Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas	 
Citizens Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges 
Remain (07-APR-06, GAO-06-521). 				 
                                                                 
The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election	 
raised concerns about the extent to which members of the	 
military, their dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were 
able to vote via absentee ballot. In September 2001, GAO made	 
recommendations to address variances in the Department of	 
Defense's (DOD) Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). Along  
with the military services and the Department of State (DOS),	 
FVAP is responsible for educating and assisting military	 
personnel and overseas citizens in the absentee voting process.  
Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress
raised concerns about efforts under FVAP to facilitate absentee  
voting. Because of broad Congressional interest, GAO initiated a 
review under the Comptroller General's authority to address three
questions: (1) How did FVAP's assistance efforts differ between  
the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? (2) What actions did	 
DOD and DOS take in response to prior GAO recommendations on	 
absentee voting? and (3) What challenges remain in providing	 
voting assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens?	 
This review is one of several GAO reviews related to various	 
aspects of the 2004 election. GAO provided DOD and DOS with a	 
draft of this report for comment, and they both generally	 
concurred with the report's contents.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-521 					        
    ACCNO:   A51217						        
  TITLE:     Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and    
Overseas Citizens Increased for the 2004 General Election, but	 
Challenges Remain						 
     DATE:   04/07/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Americans abroad					 
	     Comparative analysis				 
	     Elections						 
	     Military dependents				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Absentee voting					 
	     Voting systems					 
	     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-06-521

     

     * ELECTIONS
     * Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
               * Background
               * FVAP Expanded Its 2004 Voting Assistance Efforts
                    * 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
               * DOD and DOS Implemented Prior Recommendations on Absentee Vo
                    * The Services and DOS Revised Their Voting Guidance and
                      Enhan
                    * Top-level Command Emphasis Increased
                    * Voting Assistance Continued to Vary
               * Some Challenges Remain in Providing Absentee Voting Assistan
                    * Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting
                      Process
                    * Developing a Secure Electronic Registration and Voting
                      Syste
                    * DOS Cannot Reach All Overseas Citizens
               * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
          * Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
          * Appendix II: Related GAO Reports
          * Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
          * Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
          * Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
               * GAO Contact
               * Acknowledgments
                    * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to Congressional Addressees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

April 2006

ELECTIONS

Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Increased for
the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain

GAO-06-521

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 4
FVAP Expanded Its 2004 Voting Assistance Efforts 6
DOD and DOS Implemented Prior Recommendations on Absentee Voting; However,
Assistance Continued to Vary 11
Some Challenges Remain in Providing Absentee Voting Assistance 18
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31
Appendix II Related GAO Reports 34
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 35
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of State 37
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Tables

Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for FVAP's Postelection Surveys
10
Table 2: Number of Agreements with FVAP's Legislative Initiatives 23

Abbreviations

DEERS Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System DOD Department of
Defense DOS Department of State FPCA Federal Post Card Application FVAP
Federal Voting Assistance Program IVAS Interim Voting Assistance System
SERVE Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment UOCAVA
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act USD (P&R) Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness VAO Voting Assistance
Officer

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.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 7, 2006 April 7, 2006

Congressional Addressees: Congressional Addressees:

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 which are of voting age), 1.4 million
military servicemembers, and 1.3 million military dependents of voting
age. 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. In 2001, we reported that the Department of
Defense's (DOD) and the Department of State's (DOS) voting assistance to
military and overseas citizens should be improved.11 Specifically, the
review disclosed that while DOD's Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)
provided some useful voting information resources for voters and voting
assistance officers (VAOs), many potential voters were unaware of them.
The report also stated that the military services varied in their
implementation of the absentee voting program. 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 which are
of voting age), 1.4 million military servicemembers, and 1.3 million
military dependents of voting age. 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. In 2001, we reported
that the Department of Defense's (DOD) and the Department of State's (DOS)
voting assistance to military and overseas citizens should be improved.
Specifically, the review disclosed that while DOD's Federal Voting
Assistance Program (FVAP) provided some useful voting information
resources for voters and voting assistance officers (VAOs), many potential
voters were unaware of them. The report also stated that the military
services varied in their implementation of the absentee voting program.

Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Members of Congress and
media reports raised concerns about inadequate absentee voting assistance
for military servicemembers and overseas citizens. Because of this broad
congressional interest, we initiated this review under the Comptroller
General's authority, to examine the status of FVAP efforts to facilitate
absentee voting by military personnel and overseas citizens for the 2004
presidential election. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) determine
how FVAP's efforts to facilitate absentee voting by military personnel and
overseas citizens differed between the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections, (2) identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in response to prior
GAO recommendations on absentee voting, and (3) identify challenges that
remain in providing voting assistance to Leading up to the 2004
presidential election, Members of Congress and media reports raised
concerns about inadequate absentee voting assistance for military
servicemembers and overseas citizens. Because of this broad congressional
interest, we initiated this review under the Comptroller General's
authority, to examine the status of FVAP efforts to facilitate absentee
voting by military personnel and overseas citizens for the 2004
presidential election. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) determine
how FVAP's efforts to facilitate absentee voting by military personnel and
overseas citizens differed between the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections, (2) identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in response to prior
GAO recommendations on absentee voting, and (3) identify challenges that
remain in providing voting assistance to military personnel and overseas
citizens. This review is one of several GAO reviews related to various
aspects of elections (see app. II).

1GAO, Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens
Should Be Improved, GAO-01-1026 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by
GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Election Assistance Commission, and private nonprofit
organizations that represent military and overseas citizens who
participate in the election process via absentee voting. To determine
differences in FVAP's voting assistance efforts between the 2000 and 2004
presidential elections, we reviewed relevant FVAP and DOD regulations and
operating procedures related to absentee voting. We also met with a
commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and voting assistance
representatives from FVAP, the military services, and DOS's Chief Voting
Officer to obtain their views on efforts taken for the 2004 election. We
examined projects and special initiatives undertaken by these
organizations to address the absentee voting process. We also reviewed
FVAP's 2005 report to Congress and the President and assessed its
methodology for conducting its survey of voter participation among
military and overseas citizens for the 2004 presidential election. To
identify actions taken by DOD and DOS in response to prior GAO
recommendations to reduce variance in program implementation, we reviewed
prior GAO reports related to absentee voting. We held discussions with and
reviewed documents from DOD and DOS representatives concerning actions
taken in response to these recommendations. We also met with VAOs from
each of the military services to discuss their voting assistance efforts
and to identify whether there was consistency or variance in program
implementation. To identify challenges that remain in providing voting
assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens, we met with
representatives of several organizations representing members of the
military and American citizens living overseas. We also discussed
challenges in providing voting assistance with VAOs from five judgmentally
selected installations. In addition, we conducted 19 focus group
discussions with 173 enlisted servicemembers and officers from each
military service to discuss their views on challenges to absentee voting.
Following each focus group discussion, we administered a short survey to
each participant that solicited information related to individual absentee
voting experiences and challenges. Comments provided by the focus group
members cannot be projected across the entire military community because
the participants were not selected using a statistically valid sampling
methodology. We determined that the data we used were sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of our report. We conducted our review from March
2005 through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. A more detailed description of our scope and
methodology is contained in appendix I.

                                Results in Brief

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those
taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel and overseas
citizens tools needed to vote by absentee ballot. 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 VAOs. 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.

In 2001, we reported that voting assistance by DOD and DOS varied due to
incomplete service guidance, lack of oversight, and insufficient command
support. We recommended that DOD and DOS revise their voting guidance,
improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to reduce the
variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers and overseas
citizens. DOD and DOS implemented these recommendations. However, absentee
voting assistance continued to vary because of the collateral nature of
the VAO role and the fact that VAOs' understanding and interest in the
voting process differ, among other things. Given these factors, some
variance in absentee voting assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan
to continue their efforts to improve absentee voting assistance.

