[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-52]
MILITARY VOTING
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 15, 2011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-160 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
TOM ROONEY, Florida MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
JOE HECK, Nevada DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
Jeanette James, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page
Hearing:
Friday, July 15, 2011, Military Voting........................... 1
Appendix:
Friday, July 15, 2011............................................ 27
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011
MILITARY VOTING
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
WITNESSES
Carey, Robert H., Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program,
Defense Human Resources Activity............................... 4
Crepes, Dean, Director, Lexington County Commission of
Registration and Elections..................................... 7
Jackson-Gillespie, CPT Angel, USA, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne, Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. Army.................... 6
Seiler, Deborah, San Diego County Registrar, Registrar of Voters. 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Carey, Robert H.............................................. 35
Crepes, Dean................................................. 47
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 33
Seiler, Deborah.............................................. 54
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 31
Documents Submitted for the Record:
``Military Voting in 2010: A Step Forward, But a Long Way To
Go,'' by Eric Eversole..................................... 69
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 89
Mr. West..................................................... 89
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
MILITARY VOTING
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Friday, July 15, 2011.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:35 p.m. in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentleman, good afternoon. I would
like to welcome everyone to a Military Personnel Subcommittee
hearing on military voting.
Today the subcommittee meets to hear the testimony on
military and overseas voting from the Department of Defense,
local election officials, and a military officer who was a
voting assistance officer while deployed to Afghanistan during
the 2010 election.
Our witnesses have traveled a long distance to help us
understand how members of the Armed Forces and their families,
along with the U.S. civilians living and working outside of the
United States, are afforded the opportunity to exercise their
right to vote.
I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to
their testimony.
Voting is a fundamental and essential part of the
democratic process. It is both our right and our duty as
citizens of a democracy to set the direction of the Nation by
selecting the individuals who will represent us at each level
of government. This responsibility remains with us regardless
of where we choose to live and work or, as in the case of our
service members, where they are sent to defend freedom.
For many years Congress has been concerned about military
and overseas voters, who have told us about the difficulties
they face when they try to cast their ballots. Registering to
vote, receiving a ballot by mail, and returning the ballot by
mail in time for the vote to count in an election when the
voter is not physically located in the U.S. is challenging at
best.
One can only imagine the difficulty trying to accomplish
the same process when the voter is at a remote outpost in
Afghanistan fighting a war. Yet, these are the very individuals
who through their military service protect our right to vote.
Congress has worked hard over the last several years to
ensure that the men and women assigned overseas on behalf of
our country do not lose their ability to vote as a result of
their service. A number of Federal laws have been enacted to
enable the military and U.S. citizens abroad to vote in Federal
elections.
Most recently, Congress enacted the Military and Overseas
Voter Empowerment--``MOVE''--Act as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act for 2010. The MOVE Act required the
Department of Defense to make several changes to the Federal
Voting Assistance Program to improve the process by which
military absentee voters cast their ballots.
I look forward to hearing from our DOD [Department of
Defense] witnesses how these improvements have been implemented
within the Department. I am also interested to know how the
changes to FVAP [Federal Voting Assistance Program] affected
the military and overseas voter in the 2010 election. Were more
military and overseas voters able to cast their ballots in time
for them to be counted in the election?
In addition, a successful military voting assistance
program depends on the collaborative efforts of the Department
of Defense with the military voting assistance officers in the
field and State and local officials. I am very pleased we have
two local elected officials with us today.
First, we have from my home State, but more importantly to
me home own county, I am very honored that we have the
registrar and director of elections of Lexington County, South
Carolina. And additionally, from San Diego, California, we have
the registrar from the home of the ranking member, Susan Davis.
We also have with us today a voting assistance officer who
had to find a way to get deployed soldiers the election
information they needed. I look forward to hearing their
perspectives on how to best assist military and overseas voters
cast an absentee ballot.
I will close by saying that every day our troops lay their
lives on the line to defend freedom, and it is our job to make
sure they are not denied the right to vote.
Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman
Susan Davis of California an opportunity to make her opening
remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe it is so important that we are having this
hearing today. We all know that voting is an important
responsibility as an American citizen. It is fundamental to the
continued success of our democratic society.
Over the past several years Congress has taken significant
steps to improve the voting process for Americans, and
specifically for our military personnel and their families. The
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010
included the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which
sought to further enhance the voting experience for military
service members.
And these included--and my colleague has enumerated some of
them; if I may, I wanted to just broaden that a little even in
the time that we have--included the requirement for States to
send out requested ballots at least 45 days before an election,
allows voter registration applications and absentee ballot
applications to be sent by mail or electronically.
It expands the use of Federal write-in ballots to include
primaries, run-offs, and special elections. It prohibits States
from rejecting otherwise valid voter registration applications
on the basis of notarization requirements or restrictions on
paper or envelope type.
And it required the development of online portals of
information and also required the service secretaries to
designate offices on military installations to provide
information on voter registration procedures and absentee
ballot procedures, information, and assistance to military
personnel.
I am very interested in hearing from Mr. Carey, the
director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, on how these
changes have been implemented by the States and the Department
of Defense and what issues were found during the last election.
I am also very pleased that we have Captain Angel Jackson-
Gillespie here from the 101st Airborne, who was a voting
assistance officer while deployed in Afghanistan.
I certainly hope that you will share with us, with the
subcommittee your experiences and areas or issues of concern or
success that you think will help us as we continue to improve
the voting process for service members, their families, and
Americans living and working abroad.
We have two individuals who are directly involved in the
process on the ground level. Mr. Dean Crepes, director of
Lexington County Commission of Registration, South Carolina, of
course, and Mrs. Deborah Seiler, registrar of voters from San
Diego, California.
I want to welcome you both and thank you for coming so far,
particularly from San Diego, on such short notice.
I invited Deborah to be here today not just because she is
in my district, but because she runs a first-class operation
and can make a valuable contribution to our hearing. San Diego
is the sixth largest county in the country, and coordinating
activities for 2,300 precincts and counting over 1.2 million
ballots each election is difficult and probably feels at times
like a thankless task.
Deborah works tirelessly so that everyone gets a chance to
vote and makes sure that everybody votes only once. Deborah and
her staff put voters first.
With about 100,000 Active Duty military personnel stationed
at bases in our county, they take pride in making sure the
registrar's office is attuned to the unique needs of military
voters. And that is why they have been known to communicate
with service members in the middle of the night and even
coordinate ballot delivery with sailors at their next port of
call.
Mr. Chairman, let me welcome all of our witnesses. Thank
you very much, again, for the hearing. I look forward to an
open and productive dialogue.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
And we are jointed today by an outstanding panel. We would
like to give each witness the opportunity to present his or her
testimony and each member who is here an opportunity to ask
questions.
We will be looking for a summary of your written testimony
that will be included in the record.
Additionally, in particular I want to thank Mr. Robert H.
Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the
Defense Human Resources Activity; Captain Angel Jackson-
Gillespie, U.S. Army 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st
Airborne from Fort Campbell, Kentucky--and I am very grateful
to know that she was also trained at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, so I know she has excellent training; and Mr. Dean
Crepes, director of the Lexington County Registration and
Elections Commission; and Mrs. Deborah Seiler, the San Diego
County registrar of voters.
And we will begin first with Mr. Carey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. CAREY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL VOTING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY
Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Davis,
members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify on military voting and the Department of Defense's
Military Voting Assistance Program. I also thank you for
including my complete written testimony in today's record.
