits during our
most recent work to installations showed that the level of
voting assistance continued to vary. Because the VAO role is a
collateral duty and VAO's understanding and interest in voting
differs, we believe that some variance in voting assistance may
always exist. It's not going to be an exact science.
On the remaining challenges related to absentee voting, we
believe there are two, and we've talked about both of them
today. Simplifying and standardizing the absentee voting
process which involves working with the States, and
implementing a secure electronic registration and voting
system. DOD, through it's legislative initiatives program, has
encouraged the States to simplify and standardize this multi-
step absentee voting process. Of the remaining 9 DOD
initiatives, 21 States have agreed to 1 or more. Iowa is the
only State that has agreed to all nine. However, DOD is limited
in its ability to affect States' absentee voting procedures
because it lacks enforcement authority. So, it really is an
effort that the States will just have to come along.
The second challenge to absentee voting, implementing a
secure electronic registration and voting system, is a daunting
challenge, Mr. Chairman. For the 2004 election you have heard
today that DOD did invest $26 million into an internet-based
registration and voting system only to have to shut it down due
to potential security problems. There is little doubt that
internet voting would increase the convenience of voting and
add speed and precision to vote counts. However, security is
the primary technical challenge for internet voting, and
addressing this challenge adequately is vital for public
confidence.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and I'd be
happy to take your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement by Derek B. Stewart
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on military voting and
the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). 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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See appendix I for a list of related GAO reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULTS IN BRIEF
For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts
beyond those taken for the 2000 election to facilitate absentee voting
by military personnel. For example, FVAP distributed more absentee
voting materials and improved the accessibility of and added more
election-related links to its Web site, which includes voting
information. FVAP also conducted more voting training workshops than it
did for the 2000 election, conducting 164 workshops rather than the 62
workshops conducted for the 2000 election, and provided an online
training course for Voting Assistance Officers (VAOs). In addition,
FVAP designed an electronic version of the Federal Write-in Absentee
Ballot--an emergency ballot accepted by all States and Territories--
although the ballot's availability was not announced until a few weeks
before the election. FVAP used data from its postelection surveys to
assess its efforts for the 2004 election. FVAP reported increased voter
participation rates, which it attributed 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 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 that addressed our 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 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.
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 absentee voting process and developing and
implementing a secure electronic registration and voting system. FVAP
attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by encouraging
States to simplify the multi-step process and standardize their
absentee voting requirements. FVAP's Legislative Initiatives program
encouraged States to improve the absentee voting process for military
personnel by adopting changes such as: (1) removing the notary
requirement on election materials, and (2) allowing the use of
electronic transmission of election materials. However, 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. 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. FVAP has not been able to develop a system
that would protect the security and privacy of absentee ballots cast
over the Internet, despite conducting a small Internet voting project
during the 2000 election and developing an electronic registration and
voting experiment for the 2004 election. In both cases, security
concerns prevented expanded use of these projects. Communications
technologies, such as faxing, e-mail, and the Internet, have been used
to improve communication between local jurisdictions and voters. For
example, for the 2004 election, FVAP's Voting Assistance Guide showed
that the States allowed some form of electronic transmission of certain
voting materials.
BACKGROUND
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,\2\ 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,\3\ Congress left States
discretion in how to implement those requirements and did not require
uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout this testimony, States also include the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
and American Samoa.
\3\ Pub. L. No. 107-252, Sec. 706 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DIFFERENCES IN FVAP'S EFFORTS BETWEEN THE 2000 AND 2004 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS
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.
FVAP Distributed More Voting Materials and Improved Access to Its Web
Site
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 Postcard Application (FPCA)--the registration and absentee
ballot request form for UOCAVA citizens \4\--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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This includes members of the United States military, their
dependents of voting age, and American citizens no longer maintaining
permanent residence in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.fvap.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
FVAP Increased Absentee Voting Training Opportunities
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.
