UOCAVA Voting in Four States A Study of Election Administration

1. UOCAVA Voting in Four StatesA Study of Election Administration

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. XXXXXXXXXXXX

11. XXXXXXXXXXXX

12. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

13. XXXXXXXXXX

14. XXXXXXXXXXX

15. XXXXXXXXX

16. XXXXXXXXX

17. XXXXXXXXXXXX

18. XXXXXXXXXXXX

19. XXXXXXXXX

20. XXXXXXXXXXX

21. XXXXXXXXXX

22. XXXXXXXXXX

23. XXXXXXXXXXX

24. XXXXXXXXXXXX