As you said, my name is Bob Carey, and I am the director of
the Federal Voting Assistance Program and have been since July
2009.
After graduation from college, I joined the Navy, and I
continue to serve in the Navy Reserves today. I have been both
an overseas civilian voter and a military voter. I voted by
absentee ballot for 21 straight years.
With that experience, upon my arrival at the Federal Voting
Assistance Program, we used data from the 2008 post-election
surveys of military personnel and local election officials--
data, I may add, that has been developed statistically through
a statistically rigorous survey methodology refined over
decades--to restructure the Voting Assistance Program to more
effectively support military voters' most personal needs.
That 2008 election data showed the most significant problem
for military voters was not registration. It was not even voter
participation rates. When adjusted for the substantial age and
gender differences between the general population and the
military, the military was registered at and voted at higher
rates in the 2008 election than did the general population.
But when it came to successfully returning an absentee
ballot sent to them, the difference was remarkable. Ninety-one
percent of the general population successfully returned their
absentee ballots in 2008, but only 62 percent of the military
did.
Given this, the Federal Voting Assistance Program shifted
to a system of direct-to-the-voter assistance, predominantly
through online tools, to allow the limited voting assistance
officer resources to be more focused where needed and to serve
more greatly the underserved and underperforming populations.
To provide that direct-to-the-voter assistance, the
Department automated the voter registration, absentee ballots,
and back-up ballots forms with online wizards. Before, military
voting assistance officers had to help the voter fill out the
form by hand, referencing back to this 466-page compendium of
various State laws and regulations regarding military voting.
Now, the military voter can easily and seamlessly complete
these forms online by answering a series of simple and
intuitive questions, generally in the 5- to 8-minute range,
even being presented all of their Federal candidates in the
online ballot wizard as well.
Additionally, the Department worked with 17 States to
deploy fully automated online blank ballot delivery systems. It
also provided for online marking in most cases, where the voter
could access the complete ballot at a secure Web site and, in
most cases, mark that online, print it out, sign it, and return
it. Fourteen States also deployed their own online ballot
delivery systems.
The Department believes that such online ballot
availability represents the best long-term method of ensuring
voters have timely and successful access to all their ballots
by allowing them to retrieve their ballot wherever and however
they can.
To raise voter awareness of these tools and keep voting
deadlines, the Department also executed an aggressive,
integrated, strategic communications plan to reach these voters
through multiple communications channels, print and online
advertisements. I think we have a couple of versions of that
you can see. We ran full-page ads in a number of papers,
including Defense Times, Stars and Stripes, Military Spouse
Magazine, International Herald Tribune.
We did an extensive social media campaign. RSS [really
simple syndication] feeds, earned media, internal media, direct
communications through unit and installation voting assistance
officers, banners outside of installation gates and
commissaries and exchanges, and force-wide emails were all used
to inform military voters about upcoming elections, the
procedures for registering and requesting an absentee ballot,
and how best and most successfully to return those absentee
ballots.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program has and will continue
to work very closely with the Services as they execute the
installation voter assistance office mandate of the MOVE Act.
However, the Department believes those mandates are costly,
manpower intensive, and require significant effort for the
Services to implement. Those implementing these programs in the
field believe it may actually be counterproductive to an
effective voting assistance office program by taking those
resources away from the unit level, where they can be most
precisely and quickly delivered.
The Department believes all the new voting assistance
requirements mandated by the MOVE Act at the installation
level, including the voting assistance requirements of the
National Voter Registration Act, can be more efficiently
accomplished at the unit level at far less cost and with far
greater effectiveness, and focus more specifically on deployed
personnel and underperforming segments of the voting
population.
Legislatively, the Department believes the States should
only need to report their military and overseas voting
statistics to the Department of Defense. Currently, States
report statistics to both the Department of Defense and
Election Assistance Commission.
The MOVE Act, however, made the Secretary of Defense the
lead agency in post-election military and overseas voting data
collection and reporting. Therefore, the Department recommends
the Department of Defense be the sole data collection agency to
reduce the survey burden on States and local election
officials, and provide for full integration with the
Department's other post-election surveys, which capture much of
the voting behavior that cannot be captured by the reporting
data that is provided by the States' election assistance
commission.
Mr. Chairman, Representative Davis, members of the
committee, I stand ready for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carey can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And, Captain.
STATEMENT OF CPT ANGEL JACKSON-GILLESPIE, USA, 2ND BRIGADE
COMBAT TEAM, 101ST AIRBORNE, FT. CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY, U.S. ARMY
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
so much for the opportunity to appear today and to represent
the Army and the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division, ``The
Screaming Eagles,'' at this hearing.
My name is Captain Angel Jackson-Gillespie from 526 Brigade
Support Battalion. I am an adjunct general corps officer, and I
have served on Active Duty for 9 years. I enlisted in 2001 and
received my commission as an air defense officer in 2004.
I served initially at Fort Bliss, Texas as an air defense
platoon leader, company executive officer, and battalion S-1 in
a Patriot air defense unit. I am currently the battalion
adjutant for the 526 Brigade Support Battalion 101st Airborne
Division. In this position, I am responsible for all personnel
actions for a 970-soldier unit with a mission of providing
logistical support to an infantry brigade combat team within
the 101st.
Currently, I serve as a voting assistance officer. Most
recently, I served in this capacity during my unit's deployment
to Operation Enduring Freedom from May 2010 to April 2011.
During this time, I provided voting assistance to
approximately 600 soldiers spread across a wide area of
operations in RC [Regional Command] South, based outside
Kandahar City, Afghanistan. I am proud to be able to say that
the young soldiers I served with were well-engaged in the
voting process, even while deployed in harm's way.
While deployed, we requested and received voting
information from the Federal Voting Assistance Program to
ensure material was on hand for soldiers in theater. We used
the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site extensively, as
it provided all the information we needed to assistance
soldiers with both registration and absentee ballots.
In addition, we designated primary and alternate company-
level voting assistance officers to further assist soldiers
with the voting process. I received frequent emails from the
Federal Voting Assistance Program on pending elections that I,
in turn, disseminated to our company-level voting assistance
officers.
To assist our companies, my team and I also used a database
to identify soldiers by home of record to notify them of
upcoming elections. Additionally, I served as a voting
assistance officer in several other positions prior to my
current one. Over time I have seen significant improvement in
access to voting assistance material.
Thank you again for the chance to represent the Army and my
unit by appearing in front of the subcommittee today. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much for your service.
Mr. Crepes.
STATEMENT OF DEAN CREPES, DIRECTOR, LEXINGTON COUNTY COMMISSION
OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS
Mr. Crepes. I am honored to be here, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I
am. My name is Dean Crepes. I am the director of voter
registration in Lexington County in South Carolina. And also,
being a veteran myself, I always have voted. I joined in 1980,
and in the Marine Corps to 1980, and I understand the need to
provide this opportunity to bases, to all veterans worldwide.
In 1992, the General Assembly passed legislation to allow
electronic transmission of ballots in emergency situations
only. In 1998, South Carolina participated in voting over the
Internet, sponsored by the Department of Defense.
South Carolina was not only the State participating, but
the only State that participated on a statewide basis. In 2004,
South Carolina was invited and readily accepted an invitation
to participate in SERVE, Secure Electronic Registration and
Voting Experiment.