We identified three challenges that remain in providing absentee voting
assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens. One challenge
involves simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming, multistep
absentee voting process that has different requirements and time frames
established by each state for requesting and submitting absentee voting
materials. Although 49 states allow some form of electronic transmission
of election materials for faster delivery, the U.S. Postal Service and
military and international mail systems remain the primary methods for
obtaining and returning required documents. As required by UOCAVA, FVAP
continued to work with the states through its Legislative Initiatives
program to facilitate the absentee voting process; however, the majority
of states have not agreed to any new initiatives since FVAP's December
2001 report to Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its
program. Another challenge involves efforts to implement an electronic
registration and voting system, which have not progressed because of
persistent issues regarding security and privacy. Since the 2000 election,
FVAP implemented two electronic voting initiatives; however, one was not
used by any voters, and the other was used only by a small number of
participants. Implementing an electronic system would potentially
eliminate some obstacles to absentee voting. Another challenge is DOS's
inability to reach all overseas citizens. Although DOS made an extensive
effort to provide absentee voting assistance to overseas citizens for the
2004 presidential election, it is impossible to know where all eligible
overseas voters are located or to directly provide them information on
absentee voting. Because overseas citizens have no obligation to register
with the nearest embassy or consulate, DOS cannot know where they are
located, thus it is unlikely that DOS will have the ability to proactively
reach all overseas voters.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
within DOS generally concurred with the report's content.

                                   Background

The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised
concerns about the extent to which members of the military, their
dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were able to vote via absentee
ballot. The elections process within the United States is primarily the
responsibility of the individual states and their election jurisdictions.
States have considerable discretion in how they organize the elections
process and this is reflected in the diversity of processes and deadlines
that states have for voter registration and absentee voting, including
diversity in the processes and deadlines that apply to military and
overseas voters. Even when imposing requirements on the states in the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, such as statewide voter registration systems and
provisional voting, Congress left states discretion in how to implement
those requirements and did not require uniformity.

Executive Order 12642, dated June 8, 1988, designated the Secretary of
Defense or his designee as responsible for carrying out the federal
functions under UOCAVA. UOCAVA requires the presidential designee to (1)
compile and distribute information on state absentee voting procedures,
(2) design absentee registration and voting materials, (3) work with state
and local election officials in carrying out the act, and (4) report to
Congress and the President after each presidential election on the
effectiveness of the program's activities, including a statistical
analysis on UOCAVA voter participation. DOD Directive 1000.4, dated April
14, 2004, is DOD's implementing guidance for the federal voting assistance
program, and it assigned the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD P&R) the responsibility for administering the program. The
FVAP office, under the direction of the USD P&R, manages the program. For
2004, FVAP had a full-time staff of 13 and a fiscal year budget of
approximately $6 million. FVAP's mission is to (1) inform and educate U.S.
citizens worldwide of their right to vote, (2) foster voting
participation, and (3) protect the integrity of, and enhance, the
electoral process at the federal, state, and local levels.

DOD Directive 1000.4 also sets forth DOD and service roles and
responsibilities in providing voting education and assistance. In
accordance with the directive, FVAP relies heavily upon the military
services and DOS for distribution of absentee voting materials to
individual UOCAVA citizens. According to the DOD directive, each military
service is to appoint a senior service voting representative, assisted by
a service voting action officer, to oversee the implementation of the
service's voting assistance program. Also, the military services are to
designate trained VAOs at every level of command to carry out voting
education and assistance responsibilities to servicemembers and their
eligible dependents. One VAO on each military installation should be
assigned to coordinate voting efforts conducted by VAOs in subordinate
units and tenant commands. Where possible, installation VAOs should be of
the rank GS-12 civilian or higher, or pay grade O-4 officers or higher. In
accordance with the DOD directive, commanders designate persons to serve
as VAOs. Serving as a VAO is a collateral duty, to be performed along with
the servicemember's other duties. Similarly, DOS, through its Bureau of
Consular Affairs, embassies and consulates, carries out its voter
assistance responsibilities by designating VAOs to provide assistance. The
Foreign Affairs Manual contains absentee voting guidance for embassy and
consulate VAOs, who also provide voting assistance as a collateral duty.

FVAP updates the Voting Action Plan-its primary voting guidance to DOD
components and other agencies-every 2 years. The Voting Action Plan
provides detailed guidance on implementing the federal functions of UOCAVA
and DOD Directive 1000.4. It also tasks FVAP, DOD components, and all
other participating federal agencies with specific responsibilities and
provides a timeline for carrying out their roles. FVAP updated the plan
for 2004-05; however, it was never approved by the Secretary of Defense,
and it remained in draft form for the 2004 presidential election. FVAP and
the services referred to the draft Voting Action Plan in implementing
their voting assistance efforts for the 2004 election. To assist voters in
the absentee voting process, FVAP also updates its Voting Assistance Guide
every 2 years. The guide includes state-by-state instructions and
timelines for completing the various voting forms and it also lists
addresses for local election offices within each state.

                FVAP Expanded Its 2004 Voting Assistance Efforts

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those
taken in the 2000 election by providing military personnel and overseas
citizens with more tools and information needed to vote by absentee
ballot. First, FVAP distributed more voting materials, and improved its
Web site to enable greater access for participants. Second, FVAP increased
absentee voting training opportunities by providing more workshops and an
online training course for the 2004 election. Third, FVAP developed an
electronic version of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, which is
accepted by all states and U.S. territories. In its 2005 report to the
Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its federal voting
assistance program, on the basis of its postelection surveys, FVAP
attributed higher 2004 voter participation rates to the effective
implementation of its voter outreach program. However, because of low
survey response rates, GAO has concerns about FVAP's ability to project
changes in voter participation rates between the 2000 and 2004
presidential elections.

FVAP Distributed More Voting Materials and Improved Access to Its Web Site

For the 2000 election, we reported that voting materials, such as the
Federal Post Card Application (FPCA)-the registration and absentee ballot
request form for UOCAVA citizens-were not always available when needed. We
were told by representatives from DOD and DOS that they had enough 2004
election materials for their potential absentee voters. Each service
reported meeting the DOD requirement of 100 percent in-hand delivery of
FPCAs to each servicemember by January 15. DOS also targeted 100 percent
in-hand delivery of FPCAs to citizens employed with the embassies and
consulates. According to DOS, FVAP initially provided DOS with the
quantity of Voting Assistance Guides requested, however, because of high
voter interest, additional copies were needed and obtained from the
military services.

After the 2000 presidential election, FVAP took steps to make its Web site
more accessible to UOCAVA citizens worldwide by changing security
parameters surrounding the site.2 According to FVAP, prior to the 2004
election, its Web site was within the existing DOD ".mil" domain, which
includes built-in security firewalls. Some overseas Internet service
providers were consequently blocked from accessing this site because
hackers were attempting to get into the DOD system. As a result, FVAP
moved the site out of the DOD ".mil" domain to a less secure domain. In
September 2004, FVAP issued a news release announcing this change and
provided a list of Web site addresses that would allow access to the site.
Nonetheless, representatives of overseas citizens' organizations continued
to report that some citizens were not able to access the site. FVAP
acknowledged that the site was not accessible at times prior to the 2004
election, but said that this problem was limited to relatively small
geographic areas and occurred because some networks employed independent
protection mechanisms that prevented communication with FVAP's system.
Representatives from overseas citizens groups acknowledged that obtaining
access to FVAP's Web site was sometimes difficult, but this was caused by
the Internet service provider and not by FVAP. They stated that they were
able to get to FVAP's Web site through other Web sites, such as Democrats
and Republicans Abroad.

