32 July 2008 www.usni.org 32 July 2008 www.usni.

org
www.usni.org PROCEEDINGS 33
T
he President of the
United States was
worried. Thousands
of Americans were
fighting a war far from
home, an election was ap-
proaching, and no one was
certain whether those men and women in uniform would
be able to even register, let alone vote.
At a time when these young people are defending our
country and its free institutions, he wrote to Congress, the
least we at home can do is to make sure that they are able to
enjoy the rights they are being asked to fight to preserve.
The plea was penned by Harry S. Truman in 1952.
And while the sentiment has been echoed many times
since, military overseas voting is still conducted essentially
as it was during that Korean War-era election: a multi-step
process almost entirely reliant on numerous pieces of paper
moving through less-than-speedy postal systems.
While virtually everyone involved in the process seems
to agree that military people deserve at least equal op-
portunity when it comes to having their votes counted,
indications are that in November 2008 many thousands of
service members who try to vote will do so in vain.
Worrisome? Depends Whom You Ask
The key problems have always been time, distance, and
mobility. The military voter, says Samuel Wright, is fre-
quently, if youll excuse the expression, a moving target.
Wright, a recently retired Navy Reserve captain, has fought
the military voting rights battle for nearly 30 years.
Absentee voting from overseas is also complicated, involv-
ingnotes Brenda Farrell of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO)registering, requesting a ballot, receiving the
ballot, correctly completing the ballot, and returning the ballot
to the appropriate election official. Each step, in most cases,
requires forms and ballots be sent back and forth by mail. It is
not difficult to anticipate problems when states print ballots just
weeks before an election, then put them into a postal system
requiring 18 days outthe average time it takes a piece of
mail to reach a military voterand 18 days back.
In 2006, 1.4 million people in uniform were eligible to
vote by absentee ballot; not all of them were overseas, but
many thousands were. A million of their family members
were eligible, too. Add the estimated 3.5 million other
Americans outside the country, and the total number of
potential absentee voters neared 6 million.
A million ballots were sent out, almost, to those vot-
ers, reports Rosemary Rodriguez, chair of the indepen-
dent, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002. But only
300,000 were actually counted, she says. Election offi-
By Captain Chas Henry, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)
While voting is one of the most sacred privileges of all
Americans, military men and women deployed overseas
are finding it difficult if not impossible to vote themselves.
www.usni.org PROCEEDINGS 33
COURTESY OF PAUL STLLWELL
ConCern for Troops As far back as 1952, president Harry s. Tru-
man set out to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they
are being asked to fight to preserve. on a ships fantail, the president
here congratulates enlisted men who earned medals.
Copyright 2008, Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland (410) 268-6110 www.usni.org
34 July 2008 www.usni.org
cials told the EAC that some ballots never made it to those
who requested them. Others werent returned on time, or
did make it back but were not filled out exactly right.
Those figures differ starkly from a more sanguine esti-
mate of absentee voting compiled by the Federal Voting As-
sistance Program (FVAP), a Department of Defense agency.
Created in 1986 by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), the voting assistance pro-
gram was placed within DOD because it was military voters
Congress sought most to accommodate. The programs staff
of 15 or so is supposed to facilitate military and overseas
voters participation in federal elections.
The military voted at a rate of 73 percent in 2004,
claims FVAP Deputy Director Scott Wiedmann, basing his
estimate on post-election survey responses from 15,026
military men and women. There were actually another
six percent that attempted to vote, he adds, for a total
of 79 percent voting participation.
We have some concerns about that survey, says Farrell,
who heads GAO inquiries into military personnel issues.
Most troubling, she says, are its low response rates and lack
of critical analysis. There are techniques that DOD could
have applied through analysis to make the projections more
likely to be accurate, and those were not taken.
GAO is not alone in questioning FVAP esti-
mates. The Defense Manpower Data Centerin
a 2007 study of 30,000 active-duty service mem-
bersreported that just 22 percent voted in 2006.
Military voting advocates claim it all adds up to a stark
and disturbing disenfranchisement of military service
members. In the general population, says Bob Carey,
a senior fellow with the National Defense Committee
(NDC), a private advocacy group, about 85 percent of
the absentee ballots that are requested are actually cast.
In the military, only about 25 percent. Carey estimates
the low return rate kept more than 400,000 military people
from making their voices heard at the polls in 2006.