And unfortunately, this was cancelled by 2004, but in 2004
HAVA [Help America Vote Act] came onboard then. The ballot
request there with HAVA was for a period of two general
elections. This requirement made it very difficult for election
officials, due to the movement of UOCAVA [Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act] voters as much as they
do, usually about 2 years at one place.
And in the MOVE, the Military Overseas Voting Empowerment
Act of 2009 removed that requirement and basically said we will
remove that requirement. Instead annually, beginning 1 January
of each year, we will start taking requests for absentee voting
for that year. So we have already started taking this year for
what we have in 2011 November for our municipal elections.
To apply for a UOCAVA absentee ballot, just simply contact
the office. We will direct them, if they are military, to a
FPCA, which is a Federal postcard application. If they do not
have one or have access to one, we will email one to them and
have them fill it out and send it back to us. And upon
conclusion of that, then we will file according to elections
that that individual is authorized to vote in.
South Carolina has approximately 82,000 voters that are
covered by this act. Lexington County had, in 2008, in the
presidential election--Lexington County, 89 percent for UOCAVA
return rate, and 97 percent for non-UOCAVA.
And in 2010, we had a 91 percent UOCAVA and a 97 percent
for UOCAVA, so it is on the increase there. Next year, with the
2012 presidential elections coming around, I expect that number
to get even more, and even have more returns from there.
In Lexington County, one individual with one email address
is designated a responsible person, too, in this absentee
UOCAVA voting process. He has a specific fax and email address
for people to get into. So if someone comes into me, I
immediately refer it to him. He takes care of all of the
contacts needed to be to the UOCAVA voter there. We send out
whatever needs to be done to get taking care of the individual
there.
Once the voted ballot comes in, it is immediately printed,
is placed in an envelope and sealed, and then placed into a
ballot box, where it is not touched again until Election Day.
And that is where trained individuals, along with appointed
election commission members, receive a note, open, duplicate to
a hard ballot, which can be read off optically so we can
basically get the tally of the votes in the night there.
During the June primaries, which is when we have primaries
in our State, we still have a majority vote. We have what we
call instant runoff ballot, which is basically any office that,
or party for any office that has more than two potential
candidates per office, we have an instant runoff ballot, which
basically has the choices listed--for example, first choice,
second choice, third choice, fourth choice.
That is sent along with the UOCAVA ballot for them to have
that. It comes back to us, and we separate those two out when
it comes back.
The instructions on how to vote the instant runoff ballot
are in there. Therefore, because it takes about approximately
45 days for it to transit with mail, though, if we were to take
care of problem at first with the instant runoff ballot, then
we know exactly what the first, second, and, third, or fourth
choices is for candidates, if there is a runoff.
And then our commission duplicates that onto a hard ballot,
which we can actually vote electronically--I mean, count
electronically. My apologies there.
In closing, the ultimate goal is to provide instant access
to the voter registration. That is the process for UOCAVA
voters. And I know this is all UOCAVA voters, but we give the
same attention to any voter in Lexington County or South
Carolina that wants to vote absentee.
And voters and to some increased success rate for returning
ballot percentage is equal to that of the general absentee
voting population in this moment. Thank you. I will entertain
any questions here also.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crepes can be found in the
Appendix on page 47.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And I think it should be
noted you are being very humble. The county that you represent
is one of the fastest-growing counties in the United States.
Mr. Crepes. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And so as you approach issues, they are ever
changing and ever getting larger. So, again, appreciate your
service.
Mr. Crepes. Yes, sir. They always said the good news is
Lexington County is growing. The bad news is Lexington County
is growing.
Mr. Wilson. That is it. It is a challenge, and you face it.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Deborah Seiler.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH SEILER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGISTRAR,
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
Mrs. Seiler. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and distinguished members of the committee for inviting
me here today to testify regarding military voting. I am
Deborah Seiler, registrar of voters for the County of San
Diego.
San Diego County is the second most populous county in
California behind Los Angeles. And its population is greater
than that of 21 States. It is home to a very large domestic
military population in addition to military personnel stationed
abroad. Most prominent installations known are Camp Pendleton
and one home of the Navy SEALs out on Coronado Island.
As registrar I am mindful of the unique challenges facing
military and overseas voters. Military voters abroad are
stationed in remote locations, where mail delivery can be
delayed, and they may lack access to news regarding upcoming
elections.
The transitory nature of their assignments creates a
challenge to register to vote timely and to maintain current
address information. Our office has taken a series of steps to
help these voters, beginning with the voter registration
process.
For the benefit of all voters, including those in the
military, we have posted our county-specific voter registration
form online for easy access at any time and from any location
through the world. The form is interactive and prompts the
voter to supply essential information. Because the voter keys
in that information, the data we receive is legible and
complete, and no follow-up is required with that particular
voter.
Our office also works hard to ensure military ballots and
election materials are mailed on or before the 45th day before
each election. Of course, many military voters do not register
or do not update their mailing address until this 45-day
mailing occurs. For these late registrants, we send frequent
supplemental mailings. And as Election Day approaches, we
increase our use of email and fax technology to distribute the
ballots.
For example, in October, prior to the November 2008
presidential elections, we received an email from two Navy
servicemen stationed in Iraq. The email was sent 25 days before
the election, and the servicemen had not received their
ballots, because they had not supplied us with their mailing
address in Iraq, so the ballots went to San Diego.
Staff emailed a second ballot to each of the two men, who
both voted their ballots, scanned them, and returned them to us
by email as a PDF document. They had no fax capability where
they were deployed.
Following that election, we were informed that the
Secretary of State interprets California law to permit voted
ballots to be returned by fax, but not by email, and we had to
discontinue this process. California election officials are
concerned with this law, because fax technology has become
increasingly obsolete, yet email is prevalent.
Nineteen States permit voter ballots to be returned by
email, and California elections officials support legislation
this year to permit this for our voters as well. The
legislation was not approved, unfortunately, due to security
concerns, and it is our opinion that these concerns are no
greater for email technology than for fax technology.
We have no evidence of any actual abuse, and we will
continue to advocate for this technology for our military
voters stationed abroad. My testimony contains additional
information, examples of our service and other recommendations.
I am happy to answer any questions from the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Seiler can be found in the
Appendix on page 54.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And thank all of you. The procedure we will be going
through now is a questioning for a 5-minute period by each
member who is here. We are very fortunate that Jeanette James
has volunteered to keep the time to keep us within our limit.
Beginning first, I want to defer immediately to Congressman
Allen West of Florida. We are very proud that at 2:30 he has
been selected to be the speaker pro tempore on the House floor.
Mr. West. That is because everyone has flown out of here
already.
Mr. Wilson. This is a high honor that a retired colonel
from the Army should deserve, so I defer to Colonel West.
Mr. West. Yes. It is called being the low man on the duty
roster.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also ranking member.
And thank you to the panel for being here. And as some of
you know, I spent about 22 years Active Duty service in the
United States military, so this is very important for me, for
the friends of mine that are still out there, to include my
young nephew.
So, I have three short questions. The first question is,
the Overseas Vote Foundation recently released its report from
the 2010 election. One of the problems I see here is that 5,257
military and overseas voters completed that survey, but only
107, 3 percent of the respondents, were military.
Is there any means or is there any thought about coming
back and reconducting a survey in this year, or maybe something
leading up to the 2012 election cycle, which maybe we can get
an even better snapshot, as far as military respondents?