FVAP Designed an Electronic Absentee Ballot Form
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.\6\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pub. L. No. 108-375, Sec. 566 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FVAP's Report of Higher Voter Participation Should Be Interpreted with
Caution
On the basis of its 2004 post-election survey, FVAP reported higher
voter participation rates among uniformed servicemembers 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.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas
Citizens Should Be Improved, GAO-01-1026 (Washington, DC: Sept. 28,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
The Services Revised Their Voting Guidance and Enhanced Program
Oversight
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
2002-2003 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.
Top-level Command Emphasis Increased
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).
REMAINING CHALLENGES RELATED TO ABSENTEE MILITARY VOTING
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 timeconsuming 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.
Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting Process
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 timeframe 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 \8\--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.\9\ According to FVAP, this
action was the result of State election officials working with
congressional lawmakers to improve the absentee voting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Not-earlier-than restriction refers to States not accepting an
FPCA if it arrives before a specified date.
\9\ Pub. L. No. 107-107, Sec. 1606 (2001) and Pub. L. No. 107-252,
Sec. 706 (2002), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1 or more of
the 9 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.
TABLE 1: NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS WITH FVAP'S LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
States in
FVAP Initiatives agreement Change
----------------
2001 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Allow a 40- to 45-day transit time between 42 41 -1
the date the absentee ballot is mailed to the
voter and the due date for the voted ballot
to be returned...............................
2. Remove the notary requirement on any 49 50 1
election materials...........................
3. Establish late registration procedures for 24 28 4
persons recently separated from the uniformed
services and citizens returning from overseas
employment...................................
4. Provide for a special State write-in 27 27 0
absentee ballot..............................
5. Incorporate reference to UOCAVA into State 33 37 4
election code................................
6. Allow the use of electronic transmission of 48 49 1
election materials...........................
7. Expand use of the Federal Write-in Absentee 7 12 5
Ballot to include special, primary, and run-
off elections, and allow the ballot to be
used as a simultaneous registration
application and ballot.......................
8. Provide emergency authority for absentee 11 16 5
ballot handling to the State's chief election
official during periods of declared emergency
9. Enfranchise citizens who have never resided 8 a 17 9
in the United States or its territories......
-------------------------
Total....................................... 28 b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO generated from FVAP data.
a Eight States agreed, but one State later withdrew support.
b Some States agreed to more than one initiative.
The absentee voting process requires the potential voter to take
the following five steps: (1) register to vote,\10\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In some States, registration may not be necessary to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military servicemembers are encouraged to use the Federal Postcard
Application (FPCA) \11\ 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 15 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In all States and Territories, the FPCA serves as a valid
request for registration and/or absentee ballot for those citizens
entitled to use it regardless of whether they have registered prior to
the submission of the FPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
TABLE 2: STATES REPORTING DIFFERING MAIL-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT DEADLINES
FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, NOVEMBER 2004 GENERAL
ELECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail-in absentee Mail-in absentee
ballot deadline ballot deadline
State from inside the from outside the
United States United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.......................... 10 days after 15 days after
Election Day and Election Day and
postmarked by postmarked by
Election Day. Election Day
Arkansas........................ Election Day...... 10 days after
Election Day
Florida......................... Election Day...... No later than 10
days after
Election Day if
postmarked or
signed and dated
by Election Day
(Federal races
only)
Louisiana....................... 1 day before Election Day
Election Day.
Maryland........................ 1 day after 10 days after
Election Day if Election Day and
postmarked before postmarked before
Election Day. Election Day
Massachusetts................... Election Day...... 10 days after
Election Day and
postmarked by
Election Day
Ohio............................ Election Day...... 10 days after
Election Day
Pennsylvania.................... 4 days before Absentee ballot
Election Day. deadline extended
per court order
for November 2004
general election
for not only
absentee ballots
from outside the
United States but
also for those
voters covered by
UOCAVA, including
domestic
uniformed
servicemembers,
who are
nonetheless
absent from the
place of
residence where
they are
otherwise
qualified to vote
Texas........................... Election Day...... 5 days after
Election Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO 2005 survey of State election officials.