FVAP also added more election-related links to its Web site to assist
UOCAVA citizens in the voting process. The Web site (which FVAP considers
one of its primary vehicles for disseminating voting information and
materials) provides downloadable voting forms and links to all of FVAP's
informational materials, such as the Voting Assistance Guide, Web sites of
federal elected officials, state election sites, and U.S. overseas
citizens' organizations. It also contains contact information for FVAP and
the military departments' voting assistance programs. The representatives
from overseas citizens' organizations felt that FVAP's Web site provided
useful and valuable information concerning absentee voting. Although FVAP
provided more resources to UOCAVA citizens concerning absentee voting, it
is ultimately the responsibility of the voter to be aware of and
understand these resources, and to take the actions needed to participate
in the absentee voting process.

2http://www.fvap.gov/.

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 U.S. embassies and
military installations around the world, including installations where
units were preparing to deploy. In contrast, only 62 training workshops
were conducted for the 2000 election. FVAP conducts workshops during years
of federal elections to train military and civilian VAOs in providing
voting assistance. In March 2004, FVAP added an online training course to
its Web site as an alternative to its in-person voting workshops. Military
VAOs can take the military version and DOS civilian VAOs can take the
civilian version of the online course, and both are available on CD-ROM.
According to FVAP, completion of the workshop or the online course meets a
DOD requirement that VAOs receive training every 2 years. Installation
VAOs are responsible for monitoring completion of training. The training
gives VAOs instructions for completing voting forms, discusses their
responsibilities, and informs them about the resources available to
conduct a successful voting assistance program.

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 online version of the Federal Write-in Absentee
Ballot, an emergency ballot accepted by all states and territories. UOCAVA
citizens who do not receive their requested state absentee ballots in time
to meet state deadlines for receipt of voted ballots can use the Federal
Write-in Absentee Ballot. The national defense authorization act for
fiscal year 2005 amended the eligibility criteria for using the Federal
Write-in Absentee Ballot.3 Prior to the change, a UOCAVA citizen had to be
outside of the United States, have applied for a regular absentee ballot
early enough to meet state election deadlines, and not have received the
requested absentee ballot from the state. Under the new criteria, the
Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot can also be used by military
servicemembers stationed in the United States, as well as overseas.
However, overseas civilian citizens cannot mail the Federal Write-in
Absentee Ballot from within the United States.

3Pub. 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 surveys, FVAP reported higher voter
participation rates among UOCAVA citizens in its quadrennial report to the
Congress and the President on the effectiveness of its 2004 voting
assistance efforts.4 The report included a statistical analysis of voter
participation and discussed experiences of uniformed servicemembers,
federal civilians overseas, nonfederally employed overseas citizens, unit
and DOS VAOs, and local election officials during the election, as well as
a description of state-federal cooperation in carrying out the
requirements of UOCAVA. However, the low survey response rates raise
concerns about FVAP's ability to project increased voter participation
rates among all categories of UOCAVA citizens.

We reported in 2001 that some absentee ballots became disqualified for
various reasons, including improperly completed ballot return envelopes,
failure to provide a signature, or lack of a valid residential address in
the local jurisdiction.5 We recommended that FVAP develop a methodology,
in conjunction with state and local election jurisdictions, to gather
nationally projectable data on disqualified military and overseas absentee
ballots and reasons for their disqualification. In anticipation of
gathering nationally projectable data, prior to the election, FVAP
randomly selected approximately 1,000 local election officials to receive
an advance copy of the postelection survey so they would know what
information to collect during the election to complete the survey. The
survey solicited a variety of information concerning the election process
and absentee voting, such as the number of ballots issued, received, and
counted, as well as reasons for ballot disqualification. In FVAP's 2005
report, it cited the top two reasons for disqualification as ballots were
received too late or were returned as undeliverable.

FVAP also developed a survey for federal civilians overseas, nonfederally
employed overseas citizens, military servicemembers, and VAOs for military
units and DOS, which it sent after the election to elicit voting
experiences with the absentee voting process. Table 1 displays FVAP's
sample size and response rates for the various survey groups.

4FVAP reported the following participation rate changes from the 2002 to
2004 election: uniformed services (69 percent to 79 percent), federal
civilians overseas (65 percent to 80 percent), and nonfederally employed
overseas citizens (37 percent to 58 percent).

5 GAO-01-1026 .

Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for FVAP's Postelection Surveys

Survey group                Sample size Response rates (percent) 
Uniformed servicemembers         15,025                      27% 
Federal civilians overseas        3,000                       28 
Unit VAOs                         5,000                       32 
DOS VAOs                            240                       87 
Nonfederal civilians       6,000-7,500a                       16 
Local election officials          1,013                       52 

Source: GAO generated from FVAP data.

aBased on five DOS geographic regions with 1,200-1,500 surveys per region.
The regions included Africa, East Asia/Pacific, Europe, Near-east/South
Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.

FVAP reported higher participation rates for all groups in the 2004
presidential election as compared with those reported for the 2000
election. FVAP attributed the higher voting participation rates to an
effective voter information and education program that included command
support and agency emphasis. State progress in simplifying absentee voting
procedures and increased interest in the election were also cited as
reasons for increased voting participation. However, low survey response
rates raise concerns about FVAP's ability to project participation rate
changes among UOCAVA citizens. While, according to FVAP, the 2004
postelection surveys were designed to provide national estimates, most of
the surveys experienced low response rates. Although FVAP did not include
the sample sizes and response rates in its report, five of the six groups
surveyed had response rates that ranged from 16 to 52 percent; the
remaining and smallest group surveyed achieved an 87 percent response
rate. FVAP did not perform any analysis comparing those who responded to
the surveys with those who did not respond. Such an analysis would allow
researchers to determine if those who responded to the surveys are
different in some way from those who did not respond. If it is determined
that there is a difference between those who responded and those who did
not, then the results cannot be generalized across the entire population
of potential survey participants. In addition, FVAP did no analysis to
account for sampling error. Sampling error occurs when a survey is sent to
a sample of a population rather than to the entire population. While
techniques exist to measure sampling error, FVAP did not use these
techniques in their report. The practical difficulties in conducting
surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors as well, commonly
known as nonsampling errors. For example, errors can be introduced if (1)
respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular question, (2)
respondents have access to different information when answering a
question, or (3) those entering raw survey data make keypunching errors.

FVAP also faced specific challenges in administering surveys to overseas
citizens who voted absentee. In surveying overseas citizens, only a select
number of embassies were chosen by DOS to administer the survey to
overseas citizens. Because of confidentiality restrictions, FVAP was
unable to obtain a list of federal civilians and nonfederally employed
civilians living overseas, and had to rely on the embassies to select the
people who received the surveys. Only citizens who had previously
registered with the embassy had a chance to participate in the survey.
U.S. citizens who lived overseas and were not registered with the embassy
had no chance of being selected. The absence of a listing of all civilians
overseas certainly contributes to the possibility of error associated with
using a sample of the population. The response rate for nonfederal
civilians was the lowest among all groups surveyed. As such, the views and
voting experiences of the survey participants may not reflect those of and
are not generalizable to all overseas citizens. As a result of known
weaknesses in FVAP's reporting methodology, its estimates and conclusions
should be interpreted with caution.

DOD and DOS Implemented Prior Recommendations on Absentee Voting; However,
                          Assistance Continued to Vary

In 2001, we reported that implementation of the federal voting assistance
program by DOD and DOS was uneven due to incomplete service guidance, lack
of oversight, and insufficient command support. Prior to the 2004
presidential election, DOD and DOS implemented corrective actions that
addressed our recommendations. However, the level of assistance continued
to vary at the installations we visited and throughout the overseas
civilian community. Because the VAO role is a collateral duty and VAOs'
understanding and interest in the voting process differ, some variance in
voting assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to continue their
efforts to improve absentee voting assistance.

The Services and DOS Revised Their Voting Guidance and Enhanced Program
Oversight

In 2001, we reported that the services had not incorporated all of the key
requirements of DOD Directive 1000.4 into their own voting policies, and
that DOD exercised very little oversight of the military's voting
assistance programs. The report also stated that the oversight of DOS's
voting assistance program could be improved. These factors contributed to
some installations not providing effective voting assistance. We
recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the services to revise
their voting guidance to be in compliance with DOD's voting requirements,
and provide for more voting program oversight through inspector general
reviews and a lessons-learned program.