Mr. Carey. Mr. West, if I may. The Federal Voting
Assistance Program actually conducts a statistically random
sample survey of all military personnel. And we have done that
in 2006, 2008, 2010 and will continue to do that every 2 years.
Mr. West. Okay.
Mr. Carey. And that uses the status of forces survey
methodology.
This year we also initiated a survey of military spouses to
see what their voting behavior is like. We are trying to figure
out how to best be able to do one for overseas civilians, but
we don't know what the total number of overseas civilians is in
the first place, As well as doing, you know, Department of
State voting assistance offices, military voting assistance
offices and the local election officials.
Mr. West. Okay. All right. Thank you.
The next question, the MOVE Act said it would eliminate
notarization requirements, but the report found that there were
still many States where absentee ballots requested such
notarization signatures. If you could provide back to this
committee the States that maybe still made that a requirement
in 2010, because that is something that the MOVE Act said we
would get away from.
But if there are still States out there requiring that,
that is a violation of the MOVE Act. So if you could get that
back to the committee, I would be very appreciative.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 89.]
Mr. Carey. I will get that for the record, sir.
Mr. West. Thank you. And last question, I spent 2\1/2\
years in Kandahar, so I know it very well. I appreciate your
service there. And, of course, you understand the very remote
nature of some of those forward operating bases we have.
As a matter of fact, 3 weeks ago I visited a village
stabilization platform. You know, now we are starting to push
out our special operators into some very remote areas.
When I look down and see that we are requiring 45 days--I
mean the ballot has to be mailed 45 days out--when you think of
some of these places where we have our special operators
especially, but also now we are starting to use conventional
forces in these areas, you take into account weather effects--
you know, sandstorms--you take into account the breakdown of
aircraft, because we don't want people out doing many long
logistical role type of convoys.
Do you think, Captain Jackson-Gillespie that--looking at
Tarin Kowt, Spin Boldak, some of those places--that 45 days
from it being mailed here overseas is adequate enough time? Do
we think we may need to extend that based upon some of these
remote locations?
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Sir, I do believe 45 days would
be enough time. It takes about 2 weeks for mail to get into
theater and down to the FOBs [forward operating bases] where we
are, and we immediately push mail out to those outlying COBs
[contingency operating bases] and FOBs, sir. So I do believe 45
days would probably be substantial.
However, if they are standing up, you know, further out,
any time you stand up a new unit, it is going to take time to
establish a system to get mail and communications out to those
FOBs and COBs. So once established, I think it is enough time,
sir.
Mr. West. Okay. And final question, you know, any good
commander before they go into a military operation, they do a
rehearsal. Is there a possibility that before we get into the
next major general election cycle in 2012, we may just look to
do a snapshot rehearsal of this voting procedure to see if
there are any, you know, possibility of, you know, glitches,
obstacles, loopholes, so that we can have lessons learned, we
can apply them by the time we get to November 2012?
Mr. Carey. We will definitely look into that, sir. I think
it would be something we could definitely try to see if it is
possible.
Mr. West. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Colonel.
And at this time we proceed with Mrs. Susan Davis of
California.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And if I could start with you, Mr. Carey, we all know how
critical this is, certainly for those who have sacrificed so
much for our country to make sure that this works well.
And we know that there certainly were some glitches. But I
also know that we tried to put this on a pretty short timeframe
from the time it was enacted to the time everybody had to move
forward with the 2010 election, which, as I understand it,
ordinarily if we have to make a major change, we have about 2
years to do that.
So I wonder if you would address some of the concerns that
people have and if you think that these were just some one-time
issues, as people were adjusting to changes in the regulations
that the MOVE Act required, or what of those problems are we
likely to see again?
What is perhaps systemic in that, that would be a problem?
And I know you talked about the unit level and how important
that was.
Mr. Carey. Yes, ma'am. For the installation voting
assistance office program, the continuing resolution continuing
through April was problematic in that it prohibited new starts
and made it difficult for the Services to be able to start up
the program.
And we are essentially, making these programs out of whole
cloth at the instillation level when, in fact, for a long time
we have been doing it at the unit level.
The other issue is that the change of duty station process
is migrating from the installation level to the unit level,
supported by online applications. Whereas before you would go
to the readiness support group or the joint administrative
center or the personnel support detachment and talk to the pay
folks and the medical folks, now you are doing that all at the
unit level.
And I am concerned that we are going to leave an orphaned
voting assistance program at the installation level. And,
frankly, it is going to be very difficult for people to
understand why they have to leave their unit, go to the
installation, when they can just talk to the unit voting
assistance officer and get it that much quicker.
So that is probably one of the big concerns about this. I
mean, the Services are trying to move heaven and earth to make
this happen as soon as possible, but given the hiring freezes,
the civilian personnel cuts, it is difficult to just turn this
on.
Mrs. Davis. Well, thank you. And so those are some things
that we should be anticipating or could be problematic.
Mr. Carey. Well, I think that, approximately 80 percent of
all the installation voting assistance offices are now
established. The Marine Corps says that they will have all 18
of theirs up and running by August 11th, and I believe that the
Air Force will have all theirs up and running by the end of the
fiscal year. That will complete all the Services.
Mrs. Davis. So----
Mr. Carey. So I think that we will have a much better
ability. But there is still the issue of, might we be able to
spend these resources better, if we focus it at the unit level
and allow it to be a little more tailored?
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you I appreciate that. And certainly
it seems to me that there is also an education issue here as
well, encouraging and making sure that service members are
voting, that they know that actually there is a lot of
assistance out there for them. And we want to make sure that
they know that. Thank you.
Mr. Carey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. I wanted to turn to Mrs. Seiler just to look at
some of the ways in which, I think, we can actually make this
better for our military and overseas voters and to enable them
to be able to track their ballots, which is an issue that we
certainly have been involved in.
And I wonder if you could tell us how tracking is working
and how you might think this might serve the military voter?
Mrs. Seiler. Well, thank you.
Mrs. Davis. And maybe you can explain for me what that
means first.
Mrs. Seiler. Okay.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mrs. Seiler. Let me just tell you that in our office in
2008, we implemented the ballot tracking system, both,
actually, for ballots as well as for voter registrations.
So currently any voter from any location throughout the
world can log into our Web site. They can determine what their
voter registration status is. They can determine their
political party. They simply have to enter their birth date,
their home address, and their Zip Code, and they can figure out
if they are registered to vote.
We have had about 350,000 hits on that site since we
implemented it in 2008, so it is working very well.
In addition to tracking the voter registration status, of
course, voters can track to determine whether their mail ballot
has been issued and whether it has been returned.
For example, in the 1-month, the 29-day period prior to the
November 2010 election we just had, we had about 156,000 people
access that site. So we have had tremendous success with our
ballot tracking program.
Mrs. Davis. And we are acknowledging that is something that
certainly Californians can do that. They can track their
ballots. But individuals in other States cannot at this time.
So we are really learning from the military and I appreciate
that. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we now proceed to Mr. Coffman, of Colorado.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Carey, if we accept your assertion that
recent reports are skewed as to military voting participation
and participation rates were not worse in 2010 compared to
2006, it still doesn't appear as if the situation has
significantly improved.
And with the 2012 election cycle starting in a mere 6
months, I don't see us on track to see increases next year
either. What will be improved between 2012 and 2010?
Mr. Carey. Thank you Mr. Coffman. I would say, first, there
was a substantial improvement between 2006 and 2010.