Another challenge for military servicemembers 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,\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Help America Vote Act of 2002 amended UOCAVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as
Reflected in the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450
(Washington, DC: June 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\14\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Operation Iraqi Freedom: Longstanding Problems Hampering
Mail Delivery Need to Be Resolved, GAO-04-484 (Washington, DC: Apr. 14,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A SECURE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION AND VOTING
SYSTEM
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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-01-1026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\16\ 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,\17\ with the eventual goal of supporting the
entire military population, their dependents, and overseas citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pub. L. No. 107-107, Sec. 1604 (2001).
\17\ The seven States were Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FVAP established a Security Peer Review Group, a group of 10
computer election security experts, to evaluate SERVE. However, in
January 2004, a minority report published by four members of the group
publicly raised concerns about the security of the system. They
suggested it be shut down due to potential security problems that left
it vulnerable to cyber attacks. Furthermore, they cautioned against the
development of future electronic voting systems until the security of
both the Internet and the world's home computer infrastructure had been
improved. Specifically, the report stated:
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 \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Voters sacrifice privacy for timeliness when they return
completed ballots by fax.
TABLE 3: OPTIONS ALLOWED BY STATES AND TERRITORIES FOR ELECTRONIC
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTION MATERIALS FOR THE NOVEMBER 2004 AND NOVEMBER
2006 ELECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2004 November 2006
Number of States that allowed ---------------------------------------
faxing of: Yes No Yes No
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPCA for registering............ 44 11 45 10
FPCA for ballot request......... 49 6 50 5
Blank ballot.................... 31 24 33 22
Voted ballot.................... 23 32 23 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\19\ 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; \20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System provides a
means for quickly verifying and validating a person as eligible to
receive military health care and other DOD benefits.
\20\ The nine States and Territories were Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virgin
Islands, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
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.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, each of you, for very
informative testimony. I think, Secretary Chu, your noted
improvements in the percentage of those who have voted is
important progress. We'd always like to see better, but I think
that's real progress that should be noted.
I do recognize the discrepancy between your own statements,
and I want to see if this is an apples-to-apples comparison.
Those who could not vote you cited as 6 percent and, Chairman
DeGregorio, you cited that as 23 percent? No, 27 percent.
Mr. DeGregorio. 24 percent.
Senator Dayton. 24 percent, I'm sorry, you're right, 24
percent. Can you reconcile that? Are you both measuring the
same way or describing the same situation here or not?
Dr. Chu. These are two different metrics.
Senator Dayton. Okay.
Dr. Chu. Our results are based on a survey of our various
populations, the military itself, Federal civilians overseas,
and Americans overseas, not who are, however, part of the
Federal Government.
Senator Dayton. When they say--so I'm clear, you say they
could not vote. What does that mean in practical terms?
Dr. Chu. What that meant was, it was an answer to a
question that we asked: ``Did you vote?'' If they said, ``No,''
we asked, ``Did you attempt to vote?'' So the numbers I cited
for the 6 percent or so in the 2004 election in the military
column who attempted, but could not vote. That's from their
answers to that survey, so ours is based on a survey of the
voting population.
The 20-some percent number comes out of what, as I
understand it, the EAC was directed by Congress to do. What
others have done on an ad hoc basis from time to time before,
which leads to the National Defense Committee's estimates where
they try--but, I think, less carefully than Ms. Markowitz
outlines--to do this comparison of how many ballots were sent
out versus how many returned. That's where the 20-some percent
difference lies.