Subsequent to DOD's revision of Directive 1000.4, the services revised
their guidance to reflect DOD's voting requirements. In the 2002-03 Voting
Action Plan, FVAP implemented a best practices program to support the
development and sharing of best practices used among VAOs in operating
voting assistance programs. FVAP included guidance on its Web site and in
its Voting Assistance Guide on how VAOs could identify and submit a best
practice. Identified best practices for all the services are published on
the FVAP Web site and in the Voting Information News-FVAP's monthly
newsletter to VAOs.

We also recommended that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to take a more active role in
overseeing the voting assistance program by establishing

           o  processes for improving oversight and consistency across
           embassies and consulates, including reminding posts more
           frequently to use the Foreign Affairs Manual and related guidance
           for ordering supplies and to use the military postal system and
           the diplomatic pouch, and
           o  initiatives to improve outreach, including identifying best
           practices in a forum accessible to embassies and consulates, such
           as the Consular Affairs Web site.

           In responding to these recommendations, DOS began maintaining a
           global listing of all of its VAOs and voting assistants and
           provided instructions to posts on administering their voting
           assistance programs. DOS revised chapter 7, which covers voting
           assistance, in its Foreign Affairs Manual and posted the manual,
           its 2004-05 Voting Action Plan, and other guidance on its intranet
           Web site for access by all its embassies and consulates. Although
           the revised version of this chapter was in draft form during the
           2004 election and awaiting approval by the various DOS
           directorates, it was put on the DOS Web site in early 2004 for use
           by the embassies and consulates. The draft was approved in January
           2006.

           Representatives at the embassies and consulates also conducted
           numerous outreach efforts through warden messages,6 embassy Web
           sites, and town hall meetings. The department's Chief Voting
           Officer maintained contact with the various embassy VAOs and
           voting assistants throughout the year, providing information on
           absentee voting procedures, voter education and outreach
           campaigns, and various registration and voting deadlines. The DOS
           Chief Voting Officer also received periodic updates on the status
           of the embassies' voting assistance efforts. While DOS did not
           develop a formal lessons-learned program, the Chief Voting Officer
           said that he solicited ideas and best practices from each of the
           embassies and consulates. These practices were incorporated into
           instructions for the 2004 election that were distributed
           throughout the organization via its Web site and e-mail traffic.

           For the 2004 election, emphasis on voting education and awareness
           increased throughout the top levels of command within DOD and DOS.
           In 2001, we reported that lack of DOD command support contributed
           to the mixed success of the services' voting programs and
           recommended that the Senior Service Voting Representatives monitor
           and periodically report to FVAP on the level of installation
           command support. To ensure command awareness and involvement in
           implementing the voting assistance program, in late 2003 the USD
           P&R began holding monthly meetings with FVAP and the Senior
           Service Voting Representatives and discussed the status of service
           voting assistance programs. In 2001, we also reported that some
           installations and units did not appoint VAOs as required by DOD
           Directive 1000.4. In March 2004, the Secretary of Defense and
           Deputy Secretary of Defense issued memorandums to the Secretaries
           of the military departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
           Staff, and Commanders of the Combatant Commands, directing them to
           support voting at all levels of command. These memorandums were
           issued to ensure that voting materials were made available to all
           units and that VAOs were assigned and available to assist voters.
           Also, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recorded a
           DOD-wide message regarding the opportunity to vote and ways in
           which VAOs could provide assistance. This message was used by FVAP
           in its training presentations and was distributed to military
           installations worldwide. During our review, we found that each
           service reported to DOD that it assigned VAOs at all levels of
           command.

           Voting representatives from each service utilized a variety of
           servicewide communications to disseminate voting information and
           stressed the importance of voting. For example, the Marine Corps
           produced a videotaped interview stressing the importance of voting
           that was distributed throughout the Marine Corps. The Army
           included absentee voting information in a pop-up message that was
           included on every soldier's e-mail account. In each service, the
           Voting Action Officer sent periodic messages to unit VAOs,
           reminding them of key voting dates and areas to focus on as the
           election drew closer. Throughout the organizational structure,
           these VAOs contacted servicemembers through servicewide e-mail
           messages, which contained information on how to get voting
           assistance and reminders of voting deadlines. According to service
           voting representatives, some components put together media
           campaigns that included reminders in base newspapers, billboards,
           and radio and closed circuit television programs. They also
           displayed posters in areas frequented by servicemembers (such as
           exchanges, fitness centers, commissaries, and food court areas).

           DOS's top-level leadership also increased its emphasis on absentee
           voting for the 2004 election. The department's Senior Voting
           Representative provided an article in the September 2003 issue of
           FVAP's Voting Information News, which was available on FVAP's Web
           site. This article reminded overseas voters of the upcoming
           presidential primary election and the time frame for registering
           and requesting absentee ballots. It also reminded all involved
           that starting early in the process was key to a successful
           program. Identifying and training volunteers from the civilian
           American community were also emphasized as ways to multiply the
           effectiveness of the VAO. Also discussed was the availability of
           the embassy community and its resources, meetings with local
           communities, and using local media to get the word out on absentee
           voting. Throughout the year, the Chief Voting Officer sent
           messages to the posts concerning the absentee voting process and
           various deadlines. DOS also used its embassies and consulates,
           various private organizations, and the local media to disseminate
           FVAP voting materials and information. These organizations
           conducted various outreach efforts, including holding town hall
           meetings, sending messages from the VAO to overseas citizens
           concerning absentee voting, and holding voter registration drives.
           As the election deadline approached, the department intensified
           its efforts to assist overseas citizens in voting absentee. For
           example, in early October 2004, a consular general placed hundreds
           of Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots on a supply plane headed to
           Antarctica and sent an e-mail message to overseas citizens there,
           urging them to drop off completed ballots or fill out emergency
           ballots while the plane was on the ground in that country. In late
           October 2004, one consulate sent an e-mail containing last-minute
           voting information to all Americans in the district and attempted
           to telephone those who could not be reached by e-mail.

           DOS encouraged all of its VAOs and voting assistants to set a goal
           of 100 percent in-hand delivery of FPCAs to the official American
           community by approximately June 30, 2004. It defined this
           community as the U.S. citizens employed at the embassies,
           consulates, or other U.S. missions in the various countries for
           whom they had appropriate contact information. In addition to this
           goal, the Chief Voting Officer also suggested that officers
           transferring to a post should receive FPCAs as part of their post
           welcome kit or shortly after their arrival at a post.

           DOS also worked with courier services to obtain discounted or free
           delivery of requests for ballots and voted ballots. While the
           arrangements varied by country, generally the courier would allow
           overseas citizens, with proper identification, to ship ballot
           materials to their local election offices at reduced or no cost.
           The voter was required to go to a shipping office of the courier
           and complete the shipping paperwork, and the package would be
           mailed.

           The services and DOS revised their voting guidance, increased
           top-level support, and improved program oversight. However, voting
           assistance to servicemembers and overseas citizens continued to
           vary. Based on our analysis of information from our focus groups,
           we determined that the voting assistance that servicemembers
           received varied from unit to unit for several reasons, including
           (1) the fact that the VAO role is a collateral duty, (2) varying
           individual VAO understanding and interest in the voting process,
           (3) differing levels of VAO training, and (4) the command's
           mobilization status. Also, in discussions with DOS's Chief Voting
           Officer, we were told that the level of DOS voting assistance
           varied according to the level of development in the country, the
           security climate, and the quality of the host country's
           infrastructure. The variation in voting assistance provided by DOD
           and DOS may have caused some potential voters to be unaware of
           relevant voting tools. Given these factors, some variance in
           absentee voting assistance may always exist; however, DOD and DOS
           plan to continue efforts to improve the process.

           VAOs play a crucial role in informing citizens of the availability
           and usefulness of FVAP's resources. Providing voting assistance is
           a collateral duty; those appointed are faced with time constraints
           in providing voting assistance to military servicemembers and
           overseas citizens, and are expected to fulfill these duties in
           addition to their primary duties as warfighters and mission
           support staff. Furthermore, military personnel rotate to new
           assignments periodically, creating turnover in the voting
           assistance program. VAOs at each installation we visited commented
           that it was difficult to be effective because of the normal but
           competing mission requirements they had to fulfill while
           simultaneously performing their VAO responsibilities. For example,
           VAOs at two installations said their workload increased because of
           additional tasks that included responding to voting-related
           requirements from the head of the service, answering surveys on
           whether servicemembers were being educated on voting, and
           completing numerous reports on contacts with servicemembers.

           The level of understanding and interest shown by some VAOs toward
           their duties may have also affected the voting assistance they
           provided. At one installation we visited, VAOs said they were
           directed by their commanding officer to serve as VAOs, while at
           two other installations we visited, some VAOs said they had
           volunteered for the role. VAOs who volunteered appeared to be more
           interested and took the initiative to learn more about voting than
           some of the VAOs who were appointed. At one installation we
           visited, disinterest in being a VAO was evident in VAOs who
           thought it was the responsibility of the voter to get the
           necessary information to vote via absentee ballot.

           While the VAOs we spoke with were generally knowledgeable about
           DOD's voting requirements, we found that the extent to which they
           were trained to provide voting assistance varied, as we reported
           in September 2001.7 At four of the installations we visited, none
           of the VAOs we met with had attended an FVAP workshop and VAOs at
           one of these installations said they had not received any
           training. A Voting Action Officer from one service stated that
           travel to a workshop location was a problem because there was no
           specific funding for VAO training. At one installation, VAOs cited
           time constraints and high turnover as reasons for not being
           trained to provide voting assistance. VAOs from another
           installation suggested that voting training should be shortened to
           include only the key items VAOs need to know to provide
           assistance, such as instructions for completing the FPCA. At one
           other installation, many VAOs had attended an FVAP workshop and
           others had taken the online training. A VAO unable to attend a
           workshop is allowed by DOD Directive 1000.4 to take the online
           training course to meet the requirement for VAO training. Our
           review of FVAP's online course showed that it provided an overview
           of VAO roles and responsibilities, included a section on using the
           Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, and cited several other
           resources available for absentee voting assistance, such as the
           Voting Assistance Guide, FVAP's Web site, and the Voting
           Information News-resources that we found to be helpful in
           providing voting assistance. For example, the Voting Assistance
           Guide has a chapter titled Instructions for Voting Assistance
           Officers, which provides instructions on 23 areas related to
           absentee voting.

           The extent of training had an effect on the level of voting
           assistance provided to potential voters in some locations. For
           example, we found one installation VAO who was not aware of the
           online Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot or the revised criteria
           for its use, and therefore was unable to assist other VAOs and
           servicemembers in using the online form. However, a VAO at another
           installation said he was aware of the ability to use this ballot,
           and his unit used as many as 125 during the 2004 presidential
           election.

           At one installation, some VAOs said the online training was more
           useful than the workshop but at another installation some VAOs did
           not find the online training very helpful, commenting that it was
           difficult to find on FVAP's Web site, was not user-friendly, or
           took too much time to complete. At another installation, VAOs
           commented that training workshops tailored to specific
           installations would be beneficial and would cause more VAOs to
           attend. For example, this training could include specific tasks
           related to new recruits at a training installation. Additionally,
           VAOs commented that training is good only for a limited time. By
           the time a presidential election occurs, much of the training they
           received earlier in the year is forgotten.

           The command's mobilization status also affected the level of
           voting assistance provided by VAOs. Specifically, one location we
           visited had many ground units deployed or preparing to deploy
           during the 2004 election and absentee voting was not a priority.
           Officials stated that voting was mentioned but was not a top
           priority when compared with other deployment issues, such as
           preparing powers-of-attorney and wills and concentrating on troop
           movements while in theater. Conversely, we were told by ship-based
           servicemembers that they had no reason to be unaware of absentee
           voting, given the enclosed boundaries of their ship, even while
           deployed. During our review, a few servicemembers who were
           deployed during the election told us that voting was mentioned at
           their deployed location but there were other things going on that
           took priority.

           According to the DOS Chief Voting Officer, the level of voter
           assistance for overseas citizens also varied according to the
           level of development in the country, the security climate, and the
           quality of the host country's infrastructure. For example, the
           reliability of the mail system, working telephones, passable road
           networks, and even the existence of electric power grids play
           important roles, and require VAOs to use different means in
           different places to help citizens register and vote. Also, in
           industrial locations within a country, e-mail and warden messages
           could be an effective primary means of communication, whereas in
           rural locations within the same country, the means of
           communication might be a person on foot taking information to an
           American citizen. According to the department's Senior Voting
           Representative, most embassies, consulates, and U.S. news
           organizations reported extraordinary increases in the number of
           Americans abroad who registered and planned to vote in the 2004
           general election. Contributing factors to this increase appear to
           be greatly expanded voter education and outreach, the closeness of
           the vote in the 2000 election, and reaction to world events over
           the past 4 years.

           Despite the outreach effort of DOS for the 2004 election,
           representatives of some overseas citizens' groups we spoke with
           believed there was still a lack of adequate DOS outreach to
           overseas citizens, especially in comparison with the outreach they
           believe was provided to military servicemembers. DOS reported that
           it received relatively few complaints from Americans abroad and
           that most complaints were from infrequent or first-time voters
           confused by the absentee voting process. Some voters complained
           that they failed to receive a ballot from their local election
           officials, and a few claimed they experienced difficulties when
           attempting to contact embassies or consulates by phone. DOS
           reported that it acted quickly to address each of these concerns.

           Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, we identified three
           challenges that remain in providing voting assistance to military
           personnel and overseas citizens, which are:

           o  simplifying and standardizing the time-consuming and multistep
           absentee voting process, which includes different requirements and
           time frames for each state;8 
           o  developing and implementing a secure electronic registration
           and voting system; and
           o  proactively reaching all overseas citizens.

           FVAP has attempted to make the absentee voting process easier by
           encouraging states to simplify the multistep process and
           standardize their absentee voting requirements. FVAP's Legislative
           Initiatives program has encouraged states to adopt changes to
           improve the absentee voting process for military and overseas
           citizens. The current absentee voting process requires the
           potential voter to take the following four steps: (1) register and
           request an absentee ballot, (2) receive the ballot from the local
           election office, (3) correctly complete the ballot, and (4) return
           it (generally through the mail) in time to be counted for the
           election. Knowing when to complete the first step of this process
           can be challenging, as evidenced by an explanation given by the
           DOS Chief Voting Officer in responding to the question, "When is
           the deadline for submission of the FPCA?" The voting officer
           responded:

           The simplest and most truthful answer is that it all depends. Does
           the voter want to participate in Presidential primary elections,
           state primary elections, run-off elections, special elections and
           the November general election? To answer that question, you'll
           need to ask several questions. (1) What is the voter's state of
           voting residence? (2) Is the voter already or still registered to
           vote? (3) Does the voter's state send out absentee ballots early
           or late? and (4) Are remoteness or poor mail service
           considerations for the voter?

