Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee	 
Voters, but Challenges Remain (28-SEP-06, GAO-06-1134T).	 
                                                                 
The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election	 
raised concerns about the extent to which members of the military
and their dependents living abroad were able to vote via absentee
ballot. In September 2001, GAO made recommendations to address	 
variances in the Department of Defense's (DOD) Federal Voting	 
Assistance Program (FVAP). Along with the military services, FVAP
is responsible for educating and assisting military personnel in 
the absentee voting process. Leading up to the 2004 presidential 
election, Members of Congress raised concerns about efforts under
FVAP to facilitate absentee voting. This testimony, which draws  
on prior GAO work, addresses three questions: (1) How did FVAP's 
assistance efforts differ between the 2000 and 2004 presidential 
elections? (2) What actions did DOD take in response to prior GAO
recommendations on absentee voting? and (3) What challenges	 
remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel?	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-1134T					        
    ACCNO:   A61584						        
  TITLE:     Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military     
Absentee Voters, but Challenges Remain				 
     DATE:   09/28/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Absentee voting					 
	     Americans abroad					 
	     Elections						 
	     Federal forms					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Voting						 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     DOD Federal Voting Assistance Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-1134T

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
     * Differences in FVAP's Efforts Between the 2000 and 2004 Pres
          * FVAP Distributed More Voting Materials and Improved Access t
          * FVAP Increased Absentee Voting Training Opportunities
          * FVAP Designed an Electronic Absentee Ballot Form
          * FVAP's Report of Higher Voter Participation Should Be Interp
     * Actions Taken in Response to Prior Recommendations
          * The Services Revised Their Voting Guidance and Enhanced Prog
          * Top-level Command Emphasis Increased
     * Remaining Challenges Related to Absentee Military Voting
          * Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting Process
     * Developing and Implementing a Secure Electronic Registration
     * Concluding Observations
     * Appendix I: Related GAO Reports
          * Order by Mail or Phone

Testimony

Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST

Thursday, September 28, 2006

ELECTIONS

DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters, but Challenges
Remain

Statement of Derek B. Stewart, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management

GAO-06-1134T

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). As you know, the
2000 presidential election brought to light concerns about a number of
issues, including absentee voting by members of the military and civilians
living overseas. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(UOCAVA) established that members of the U.S. military, their dependents
of voting age, and American citizens no longer maintaining a permanent
residence in the United States are eligible to participate by absentee
ballot in all federal elections. The act covers more than 6.5 million
people, including approximately 3.7 million overseas citizens not
affiliated with the government (about 2 million of whom are of voting
age), 1.4 million military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military
dependents of voting age.

As requested, my testimony today will focus on absentee voting for
military servicemembers. I will address (1) how FVAP's efforts to
facilitate absentee voting by military personnel differed between the 2000
and 2004 presidential elections, (2) actions taken by the Department of
Defense (DOD) in response to prior GAO recommendations on absentee voting,
and (3) remaining challenges related to military absentee voting. Mr.
Chairman, we should also note that we have just begun work to assess
FVAP's long term plans to implement and expand electronic voting. Upon
completion of this work early next year, we will report the results to
Congress.

In preparing for this testimony, we drew extensively from our published
work on the election process and absentee voting for military
servicemembers.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.

                                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.

1 See appendix I for a list of related GAO reports.

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, S: 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 Post Card
Application (FPCA)-the registration and absentee ballot request form for
UOCAVA citizens4-were not always available when needed. DOD officials
stated that they had enough 2004 election materials for their potential
absentee voters. Each service reported meeting the DOD requirement of 100
percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to each servicemember by January 15.

After the 2000 presidential election, FVAP took steps to make its Web site
more accessible to UOCAVA citizens worldwide by changing security
parameters surrounding the site.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.

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.

5http://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.

6Pub. L. No. 108-375, S: 566 (2004).

FVAP's Report of Higher Voter Participation Should Be Interpreted with Caution

On the basis of its 2004 postelection survey, FVAP reported higher voter
participation rates among uniformed service members in its quadrennial
report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its 2004
voting assistance efforts. The report included a statistical analysis of
voter participation and discussed experiences of uniformed servicemembers
during the election, as well as a description of state and federal
cooperation in carrying out the requirements of UOCAVA. However, the low
survey response rate raises concerns about FVAP's ability to project
increased voter participation rates among military servicemembers.

We reported in 2001 that some absentee ballots became disqualified for
various reasons, including improperly completed ballot return envelopes,
failure to provide a signature, or lack of a valid residential address in
the local jurisdiction.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.

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.

7GAO, Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
Should Be Improved, GAO-01-1026 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).