I was interested in this report in which EAC said it was
pleased to find that no one reported more ballots were sent
back than were sent out, which of course is our first
consideration. But, to be serious about it, it also in this
report notes, and Chairman DeGregorio can certainly speak to
this, the inadequacies of State reporting on this front up to
now. As he said in his oral statement, many States really do
not have in place the mechanisms to track this. Many of these
numbers are all absentee ballots sent out versus all returned,
not, in other words, the military or overseas voters per se.
Many States or many jurisdictions--and that actually is a
feature of Federal law now--push absentee ballots out to
someone who voted absentee the last time.
The military turns over at a rate of 10 to 20 percent per
year, and in addition, the remaining people move around a great
deal. So, any kind of push system is going to result in a
significant number of ballots not showing up. I'm impressed
with Vermont's statistic that when they actually looked at the
National Guard, a segment of that total population, they found
that virtually all ballots were returned. We make every effort
to get those ballots back.
We have taken to heart the National Association's call for
an air express ballot delivery system. We set the standard in
2004 for return of ballots. The standard would be 5 days from
foxhole to the LEO. We did that by insisting that whatever else
forward commanders had to do, that their responsibility was to
get the ballot from the fox hole to one of the five air pickup
points in Iraq within a 2-day timeframe, and from that point we
would take it by air to the major air gateway, which is
Kuwait--or was Kuwait at that time--and from Kuwait back to New
York, and from New York by express mail back to the LEO, so we
invest a great deal.
I fully support what Chairman DeGregorio advocated, which
is, we need a longer time from ballot transmission by the
States, even if we can get more of them to use electronic
means, ballot transmission from the State to the voter, we
really would like the 45 days. I am very grateful that Ms.
Markowitz is willing to go before her legislature, charge up
this hill for us even though she didn't succeed the last time.
I would like to encourage her to try again.
Senator Dayton. Minnesota also has its primary on the
second Tuesday in September. Chairman DeGregorio, do you want
to respond, and also could you clarify exactly what it is that
you are measuring, please?
Mr. DeGregorio. Yes, I appreciate Dr. Chu's answer and I
think he did adequately explain some of the discrepancy, but
let me go a little further just to explain where these figures
come from.
We had our hearing in St. Louis last week, and we had
testimony from the National Defense Committee, which is a
committee that basically advocates for military voters
overseas, and the Overseas Vote Foundation that takes a look
and advocates for other overseas citizens too. They both
conducted surveys independent of each other for the 2004
elections and came to very similar conclusions: roughly one in
four people who attempted to vote were not getting their ballot
back in time in order to be counted.
Our statistics that were supplied to us by the States, were
required by the Help America Vote Act. These voters--known as
UOCAVA voters, in the terminology of the law--the individual
jurisdictions of the country must report to us how many ballots
were sent to them and how many were received. Our report did
certainly acknowledge, and state very clearly, that many
jurisdictions are not keeping these statistics.
Even with that in mind though, in the statistics that we
were provided by almost all of the States and Territories there
is a pattern, and the pattern generally supports the statistics
of these two independent groups. We're still seeing what I
would characterize as a fairly high disenfranchisement rate
from military and overseas voters. I think that Senator Burns
talked to that this morning about a citizen in his State. You
probably can find some in Minnesota in your State who are
attempting unsuccessfully to vote. You have a late primary and
it makes it difficult sometimes for the local jurisdictions to
produce their ballot for the November 7 election.
I do think we need to--as I said in my testimony, oral and
written--that we have to address this issue. We have to take a
look at the fact that this 45-day period is one that we have to
have the ballots out by the 45th day because it takes so long
to get ballots to and from voters.
We had significant testimony last week in St. Louis from
folks who had served overseas who have attempted to vote and
their ballots were not counted because of the time it takes to
send their requests and get their requests back. So, we need to
take a look at this and see if there needs to be Federal
legislation that gives the States greater options, but also as
the Help America Vote Act does, provides incentives to them to
deal with the problem.