           Answering these questions is also a challenge for voters, given
           that each state has its own deadlines for receipt of FPCAs, and
           the deadline is different depending on whether or not the voter is
           already registered. For example, according to the Voting
           Assistance Guide, Montana requires a voter that has not previously
           registered to submit an FPCA at least 30 days prior to the
           election. A voter who is already registered must ensure that the
           FPCA is received by the County Election Administrator by noon on
           the day before the election. For Idaho voters, the FPCA must be
           postmarked by the 25th day before the election, if they are not
           currently registered. If they are registered, the County Clerk
           must receive the FPCA by 5:00 p.m. on the 6th day before the
           election. For Virginia uniformed services voters, the FPCA must
           arrive not later than 5 days before the election, whether already
           registered or not. However, overseas citizens that are not already
           registered must submit an FPCA to the General Registrar not later
           than 29 days before the election. Those overseas voters who are
           already registered must ensure that the FPCA arrives to the
           General Registrar not later than 5 days before the election. Using
           different deadlines for newly registered and previously registered
           voters to return their absentee ballots may have some
           administrative logic and basis. For example, verifying the
           eligibility of a newly registered voter may take longer than that
           of previously registered voters, and if there is some question
           about the registration information provided, the early deadlines
           provide some time to contact the voter and get it corrected.

           DOD encourages potential voters to complete and mail the FPCA
           early, in order to receive absentee ballots for all upcoming
           Federal elections during the year. Military and international mail
           and the U.S. postal service are the primary means for transmitting
           voting materials, according to servicemembers with whom we spoke.
           A challenge for military service members in completing the FPCA is
           to know where they will be located when the ballots are mailed by
           the local election official. If the voter changes locations after
           submitting the FPCA and does not notify the local election
           official, the ballot will be sent to the address on the FPCA and
           not the voter's new location. This can be further complicated by a
           2002 amendment to UOCAVA,9 which allowed military personnel and
           overseas citizens to apply for absentee ballots for two federal
           elections. If servicemembers request ballots for the next two
           federal elections, they must project up to a 4-year period where
           they will be located when the ballots are mailed. DOD recommended
           that military servicemembers and overseas citizens complete an
           FPCA annually in order to maintain registration and to receive
           ballots for upcoming elections.

           After a valid FPCA has been received by the local election
           official, the next step for the voter is to receive the absentee
           ballot. The determination of when the state mails its ballots
           sometimes depends on when the state holds its primary elections.
           FVAP has an initiative encouraging a 40-45-day transit time for
           mailing and returning absentee ballots; however, 14 states have
           yet to adopt this initiative. During our focus group discussions,
           some servicemembers commented that they either did not receive
           their absentee ballot or they received it so late that they did
           not believe they had sufficient time to complete and return it in
           time to be counted.

           After the voter completes the ballot, the voted ballot must be
           returned to the local election official within time frames
           established by each state. As we reported in 2004, deployed
           military servicemembers face numerous problems with mail delivery,
           such as military postal personnel who were inadequately trained
           and initially scarce because of late deployments, as well as
           inadequate postal facilities, material-handling equipment, and
           transportation assets to handle mail surge.10 In December 2004,
           DOD reported that it had taken actions to arrange for transmission
           of absentee ballot materials by Express Mail through the Military
           Postal Service Agency and the U.S. Postal Service. However, during
           our focus group discussions, servicemembers cited problems with
           the mail, such as it being a low priority when a unit is moving
           from one location to another; susceptibility of mail shipments to
           attack while in theater; and the absence of daily mail service on
           some military ships. For example, some servicemembers said that
           mail sat on the ships for as long as a week, waiting for pick up.
           Others stated that in the desert, mail trucks are sometimes
           destroyed during enemy attacks. The DOS Chief Voting Officer
           characterized some overseas mail systems as not functioning. To
           compensate for some of the mail delivery challenges, DOS
           negotiated with international courier companies to establish
           reduced rates and expedited service for voting materials from
           overseas citizens.

           In attempting to simplify and standardize the absentee voting
           process, FVAP continued working with the states, through its
           Legislative Initiatives program, to facilitate the absentee voting
           process for military servicemembers and overseas citizens.
           However, the majority of states have not agreed to any new
           initiatives since FVAP's 2001 report to Congress and the President
           on the effectiveness of its efforts during the 2000 election. The
           Legislative Initiatives program is designed to make it easier for
           military servicemembers and overseas citizens to vote by absentee
           ballot. FVAP is limited in its ability to affect state voting
           procedures because it lacks the authority to require states to
           take action on absentee voting initiatives. In the 1980s, FVAP
           began its Legislative Initiatives program with 11 initiatives, and
           as of December 2005 it had not added any others. Two of the 11
           initiatives-(1) accept one FPCA as an absentee ballot request for
           all elections during the calendar year and (2) removal of the
           not-earlier-than restrictions for registration and absentee ballot
           requests11-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.12 According to FVAP, this
           action was the result of state election officials working with
           congressional lawmakers to improve the absentee voting process.

           Between FVAP's 2001 and 2005 reports to Congress and the
           President, the majority of the states had not agreed to any of the
           remaining nine initiatives. Since FVAP's 2001 report, 21 states
           agreed to one or more of the nine legislative initiatives,
           totaling 28 agreements. Table 2 shows the number of agreements
           with the initiatives since the 2001 report. According to FVAP
           records, one state withdrew its support for the 40-45-day ballot
           transit time initiative, and another state withdrew support for
           enfranchising citizens who had never resided in the United States.
           Initiatives with the most state support were (1) the removal of
           the notary requirement on election materials and (2) allowing the
           use of electronic transmission of election materials. We also
           found a disparity in the number of initiatives that states have
           adopted. For example, Iowa is the only state to have adopted all
           nine initiatives, while Vermont, American Samoa, and Guam have
           adopted only one initiative each.

           Table 2: Number of Agreements with FVAP's Legislative Initiatives

           Source: GAO generated from FVAP data.

           aEight states agreed, but one state later withdrew support.

           bSome states agreed to more than one initiative.

           Despite some progress by FVAP in streamlining the absentee voting
           process, absentee voting requirements and deadlines continue to
           vary from state to state. While it is ultimately the
           responsibility of the voter to understand and comply with these
           deadlines, varying state requirements can cause confusion among
           voters and VAOs about deadlines and procedures for registering and
           voting by absentee ballot. However, the election process within
           the United States is primarily the responsibility of the
           individual states and their election jurisdictions.

           Developing and implementing an electronic registration and voting
           system, which would likely improve the timely delivery of ballots
           and increase voter participation, has proven to be a challenging
           task for FVAP. Eighty-seven percent of servicemembers who
           responded to our focus group survey said they were likely to vote
           over the Internet if security was guaranteed. However, FVAP has
           not been able to develop a system that would protect the security
           and privacy of absentee ballots cast over the Internet. For
           example, during the 2000 presidential election, FVAP conducted a
           small proof of concept Internet voting project that enabled only
           84 voters to vote over the Internet. While the project
           demonstrated that it was possible for a limited number of voters
           to cast ballots online, FVAP's project assessment concluded that
           security concerns needed to be addressed before expanding remote
           (i.e., Internet) voting to a larger population. In 2001, we also
           reported that remote Internet-based registration and voting are
           unlikely to be implemented on a large scale in the near future
           because of security risks with such a system.13

           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.14 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,15
           with the eventual goal of supporting the entire military
           population, their dependents, and overseas citizens. In January
           2004, a minority report published by four members of the Security
           Peer Review Group, a group of 10 computer election security
           experts FVAP assembled to evaluate SERVE, 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, the full peer review group did not issue a
           final report. Also, because DOD did not want to call into question
           the integrity of votes that would have been cast via SERVE, they
           decided to shut it down prior to its use by any absentee voters.
           FVAP could not provide details on what it received for the
           approximately $26 million that it invested in SERVE. FVAP
           officials stated that they received some services from the
           contractor, but no hardware or other equipment.

           In September 2004, DOD implemented the Interim Voting Assistance
           System (IVAS), an electronic ballot delivery system, as an
           alternative to the traditional mail process. Although IVAS was
           meant to streamline the voting process, its strict eligibility
           requirements prevented it from being utilized by many military or
           civilian voters. IVAS was open to active duty military members,
           their dependents, and DOD overseas personnel who were registered
           to vote. These citizens also had to be enrolled in the Defense
           Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS),16 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;17 however, only 17 citizens downloaded their
           ballots from the site during the 2004 election.

