UOCAVA Voting in Four StatesA Study of Election Administration

Overview of the Project

3 Components: Qualitative and Quantitative

Case Studies of 4 States

Survey of UOCAVA voters

Conference with Election Administrators, technology and election experts, etc.

Sample Selection

Organized States by Transmission method Some emailing of voted ballots Some emailing of blank ballots or IVAS tool 2 Some emailing of FPCA but not ballots Fax but no email

Fax of voted ballots Fax of blank ballots Fax of FPCA for registration and ballot request Fax of FPCA for ballot request

Postal delivery only

More Sample Selection

2 States selected from each of the top categories

Additional criteria considered: Region Size of UOCAVA population Variety of methods utilized by sample state for

within-state comparison of different methods Initiation of and participation in pilot projects or

FVAP programs

Research States and JurisdictionsKey Features

South Carolina: email and fax voted ballots – state-wide; south-eastern state; VOI ‘00, IVAS ‘04; SERVE ’04; large UOCAVA population

Montana: email and fax of voted ballots – some jurisdictions; north-western state; IVAS ‘04; IVAS ‘06 T2; small UOCAVA population

Florida: email blank and fax voted ballots; southern state; VOI ‘00, SERVE ’04; pilot projects, large UOCAVA population

Illinois: fax of FPCA for ballot request; IVAS ’06 T1 + email blank ballots in 2 jurisdictions; mid-western state; medium UOCAVA pop.

Findings

Enthusiasm about facilitating UOCAVA voting Especially about military serving overseas

Limited resources and technical infrastructure Extreme variation on technology within states

Lack of knowledge about resources and procedures

2 cycle registration requirement: bad for administrators – good or bad for voters?

Findings Continued

Concern about authentication of voters Varying perspectives on best methods

Little variation in general administration of UOCAVA voting found based on selection criteria for states – differences wash out as population size increases

Differences found based on relationship of state to local jurisdictions

Lots of innovative ideas on local level Permission to conduct pilot projects desired

More Findings

No mechanisms to share or promote innovative procedures among locals

Lack of communication between LEOs and VAOs in many jurisdictions

USPS difficulties Voters uninformed about electronic

transmission possibilities (few requests) LEOs cautious about encouraging wide-

spread use due to ballot remaking issue etc.

Conclusion and Recommendations

LEOs hindered by obstacles (legal, resources, technology infrastructure, awareness of voters, knowledge of agencies)

Changes needed: Overall increase in communication Laws that allow more discretion Mechanism to share practices Improve technology

Security and authentication assurances Upgrade/standardize local systems

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX