[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 112-155]
FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

__________

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-216 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

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, Research Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2012

Page

Hearing:

Thursday, September 13, 2012, Federal Voting Assistance Program.. 1

Appendix:

Thursday, September 13, 2012..................................... 21
----------

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
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

Mitchell, Pamela S., Acting Director, Federal Voting Assistance
Program, U.S. Department of Defense............................ 6
Moorefield, Amb. (Ret.) Kenneth, Deputy Inspector General for
Special Plans and Operations, U.S. Department of Defense....... 3

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 27
Mitchell, Pamela S........................................... 39
Moorefield, Amb. (Ret.) Kenneth.............................. 28
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 25

Documents Submitted for the Record:

Testimony of Pamela Smith, President, VerifiedVoting.org..... 59

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Dr. Heck..................................................... 67
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 67
Mr. West..................................................... 68

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

Mrs. Davis................................................... 71
FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 13, 2012.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:31 a.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 gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to
a hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House
Armed Services Committee.
Today this subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the
Department of Defense to help us understand how members of the
Armed Forces and their families, along with 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 our freedoms.
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
United States is challenging at best.
One can only imagine the difficulty trying to accomplish
that 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 Act, the MOVE Act, as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for the fiscal year 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 the military absentee ballots are
cast.
However, the most recent report by the Department of
Defense Inspector General on the Department of Defense's
implementation of the requirements of the MOVE Act finds that
the military services are falling short in establishing
installation voting assistance offices.
I look forward to hearing from our Department of Defense
witness on how the Department will fully implement the
legislative improvements that are intended to assist military
and overseas voters.
I am also interested to know how the changes to the Federal
Voting Assistance Program have affected the military and
overseas voter in the lead up to the 2012 general election.
I will close by saying that every day our troops lay their
lives on the line to defend freedom and it is our job that we
make sure that they are not denied the right to vote.
Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman
Susan Davis of California, the ranking member, an opportunity
to make her opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 25.]

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I certainly look forward to hearing from our witnesses,
Ambassador Kenneth Moorefield, Deputy Inspector General for
Special Plans and Operations and Ms. Pamela Mitchell, the
Acting Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Thank
you for being with us.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program has been given the
lead in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of
Defense to inform and to educate Americans worldwide of the
their right to vote, to foster voter participation and protect
the integrity and enhance the electoral process for overseas
voters at every level of government, from the local to the
Federal level.
Many new voter assistance requirements were included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, Public
Law 111-84, such as requiring the development of online
portals, to provide voter registration procedures and
notifications, and establishment of voting assistance offices
and the development of standards for reporting requirements.
I am very interested this morning in hearing from our
witnesses on how implementation is going, what we have learned
and whether additional programs or processes have been
identified to further improve voting assistance and
participation.
While the recent Inspector General report found that over
half of the offices that are required to be established on
military installations were unable to be contacted, the report
did not address whether the offices that were established are
effective in meeting the needs of military and overseas voters.
What efforts, if any, is the Department taking to measure
the effectiveness of these offices and the services that are
being provided? The Inspector General recommended that
alternative methods to reach out to military voters, especially
since such a majority of them are young, single individuals who
may not necessarily have a propensity to vote, especially
overseas, be adopted.
If such efforts are undertaken then what efforts will be
established to measure the effectiveness of these alternative
methods, whether part of social media, how do we go ahead and
measure that as well?
As resources continue to be reduced, we need to ensure that
the programs that are established to assist military and
overseas voters are efficient; not only efficient but that they
are also cost effective.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. The upcoming
elections, as we all know, are a mere 7 weeks ahead. So it is
imperative that we ensure that all Americans have the ability
to vote in our electoral process, but especially those who are
on the front lines of defending our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
We are joined today by an outstanding panel. We would like
to give each witness the opportunity to present his or her
testimony and each member an opportunity to question the
witnesses.
I would respectfully remind the witnesses that we desire
that you summarize to the greatest extent possible the
highlights of your written testimony. I assure you that your
written comments and statements will be made part of the
hearing record.
At this time, without objection, I ask unanimous consent
that an additional statement from VerifiedVoting.org be
included in this record of the hearing.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 59.]
Mr. Wilson. Without objection, so ordered.
Let me welcome our panel: Ambassador Kenneth Moorefield,
Deputy Inspector General for Plans and Operations of the
Department of Defense. Additionally, we have Ms. Pamela S.
Mitchell, who is the Acting Director of the Federal Voting
Assistance Program, Defense Human Resources Activity.
At this time we will begin with Ambassador Moorefield.

STATEMENT OF AMB. (RET.) KENNETH MOOREFIELD, DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOR SPECIAL PLANS AND OPERATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE

