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. ***