I think that perhaps encouraging them to change these
deadlines, these dates for primaries or extend the deadline to
receive these ballots is certainly one way to deal with this,
but also provide greater opportunities for electronic
transmission of ballots. The IVAS program of DOD is certainly a
step in that direction, and we'd certainly like to see that
nationwide, not just in three States, and not just in a very
limited use in terms of transmitting ballots to people.
Senator Dayton. Senator Thune, I think under the protocol
you just became chairman.
Senator Thune [presiding]. Don't let me interfere.
Senator Dayton. I'll continue with my questions, thank you.
I think it's worth noting for the record--we talk about the
complexities or the lack of complexities given 45 States and
other entities--but you also described, Secretary Chu, that
there really are 7,000 counties. I was State Auditor of
Minnesota previously, and I know I didn't have the functions of
the Secretary of State, but I knew her well and audited the
counties and understood clearly that most county auditors, at
least in Minnesota, are elected. They're independent minded as
they have the right to be--so I think it adds greater
complexity for the Department, as well as for the Secretaries
of State, than perhaps that figure of 45 would suggest.
I guess I'd ask, Madam Secretary of State, obviously
Montana's a different State, different situation, but how would
you respond to that mother in Montana that Senator Burns
mentioned there, and if an individual at the local level, as I
understood it, his background, the clients didn't provide the
necessary certification, what recourse does that mother, or
what recourse does that soldier have?
Ms. Markowitz. You raise a good issue. There is autonomy,
although you should know that the Help America Vote Act really
did--for the first time--give the State some authority to
create uniformity in how the law is handled within a State.
That being said, what we're seeing across the country is
that sometimes it takes a lawsuit. It sometimes takes the State
bringing suit against a local official to get them to give up
some of that autonomy to do it right.
In my experience, though, as a practical matter, it doesn't
really take lawsuits, it takes training and education. I would
feel terrible meeting somebody who is disenfranchised in this
way, obviously, but I would want the local official to hear
that story as well so that they can understand, really, what's
required of them.
In my experience, though, what it is is education that's
required for our local officials, because they're as committed
as we are to doing the right thing.
I'd like to go back to----
Senator Dayton. I'm sorry, in deference to Senator Thune--
--
Ms. Markowitz. Yes, please.
Senator Dayton.--because I have exceeded my normal
committee time, if you want to--the committee record we're
going to leave open, I believe, for 7 days--is that typical? Or
whatever the normal time is, so if anybody has additional
comments to submit for the record, please do so.
Let me just ask one final question and ask each of you,
again, to be brief. Do you recommend any particular additional
Federal legislation? Do you believe it's necessary? What would
it be that you could recommend to my colleagues?
Dr. Chu. I think certainly I want to be respectful of the
Federal nature of our system, just as Ms. Markowitz has pointed
out--this is really a local responsibility. I do think
encouragement of one sort or another to a 45-day window for
physical ballot delivery, or more support for electronic means
if it's not going to be physical, would be very helpful.
Senator Dayton. Anyone else? Federal legislation?
Ms. Markowitz. I would encourage you to continue to fully
fund this effort from the voter assistance positions down to
some of these more innovative projects. I would also caution
you about legislation that may have unintended consequences.
One of the challenges that we have right now is there is this
requirement that if somebody is a military overseas voter and
has requested an absentee ballot, that we continue to send them
absentee ballots without requests in future elections for a
number of years. Particularly in the military, people get
redeployed within 18 months and that puts us in a sticky
situation--we send out a ballot to somebody who's no longer
there, we can't send out a second ballot because of security.
So whatever Congress does, I ask you to please vet fully the
unintended consequences because we want to be able to make
things better as opposed to creating additional challenges.
But, I thank you.