Mr. Moorefield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and
also Ranking Member Davis and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss past and ongoing DOD IG [Department of
Defense Inspector General] oversight regarding the DOD
implementation of voter assistance programs.
We share your commitment to ensuring that U.S. military
service members worldwide and other eligible overseas citizens
have the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights as
American citizens to vote.
The law requires the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps IGs to annually review their own Services' voting
assistance programs and report results to the DOD IG
Since 2001 the DOD IG has issued 11 reports describing the
results of these annual reviews. Our latest report, issued in
March 2012, is discussed in our written testimony.
In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act,
or MOVE Act, was passed. It established various programs to
help military and other overseas citizen voters to register and
to vote.
The MOVE Act required the military services to have an
installation voting assistance office on every installation
worldwide, with the exception of those in a war zone.
The use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots for Federal
elections was to be expanded. DOD, through its FVAP [Federal
Voting Assistance Program] office, was intended to implement a
number of new electronic voting support programs and systems.
The FVAP office also had to report to the Congress annually
on their assessment of compliance with voting assistance laws
and the effectiveness of voting assistance programs, including
programs implemented by each of the military services.
In August 2012, the DOD IG released a self-initiated report
assessing key obligations and actions carried out by DOD and
FVAP under the MOVE Act.
We specifically focused on the establishment of voting
assistance offices on every military installation worldwide and
the sufficiency of survey data used to assess DOD's Voting
Assistance Program effectiveness related to the 2010 elections.
DOD implementing instructions for the establishment of the
IVAOs [Installation Voting Assistance Offices] required robust
walk-in offices; the DOD estimated would be staffed with one to
two full-time personnel to perform the required voting
assistance functions.
To determine if the Services had established a robust IVAO
presence on all installations worldwide, we examined FVAP's
official list of installations as of March 2012.
We immediately noted that the list was in some instances
either inaccurate or incomplete, with installations such as
Fort Meade, Maryland; Camp Casey, Korea, and the U.S. Army
garrison in Kaiserslautern in Germany not listed and other
bases listed that no longer existed.
It became apparent that installation consolidations or
closures resulting from the 2005 BRAC [Base Closure and
Realignment] program, such as the consolidation of the 12
multiservice joint bases, in part had contributed to omissions
and duplications.
To test the accessibility of the IVAOs, we placed ourselves
in the shoes of potential military voters seeking help. Using
the official FVAP Web site information as of March 2012, we
attempted to contact each of the 229 IVAOs listed.
It turned out that not all of the FVAP contact information
was current. We initially called the IVAO phone number. If no
one answered, we left a voicemail asking for a return call and
if there was an e-mail address, followed up with an e-mail.
If we could not make contact on our initial attempt, we
called installation telephone operators or accessed
installation Web sites to obtain updated IVAO contact
information.
Ultimately, in about 50 percent of the cases we were unable
to contact IVAOs using our updated version of the FVAP Web site
installation list and concluded that the offices either did not
exist or were not reasonably accessible.
In partial explanation, some senior military officials
pointed out that the law had not provided additional funding,
which FVAP estimated at $15 million to $20 million per year,
necessary to fund at least one assistance person at each IVAO
and bases, moreover, were not funded internally by DOD to
enable commanders to meet this obligation.
On another issue, the FVAP 2010 post-election survey report
to Congress, dated September 2011, asserted that voting
assistance was effective in the 2010 election because, one, DOD
statistical analysis indicated military populations registered
and voted at higher rates than civilians and, two, that
military participation had improved appreciably between 2006
and 2010.
To determine if these conclusions were reliable and
accurately reflected the effectiveness of DOD voting assistance
programs, DOD IG's Quantitative Methods Division assessed their
survey methodology.
They noted that only 15 percent of military personnel
contacted had responded to the survey and that FVAP's
conclusions in the reports could be considered inconclusive and
would have been more credible with a higher response rate.
We recommended that the FVAP office design a survey that
will increase the 2012 post-election survey response rate.
Finally, I should add that during our assessment we
observed that the FVAP had made significant efforts to develop
and implement a military voter communications plan.
This was intended, we believe, in part, and primarily
perhaps even, to get to younger voting personnel. And it used
information technology of various--of various kinds, including
social media, direct e-mail notifications and Web-based
systems.
FVAP officials indicated that these initiatives were having
a positive impact. For example, they noted that as they began
their outreach and communication program for the 2012
primaries, activity on their Web-based systems significantly
increased.
Feedback from the military services incorporated in our
March 2012 report to Congress indicated that they too were
increasing use of targeted advertising, social media, and other
easy to use online tools to more effectively reach younger
service members.
In closing this morning, let me emphasize that the DOD IG
remains committed to providing oversight of DOD's role in the
Federal voting assistance programs.
I look forward to answering any questions that you may have
and I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moorefield can be found in
the Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ambassador.
We now proceed to Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell.