               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 2002-03 Voting
Action Plan, FVAP implemented a best practices program to support the
development and sharing of best practices used among VAOs in operating
voting assistance programs. FVAP included guidance on its Web site and in
its Voting Assistance Guide on how VAOs could identify and submit a best
practice. Identified best practices for all the services are published on
the FVAP Web site and in the Voting Information News-FVAP's monthly
newsletter to VAOs.

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:

           o  simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep
           absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and
           time frames for each state; and
           o  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 time frame provided by many states and
local jurisdictions for sending and returning ballots. FVAP's Legislative
Initiatives program encouraged states to adopt changes to improve the
absentee voting process for military personnel. However, the majority of
states have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP's 2001 report to
Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its efforts during the
2000 election. FVAP is limited in its ability to affect state voting
procedures because it lacks the authority to require states to take action
on absentee voting initiatives. In the 1980s, FVAP began its Legislative
Initiatives program with 11 initiatives, and as of December 2005 it had
not added any others. Two of the 11 initiatives-(1) accept one FPCA as an
absentee ballot request for all elections during the calendar year and (2)
removal of the not-earlier-than restrictions for registration and absentee
ballot requests8-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.

Between FVAP's 2001 and 2005 reports to Congress and the President, the
majority of the states had not agreed to any of the remaining nine
initiatives. Since FVAP's 2001 report, 21 states agreed to one or more of
the nine legislative initiatives, totaling 28 agreements. Table 1 shows
the number of agreements with the initiatives since the 2001 report.
According to FVAP records, one state withdrew its support for the 40 to
45-day ballot transit time initiative. Initiatives with the most state
support were (1) the removal of the notary requirement on election
materials and (2) allowing the use of electronic transmission of election
materials. We also found a disparity in the number of initiatives that
states have adopted. For example, Iowa is the only state to have adopted
all nine initiatives, while Vermont, American Samoa, and Guam have adopted
only one initiative each.

8Not-earlier-than restriction refers to states not accepting an FPCA if it
arrives before a specified date.

9Pub. L. No. 107-107, S: 1606 (2001) and Pub. L. No. 107-252, S: 706
(2002), respectively.

Table 1: Number of Agreements with FVAP's Legislative Initiatives

                                                   Number of states in 
                                                        agreement      
FVAP Initiatives                                     2001      2005 Change 
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         8a        17      9 
      in the United States or its territories                          
      Total                                                               28b 

Source: GAO generated from FVAP data.

aEight states agreed, but one state later withdrew support.

bSome 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.

Figure 1: Steps in the Absentee Voting Process

Military servicemembers are encouraged to use the Federal Post Card
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 15th of each year. DOD encourages
potential voters to complete and mail the FPCA early, in order to receive
absentee ballots for all upcoming federal elections during the year.
Military mail and the U.S. postal service are the primary means for
transmitting voting materials, according to servicemembers with whom we
spoke.

Knowing when to complete the first step of the election process can be
challenging since each state has its own deadlines for receipt of FPCAs,
and the deadline is different depending on whether or not the voter is
already registered. For example, according to the Voting Assistance Guide,
Montana required a voter that had not previously registered to submit an
FPCA at least 30 days prior to the election. A voter who was already
registered had to ensure that the FPCA was received by the County Election
Administrator by noon on the day before the election. For Idaho voters,
the FPCA had to be postmarked by the 25th day before the election, if they
were not registered. If they were registered, the County Clerk had to
receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. on the 6th day before the election. For
Virginia uniformed services voters, the FPCA had to arrive not later than
5 days before the election, whether already registered or not. Using
different deadlines for newly registered and previously registered voters
to return their absentee ballots may have some administrative logic and
basis. For example, the process of verifying the eligibility of a newly
registered voter might take longer than the process for previously
registered voters, and if there was some question about the registration
information provided, the early deadlines provide some time to contact the
voter and get it corrected.

For the November 2004 general election, according to our site survey, nine
states reported having absentee ballot deadlines for voters outside the
United States that were more lenient than the ballot deadlines for voters
inside the United States. Table 2 lists these nine states and the
difference between the mail-in ballot deadline from inside the United
States and the mail-in absentee ballot deadline from outside the United
States.

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.

Table 2: States Reporting Differing Mail-in Absentee Ballot Deadlines from
Inside and Outside the United States, November 2004 General Election

                 Mail-in absentee                                             
                 ballot deadline from                                         
                 inside the United     Mail-in absentee ballot deadline from
State         States                outside the United States
Alaska        10 days after         15 days after Election Day and         
                 Election Day and      postmarked by Election Day             
                 postmarked by         
                 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 Election Day                           
                 Day                   
Maryland      1 day after Election  10 days after Election Day and         
                 Day if postmarked     postmarked before Election Day         
                 before 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 deadline extended per  
                 Election Day          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   
                                       service members, 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 service members in completing the FPCA is
to know where they will be located when the ballots are mailed by the
local election official. If the voter changes locations after submitting
the FPCA and does not notify the local election official, the ballot will
be sent to the address on the FPCA and not the voter's new location. This
can be further complicated by a 2002 amendment to UOCAVA,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.