Mr. DeGregorio. Mr. Chairman, I think that as Congress did
with the Help America Vote Act that provided resources to the
States and mandates to the States, but also some clear guidance
in some areas--I think we can take a look at that same concept
in the way we look at overseas voters and provide financial
incentives, greater tools that they can use--for instance the
IVAS program, taking it nationwide--but also taking a look at
these deadlines that the States have and provide some incentive
for them to move these deadlines for producing ballots.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. I have no comment, sir. This is a very
complicated issue, and I think you're getting an appreciation
for that. The gentleman that Senator Burns mentioned--this is
still very much an individual responsibility, voting--you have
to first register, and then you have to request your ballot.
When you request your ballot is very important, so if your
ballot doesn't show up sometimes, it's not the system's fault,
it's the individual not acting soon enough, so this is very
complicated.
There are over 10,000 voting jurisdictions, the last figure
I saw was 10,500, some of my colleagues say that--depending on
how you want to slice it, it could be as many as 13,000 local
voting jurisdictions. The State may have the authority, or the
Federal Government may have the authority to pass legislation,
but the rubber meets the road when you get down to the local
jurisdiction and resources is a problem. Not all of the local
jurisdictions have the internet, or the ability to send e-mail,
so it's a very complicated issue.
Senator Dayton. The GAO reports which I read last night
reflected that complexity--I commend you for that. Mr.
Chairman?
Senator Thune [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before
we adjourn the hearing, I just wanted to reference one question
here.
There is a concern--generally speaking--we're 40 days away,
or thereabouts, from an election. As there is in every
election, there's always discussion about disenfranchisement of
certain voter blocks. It's obviously not a new problem, but one
of the concerns I think that's been raised is the potential of
that happening with military and overseas voters. I would
address this question to Mr. DeGregorio--in your written
statement, you indicated that you have contracted for a study
of internet voting and the transmission and receipt of absentee
ballots for uniformed and overseas citizens, Absentee Voter Act
voters, and I guess the question is when do you expect that
study to be completed? Is there any reason you can suggest the
study will not support some sort of online or internet voting?
Mr. DeGregorio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just contracted
with an institution to conduct that study, just weeks ago, and
we expect them to come up with a report by late next spring.
They're going to certainly take a look at this election in
particular to see what tools are being used by the States and
by local election jurisdictions to serve military and overseas
voters. This concept of internet voting is something that
certainly has been discussed, the DOD has looked into it and
several studies and several projects, and I'm certainly an
advocate of moving in that direction. I do believe that we have
the brains in this country, and the technology in this country,
to address the issue in a positive manner to make the internet
more friendly towards voters. I think we're going to take a
look at military and overseas voters first as the DOD has done,
and we want to find solutions to the problem, and that's what
we've directed our researchers to do.
Senator Thune. Secretary Chu, any comment on that? The
possibility of that being an option somewhere in the future?
Dr. Chu. The Department remains very interested in that
option for obvious reasons, Congress has directed us to go both
ways on this issue--first telling us to do it, then telling us
to stop doing it--and as a result, our report on the last
election cycle, 2004, is in abeyance until the EAC working with
us sets standards for the future.
I recognize there are issues about security out there, but
I'm optimistic, like Mr. DeGregorio, that we can eventually
solve those issues. I would urge that we allow the Department
at an early date to try this out again on some kind of pilot
basis, because I do think it is very powerful and overcomes
many of the restrictions, if we can accept the security
restraints that will be necessary, I'm intrigued by Ms.
Markowitz's telephone voting idea that she mentioned just a few
moments ago, which is another solution of a similar sort. I
think we're very open to a wide range of solutions. Our
philosophy is to put as many tools out there for LEOs to use as
possible, because we recognize that it is a local
responsibility to decide what are going to be the rules of the
game, what's going to be satisfactory in this particular State,
this county, in terms of its elected officials, who have key
responsibility for the sanctity of American elections. We don't
want to overrule their good judgment. We would like to put a
variety of the tools out there, that's our philosophy at IVAS,
that's our philosophy across the board--let them choose which
is the best to use. We would like to guide them in certain
directions, I will acknowledge that, and this is one that we'd
like to encourage.