The 2006 voter participation rate from the Active Duty
military survey showed a 22- to 24-percent voter participation
rate. And in 2010, we are showing approximately a 29-percent
voter participation rate. Now, that is about a 20- to 30-
percent increase. And the regular voter participation rate for
the general population was only about 41 percent.
Now about half the military, 60 percent of the military is
under 29, but only about 20 percent of the general population
is. And voter participation rates for the younger voters are
much lower. So when we do that age and gender adjustment, the
military voter participation rate has--in 2008 and it appears
to be in 2010; we are still finalizing those numbers--appears
to exceed that of the general population.
The one cohort, the one age cohort we are having problem is
in the 18- to 24-year-olds, with which we identified in the
2008 post-election report. And so we are trying to expand that
ability to reach out to the 18- to 24-year-olds, as well to the
military spouses.
We have a $16.2 million program that just closed out, grant
program to the States to be able to deploy even more online
ballot delivery systems that we can then direct the voter to
through our online portal.
And then we are also working with the military postal
system in order to be able to improve even more upon their 5.2-
day ballot return average time, in order to be able to try to
improve those rates, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Let me just say as someone who served in Iraq
with the United States Marine Corps and was not able to vote in
my own State's election in 2005, I take this issue pretty
seriously.
And let me just say this as well, that I think comparing
the young men and women to the same age demographic of their
civilian counterparts is a real, I think, understatement as to
really the quality of our men and women in the military. I
mean, according to the U.S. Army, 70 percent of young people
today are ineligible to enlist in the U.S. Army. So I think
probably you might reexamine that.
To the voting assistance officer, Captain, in your
experience would military voters be willing to sacrifice the
privacy of secrecy of their ballots in order to return the
ballots by fax or email, rather than through the postal system?
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Sir, I can't speak for all
military personnel. I think of those who are going to vote and
are willing to vote, they would probably have their vote
counted whichever way they can. And especially in a deployed
environment, they would probably use those tools by email, if
they could.
So can't speak for all, but I know I would, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you.
And let me ask a question to the election officers, to both
of you. Do you send the absentee ballots by military voters
separately? Or are they sent in the same way as regular
absentee ballots?
I know that certain States--and this has been problematic
for certain States--given their schedule for primary elections
and stuff like that, they differ. But I know Colorado had
difficulty complying with the requirement.
Mrs. Seiler. Thank you, sir. In San Diego County, we have
for many years been sending our military ballots at 45 days
before the election to those voters in combat zones. We had
worked this out with our U.S. Postal Service representatives.
We worked very closely with them, and they had advised us that
45 days was a good target date for people in combat zones.
Then we were mailing at 39 days for those people in non-
combat zones. With the MOVE Act, we have changed that now so
that all of those military and overseas ballots go out at 45
days for all elections. And this is not simply for the Federal
elections, but we try to meet that target for every election.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Mr. Crepes. Yes, sir. We have two ways, and we do email or
fax ballots after they have been qualified for an election.
Now, we do have a cover sheet that goes along with it they have
to sign, letting them know they understand that this is done by
maybe unsecured means of transmitting the ballot.
But when the ballot comes back to us, it is immediately
printed and stuffed in an envelope, and then put in a ballot
box, and immediately taken off of the computer that the person
received it in, and then put onto a separate file.
Also, the other one, we have an envelope here that is a red
envelope, that is a sort of an attention-getter to the U.S.
Mail to ``This is a UOCAVA ballot; make it happen pretty
quick.'' And 45 days has been adequate with us there, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we proceed with Dr. Heck, of Nevada.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first question I have is what kind of recommendations
would you make to strengthen the safeguards put in place by
UOCAVA and the MOVE Act, because I am looking at the report
from the Overseas Vote Foundation for the 2010 election
results, and they still report that 33 percent of military and
overseas voters reported attempting to vote, but were unable
to, because they didn't receive their ballot or they received
it too late.
And so we have heard that 45 days is enough, but 33 percent
attempted, but didn't get it in time or didn't get it back in
time. And while that represented a decrease from 50 percent for
2008, I think we would all agree that 33 percent is still
unacceptable for our oversea voters.
In addition, I find it odd that they said that those who
used electronic means to request a ballot were less likely to
receive a ballot than those who did not, and that although the
MOVE Act eliminated requirements for notarization, some States
continue to require that.
So what would the recommendations be from those of you on
the panel to strengthen these safeguards to make sure that
everybody gets their ballot in time and can return it in time
and make the process easier?
Mrs. Seiler. Okay. Thank you, sir.
One of the recommendations that we would like to offer, if
it were possible, would be to ensure in some manner that we
have current, up-to-date mailing address information. As I said
in my testimony, for those voters who are registered with us
and have up-to-date mailing information, we can send that
mailing out at 45 days. It is highly effective.
It is those personnel whose address has changed and we
don't know about it until after that 45-day mailing that, I
think, are really what is creating the issue for us, and for
the voter. And, in those cases, we do. We send our supplemental
mailings. We send ballots by email, by fax, however we can get
the ballot to them. But the time is shortened.
If there was some semi-automatic way that we could be
informed, maybe if we had access to a database that the
military services provided, so that we could match our database
against a database provided by the military that indicates
movement, so we could capture that at, say, 55 days before the
election, we would have those updated addresses ready to go for
that 45-day mailing. I think that would be a huge benefit to us
and to the voters.
Dr. Heck. Anybody with any other recommendations?
Mr. Carey. Sir, to follow up on that, we have a system in
place to be able to try to provide updated addresses. The
problem is that--I believe it is 10 USC Section 123 prohibits
the Department from releasing the mailing address of military
personnel assigned to a deployable unit. And so that limits our
ability to be able to--and I am not exactly sure of that title
and section. I know it is 10 USC, but I think it is Section
123.
And so that might be something that needs reconsideration.
We are working with the Defense Manpower Data Center to see if
we can actually open up the DEERS [Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System] or the DEEDS [Data Elements for
Emergency Department Systems] database to State election
officials, and maybe the adjutants general, to be able to
provide some method of address verification as well.
Dr. Heck. I guess, then, that would kind of bring me to my
second question to the captain, being a voting assistance
officer. What kind of outreach, specifically, let us say, the
Army--what are you doing to make sure that those that are
deployed know that you are there and know--I mean, I am sure if
they don't know that they have to get their address updated or
whatever, you know, before 45 days, so you have 45 days to turn
it around, it makes it more difficult.
I know that when I was deployed to Iraq, there was a poster
on the wall that said if you have any questions, you know, here
is your VAO [voting assistance officer]. But that was it. I
mean, I never met the VAO. I knew nothing about it. And I had
to go seek the VAO out. So what kind of proactive outreach are
we trying to do?
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Thank you, sir. At my level, we
have voting assistance officers at the battalion and each of
the company levels. We receive information from the Federal
Voting Assistance Program, and we push that information down to
the company level.
We also get the posters off of the Federal Voting
Assistance Program Web site. We hang them up. But we can't
force soldiers to come into our office. I can't force a soldier
to go in and see his voting assistance officer. We make it
known who we are, where we are, and it is on the soldier to
come in and talk to us, sir.
Dr. Heck. All right.
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. We will provide them with
whatever assistance they need. If they need to know when an
election is happening, we will give them that, how to request a
ballot, how to register to vote. We get all of that information
from the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site, and we
pass it on to the soldier and allow them to use our computer,
sir.