           Despite low usage of the electronic initiatives and existing
           security concerns, we found that servicemembers and VAOs at the
           installations we visited strongly supported some form of
           electronic transmission of voting materials. During our focus
           group discussions, servicemembers stated that election materials
           for the 2004 presidential election were most often sent and
           received through the U.S. postal system. Servicemembers also
           commented that the implementation of a secure electronic
           registration and voting system could increase voter participation
           and possibly improve confidence among voters that their votes were
           received and counted. Additionally, servicemembers said that an
           electronic registration and voting system would improve the
           absentee voting process by providing an alternative to the mail
           process, particularly for those servicemembers deployed on a ship
           or in remote locations. However, at one location, some
           servicemembers were more comfortable with the paper ballot system
           and said that an electronic voting system would not work because
           its security could never be guaranteed.

           Although DOS set a goal of 100 percent in-hand delivery of an FPCA
           to overseas citizens employed with an embassy or consulate, it
           does not have the ability to reach every overseas citizen. While
           DOS's Web site is available for overseas citizens to access, DOS
           does not have the ability to proactively reach the estimated 2
           million overseas United States citizens of voting age. According
           to DOS, about 67 percent of overseas citizens live in about 10
           countries, and the remaining 1.2 million overseas citizens are
           spread throughout the world. If these citizens do not contact the
           embassy or consulate and provide DOS with appropriate contact
           information, DOS cannot proactively reach them. DOS has assigned a
           VAO and voting assistant at each of its approximately 240
           embassies and consulates. According to the DOS Chief Voting
           Officer, it is impossible to know where all eligible overseas
           voters are located or to directly provide them information on
           absentee voting. Also, he stated that some overseas citizens could
           be located hundreds of miles from the embassy. Even for those
           citizens within proximity to the embassy, the heightened security
           environment could preclude easy embassy access to obtain voting
           information. DOS emphasized that it cannot and should not force
           people to vote, but it should get the forms and information to
           them as early as possible.

           In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally
           agreed with our description of their voting assistance efforts.
           DOD expressed concerns that our information from the focus group
           discussions may be presented in a way that can be misinterpreted.
           In our report, we acknowledged that our focus group responses
           could not be projected across the military community because
           participants were not selected using a statistically valid
           sampling methodology. DOD also stated that Congress instructed the
           department to pursue an electronic absentee voting project upon
           the release of guidelines for electronic voting from the Election
           Assistance Commission and the National Institute of Standards and
           Technology. As required by the national defense authorization act
           for fiscal year 2005, DOD may delay the implementation of another
           electronic voting project until the new electronic absentee voting
           guidelines are issued by the Election Assistance Commission. At
           the time of our review, the Executive Director of the Commission
           informed us that the Commission was waiting for the report from
           FVAP on its internet voting project prior to establishing the
           guidelines. DOD's written comments are reprinted in their entirety
           in appendix III. In written comments on a draft of this report,
           DOS also generally agreed with our report and provided a few
           clarifying comments which we incorporated into our final report as
           appropriate. First, DOS wanted us to quantify the approximate
           voting age population of overseas citizens at about 2 million.
           Next, DOS stated the challenge to reaching overseas citizens
           relates to citizens having no obligation to contact the embassies
           or consulates versus the geographic dispersion of overseas
           citizens. If citizens do not contact the embassy or consulate and
           provide DOS with appropriate contact information, DOS cannot
           proactively reach them. DOS's description of the challenge further
           supports our statements that they cannot reach all overseas
           citizens. Finally, DOS said that variance in voting assistance was
           not a result of the size and location of the embassy but related
           to other issues such as (1) the level of development of the
           country, (2) the security climate, and (3) the quality of the host
           country's infrastructure. They stated that the reliability of the
           mail system, working telephones, passable road networks, and even
           the existence of electric power grids play far more important
           roles, and require the VAOs to use different means in different
           places to help citizens register and vote. DOS's written comments
           are printed in their entirety in appendix IV.

           We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense;
           the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the
           Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Secretary of State; and other
           interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
           upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
           charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

           If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-5559 or [email protected] or George F.
           Poindexter at (202) 512-7213 or [email protected]. GAO staff who
           made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
           Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
           Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.

           Derek B. Stewart, Director Defense Capabilities and Management

           List of Congressional Addressees

           The Honorable John Warner

           Chairman The Honorable Carl Levin

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States
           Senate

           The Honorable Susan M. Collins

           Chairman The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on Homeland Security and
           Governmental Affairs United States Senate

           The Honorable Trent Lott

           Chairman The Honorable Christopher Dodd

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on Rules and Administration
           United States Senate

           The Honorable Arlen Specter

           Chairman The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary

           United States Senate

           The Honorable Duncan Hunter

           Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of
           Representatives

           The Honorable Tom Davis

           Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform House of
           Representatives

           The Honorable Vernon Ehlers

           Chairman The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on House Administration House of
           Representatives

           The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

           Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary House of
           Representatives

           The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney House of Representatives

           To address our overall objectives, we reviewed relevant reports
           prepared by GAO, FVAP, DOD, the Inspectors General of each service
           and DOD, the Election Assistance Commission, and private nonprofit
           organizations that represent military and overseas citizens who
           participate in the election process via absentee voting.
           Specifically, to determine differences in FVAP's efforts between
           the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, we reviewed our 2001
           report to obtain an assessment of FVAP's efforts for the 2000
           election and compared that assessment with actions taken by FVAP
           for the 2004 election. We reviewed Section 1973ff. et seq. of
           Title 42, United States Code, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
           Absentee Voting Act to identify specific federal responsibilities
           for absentee voting and compared these responsibilities with
           actions taken by the responsible parties. We also reviewed
           relevant FVAP, DOD, and DOS regulations, operating procedures, and
           reports to determine how UOCAVA requirements had been
           incorporated. This included reviewing DOD Directive 1000.4,
           Federal Voting Assistance Program; Air Force Instruction 36-3107,
           Voting Assistance Program; Army Regulation 608-20, Army Voting
           Assistance Program; Operations Navy Instruction 1742.1A, Navy
           Voting Assistance Program; Marine Corps Order 1742.1A, Voter
           Registration Program; and DOS's Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM
           1500, Overseas Voting Program; which list the specific
           responsibilities of each of the respective organizations for
           implementing the provisions of UOCAVA. We discussed these
           requirements with representatives from each organization to
           determine actions they took in implementing them. We met with a
           commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission and Voting
           Action Officers for each of the military services and the DOS's
           Chief Voting Officer to obtain their opinions on efforts taken for
           the 2004 election. We also examined projects and special
           initiatives undertaken by these organizations to address the
           absentee voting process. We also reviewed FVAP's Voting Assistance
           Guide and its Web site to document the type of information
           provided to UOCAVA citizens for participating in the absentee
           voting process. Also in determining FVAP's efforts for the 2004
           election, we met with the Deputy Director of FVAP and discussed
           actions they took to facilitate absentee voting for UOCAVA
           citizens. We also reviewed FVAP's 2005 report to Congress and the
           President and assessed its methodology for conducting its survey
           of voter participation among military and overseas citizens for
           the 2004 presidential election.

           To identify actions taken in response to prior GAO recommendations
           to reduce variance in program implementation, we reviewed prior
           GAO reports on absentee voting. We held discussions with officials
           from DOD and DOS to identify actions they took in responding to
           these recommendations. We reviewed updated DOD and military
           service voting assistance policies and guidance and determined
           whether requirements included in DOD's overarching guidance had
           been included in the services' guidance. We reviewed DOS's
           guidance to see whether it included requirements for increased
           program oversight and outreach to overseas citizens. In addition,
           we reviewed voting messages sent to embassies/consulates from
           DOS's Chief Voting Officer to identify actions taken to assist
           absentee voters. We also held discussions with VAOs from the
           military services to discuss their voting assistance efforts and
           to identify variance in program implementation. We also visited
           the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, to
           discuss actions taken at the service level to provide absentee
           voting training to new recruits. We held discussions with VAOs
           concerning whether and how they provided absentee voting training
           during recruit training and we reviewed the training syllabus to
           identify training related to absentee voting.