12The 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.

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.

13GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in
the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006).

14GAO, Operation Iraqi Freedom: Long-standing Problems Hampering Mail
Delivery Need to Be Resolved, GAO-04-484 (Washington, D.C.: 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:

           o  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.
           o  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

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.

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.

15GAO-01-1026

16Pub. L. No. 107-107, S: 1604 (2001).

17The seven states were Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

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 ballots18 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.

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.

19The 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.

20The nine states and territories were Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virgin Islands, and
Wisconsin.

                            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.

Appendix I: Related GAO Reports

Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the
November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450 . Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006

Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
Increased for 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-521 .
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.

Election Reform: Nine States' Experiences Implementing Federal
Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists.
GAO-06-247 . Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.

Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter
Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997 .
Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.

Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of
Electronic Voting Systems Are Underway, but Key Activities Need to be
Completed. GAO-05-956 . Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.

Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections Officials
Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478 . Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 2005.

Department of Justice's Activities to Address Past Election-Related Voting
Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R . Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2004.

Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents Challenges.
GAO-04-975T . Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be
Improved. GAO-01-1026 . Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.

Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election
Administration. GAO-01-470 . Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-1134T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-1134T , a report to the Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate

September 28, 2006

ELECTIONS

DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters, but Challenges
Remain

The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised
concerns about the extent to which members of the military and their
dependents living abroad were able to vote via absentee ballot. In
September 2001, GAO made recommendations to address variances in the
Department of Defense's  (DOD)  Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP).
Along with the military services, FVAP is responsible for educating and
assisting military personnel in the absentee voting process.  Leading up
to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress raised concerns
about efforts under FVAP to facilitate absentee voting.

This testimony, which draws on prior GAO work, addresses three questions:
(1) How did FVAP's assistance efforts differ between the 2000 and 2004
presidential elections? (2) What actions did DOD take in response to prior
GAO recommendations on absentee voting? and (3) What challenges remain in
providing voting assistance to military personnel?

For the2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those
taken for the 2000 election to facilitate absentee voting by military
personnel. FVAP distributed more absentee voting materials and improved
the accessibility of its Web site, which includes voting information.
Also, FVAP conducted 102 more voting training workshops than it did for
the 2000 election, and it provided an online training course for Voting
Assistance Officers (VAO). FVAP also designed an electronic version of the
Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot-an emergency ballot accepted by all
states and territories-although its availability was not announced until a
few weeks before the election. In assessing its efforts for the 2004
election, using data from its postelection surveys, FVAP attributed
increased voter participation rates to an effective voter information and
education program. However, in light of low survey response rates, FVAP's
estimates and conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

DOD has taken actions in response to GAO's prior recommendations regarding
voting assistance to servicemembers. In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD
revise its voting guidance, improve program oversight, and increase
command emphasis to reduce the variance in voting assistance to military
servicemembers. Prior to the 2004 presidential election, DOD implemented
corrective actions that addressed GAO's recommendations. Specifically, the
services revised their voting guidance and enhanced oversight of the
military's voting assistance program, and emphasis on voting education and
awareness increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD.
However, the level of assistance continued to vary at the installations
GAO visited. Because the VAO role is a collateral duty and VAOs'
understanding and interest in the voting process differ, some variance in
voting assistance may always exist. DOD plans to continue its efforts to
improve absentee voting assistance.

Despite efforts of DOD and the states, GAO's April 2006 report identified
two major challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to
military personnel: (1) simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming
and multi-step absentee voting process, which includes different
requirements and time frames for each state; and (2) developing and
implementing a secure electronic registration and voting system. FVAP
attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by using its
Legislative Initiatives program to encourage states to simplify the
multi-step process and standardize their absentee voting requirements.
However, the majority of states have not agreed to any new initiatives
since FVAP's 2001 report on the 2000 election. FVAP is limited in its
ability to affect state voting procedures because it lacks the authority
to require states to take action on absentee voting initiatives. For the
2004 election, FVAP developed an electronic registration and voting
experiment. However, it was not used by any voters due to concerns about
the security of the system. Because DOD did not want to call into question
the integrity of votes that would have been cast via the system, they
decided to shut the experiment down prior to its use by any absentee
voters. Some technologies-such as faxing, e-mail and the Internet-have
been used to improve communication between local jurisdictions and voters.
*** End of document. ***