Dr. Heck. Is it a passive process, or is it active? Are you
out there holding briefings or, you know, telling folks you are
there, because I am sure that the folks that are deployed at
the COBs and FOBs have a lot of other things on their mind than
coming to seek you out.
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Yes, sir. We are out there as
much as we can be. We are out at COBs and FOBs, and we can have
soldiers from anywhere from three to five to seven different
COBs at one time.
And soldiers may be out, and then they come back in. But we
are out there as much as we can be, sir. We let them know who
we are. We push information out to the units that those
soldiers are assigned or attached to.
And every battalion has voting assistance offices. So
whatever battalion they are attached to, they can go and see
another voting assistance officer. It doesn't have to be the
one in their own unit.
Dr. Heck. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we will proceed now to Mrs. Hartzler, of Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is such an important hearing. Last year, as I went
through my district--I have Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air
Force Base--I can tell you, at almost every town hall that we
had, this issue came up. And the outrage and frustration of
people that the thought that we have men and women in harm's
way, putting their life on the line and then not being able to
vote, is just abominable.
And so I am so glad we are having this hearing, and I
appreciate your efforts to try to make sure that they have a
right to vote.
But I wanted follow up on--I was, too, like Dr. Heck, was
concerned about this report that one out of three soldiers
reported that they wanted to vote, but failed to do so because
they didn't receive a ballot or because the ballot was too
late. That is just shocking, and it is unacceptable.
And I wanted to just clarify again, what are the reasons
that one out of three soldiers who wanted to vote couldn't.
What are the problems? You mentioned the addresses. But, Mr.
Carey, what other problems are there that could cause that?
Mr. Carey. Well, we had problems also with ballots getting
out late, past the deadline. A case in point, New York was
granted a waiver, because they had a very aggressive ballot
delivery process in place, and they even missed that deadline.
And that was 50,000 ballots that were delivered 7 to 12 days
after the waiver deadline that they were given. And then,
Illinois had a number of problems as well. That was about 4,000
ballots.
Another part of this--but I go back to being able to post
these ballots online. The issue abut posting the ballots online
is that you don't have to wait for your ballot to arrive by
mail. You can go online. You can download it, and you can print
it out, and you can vote it.
Now granted, there are going to be people that are going
to, you know, not have that online access. And we are working
with the MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation] cafes. There are
1,000 MWR Internet cafes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 135 of
these mobile ones.
We are working with them in order to be able to try to put
the widgets on those desktops in order to be able to provide an
easy access, as well as printers, in order to able to see if
they can actually get this printed out. But that to me
represents the long-term solution.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sounds good.
Mrs. Seiler, you mentioned you are advocating for the email
versus the fax, because there aren't many fax machines, and you
mentioned online. So what is the difference here? With an
email, would it be scanned? I assume you would scan it and then
email it?
Mrs. Seiler. That is correct. And that is what these voters
did. They scanned those voted ballots, and they emailed them
back to us. And then they have the same privacy protections, or
attempted privacy protections.
Obviously, it is a hard copy ballot coming in. But we make
every effort, as does my colleague, to make sure that that is--
once the signature is verified, the ballot is separated. And
then it is duplicated onto a ballot, once it is separated from
its cover sheet. So we make every effort to really preserve the
privacy of the voter to the greatest extent possible.
Mrs. Hartzler. So to be able to do the email voting, you
would have to change laws? Is that what you are saying?
Mrs. Seiler. California's law would have to be changed.
Mrs. Hartzler. Oh, California's law.
Mrs. Seiler. So that is what we are seeking. The laws vary
from State to State on this, apparently. And our group of
election officials in California is supporting legislation to
allow us to accept those email ballots.
Now, this is on the return side. We are able to email the
ballots out, so that is not an issue. If we get very close to
an election----
Mrs. Hartzler. Right, right.
Mrs. Seiler [continuing]. Somebody calls from Iraq, we can
email that ballot to them.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
Go back to the States, Mr. Carey. I know I had heard as
well that there are certain States, due to the primaries and
other issues, that were kind of the hold-up in this. What can
be done, or what needs to be done within these States, to help
get them out? Do they need to change their primary dates, or do
we need to change--what do we need to do here?
Mr. Carey. Most States are responding by changing their
primaries. Some States with late primaries also have very quick
canvassing and election result turnarounds, and so they are
able to actually get the ballots out 45 days prior, even with
late primaries.
But for most States, they have more extensive post-election
canvassing requirements, and so it requires them to, if they
are going to be able to get the ballots out 45 days prior, most
States are saying they have to change their primary date.
Mrs. Hartzler. Have any of them done that yet?
Mr. Carey. Yes, ma'am, a number have, including a number
that were granted a waiver in the 2010 cycle. So they probably
won't be needing another late primary election waiver.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Very good.
Well, thank you for your efforts. Keep it up, and please
continue to do everything possible to make sure that our
soldiers' vote counts, because they are the reason we are able
to vote and have freedoms.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hartzler, for your
leadership on this issue.
It is now my turn. And I, again, I am just so grateful for
all of you being here today. You really are giving us great
information. I would also like to point out that this week we
received a report, ``Military Voting in 2010: A Step Forward,
But a Long Way To Go,'' by Eric Eversole. This is by the
Military Voter Protection Project. We will be providing this to
all the committee members.
It is a study published by the Military Family United's
Military Voter Protection Project and the AMVETS [American
Veterans] Legal Clinic at the Chapman University's School of
Law. And at this time, I would like to move unanimous consent
that it be included in our record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 69.]
Mr. Wilson. Hearing no objection, it is included.
I would like to reference part of this report, and that is
the fact that it was also in an article by J. Christian Adams
in the Examiner--The Washington Examiner--that, sadly, 14
States and the District of Columbia failed to comply with the
45-day standard. As a former election commissioner, that really
startled me. I can remember in the campaign, hearing over and
over again where States did not comply with the 45 days.
But I would like to hear how it was done. And so, Mr.
Crepes, how was the 45-day preparation of the ballot achieved
in Lexington County?
Mr. Crepes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, the 45 days--we are one of the larger counties in
South Carolina. There are about 10 large counties, and we are
number four or five. It depends on which way you hold your head
when you are counting on the day there. We are one of the ones
that get our ballot styles up and checked and authorized first,
and so we are able to get out to 45 days.
But there is no county in South Carolina does not meet the
45-day deadline. If you do, we have to answer to a lot of
people, and we don't want to do that. Last election we were 55
days in Lexington County getting the ballots mailed out, so we
don't have problem at all with the 45 days there.
Mr. Carey, if I may back up for a moment, we were talking
about having the vote go online and view his or her ballot
style online there. The problem with that in Lexington County
and some of the other larger counties, we have 70 to 110
different ballot styles in some of our counties because of
school boards, et cetera, we have on our ballots.
We would still have to come up with some sort of electronic
way to match that person through the system to a specific
ballot, because we can have one person on one street corner,
and his neighbor next door would be on a totally different
ballot style. And I have had a lot of problems with that,
calling and saying, ``Well, so-and-so voted this way.''
That is something I think we ought to look into with the
ballot style, that you would be able to view them online and
possibly even vote online.
Mr. Wilson. And, Mrs. Seiler, how did you address that in
San Diego?
Mrs. Seiler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We addressed this by our filing period ends 88 days before
the election. Very often there is an extension. We, too, have
hundreds.