           To identify challenges that remain in providing voting assistance
           to military personnel and overseas citizens, we met with leaders
           of organizations representing members of the military and American
           citizens living overseas to obtain their opinions on assistance
           efforts provided by FVAP, DOD, and DOS for the 2004 presidential
           election. These organizations included the National Defense
           Committee, the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas, the
           Association of Americans Resident Overseas, and the Overseas Vote
           Foundation. We also reviewed reports produced by these
           organizations to gain insights on absentee voting assistance for
           the 2004 election and to identify remaining challenges. To obtain
           servicemembers' opinions on assistance received for the 2004
           election and to identify challenges to absentee voting, we
           conducted 19 focus group discussions, which included 173
           participants consisting of enlisted servicemembers and officers
           from each service. In an attempt to provide an open discussion
           environment for participants, the groups were ranked according to
           grade; enlisted 1-4, enlisted 5-9, and officers. In selecting the
           installations to conduct the focus group discussions, we
           identified the top nine states that had the largest number of
           military servicemembers. From this list, we judgmentally selected
           one installation for each service, except for the Air Force in
           which we selected two installations. One Air Force location was
           selected as our test site and we used the results in our totals.
           Locations selected were Ft. Stewart, Georgia; Patrick Air Force
           Base, Florida; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Marine Corps Base
           Camp Pendleton, California; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. To select
           focus group participants, at each site we asked the installation
           VAO to send out notices requesting volunteers to participate in
           our focus group discussions. The basic criterion used in
           soliciting volunteers was that they were eligible to participate
           in the 2004 election. Topics of discussion for the focus groups
           included the command's view on absentee voting, each participant's
           awareness and their opinion on the usefulness of FVAP's absentee
           voting resources, and challenges faced by servicemembers in voting
           by absentee ballot. Following each focus group discussion, we
           administered a short survey to each participant which solicited
           information related to their absentee voting experiences and
           challenges. Comments provided by the focus group members cannot be
           projected across the entire military community because the
           participants were not selected using a statistically valid
           sampling methodology.

           We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for
           the purpose of our report. We conducted our review from March 2005
           through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
           government auditing standards.

           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.

           Derek B. Stewart (202) 512-5559

           In addition to the individual named above, George F. Poindexter;
           Connie W. Sawyer, Jr.; Margaret Holihan; Jennifer Thomas; Terry
           Richardson; Amanda Miller; Cheryl Weissman; and Julia Matta made
           key contributions to this report.

           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.

           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."

           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

           Contact:

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

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

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

6A warden message is a method for communicating with American citizens,
similar to a phone tree, and it works best in a small area.

Top-level Command Emphasis Increased

Voting Assistance Continued to Vary

7 GAO-01-1026 .

         Some Challenges Remain in Providing Absentee Voting Assistance

8This also applies to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

Simplifying and Standardizing the Absentee Voting Process

9The Help America Vote Act of 2002 amended UOCAVA.

10GAO, Operation Iraqi Freedom: Long-standing Problems Hampering Mail
Delivery Need to Be Resolved, GAO-04-484 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14,
2004).

11Not-earlier-than restriction refers to states not accepting an FPCA if
it arrives before a specified date.

12Pub. L. No. 107-107, S: 1606 (2001) and Pub. L. No. 107-252, S: 706
(2002), respectively.

                                                   Number of states in 
                                                        agreement      
FVAP Initiatives                                     2001      2005 Change 
1. Allow a 40-45-day transit time between the          42        41     -1 
      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 

Developing a Secure Electronic Registration and Voting System

13 GAO-01-1026 .

14Pub. L. No. 107-107, S: 1604 (2001).

15The seven states were Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

16DEERS provides a means for quickly verifying and validating a person as
eligible to receive military health care and other DOD benefits.

17The nine states/territories were Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virgin Islands, and
Wisconsin.

DOS Cannot Reach All Overseas Citizens

                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix II: Related GAO Reports Appendix II: Related GAO Reports

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense Appendix III:
Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State Appendix IV: Comments
from the Department of State

Appendix V: A Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                                  GAO Contact

                                Acknowledgments

(350645)

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-521 .

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-06-521 , a report to congressional addressees

April 2006

ELECTIONS

Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Increased for
the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain

The narrow margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election raised
concerns about the extent to which members of the military, their
dependents, and U.S. citizens living abroad were able to vote via absentee
ballot. In September 2001, GAO made recommendations to address variances
in the Department of Defense's  (DOD)  Federal Voting Assistance Program
(FVAP). Along with the military services and the Department of State
(DOS), FVAP is responsible for educating and assisting military personnel
and overseas citizens in the absentee voting process.  Leading up to the
2004 presidential election, Members of Congress raised concerns about
efforts under FVAP to facilitate absentee voting. Because of broad
Congressional interest, GAO initiated a review under the Comptroller
General's authority to address three questions: (1) How did FVAP's
assistance efforts differ between the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections? (2) What actions did DOD and DOS take in response to prior GAO
recommendations on absentee voting? and (3) What challenges remain in
providing voting assistance to military personnel and overseas citizens?
This review is one of several GAO reviews related to various aspects of
the 2004 election.

GAO provided DOD and DOS with a draft of this report for comment, and they
both generally concurred with the report's contents.

For the 2004 presidential election, FVAP expanded its efforts beyond those
taken for the 2000 election to provide military personnel and overseas
citizens tools needed to vote by absentee ballot. With 13 full-time staff
members and a fiscal year 2004 budget of about $6 million, FVAP
distributed more voting materials and modified its Web site, which
includes absentee voting information, and made it accessible to more
military and overseas citizens worldwide. It also added an online voting
assistance training program and an online version of the Federal Write-in
Absentee Ballot. FVAP also conducted 164 voting training workshops for
military servicemembers and overseas citizens, as compared to 62 workshops
for the 2000 election. In its 2005 report on the effectiveness of its
federal voting assistance program, on the basis of its postelection
surveys, FVAP attributed higher 2004 voter participation rates to the
effective implementation of its voter outreach program. However, because
of low survey response rates, GAO has concerns about FVAP's ability to
project changes in voter participation rates between the 2000 and 2004
elections.

In 2001, GAO recommended that DOD and DOS revise their voting guidance,
improve program oversight, and increase command emphasis to reduce the
variance in voting assistance to military servicemembers and overseas
citizens. DOD and DOS took actions to implement these recommendations;
however, absentee voting assistance continued to vary. Voting Assistance
Officers (VAOs) provide voting assistance as a collateral duty. Because of
competing demands on VAOs and differences in their understanding and
interest in the voting process, some variance in absentee voting
assistance may always exist. DOD and DOS plan to continue their efforts to
improve absentee voting assistance.

Despite the efforts of FVAP, DOD, and DOS, GAO identified three challenges
that remain in providing absentee voting assistance to military personnel
and overseas citizens. One challenge involves simplifying and
standardizing the time-consuming, multistep absentee voting process, which
has different requirements and time frames established by each state. In
attempting to simplify and standardize the absentee voting process, FVAP
continued working with the states through its Legislative Initiatives
program to facilitate absentee voting for military servicemembers and
overseas citizens. Another challenge involves efforts to implement an
electronic registration and voting system given persistent issues
regarding security and privacy. For the 2004 election, FVAP developed an
electronic voting experiment that it planned to make available to the
entire military, their dependents, and overseas citizens; however, the
experiment was never implemented because of security concerns publicly
raised by four of the ten members of a peer review group. A challenge for
DOS is having the ability to reach all overseas citizens. Overseas
citizens are not required to provide contact information to an embassy or
consulate. If these citizens do not provide appropriate contact
information, DOS cannot proactively reach these overseas voters.
*** End of document. ***