STATEMENT OF PAMELA S. MITCHELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Ms. Mitchell. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Federal Voting Assistance Program,
or FVAP, and its implementation of the MOVE Act.
For absentee service member and overseas citizen voters, as
for all U.S. citizens, the decision to cast a vote in an
election is a personal choice.
To that end, the Federal Voting Assistance Program is
committed to two primary tenets: promoting awareness of
upcoming elections, with a specific focus on the right of
service members and overseas citizens to vote by absentee
ballot; and to eliminating barriers for those who choose to
exercise their right to vote.
We provide voting assistance every day, and we have never
done it better. Voters seeking assistance will find a myriad of
resources available, including a professional call center,
well-trained voting assistance officers, and an information-
rich Web portal at fvap.gov.
This year we conducted in-person and online installation
voter assistance, or IVA, office training worldwide, and we
visited 43 IVA offices to provide training and assistance.
We also provide Webinar training and a self-paced course
for both IVA office staff and unit voting assistance officers
that is on demand.
As noted, the Department of Defense Inspector General
recently identified problems in contacting IVA offices. And as
the Ambassador said, they found outdated contact information.
However, IVA offices are open. As we review contact
information, we find that it changes, as it often does in
military environments, because of transfers, deployments, and
other requirements.
FVAP has authority and budget resources to provide policy
guidance and assistance to the Services. Such guidance is
outlined in the Department of Defense Instruction 1000.04,
which defines the responsibilities of the Federal Voting
Assistance Program. It consolidates and enhances Department
policy by outlining specific requirements for the military
service voting assistance programs. Publication of this
instruction is the culmination of a meticulous Department
process.
It is important to note that while IVA offices are one
resource, they are one of many. We also provide an online
wizard that produces a completed registration and ballot
request. We send service members at least six reminder messages
addressing voter registration. We have conducted train-the-
trainer workshops at 81 locations worldwide.
As the Ambassador noted, we are conducting a comprehensive
communications and outreach campaign, and we established a call
center that provides support by phone, by e-mail, and by online
chat.
In addition to our efforts, the Services are also actively
engaged to increase awareness of the election and service
members' right to vote.
Looking at this in another way, there were over 8 million
visits to the FVAP Web site since November 2011 and over
380,000 individuals have downloaded the Federal postcard
application during that time.
To put the amount of those downloads in perspective,
380,000 is nearly the size of the United States Air Force.
We also dispatch 1.4 million e-mails five times since
January, with at least two more transmissions of 1.4 million to
be sent before the election.
And, as of 30 June, the Services reported that their
installation and unit voting assistance officers had helped
over 550,000.
It is also important to note that State laws and voting
procedures drive absentee voting success or failure. That is
why FVAP has worked with States to improve their election laws.
Thirty-two States have passed laws benefiting absentee voters
since the 2010 general election.
Registration rates alone are poor indicators of the
effectiveness of voting assistance. The information, tools, and
other resources are in place, the outreach is ongoing, and we
continuously look for ways to improve the Department's ability,
both to promote awareness of every service member's right to
vote and of the upcoming elections.
Voting assistance has never been better, given the breadth
of tools, information, and other resources now available.
I spent over 25 years in uniform, and I wish I had access
to the tools that are out there today. However, even if only
one absentee service member or overseas citizen has a problem,
we believe it is one too many, and there is no question that we
still have work to do.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you both for your presentations, and we
will now proceed to questions from each member of the
subcommittee. We are very fortunate to be joined by Ms.
Jeanette James. She is professional staff, a person above any
standard of consideration. And she will be maintaining the 5-
minute rule. And so we can count on her.
As we begin, I want to thank the Inspector General for your
report. I think you brought very important issues to the
attention of the American people.
Additionally, I want to also commend the Military Voter
Protection Project and the AMVETS [American Veterans] legal
clinic at Chapman University. They have been very thorough in
their review of how the legislation that we are discussing
today and the ability of voters to participate. It is a very
thorough review, and I appreciate their oversight.
Ms. Mitchell, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment
Act provides that voting assistance be offered to troops as
they arrive at a new duty station, and also when they deploy.
Does each of our four Services include voting assistance
offices for in-processing checklists at duty stations, and also
on the list for pre-deployment processing?
And I was glad to hear of your military service. I join
you. I served 31 years in the Army Guard and Reserve. I am very
grateful to have four sons currently serving in the military.
But I have also been an election commissioner, and it is very
frustrating to me to see how complicated some of this has
become, according to the IG report.
So is the in-processing list, the deployment checklist, is
this in place?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, DOD policy does specify that service
members be afforded the opportunity to register to vote during
in-processing, out-processing, and deployments.
I cannot speak to the specifics of how that may be handled
by each Service on every installation.
Mr. Wilson. And I am particularly concerned--it has been
identified that in the offices that have been established, that
of the 229, that it has been by the Inspector General report--
and, Ambassador, I appreciate you bringing this information
out. That, in fact, that only 114 of the 229 that could there
be access and contact.
And so your report was very revealing, but at the same time
you indicate that maybe we don't need that many offices.
And so I would be interested in hearing why we don't need
that many offices. And, additionally, what do you propose to
make and improve voter participation and access.
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, let me emphasize that compliance with the law
has no alternative, and the law is very specific about the
requirements.
There is a certain doubt, I think, in the part of some of
our military commanders as to what qualifies as an
installation, and that is understandable. In some cases
installations today are covering three or four outlying bases.
There is a considerable distance between some of these
installation voting offices and bases that they support.
It would appear to us that a careful review is probably
necessary to determine where we actually have these offices,
how they are functioning, and what their capabilities are to
support any and all installations and bases they may be
responsible for.
Obviously, the size of the bases varies; the size of
installation voting office coverage varies. So that, you know,
remains to be seen as to what is appropriate given the size of
the responsibilities and the extent of the responsibilities of
IVAOs.
There was another part to your question----
Mr. Wilson. And that is, what do you propose to increase
participation and access?
Mr. Moorefield. Well, I truly believe, as I also was a
former military officer and would have been very grateful, you
know, for the kind of access that I think military officers
have today, particularly younger ones that are well schooled in
the use of IT [information technology] and various social media
mechanisms.
I think and I believe, and even though there is no metric
yet that can confirm that other than ex post facto after
elections--but I believe that can be determined whether or not
that is demonstrating and indicating that it is making a
difference. So I think that is important.
For the immediate election, the question is--and I think
this has been brought up by several members of the Senate--how
a Federal voting application postcard could be made available
on an expedited basis to individual military voters who want to
vote and do not decline, in other words, the offer.
There is a way to get to them. We have got unit voting
officers all over the world, as was pointed out by Ms.
Mitchell, and I think that it is certainly feasible to ensure
that those that want to vote get their application. So that is
one of the considerations I think needs to be considered for
serious and fairly urgent implementation.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we proceed to Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate you all being here.
Could you go a little bit further in discussing about the
assessments that were conducted? You mentioned that over half
of them, you couldn't actually talk to somebody there, I guess,
they didn't have a response. And yet they were--I think you
said, Ms. Mitchell, that they were compliant. So I am trying to
understand whether--you know, is that just a disconnect--that
they didn't respond and that you still could get information
from them? If you could, answer that for me.
And also, to what extent did you actually have an
opportunity to really assess how significant their operation
was and what kind of a difference that made in terms of the men
