Post-election Survey of Local Election Officials

Attachment 1a

CONTENT SUMMARY OF 2010 LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIAL (LEO) SURVEY


General - The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires
the Department to annually determine the registration and participation rates for overseas
civilians and uniformed service members. The LEO survey is an integral instrument for the
Department in obtaining and analyzing this election data. For the 2008 Post Election Survey,
the LEO survey became the primary instrument for determining the voting participation of
overseas civilians because of low response rate to the overseas civilian survey made that
survey statistically invalid. Data from the LEO survey will be used to assess and improve
FVAP programs that support UOCAVA voter accessibility and participation in elections for
federal office.
In collecting this data from the Local Election Officials, the Department is attempting to
determine: 1) the correlation between jurisdictional size and UOCAVA population 2) voting
success and participation rates for UOCAVA citizens 3) where in the UOCAVA absentee
voting process does failure occur and what causes this failure. In order to ensure that sound
decisions are made regarding UOCAVA policy and to determine where in the voting process
failure lies, the Department has requested specific numerical election data from LEOs. It is
the Department’s belief that the requested data is available from the election jurisdictions, as
required by law, in some form. For example, the smaller jurisdictions may have totals for
UOCAVA citizens, but may not have the totals segmented by Military and overseas civilians
as requested in the survey. Further, it is the Department’s belief that all the requested data
would be available from the larger election jurisdictions, where the majority of the UOCAVA
population is believed to reside. Most of the requested data should be readily available from
the LEOs, since it is required to be reported to other governmental agencies such as the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the respective State Boards of Election.




Voter Registration and Turnout - These items (#1-4) are used to determine the size of
the local election jurisdiction by total registered voters and total registered UOCAVA
voters, as well as these voters who participated in the 2010 general election. The data
requested in items #1-4 is readily available from LEOs. While past LEO surveys have
measured the size of the jurisdiction, they have not measured the UOCAVA population
within the jurisdiction. It is hypothesized that the majority of UOCAVA citizens may
reside in the larger election jurisdictions. If this hypothesis is proved valid, in the future it
may not be necessary to survey all of the approximately 7,000 election jurisdictions in
order to achieve a statistically valid conclusions regarding UOCAVA voting behavior.
Federal Post Card Applications (FPCAs) - These items (#5-11) request specific
information from the LEO on the processing of FPCAs. The total number of FPCAs that
were received between 1/1/2010 and the State election deadline and of this total, the
number of FPCAs which were successfully and unsuccessfully processed. Of the FPCAs
which were unsuccessfully processed, the reason why the FPCA was rejected. Past
surveys have requested this information as a frequency of response question and not for
specific numerical statistics. It is our current opinion that frequency of response does not
provide the valid statistics on which to base policy decisions. Responses to these
questions will identify the specific problems areas and will assist in developing policies
and procedures which promote higher FPCA processing success rates.











Non Federal FPCA Absentee Ballot Requests - These items (#12-18) attempt to
capture the same data detailed above for the FPCA except these are for UOCAVA citizens
who did not use the FPCA to register and/or request an absentee ballot.
Transmission of Regular UOCAVA Absentee Ballots - One of the largest obstacles to
successful absentee voting for UOCAVA citizens is ballot transit time. In this case, are
the LEOs sending their ballots early enough for UOCAVA voters to receive, vote and
return, and successfully cast their absentee ballot (#20, #21)? A common complaint
among LEOs is that it’s not the absentee ballots that are sent out on the initial send out
date that pose the transit problem, but it’s the absentee ballot requests that are received by
the LEO after the initial ballot send out date and arrive too late to the voter because the
ballot request was received too late by the LEO from the voter. Questions #23, #24 #29,
#30, #34, #35, #41, # 42, #45, #46 will analyze this issue. Many States are providing
voters with the option of requesting and returning their ballot by fax, email and other
methods in addition to the traditional by- mail process. Questions #25 and #31 will
analyze the methods by which UOCAVA voters request and return their ballots from the
LEOs. Undeliverable ballots, (ballots addressed to the incorrect address) continue to be a
major problem for UOCAVA voters, particularly highly mobile Military voters (# 26).
Data supplied on undeliverable ballots will determine the effectiveness of procedures
initiated to ameliorate this problem. Undeliverable ballots are analyzed as a percentage of
transmitted ballots.
Receipt of Regular UOCAVA Absentee Ballots - Items #27-28 request the total number
of UOCAVA absentee ballots returned to the LEO. To determine voter success rates, this
number is analyzed as a percentage of transmitted ballots.
Rejection of Regular UOCAVA Absentee Ballots - In an attempt to determine where
the absentee voting process fails, these items will collect specific numerical data on why
absentee ballots were rejected. In previous surveys, specific numeric data was not
requested and this was a frequency of response question. It is the opinion of the
Department that this data is readily available from the LEOs since States require that
jurisdictions keep detailed data on rejected ballots. Question # 33 will determine of the
rejected regular absentee ballots, how many were rejected because they were received
after State deadline for ballot receipt. Question # 36 will determine if the mode of ballot
transmission has an effect on ballot acceptance and rejection rates. For example, do
emailed ballots have a lower rejection rate than mailed ballots? Rejected ballots by mode
of transmission will be analyzed as a percentage of the same mode of transmission for
returned ballots. Since ballots can be rejected for various reasons, items #37, #38, #39
will correlate ballot rejection and mode of transmission.
Regular UOCAVA Absentee Ballots Submitted for Counting and Counted - Item #
43and 47 will determine if the mode of transmission affects the number of ballots
submitted for counting and counted ballots. For example, do emailed ballots have a
greater chance of being submitted for counting than mailed ballots? Ballots submitted for
counting will be analyzed as a percentage of the same mode of transmission as returned
ballots, while counted ballots will be analyzed as a percentage of the submitted ballots by
the same mode of transmission.
Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots (FWABs) - To date there has been no definitive
statistics on the reasons why FWABs are rejected. The EAC requires States to report
data on the number of FWABs received, submitted for counting, counted and rejected,







but not the reasons for rejection. For example, FWABs are rejected because the voter
submitted the regular absentee ballot and the LEO submitted that absentee ballot for
counting in lieu of the FWAB. Because only data is available on the number of rejected
FWABs, policy makers will examine only this number and erroneously conclude that all
these UOCAVA voters have been disenfranchised. Questions #48-53 request specific
numerical data on the number of FWABs returned, rejected, submitted for counting,
counted and the reason for the rejection.
Assessment of the Absentee Voting Process - Items # 54-56 will determine how
satisfied/dissatisfied the LEO is with each stage of the absentee voting process and where
the process needs improvements in future elections. Responses will assist in targeting
specific areas in the absentee voting process for more detailed emphasis and analysis.
Federal Voting Assistance Programs (FVAP) - FVAP provides a variety of programs
to assist LEOs in the performance of their duties to support UOCAVA voters. These
programs include a toll free fax/email conversion service, a toll free call center, the
FVAP website, and an address look up service for FVAP to assist LEOs determining the
correct current addresses of Active Duty Military Members. Items #57- 72 ask a variety
of questions regarding these FVAP programs. These questions involve awareness and use
of the programs, satisfaction/dissatisfaction inquiries, and will determine why the LEO
did not use the FVAP programs. Response data will be used to analyze the existing
programs and to determine those programs most responsive to LEO needs.
Training - Items #74-75 will determine if the LEO desires any additional training in
UOCAVA laws and procedures in additional to those furnished by their respective
Election Boards and Officials and if requested, the type of training desired. If needed and
desired, FVAP could provide supplemental UOCAVA training to LEOs.