Getting out (enough of) the Vote?
Through posters and other means, the voting assistance
program works to raise voting consciousness. More im-
portant, it coordinates the network of voting assistance
officers, assigned on top of full-time duties to help others
request and cast ballots. The effect is spotty; some work
hard at the task, others have little time to devote.
DOD Inspector
Generals office sur-
veys since 2002 have
consistently shown
that fewer than half
of the military men
and women ques-
tioned knew who
provided voting as-
sistance in their units. In addition, IG reports reveal trends
indicating reduced awareness of voting assistance efforts.
Also documented is marginal compliance with military ser-
vice regulations requiring specific distribution of Federal
Post Card Applications (FPCA) used to request ballots and
Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) that voters can
fill out and mail if hometown ballots have not arrived in
time.
Persistent problems led the IG in 2005 to term the FVAP
not effective at training voters nor in disseminating infor-
mation and voting materials. Criticizing the concept of col-
lateral-duty voting assistance officers, the report concluded,
senior leadership can expect significant improvement only
if a radically different approach is applied.
The NDC and others have questioned the effectiveness of
a key FVAP information toolits text-heavy, not-so-easily
navigated Web site (www.fvap.gov). While $600,000 has
been committed to upgrade the web presence, improve-
ments were still not available to potential voters during
May 2008. In the meantime, the nonprofit Overseas Vote
Foundation (OVF)partnering with the NDChas created
an alternative for a fraction of the cost. Using a $100,000
grant from the Pew Center for the States, the OVF site
(www.overseasvotefoundation.org), incorporating intuitive,
pull-down menu design, allows potential voters to easily
complete then print for signature only those forms specifi-
cally required by their state, territory, even county.
You Cant over-State the role of states
Elections in the United States are the province of the
states, counties, and territories, thus limiting help the fed-
eral government can provide federal troops, even when
they are voting for candidates to federal office.
There are 7,838 local election offices in the United
States, says retired Captain Wright. I counted em. Adds
the GAOs Farrell: When you think of all the states and all
the territories having different rules, for something that seems
common, the right to vote, it is a little overwhelming.
Even when employing such common forms as the
FPCA and FWAB, service members need to understand
that state laws differ on how each should be filled out. If
they dont do it the way prescribed by their hometown
election officials, the forms can be tossed aside.
The state requirements are very nuanced and very compli-
cated, says the EACs Rodriguez. One of the states cannot
accept ballots that are sent [or]returned by Federal Express.
It has to be the U.S. Mail. What kind of law is that? I mean,
how does that facilitate participation by the military voter?
While wielding few carrots or sticks
to influence the conduct of state or
municipal elections, FVAP staffers
say they do what they can to encour-
age election officials to consider the
plight of military voters.
Occasionally there might be a
candidate suing to get their name
on the ballot, says the FVAPs
Wiedmann, or there might be a weather event that could
cause a ballot to be sent out late, and when that happens,
we work with the state for a remedy for that particular
While $600,000 has been committed
to upgrade the web presence,
improvements were still not available
to potential voters during May 2008.
www.usni.org PROCEEDINGS 35
election. When it appears elec-
tion officials are not complying
with overseas absentee voting
act rulesmost frequently that
ballots must, at a minimum, be
mailed no later than 30 days be-
fore a states return deadlinethe
FVAP can alert Justice Depart-
ment prosecutors.
The Civil Rights Division has
brought more than 30 enforcement
lawsuits under UOCAVA, says
Justice Department spokesperson
Jamie Hais. Since 2000 we have
brought suits against nine states
and successfully resolved threat-
ened violations without the need
for litigation with many other
states.
But according to a former
Justice Department attorney who
spent more than two years han-
dling such cases, those actions
typically resulted after election
officials essentially turned them-
selves in. Many of those pros-
ecutions were pursued, says
Eric Eversole, after an election
official admitted infractions when
answering survey questions dis-
tributed by the FVAP. If election
officials aware of potential viola-
tions simply chose to not return
the survey, its very possible such
violations would not come to the
attention of federal prosecutors.
Why not Vote online?
Billions of dollars travel on
digital networks every day. Classified documents do, too.