and women that were using those services? What more do we know
about that? You mentioned social media, and of course it feels
as if that is probably one of the best ways to reach people who
want to vote in that fashion.
And are the offices necessary, important? What role do they
play? Is that something that really is being utilized to the
extent that it could be or should be? And are there
alternatives that actually you would suggest might need to be
developed in a much more robust fashion?
And I guess, Ms. Mitchell, just to answer in terms of the
compliance, how do we know that they are complying if only half
of them were contacted?
Mr. Moorefield. Would you like me to go first, ma'am?
Mrs. Davis. As long as we get both of you, that would be
great. Thank you.
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you. In terms of how measure the
effectiveness of IVAOs, one of the ways you can do that, of
course, is the incidence of contact that is made with them by
potential military voters and what services they specifically
provide.
To the best of my knowledge right now, the incidence of use
is not what was expected. What are the reasons for that? You
asked how far we went and how far we could go. We had a
questionnaire of 50 different points that we raised with any
office we could make contact with, including how they were
functioning, what degree of activity they had, and so forth.
So we tried to go the extra mile, given that we couldn't go
to 229 installations and eyes-on determine what exactly they
were doing. So I think that in terms of your question as to
whether or not they are necessary, it is still perhaps early
stage.
Perhaps some IVAOs are not fully developed or established.
I can't definitively determine that because we just couldn't
make contact with half of them. That didn't mean they didn't
exist, you know, and maybe that they were fully functional. We
can't confirm that one way or the other.
But I do, as I mentioned to the chairman before, believe
that in the world, particularly a huge voting population
percentagewise of younger voters in the military overseas, that
their tendency--like my own daughter, I have noticed--is not to
find information anywhere else but through some IT mechanism;
so whether we like that or not, that tends to be the reality.
Ms. Mitchell. Ma'am, you asked about compliance. And we
rely upon the Services to execute and comply and to report
their compliance. And as a recently as the March 2012 IG
report, it did reflect that the Service IGs found their offices
to in execution and compliance.
The issue of half being notified goes back, again, to the
challenges of keeping information updated. We have done a lot
of work this summer, as have the Services, with reaching out to
try to maintain that information as current as possible on our
Web site. We have progressively ramped up our outreach over the
summer to the point that now, between now and the election, we
will be reaching out every single week to make contact.
And I can tell you that as of COB [close of business]
yesterday, we have a list of installations on our Web site that
was absolutely accurate as of yesterday. We also made 43 visits
to installation voter assistance offices this past year. And we
were there to provide training, but while we are there, we also
provide assistance. So we look at how they are executing.
And we found that of the 43, 37 were fully executing what
they should have been doing, and the others have varying
degrees of challenges that they needed to overcome to implement
things. But those things were relayed to the Services and they
did report back to us that they were fully operational.
Mrs. Davis. I was going to follow up, but perhaps we will
have another round.
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by recognizing that my State, the State of
Nevada, was recently recognized by the military voter
protection project for its efforts to preserve and protect and
promote voting rights for military members. It was given all-
star status. In our State, you can register to vote, request
and submit your absentee ballot all electronically. And
currently our Secretary of State is traveling with a delegation
of Secretaries and DOD members overseas to look at the impact
of overseas voting.
I also see, Ms. Mitchell, you talked about sending out e-
mails to remind people. I can tell you as somebody with a dot-
mil address, that I received your e-mails in January, February,
June, August, and September encouraging me to request my
absentee ballot if I needed one. So certainly that message is
getting through.
Ambassador Moorefield, you mentioned an issue with the
definition of ``installations'' as perhaps causing confusion.
So what steps are being taken to address the issues that you
identified, such as the definition of an installation so that
there is a common operating picture of who is responsible at
what level to make sure the appropriate offices and opened and
staffed?
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you, Congressman.
I do not have a sufficiently definitive answer to give you
at this time, but I would like to take that and get back to
you.
I am not sure there has been a thorough assessment of it
within DOD. And so I would like to pursue that, if you don't
mind.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 67.]
Mr. Heck. Okay. And then also, in your review, what impact,
if any, did you find based on, you know, command emphasis on
the importance of being involved in--obviously, you can't force
people to vote if they don't want to, but the command emphasis
of, one, knowing that the resources are available and
encouraging members in the deployed environment to take
advantage of those resources?
I can tell you as someone who was deployed back in 2008,
the extent of my command emphasis was a notice that was posted
on the, you know, unit bulletin board about where the office
was and who the contact person was, but that wasn't ever
anything put out in any other media other than one posting on a
bulletin board.
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you, again.
The reports that we turn in annually and turned in this
last spring from the Service IGs indicate that each and every
one of the commands in all of the military services are
carrying out their responsibilities and duties with respect to
their unit voting officers, which include promoting access and
understanding to the opportunity to vote.
I can't be any more definitive than that on the subject.
But I will say that having spent over the last 6 years quite a
bit of time in Iraq and Afghanistan, where you would think
given the remoteness and the exigencies of war, that I often
found, at least at the operating base level, that there was a
substantial amount of information that was coming in.
I wasn't looking for it in those days, but I just couldn't
get away from it. It was coming in on TV monitors. It was
coming in through multiple mechanisms--Stars and Stripes, any
number of media opportunities and social media opportunities.
So I was intrigued at the time and reasonably impressed. I
don't think that there has been any diminishing in that effort.
So even though the MOVE Act doesn't specifically apply to war
zones, given the concentration of forces that we have had
there, I hypothesize that if they weren't deeply engaged in
combat operations, that the awareness and even the opportunity
to vote could have been accessible to them.
Mr. Heck. I would suggest that just like there may be a
problem with the definition of an installation in the Service
IG's report. There may be a problem with the definition of what
is promoting access. Promoting access to one command may be
totally different than another command. That perhaps is another
area that needs further review and refinement.
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you for raising that question.
Indeed, we have initiated outreach with the military services
and their IGs. Specifically, we have a working group that is
beginning to look at how we can improve the conciseness,
clarity, and value of the annual reports that the Services
provide the IGs and then to us on unit voting.
We are not yet satisfied that it is sufficiently revealing,
let me put it that way. So in terms of this next annual report
that is our responsibility to submit to the Congress, we would
like to frankly have a more robust effort made on all sides.
Mr. Heck. Great. Thank you both for your service and thank
you for your report, Ambassador.
I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Heck.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of
Massachusetts.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the seriousness of effort that you all are
demonstrating, especially as we come to a very important
election.
For you, Ms. Mitchell, it seems in reading the materials
one of the really important issues was, as we have at the
Federal level enacted the MOVE Act and other efforts to make it
easier for absentee voting, that there is much work that has to
be done with the individual States in order to streamline their
absentee voting requirements.
I hear from Congressman Heck that Nevada is one that has
done this very well. But I am curious how you have worked with
each of the States to resolve some of the issues that may,
despite all your efforts, still make it more difficult than it
should be.
Ms. Mitchell. Ma'am, we work with them on a regular basis
to discuss the MOVE Act and to talk about the very things you
just mentioned. One of the things that we talk to them about
is, and you will forgive me because I can never remember the
acronyms just yet, but UMOVA [Uniformed Military and Overseas
Voters Act] which is a law that would actually make across the
States things much more consistent for service members.
So, for example, I have talked to service members from
Florida who reported that they had no difficulty in figuring
out what to do. And you talk to service members from some other