We have up to 600 different ballot styles, but we work very
closely with our printer, so we have--it is a tight deadline
for us, but we are working constantly with our printers to make
sure that our ballot layouts are sent to them, and that they
are ready to go and that everybody who is on our military and
overseas file as of the 54th day is in that 45-day mailing.
So it is really just a process that we have honed by
working with our suppliers.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I am really impressed by both of your
positive attitude, because it would be easy to point out that
you have split precincts, you have referendums, you have
municipal elections, you have incorporations, you have
annexations. And that you didn't complain, I am impressed.
At the same time, Mr. Carey, you have also been working
with local election commissions in regard to the 45 days. What
kind of advice have you given them?
Mr. Carey. If they have compliance problems, we have
offered to help them as much as possible. We were actually able
to find some unique solutions to some States who were having
concerns about not being able to get the ballots out 45 days
prior. And we were able to examine their requirements and
actually recommend some unique solutions that allowed a lot of
them to get the ballot out on time.
The biggest thing is going back to the online system. For
our 17 States we were able to have precinct-level ballots that
were down to the individual precinct, delivered to the voter
online--statewide systems for $65,000 to $75,000. So that
represents to us a real good opportunity in order to be able to
reduce the burden of filling absentee ballots and stuffing the
ballots and getting them sent out.
Mr. Wilson. And as an indication of how important what you
are saying and how important this is to the American people, we
will have a second round and begin with Mrs. Susan Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is clear from a lot of the comments that you
have made, in many ways the MOVE Act is leading the way and
doing some things that perhaps are not being done in States.
And one of the things that was actually eliminated is the
notary signature. And I understand, neither Mr. Crepes nor Mrs.
Seiler, you have that requirement in your State.
But is that a problem, do you think? Have you seen any
reason why that was perhaps not something that should have been
part of the MOVE Act? How would our soldiers have found those
notaries in the field?
Mr. Crepes. Well, actually, it is not a notary for us. It
is just a witness signature. It has been eliminated from the
UOCAVA requirements on our ballots there. That is how we can
email them back and forth. But it is not eliminated for the
average citizen in the county there.
Mrs. Davis. Is there something we can learn from that, Mrs.
Seiler?
Mrs. Seiler. California has not had a notary requirement
for mail ballots, to my knowledge. We have had a requirement
back in the late 1970s that people had to supply a reason. And
that was eliminated in 1979. And we have had complete no-excuse
absentee voting since that time.
And I think that what we learned from that is that voters
love it. And it has really--we have been promoting a permanent
vote-by-mail for our domestic military, as well as our overall
population of voters. And we have seen our turnout really rise
above the statewide average and above that of all of our
neighbors in Southern California.
Mrs. Davis. As we think about electronic voting in the
future, too, is there any reason that people should be
concerned about some of the fraud issues that are raised often
when it comes to absentee voting?
Mrs. Seiler. In San Diego County, we check every single
return envelope that arrives in our office. And we actually
compare the signature on that envelope with the signature that
we have on file. So we believe that the process is very fair,
very precise, very clean. And we do not believe that we have
evidence of any kind of widespread fraud in our mail ballot
voting.
Mr. Carey. Representative Davis, on the notary issue, the
law actually says that the State cannot reject a ballot for not
having a notary. The MOVE Act doesn't say that the State can't
ask for a notary. And we can't compel the States to take that
off their books or take that off their ballots. So that might
be something if you are looking at, you know, how that issue
could be addressed, that might be one of those aspects.
As far as the Federal Voting Assistance Program right now,
we are not participating,we don't have programs right now for
the electronic return of a voted ballot. You know, we are not
doing an Internet voting program, although there was voting
over the Internet in 2000 or the SERVE [Secure Electronic
Registration and Voting Experiment] Project in 2004.
There is a requirement in the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2002 and 2005 that the Department field an
electronic absentee voting demonstration project where military
voters can cast their ballots in a Federal election. And it
allows us to wait until the Election Assistance Commission has
developed guidelines.
We are working very closely the Election Assistance
Commission and the National Institutes of Standards and
Technologies to develop that, but that is a requirement on the
Department of Defense to eventually be working towards fielding
an Internet voting system.
Mrs. Davis. And as far as you know, from what you have seen
to this date, are there any issues that would jump out at you,
that you think would need to be addressed at that time?
Mr. Carey. We are exploring a lot of those issues. I mean,
we are not at the point where we believe that we can reliably
deploy an Internet voting system by the Department of Defense.
There is benefit in the diversity of the election system
that we have right now. With 7,800 election jurisdictions,
being able to attack any one jurisdiction's election system
will have a lot less effect than attacking, let us say, a
centralized DOD system. So that, in and of itself, provides a
lot of security, I think, that needs to be weighed in any of
those analyses.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
And if I could, quickly, Captain Jackson-Gillespie, I am
sure that from where you sit, you would love to see everyone
out in the field--FOBs, everyone included--be serious and
interested in voting. But that probably isn't a reality that
you deal with every day.
Is there anything that you think could be done to encourage
even more than what you are doing in the outreach that would
change the statistics? Or is it really that people are very,
very focused on the job at hand, and they are just not as
engaged in it, because they are away from their communities?
Captain Jackson-Gillespie. Thank you, ma'am.
I do believe that once you are in-theater, you are very
focused on your mission at hand. I mean, that is your priority
while you are there. I can't say that there are those that
wanted to and couldn't vote, because I don't know.
I do know we assist where we can. And in my unit, we have
also--or units that I have been in--we would incorporate voting
assistance with other things that we had going on, like a
personal asset inventory, where we account for everybody. And
at that time, where they are signing their name saying, ``Hey,
I am present and accounted for,'' ``Hey, have you registered to
vote? Do you have--do you need any assistance with registering
to vote?''
So we would possibly incorporate it with something else.
But we do what we can to help everybody out. And I think those
who really want to vote, we are able to help them.
Mrs. Davis. Thanks very much. Thanks for what you do.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis.
And we now proceed to Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me just say for the record that I, along
with many Americans, are not supportive of Internet voting and
am, in fact, deeply opposed to it. And I understand scanning
documents and then emailing them, where you have a hard copy,
which is a voted ballot, I certainly understand that, but,
obviously, concerned when it goes beyond that.
Let me just say this. In the State of Colorado, election
law is that we don't have same-day registration. So if somebody
shows up to the polls, and they are not shown as registered to
vote in the poll book, then they are handed a provisional
ballot. And they vote that provisional ballot, and that ballot
is kept separate.
And then the respective county clerks then vet that ballot
to make sure that that person had the legal right to cast that
ballot. And so, actually, the election isn't closed out and I
think the county clerks have a couple weeks to do that. So the
election isn't closed out for a couple weeks.
But if a military ballot arrives 1 minute after 7:00 p.m.
on the Tuesday of the election, it doesn't count.
And so has there ever been consideration, absent the focus
on Internet voting, for those ballots that come--having a
standard across the country, just as we have the 45-day
standard, that if the ballot is shown to be having been mailed
from the overseas duty station prior to the election, that in
fact that ballot be counted in the same way that a provisional
ballot be counted?
Mr. Carey. The Department of Defense recommends to the
States that they allow up to 15 days after the election for the
ballots to be returned, so long as they are voted by Election
Day. And a number of States have that, or better. But many
States also require the ballot to be returned on Election Day.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
And let me just say having served in a forward operating
base in a fairly remote area on the western side of Iraq, the
mail system was abysmal--I mean, just actually abysmal by the
time it got to us or by the time it got out, as well as we
didn't have fax machines or--there was very little connectivity
out there.