Senator Thune. Thank you. I appreciate your concern. I
think every LEO too has the same concern about integrity,
ballot security, all of those sorts of things, so I share that
concern and want to make sure as we proceed forward that we can
do it in a way that does preserve the integrity of the
elections and the voting. It does seem in a lot of other areas,
I just came from a hearing I was chairing having to do with
moving to a paperless system, such as filing requirements and
digital signatures and everything else we have today and
authenticating those--it seems at least that there ought to be
ways of working with LEOs so that ultimately they run elections
as you said, and that we could come up with some ways that
would at least make it easier for our service men and women and
their families to be able to participate in the democratic
process in this country, which obviously--of all people--they
certainly have the greatest right to do.
Thank you for your testimony--I see my colleague from
Missouri has arrived, so he may now be the--this is rotating
chairmanship today----
Senator Talent [presiding]. I will continue to defer to
you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that I had other obligations this
morning and I wasn't able to get here before. I wanted to do a
couple of things, one of them is to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for this important hearing. Given the kind of
technology that we have available, we really don't have any
excuse for not making the right to vote fully available on as
convenient a basis as possible--they're fighting for it, and
they ought to be able to engage in it.
I also wanted to recognize and thank a great Missourian,
and my old friend, Paul DeGregorio, for his work on this issue
and indeed on election issues and issues vital to the
development of democracy around the world. I don't think I can
count the number of miles you have logged, Paul, in helping to
supervise elections all over the world, and often under very
difficult circumstances, and adapt our principles to the needs
of particular cultures and countries. I'm grateful to you, and
Missouri is as well, and I think the country is as well.
Let me just ask, any one of you may want to comment on
this, but Dr. Chu, in particular--what issues do you see with
the interim voting system that we have in place, and what
direction do you see that going in, what are your priorities
for making it work better for our service men and women?
Dr. Chu. Thank you, sir, for that question. I'm very
pleased with our results thus far for 2006. We tried this out
on a, really, quite limited scale in 2004. We have deployed two
different tools under this rubric, this time. One, e-mail-based
that uses, essentially, a banking-type secure server. As I
indicated this morning, it's an honor to report we have
approximately 500 counties in the United States in a dozen
States or so that have agreed to use it for this election
cycle. It represents very important experience, a very
important basis for deciding what's the best option for 2008.
It very well may be that the best option is a set of options.
What I'm interested in is that by giving two choices to LEOs, I
think we got a lot more response then when we had only one
mode, or one answer. Because each of that set of important
actors has his or her own issues, constitutions--as Ms.
Markowitz has reminded me this morning--to deal with and one
solution that may be good for State A, will not work so well
for State B, a different solution there. So, what I'm taking
away from our experience thus far is that having more than one
answer so that the LEO can choose what's best, may be a good
strategy for the long-term.
Senator Talent. Thank you, I appreciate that very much, and
your sensitivity to the needs of our Secretaries of State, and
also our county clerks and our election officials who really do
want everybody to be able to vote in as convenient a means as
possible, but have a lot of practical concerns. We've
experienced this with the Federal Voting Law, which was
certainly aimed at a good objective and has done a lot of good,
but I hear from my county clerks all of the time about things
that they have to do that they don't think make a lot of sense
in their jurisdictions. So it's a balance we have to strike.
I'm not going to keep the witnesses any longer. I know, Ms.
Markowitz, that you have to leave. I'm sure I expressed the
opinion of the chairman and the ranking member when we say
thank you for your work in this area and for appearing before
us.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, if I just may?
Senator Talent. I'm sorry, the Senator from Minnesota?
Senator Dayton. If I may correct my earlier comment, I'm
told that the hearing record will remain open for 2 days. Any
additional comments, please submit within that time frame.
Thank you.
Senator Talent. Without objection. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the committee adjourned.]