States that have reported that it is very complex and they
really aren't quite sure what to do. So we think that if there
could be more consistency across the States, that would be a
very big deal in terms of helping service members.
Ms. Tsongas. And are there still States where it is very
difficult, despite all the necessity of moving forward on this?
Ms. Mitchell. Ma'am, I can't speak to the details of which
States that might be, but I would be happy to take that for the
record.
Ms. Tsongas. I would like to have that answer.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 67.]
Ms. Tsongas. And then the other question I have is that you
have said that the various Services report that they are
meeting all the requirements. But how do you challenge that or
test that?
Or is that something more you would have looked at,
Ambassador Moorefield?
Mr. Moorefield. Well, as I indicated--thank you,
Congresswoman--as I indicated in response to the last question,
we would like to drill down more on that, quite frankly.
I mean, it is not that we don't trust the information we
are getting, but there is the old adage about verifying. And we
would like to figure out how to do that.
It may be in the world of the entire universe of units
worldwide that have voting officers that we may need to do some
statistical sampling, you know, that--and we fortunately have
the ability to do that within DOD IG to come up with something
that gives us a high degree of the confidence that we
understand their real capabilities and the real extent of the
performance of their duties and what the impact is actually
having on military voters.
If I could go back for just a second to what you were
saying about the States one of the things that I have concluded
recently in thinking about this and reading all the literature
that is out there--and there is quite a bit--on States'
participation and the requirements under the MOVE Act.
But the requirement to make enhanced use of electronic
access to the opportunity to vote on the part of the States,
including links to Web sites that would enable a military voter
to download an absentee ballot, it seems to me, is really a
great idea in the world today. And it cuts through an awful lot
of the steps that otherwise might have to be followed by a
military voter.
I am pretty sure about this, but I will ask Ms. Mitchell to
confirm. But I think that the FVAP Web site has links to those
States that have that electronic capability.
Ms. Mitchell. We do actually have links to all the States
and territories.
Ms. Tsongas. So it would be interesting to see if those
that allow for the electronic means of accessing it, how--
comparing the data as to which are more successful and
encourage absentee voting. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
And we now proceed to Congressman Allen West of Florida.
Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
And thanks for the panel for being here today.
I want to frame this in an initial metaphor. If a commander
says to a unit and the sergeant major first sergeant ``We want
the unit to go down to the motor pool, and we want to do PMCS
[preventive maintenance checks & services] on our vehicles,
take care of our vehicles today.'' But instead if the unit goes
off to the barracks and they clean up the barracks, did the
unit meet the commander's mission and intent?
Ms. Mitchell. No, sir, they did not.
Mr. West. Okay, so when I read here, the MOVE Act of 2009
was designed to ensure that American men and women serving
overseas have every opportunity to vote, requiring military
services to open a voter assistance office on every one of its
installations except for those in a war zone.
I appreciate the things that you are saying you did, but a
lot of those things were optional within the MOVE Act. The law,
what was directed, the mission was to open up these voter
assistance offices; and based upon the report that we got from
the IG, 114 of 229 installation voter assistance offices. So is
that success or failure?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I would suggest it goes back to contact
information.
Mr. West. But that is not what the law said. The law didn't
say anything about contact information. And that is why I used
that metaphor. If the commander says go the motor pool and PMCS
your vehicles and you go off to the barracks and you clean the
barracks, did you meet the commander's intent?
So that is the whole point here: Did we meet the intent of
this--of this act? And I mean, then why are we here? If
everything is going fine then why are we here having this
hearing? We have a problem.
So this is what I want to know: after the 2010 election did
we have some type of after-action report or review where we
looked at our processes and procedures from 2010?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, sir, we did.
Mr. West. And what did you find from 2010?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, as I recall, it was a post-election
survey. And I don't have those details in my head, but we could
certainly provide that to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 68.]
Mr. West. We would like to have that, because the next
question is from there we should have looked at having some
type of voter registration readiness exercise, some type of
rehearsal to make sure that we were prepared going forward into
2012. And I think if we had done that we would not have had all
of these incidences of having duplicative or, you know, the
wrong type of installations listed.
So did we do anything between 2010 and now? I know that you
just said you are doing things weekly, and that is great. But
is that a reaction to us, you know, all of a sudden having news
reports and hearings or did we have a plan of action with
milestones between 2010 and 6 November, 2012 that would have
made sure we didn't have to have this hearing?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, guidance was put out 2 years ago on
establishing the IVA offices. It was put out to the Services.
The Services, again, as recently as March of this year reported
that they were operational. And as I have said a few moments
ago, we visited 43 of those, representing about 25 percent and
found that they did exist.
And as of yesterday we have valid contact information for
all of--the actual number is 221 for the military services.
Mr. West. Okay. So are we on the right track to get the
intent of this law implemented before we have the 6th of
November? I mean, are we moving in the right direction? Do we
have the type of milestones so that the military members--which
I have friends and family members, they are starting to feel a
little disenfranchised. That is the truth about what they are
saying to me.
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I would submit that we have many
resources available to them. The IVA office is one. It may be
an important one in some places.
And as to the issue of which installations they are on,
that was up to Service discretion. And the reason for that is
they are in the best position to understand their population,
what the demographics look like in any particular area, and
also what their operational environment is.
So an analogy I would give you is I.D. card offices, dental
clinics, medical clinics, those are not on every single
installation worldwide, but they are in places where they can
be accessed by service members.
Mr. West. But this law gave a responsibility to your office
to be able to make sure that that stuff happened, though.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Colonel West.
And we now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And you answered a couple of the questions that I had which
dealt with registering to vote. You said that at in-service, at
out-service, and anytime that a soldier is deployed, they are
given the opportunity to register to vote. Is that correct?
Ms. Mitchell. That is the guidance that has been given to
the Services, yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Is that being carried out?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, I would defer to the Inspector General
and the Services.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Moorefield. Thank you, Congressman.
We can't confirm one way or the other, frankly. As I said,
we had difficulty contacting half of the IVAOs. And whether or
not--and in what respect they were performing their functions,
as I said we had a fairly exhaustive questionnaire. I think the
results were mixed. Some of them I would say--some appeared to
be doing exactly what they needed to be doing and others, maybe
less so.
And as I mentioned also, previously there is some questions
in our minds as to whether or not they are getting the activity
that perhaps was the intent. And I am not sure if that is
because they are not promoting themselves enough or they are
not accessible enough or in the right places or because
military voters today, particularly younger ones, would much
rather not go to bricks-and-mortar place but look it up on an
IT site.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Ambassador, if I can--thank you for that.
I will tell you, that seems pretty simple. When you go to
register for a driver's license you can automatically register
to vote.
And if the DOD has not implemented that, that seems to me
that that is borderline negligence, especially when they have
been directed that at in-service, out-service, and deployment--
that our men and women that are in the military should be
allowed to register there. And if the States can do it when
somebody applies for a driver's license, it sure seems to me
that DOD could do it if they wanted to on the other side.
Are you aware of the report that says the Justice
Department encouraged States to use waivers that bypass the
MOVE Act? Are you aware of that and do you have any indication
that that may be true or is that just a news report that
doesn't have any basis?
Mr. Moorefield. I am sorry. Could you restate that question
please?