So I think that that is something that we ought to look at
in terms of having a uniform standard, just as we have now on
the registration system. And I think also on--I understand that
there were a number of States that were not in compliance with
the act in the last election cycle for a variety of reasons,
but just say the 45-day requirement.
What, I mean, were actions taken by the Justice--some
States applied for waivers but I don't think any waivers were
granted, it is my understanding. Maybe you can respond to that?
Mr. Carey. There were 12 original applications. One State
withdrew. Of the remaining 11, six were denied, five were
granted.
Mr. Coffman. Oh, five were granted?
Mr. Carey. And of the five that were granted, one failed to
comply. I personally called up the election officials to tell
them what their status was. The Department of Justice was with
me on the calls to the States that were being denied waivers.
And the Department told them immediately that the assistant
attorney general was authorized enforcement action and they
would like to enter into negotiations at that point with the
State in order to be able to figure out the best resolution.
Mr. Coffman. Was action taken, though? I mean I don't see
where formal action was taken by the Justice Department, as it
would occur on another voting rights issue. Did the Justice
Department take formal action and sanction any of these States?
Mr. Carey. Yes, sir. In all 14 of these States, the
Department of Justice either took onboard, I believe--I don't
know the exact terminology; I would have to ask the Department
of Justice. The States took effective action themselves and the
Department accepted that. Or they actually went to Federal
court and either got consent decrees or got a Federal decree
from that Federal court. But in all these cases, action was
taken by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And for the record I am wondering if you could get back--if
we could have a summary of that action that was taken by
noncomplying States.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 89.]
Mr. Carey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. And I, again, remain
really impressed at the positive attitude of our registrars,
because I do know the challenges you face. And one that has
been mentioned, I would like to know how each of you, Mr.
Crepes, Mrs. Seiler--how do you address maintaining current
addresses, particularly the military because of their
deployment, their travel.
How in the world do you keep their address current and in
good faith make every effort and also even prior to that,
keeping their registration current? And so, Mr. Crepes and then
Mrs. Seiler, if you all would tell us, how do you work with
young people and their family members, too--the military
families--on registration and maintaining current addresses?
Mr. Crepes. Well, we try basically to reach out to them as
much as we possibly can. I go to talk to several high schools
locally, which basically graduates these young adults that are
heading into the military, then, and explain to them what the
situation is and why they need to basically keep it updated, if
they are wanting to vote.
As far as if someone is deployed and sends something to us,
we inform them through email to please keep your addresses
updated, et cetera, with us so that we can make sure if there
is any election that you need to vote in in the future, we can
get you from there.
And if there are local family members in the county from a
reservist that is activated, the family members are contacted
to basically try to keep the addresses updated, because they
will have the most recent address of their deployed father or
child or whatever--father, child, son, daughter, whoever it may
be that is in the forward bases.
But primarily it is through education with the high schools
there.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And Mrs. Seiler.
Mrs. Seiler. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have a couple
of tools. I don't know that any are perfect. As I mentioned
earlier, it would really be nice to have some sort of automatic
database that we could run up against. But we do have our
tracking system, which allows the voters to track their
registration.
They can track the address that we have on file for them,
and so forth. So that is one avenue. We work with the bases.
Our staff work with the bases at some of the major military
installations to make sure that they have information, voter
registration forms and so forth.
We have our own voter form online, which actually serves as
a permanent voter registration, and as we send out any
information to the voter, if that comes back as undeliverable
and we get updated information, we update the voter's record
and then send them a notice that we have updated their record.
And finally, we have noticed that with the MOVE Act, the
voting assistance officers have been, at least in our county,
they have been more diligent around January of each year,
urging the service personnel to reregister to vote or to let us
know of any address changes.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you again. And it has really been
inspiring, this hearing.
And, Captain Jackson-Gillespie, thank you for your
enthusiasm and service in Afghanistan.
And, Mr. Carey, we look forward to working with you for any
changes.
And, again, I know personally the great work of Mr. Crepes
and his commission.
And, Mrs. Seiler, it is great to see you again. I am really
honored. I had the privilege of serving with Mrs. Seiler as an
election observer in Bulgaria in June 1990. And she and I have
both seen the success of free and democratic elections where a
country has evolved from, the day we arrived there, a
totalitarian State, to be a free market democracy and a great
ally today of the United States.
And that is where elections can make such a difference in
the United States and around the world.
If there are no further questions, we shall be adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 15, 2011
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 15, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.036
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 15, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68160.053
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
July 15, 2011
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. Carey. There are no states that require notarization for
absentee registration or ballot request. However, one state, Alabama,
requires one signature from a witness (U.S. Citizenship not required)
at least 18 years old for a Federal Post Card Application registration
or absentee ballot request. Two states, Alabama and Louisiana require
either a Notary or two witnesses at least 18 years old (U.S.
Citizenship not required) to sign the return voted ballot envelope.
Recently, both states, have taken legislative action that could
eliminate their notary and witness requirements. On June 15, 2011,
Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama signed into law SB 55, which grants
the Secretary of State rulemaking authority to, among other things,
eliminate the notary and witness requirements for UOCAVA voters.
Similarly, Louisiana has recently approved HB 524 which would eliminate
their notary and witness requirement. The Louisiana legislation is
currently awaiting ``pre-clearance'' from the Department of Justice
before it can take effect.
There are no states that require notarization for absentee
registration or ballot request. However, one state, Alabama, requires
one signature from a witness (U.S. Citizenship not required) at least
18 years old for a Federal Post Card Application registration or
absentee ballot request. Two states, Alabama and Louisiana require
either a Notary or two witnesses at least 18 years old (U.S.
Citizenship not required) to sign the return voted ballot envelope.
Recently, both states, have taken legislative action that could
eliminate their notary and witness requirements. On June 15, 2011,
Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama signed into law SB 55, which grants
the Secretary of State rulemaking authority to, among other things,
eliminate the notary and witness requirements for UOCAVA voters.
Similarly, Louisiana has recently approved HB 524 which would eliminate
their notary and witness requirement. The Louisiana legislation is
currently awaiting ``pre-clearance'' from the Department of Justice
before it can take effect.
In addition, Alaska, Virginia and Wisconsin require one signature
from a witness at least 18 years of age on the return voted ballot
envelope. Wisconsin further specifies that the witness must be a U.S.
citizen. The returned voted ballot will not be counted in these states
if the witness signature(s) are not present. [See page 24.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST
Mr. Carey. The actions taken by non complying states are summarized
in the Department of Justice's report entitled ``Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 2010 Annual Report to Congress''
(attached). This report states that the Department of Justice initiated
litigation or out-of-court agreements to enforce MOVE Act amendments to
UOCAVA in 14 jurisdictions (11 states, 2 territories, and the District
of Columbia). The following is a brief list of the major actions taken.
1. Enforcement Actions Following Denial of Undue-Hardship Waivers
by the Department of Defense in six jurisdictions: Alaska, Colorado,
the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Wisconsin.
2. Enforcement Action for Failure to Comply with Terms of Undue-
Hardship Waiver in one state, New York.
3. Civil Actions Filed to Enforce UOCAVA in three jurisdictions:
Guam, Illinois, and New Mexico.
4. Memorandum Agreements and Letter Agreements in four states:
Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada and North Dakota. [See page 11.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