Mr. Scott. There were some reports that the Justice
Department encouraged States to use waivers to bypass the MOVE
Act. Are you aware of any States being given waivers to bypass
the MOVE Act?
Mr. Moorefield. I don't know anything about any recent
activity. It seems to me I recall--and this is what I read in
several reports, so I can't confirm it beyond that--that they
had the authority to issue waivers and so it had selectively in
the past issued waivers where States had not been able to ramp
up effectively enough in order to comply with the law.
Whether or not that has happened recently I can't say.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Let me ask one other question. This may be more for you,
Ms. Mitchell.
But it seems to me, as somebody who, in watching the DOD
from the Armed Services Committee--and if you watch how the DOD
carried out the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' surveys, for
example--it seems to me that the DOD made sure that they got
the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' surveys to every member of the
military to every spouse, to everybody that they were supposed
to, but when it comes to military voting it seems that we are
not able to get the absentee ballots to our soldiers.
And, I guess, can you explain the disparity in how when it
comes to a ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' survey the DOD takes every
effort and makes every effort to make sure that every soldier
and every family member gets that but when it comes to voting
the effort is certainly subpar compared to what we saw with
that other movement?
Ms. Mitchell. Sir, in terms of surveys, we are actively
working with the Defense Manpower Data Center on a strategy to
improve the response rate, if I understand that to be your
question.
Mr. Scott. I am talking about getting our men and women who
are overseas their absentee ballots.
The DOD got them their surveys with ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell,'' but we don't seem to be able to get them their absentee
ballots so that they can vote, and it seems to me that there is
a different standard there when it comes to voting versus a
survey that the DOD or the Administration actually wanted the
response to?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, sir, I think one of the great things
about the MOVE Act is the 45-day requirement on the States to
get the ballots out. And of course the States are the ones who
send out the ballots, as opposed to DOD.
What we have done is put a very good process in place for
service members to be able to get the Federal postcard
application so that they can request those ballots.
And many States now are providing for electronic delivery
of the ballot or online or via e-mail, which is a big
improvement in the way they may receive ballots.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
We now proceed to Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for your involvement in this critical
issue. I really think that the most sacred right afforded to
Americans is the right to vote.
And for those who are fighting in defense of our rights, of
our freedoms, I think that we have to do everything we can to
make sure that they have that right.
One metric it seems that we are focused on are these
installation voting assistance offices. You know, as someone
who was a junior enlisted Army guy when I turned 18, and had
that right to vote, and who was a Marine Corps officer in a
combat zone where I tried to vote, I want to say, first of all,
that I don't think that that is the metric to look at.
I think that the metric to look at are the voting
assistance officers that are scattered throughout the commands
as collateral responsibilities.
And my concern is the training for those voting assistance
officers. And to what extent that they are available, so how
far today do they go down? Are they at the company level and
their other Services' equivalence or at the battalion level?
And what is the extent of their training for those folks?
And, Ms. Mitchell, maybe you could answer that first.
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Unit voting assistance officers are supposed to be
appointed for units of 25 or more. That may vary in some cases
because of the type of unit.
Training is done in a variety of ways. We do train the
trainer. The Services do the same. We also have Webinars and we
have on-demand training that is offered through our Web site.
We have also provided training to the Services for use on
their learning-management systems.
Mr. Coffman. Ambassador.
Mr. Moorefield. It is certainly our understanding that they
are receiving training, that they have that responsibility for
units of 25 or greater. And as I said, we are turning in an
annual report that is based on the military IG's reports as to
what activities they have undertaken.
The only thing that I have posed is what we believe is a
challenge to us and to the military IGs is to drill down a
little bit further as to exactly the extent of the
effectiveness, as it were, of that interaction with their
military personnel in each unit.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Well, then one thing that I am concerned
about when I served in Iraq in 2005, 2006, I was not able to
vote in the 2005 election back home.
In the, you know, the race to report in and the stresses of
pre-deployment, I didn't do my absentee ballot for my
respective States. Then I found--then when I got into the
combat zone the laws of my State, Colorado, didn't comport with
the realities of serving in a combat zone where they expected
you to be able to utilize a fax machine that didn't exist in
Iraq at the time.
And so I think they have since adjusted those laws. But are
we also making efforts for those off-election years where those
service members can vote in their respective States of home-of-
record.
Could you, Ms. Mitchell?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, sir.
Every election is important, whether it be in one of the
odd years or the even years. And so, for example, the unit
voting assistance officer, as you mentioned, of whom there are
thousands across the Services are actually required on odd-
numbered years to provide a Federal postcard application to
every service member.
And during even-numbered years they are supposed to provide
it twice a year, once in January and once in July.
Mr. Coffman. And, Ambassador, we know that that is taking
place?
Mr. Moorefield. That is what has been reported,
Congressman.
And we are going to make a more aggressive effort beginning
now, or we already undertook this starting several months ago
to confirm that that is actually taking place.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you both for your efforts. And my
concerns obviously are military-wide but in particular those
serving in a combat zone. And I have been in both in, you know,
major base camps in a combat zone and out in forward operating
facilities.
And I can tell you, out in those forward operating bases,
communications is pretty tough sometimes. And so I would just
really hope that we take that into account so we can make sure
that those who are fighting in defense of our freedom, again,
have the right to vote--that most sacred freedom.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Coffman.
We have a final follow-up question with Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to follow up on your comment, Ms. Mitchell,
because you said, and I think we are very aware of this, that
States have different laws related to absentee ballots, which
some of them, as you said, make it very difficult for service
members to get the information and be able to act on it.
Are you all doing anything that would kind of help pull
some of that information together in those instances where it
really is difficult? And what changes could be made?
I would love to, you know, invite my colleagues to be
concerned about this because we know that in many States it is
so difficult for people to get an absentee ballot.
And it shouldn't be that way. In Federal elections
everybody ought to have equal access. And so where we have that
access in some States and it is, you know, it is almost
impossible in others, what are you finding?
Can you help us with that information so that we can make
certain that our men and women overseas--who happen to come
from States where their absentee balloting is so difficult--
that they have that opportunity, because that is where the
problem is.
It is not necessarily in just getting the ballot. It is
because they can't somehow comply in some way.
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, ma'am. And we have a lot of information
available on our Web site, FVAP.gov, to help with that. We also
have online wizards that are really very easy to use and walk
service members and overseas citizens through the process.
So we think that has done a lot to aid in folks being able
to both register to vote and to request a ballot.
But in terms of the different laws and levels of
complexity, we do believe that one of the efforts I had
mentioned earlier, UMOVA, which would standardize things across
the States would really be a big help to service members.
And as I recall, I want to say right now six States plus
the District of Columbia have passed that.
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you very much. And again I do invite
everyone at the----
Mr. Wilson. No. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
And I would like to thank everyone for their participation.
Particularly Congressman West, thank you for your question
about the post-election analysis 2010. I think that would be
very helpful to the subcommittee.
Additionally, I am very grateful for the Military Voter
Protection Project. They have disclosed that there is a very
low absentee ballot request participation thus far. But I am
just confident that good people being involved, something can
be done.
So at this time I move that we adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

September 13, 2012

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

September 13, 2012

=======================================================================

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Hearing on

Federal Voting Assistance Program

September 13, 2012

Today the Subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the
Department of Defense to help us understand how members of the
Armed Forces and their families along with 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 our 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
that 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 Fiscal Year 2010. The MOVE Act required
the Department of Defense to make several changes to the
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) to improve the process
by which military absentee voters cast their ballots. However
the most recent report by the DODIG on DOD's implementation of
the requirements of the MOVE Act finds that the military
services are falling short in establishing Installation Voting
Assistance offices. I look forward to hear from our DOD witness
how the Department will fully implement the legislated
improvements that were intended to assist military and overseas
voters. I am also interested to know how the changes to FVAP
have affected the military and overseas voter in the lead up to
the 2012 general election.
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 that they are not denied the right to vote.

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Hearing on

Federal Voting Assistance Program

September 13, 2012

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses, Ambassador Kenneth P. Moorefield, Deputy Inspector
General for Special Plans and Operations, and Ms. Pamela
Mitchell, the Acting Director of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program. Thank you for being here with us.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program has been given the
lead in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of
Defense to inform and educate Americans worldwide of their
right to vote, foster voter participation and protect the
integrity and enhance the electoral process for overseas voters
at every level of government--from the local to the Federal
level.
Many new voter assistance requirements were included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public
Law 111-84, such as requiring the development of online portals
to provide voter registrations procedures and notifications,
and establishment of voting assistance offices, and development
of standards for reporting requirements.
I am very interested in hearing from our witnesses on how
implementation is going, what we've learned and whether
additional programs or processes have been identified to
further improve voting assistance and participation. While the
recent Inspector General report found that over half of the
offices that are required to be established on military
installations were unable to be contacted, the report did not
address whether the offices that were established are effective
in meeting the needs of military and overseas voters. What
efforts, if any, is the Department taking to measure the
effectiveness of these offices and the services that are being
provided? The Inspector General recommended that alternative
methods to reach out to military voters be adopted, especially
since such a majority of them are young single individuals who
do not have a high propensity to vote. If such efforts are
undertaken, what efforts will be established to measure the
effectiveness of these alternative methods? As resources
continue to be reduced, we need to ensure that the programs
that are established to assist military and overseas voters are
efficient but also cost-effective.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. The upcoming
elections as we all know are a mere 7 weeks ahead; it is
imperative that we ensure that all Americans have the ability
to vote in our electoral process, but especially those who are
on the front lines of defending our Nation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.029

=======================================================================

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

September 13, 2012

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6216.035

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

September 13, 2012

=======================================================================

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. HECK

Mr. Moorefield. As highlighted in our report, one of the most
significant provisions of the MOVE Act was the requirement to establish
an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) on every military
installation worldwide (except for installations in a warzone). The
President of the United States designated the Secretary of Defense as
the official primarily responsible for overseeing all Federal Voting
Assistance Programs--including the development of any definitions
necessary to guide the Service Secretaries in their compliance with
MOVE Act provisions. During our assessment of MOVE Act implementation,
we explained that DOD and Military Department installation voting
assistance office records were incomplete, did not include offices on a
number of bases knowledgeable people might consider installations, and
noted the absence of criteria or the definition of an ``installation''
for MOVE Act compliance purposes. On September 13, 2012, the Department
of Defense issued DOD Instruction No. 1000.04, ``Federal Voting
Assistance Program (FVAP.)'' The instruction applied to all Military
Services, including the Instruction specifically required all Services
to appoint a General Officer, Admiral, or a Member of the Senior
Executive Service to manage their Service's voting assistance program,
establish an installation voter assistance office on every base
worldwide, and maintain accurate records. The instruction also allowed
satellite office to accommodate geographically dispersed installations.
Implementation and enforcement of this newly published policy document
should address the installation voting assistance office issues we
identified in our report. However, compliance with the DOD Instruction
will be subject to DODIG's ongoing and independent oversight and
reporting. [See page 11.]
______

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS

Ms. Mitchell. Since the MOVE Act's passage, States have taken
significant steps to improve the absentee voting process for absent
military and overseas citizen voters. For instance, in 2008, 13 States
offered military and overseas voters the option of receiving a blank
ballot by email. Today, 48 States offer this service by email. Forty-
two States have enacted legislation authorizing changes to the absentee
voting process for military and overseas citizen voters and
implementing the MOVE Act reforms.
Some voters still encounter obstacles that can impede voter
participation. For instance, witness requirements--especially when the
witness must be a U.S. citizen--can pose a substantial hurdle for Peace
Corps volunteers, missionaries or other Americans who may be serving in
a remote area by themselves. Four States (Alabama, Alaska, Virginia and
Wisconsin) still require a ballot envelope to be witnessed in order for
the ballot to be counted.
Another obstacle is the decentralization of the election system and
the sheer number of local election officials. Across the country, there
are over 7,300 local election officials. Two States, Michigan and
Wisconsin, have unusually decentralized election systems. Wisconsin
alone has over 1,850 local election officials. Across Michigan, there
are 11 municipalities called ``Grant Townships,'' each with its own
local election official, and each with different contact information.
For an absentee voter, figuring out where to send your election
materials can be confusing and time consuming. At the other end of the
spectrum, two States (Alaska and Maine) have a single, centralized
point of contact for all overseas and military voters. That is a real
benefit to voters. Though only ten States hold run-off elections, they
vary greatly in how they treat absent military and overseas citizen
voters. Texas changed the State election calendar in 2011 to allow 65
days in between the primary and run-off elections, ensuring that
election officials could send blank ballots to military and overseas
voters 45 days before each election. Timing issues remain in several of
the other runoff States; the U.S. Department of Justice sued Georgia
earlier this year for not allowing military and overseas voters an
adequate opportunity to participate in that State's primary runoff
elections. [See page 12.]
______

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST

Ms. Mitchell. As stated, the Department of Defense Office of the
Inspector General (DODIG) reported investigators were only able to
contact 114 Installation Voter Assistance (IVA) Offices. The Military
Services have established 221 IVA Offices. The listing used by the
DODIG in August 2012 was a March 2012 contact list. Information on this
list changes regularly. Since that time, FVAP has worked with the
Services to ensure accurate contact information for each office. In
addition, FVAP has and will continue to contact every IVA Office weekly
until the election.
FVAP did review the processes and procedures for the program from
2010 and the results are contained in the 2010 Post Election Survey
Report. As indicated in the Report, FVAP provided extensive in-person
and Webinar training for the new MOVE Act requirement for Installation
Voter Assistance (IVA) Offices as indicated on pages 37-38. Pages 54-57
detail the Services MOVE Act implementation activities.
A copy of the 2010 report may be found at: http://www.fvap.gov/
resources/media/2010report.pdf. [See page 14.]
?

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

September 13, 2012

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS

Mrs. Davis. In 2011, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)
arranged for the voting system testing laboratories to perform
functionality and security testing on both online ballot marking
systems and Internet voting systems. The results of these tests were to
be made available to the public but as we rapidly approach the 2012
elections, these reports have yet to be published. These online ballot
marking systems will be used in States across the country in the
November elections, and election administrators could benefit from the
results of these reports. What are FVAP's plans for releasing these
test reports?
Ms. Mitchell. These tests are at different stages of ongoing
review. The early release of these results without a full vetting of
issues and a thorough assessment would lead to incomplete and
potentially inaccurate results. The first of the assessments will be
released in December 2012, with all of the assessments being released
by the end of the 2nd quarter.
Mrs. Davis. In 2010, FVAP received about $9 million for research,
development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) of online balloting and
Internet voting systems which was largely used for the funding of the
Electronic Voting Support Wizards (EVSW). In 2011 and 2012, FVAP
received a combined total of $65 million for RDT&E for projects to
assist military and overseas voters. Can your office provide a summary
of the projects this money funded and what was learned from the
research, development, evaluation and testing performed?
Ms. Mitchell. Please see the listing of projects and activities
below.

FY 2012 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDTE)--Funds not
yet executed (RDTE is two-year funding and can be spent over a two-year
period.)

FY 2011 RDTE

EASE Grants: The Electronic Absentee Systems for
Elections (EASE) Grants Program provides funds to States and localities
to enable military and overseas voters to use electronic systems such
as online registration, absentee ballot requests, and blank ballot
delivery. Reports, from grant recipients on the utility of these
systems, are pending.

Candidate database for R3: During the 2010 election
cycle, FVAP implemented ``R3,'' also referred to as FVAP's online
wizards, a paperless, automated process system. R3 guides the voter
through the completion of the Federal Post Card Application and the
Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. R3 now has the capability to import
candidate data and allow FVAP staff to validate the data prior to
presenting candidates to the public. This reduced FVAP's reliance on
third party sources for candidate information and improved FVAP's
ability to perform internal quality assurance reviews of this
information.

Voting Over the DISN-CAC Analysis: In support of the
electronic voting demonstration project (aka, Internet voting project)
pursuant to the 2002 and 2005 National Defense Authorization Acts
(NDAAs), FVAP awarded a contract to study the feasibility of voting
over the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) using the Common
Access Card (CAC) as an identification credential. Final deliverable
was received in October 2012 and is being reviewed.

Non Technical Research: FVAP awarded contracts to study
the following. This is ongoing research and results are not yet
available.

Analysis of the processes employed by all strata of
UOCAVA voters for potential deficiencies, risks, and pitfalls
which serve as barriers to voting success.

To determine the differences of voting success rates
between UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters in Federal elections
across States that identify election data trends over time.

To assess and identify the social and behavioral factors
that influence UOCAVA voters.

To complete a series of studies and analyses related to
the security of voting systems that UOCAVA voters could use.

Portal: FVAP awarded a contract to develop a dynamic,
data-driven portal to replace its existing, static Web site (FVAP.gov).
The portal will serve as the basis for the development of a series of
Web services and applications designed to meet the needs of overseas
military and overseas voter stakeholders. This effort has just begun.

Kiosk: FVAP awarded a contract to obtain two reports
reflecting lessons learned from the 2008 Okaloosa County's Internet
voting pilot project, with the second report directly applying lessons
learned into an operational framework for potential use as a future
demonstration project. This work is ongoing and results are not yet
available.

OCC Survey: FVAP awarded a contract to develop a
scientifically based estimate of the U.S. overseas citizen population.
This work is ongoing and results are not yet available.

FY 2010 RDTE

Electronic Voting Assistance Wizard (EVSW): Pilot program
for online blank ballot delivery and marking wizard to allow military
and overseas voters to receive and mark, online, their absentee
ballots. Results of this effort are pending internal Department review
and compilation of a final report.

Operation Vote: FVAP conducted extensive research,
testing, and evaluation of Kiosk and PC voting systems with the intent
of supporting disabled military members, military members, their
spouses and dependents, and overseas citizen voters to register and
vote successfully with a minimum amount of effort. Full results of this
effort are pending final internal review. However, one valuable outcome
already promulgated was a checklist and handbook for voting assistance
officers to use in helping wounded warriors exercise their right to
vote.
Mrs. Davis. According to a mandate in the FY05NDAA, the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is responsible for developing the
guidelines for a remote electronic voting demonstration project to be
carried out by the FVAP once the EAC creates these guidelines. In May,
NIST issued a statement warning that secure Internet voting is not
currently feasible and that more research is needed. In light of this
development, has FVAP adjusted its proposed timeline for a remote
electronic voting demonstration project? Does FVAP plan to alter any of
its proposed research and development projects for 2012 and 2013?
Ms. Mitchell. At this time, FVAP does not anticipate implementing
the electronic voting demonstration project without applicable
standards in place as referenced in the FY05 NDAA. FVAP, the EAC, and
NIST have worked collaboratively over the last few years to chart a
responsible course forward in adhering to the outstanding Congressional
requirement for the conduct of an electronic voting demonstration
project. FVAP continues to focus on supporting research that will help
drive the standards development process itself, and does not currently
plan to alter any of the ongoing research and development projects for
2012 and 2013.

FVAP is currently engaged in both technical and non-technical
research in support of the outstanding concerns regarding Internet
voting security:

Technical Research Initiatives:

Conduct research on the relative security and privacy
risks of the current postal balloting experience versus a
potential Internet solution (i.e., electronic voting
demonstration project) to establish the relative security risks
of each and identify potential trade-offs.

Research the relative technical processes associated
with using the Defense Information System Network (DISN) and
Common Access Card (CAC) to mitigate security risks in response
to NIST's concerns about public networks.

Explore the viability of existing software tools to
document software integrity and reconcile voting system
elements with Federal information security guidelines.

Non-Technical Research Initiatives:

Document the overall failure rates for UOCAVA voters
and validate past research data to fully document the level of
difficulties experienced by UOCAVA voters in casting ballots.

Examine pilot program alternatives to the electronic
voting demonstration project that do not expose voting systems
to increase security risks.

Further quantify the overseas civilian population to
assist with overall assessment of FVAP program effectiveness
and scope of future pilot projects.

All of the ongoing FVAP research attempts to answer outstanding
policy questions and further assist the EAC and NIST with developing
security standards.
Mrs. Davis. A NIST statement from May 2012 said, ``NIST's research
results indicate that additional research and development is needed to
overcome these challenges before secure Internet voting will be
feasible.'' Given NIST's statement, does FVAP currently encourage
States to allow the electronic transmission of voted ballots for
overseas and military voters? If so, what message does it communicate
to State elections officials?
Ms. Mitchell. No, FVAP does not advocate for Internet voting
(online return of a voted ballot in a live election). FVAP currently
encourages States to offer tools to Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) voters that focus on online registration
and the electronic transmission of blank ballots.
FVAP's grants program researches the long-term effectiveness of
various electronic voter support systems. These competitive grants are
awarded to State and local election officials across a broad spectrum
of electronic absentee voting initiatives. The final terms and
conditions of these awards specifically preclude use of grant funding
for electronic transmission of voted ballots in an actual election via
the Internet, email, or facsimile.