So why are military voters still required to send ballots
through the mail? If electronic systems are secure enough
for huge sums of money, asks Captain Wright, and for
our nations most important secrets, why cannot we have,
in the 21st century, a system whereby the deployed ser-
vice member could receive, mark, and return his ballot by
secure electronic means?
Because theres money at stake. reasons the EACs
Rodriguez, the banking system invests a whole lot of
money in security of that money. And theres a lot less
money to invest in voting equipment, regrettably.
About a dozen states will this year use e-mail or fax to
send ballots to voters. Recipients will still have to return
marked ballots by mail. For most voters, though, the process
will continue to require back-and-forth mailing of registra-
tion forms, ballot requests, and ballots. Tests to determine
the potential of online voting have been inauspicious.
In 2004, Congress directed DOD to develop an Inter-
net-based absentee voting demonstration project and the
EAC to develop project guidelines. The 2004 Interim Vot-
ing Assistance System, which allowed voters to request
and receive ballots securely, cost $576,000 and resulted
in delivery of 17 ballots to potential voters. In 2006, the
Integrated Voting Alternative Site allowed voters to request
ballots. It cost $1.1 million; researchers were able to trace
eight voted ballots to the test. In reviewing the efforts,
GAO researchers noted two presidential elections passing
without significant progress in moving toward expanded
use of electronic and Internet absentee voting.
Concerns about security and paper trails brought those tests
to an end. The EAC and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) are presently looking into such wor-
ries. It is expected that a NIST report, likely to be released
after the coming election, will recommend e-mailing ballots
to voters, while still requiring they be returned by mail.
DeserT sTorM VeTerAn According to Bob Cary, a senior fellow with the private advocacy group,
the national Defense Committeehere, with his family on his return from operation Desert storm in
1991only about 25 percent of military absentee ballots requested are actually cast.
C
O
U
R
T
E
S
Y

O
F

B
O
B

C
A
R
Y
36 July 2008 www.usni.org
red or Blue Voters? or red,
White, and Blue?
If and when military voters are
able to cast ballots, do their votes
favor one party over another and
really add up? A political scien-
tist who studies the military says,
counter to some conventional wis-
dom, service men and women do
not vote as a bloc.
What you find, says Peter
Feaver of Duke University, is a
military that more or less tracks
the demographics from which it
comes. That is, people will vote
generally like civilian counterparts
of the same age, education, and
ethnicitythough probably skew-
ing just a bit more conservative
than the norm in each group. And
while career military peoplea
relatively small percentage of the
total forcehave tended to vote
Republican in greater numbers,
the leaning may not be hard and
fast.
One survey [of] the same
population every year has
shown a steady ero-
sion in that identity
with the Republican
Party, notes Feaver.
And if that survey
is representative of
whats going on in
the broader force,
then some of these
previous findings may
represent high water
marks, rather than a
continuing trend.
While the numbers
of potential military
voters might seem im-
pressive, added to the
national bucket, they
represent just a drop.
The military vote by itself is not likely to be decisive, in
all but a few locales, confirms Feaver. That being said, the
military vote is symbolic of a national security vote, including,
he notes, families of service members and others with ties to
defense issues.
And what of rumors over the years that some administra-
tions have done everything they can to encourage a military
vote and others have held back? Feaver says they are likely
urban myths. He recalls the bipartisan uproar that resulted
when Democratic Party activists took tentative steps to
aggressively challenge military absentee votes in Florida
during the tightly contested 2000 election. Democratic
Party leaders quickly squashed the activists plan. If you got
caught trying to dampen the military vote in any way, warns
Feaver, the consequences would be horrific for youthe
political consequences of the outcryeven if you were able
to shave a vote here or there.
Light at the end of the Ballot Box
More likely by default than design, the system by which
many military people will try to vote this year will exclude
TooLs for VoTinG The federal Voting Assistance program
offers a guide for members of the military wishing to vote, includ-
ing the federal post Card Application. But the DoD inspector Gen-
eral termed the program not effective in 2005.
F
V
A
P
www.usni.org PROCEEDINGS 37
seem convinced most will be able. Theres definitely the
opportunity for every military member and every overseas
citizen to take part in the process, affirms FVAP Deputy
Director Wiedmann. Many others, though, worry that the
votes of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, will
in the end not be counted.
If anybody should be receiving their ballots and able
to vote without any problems, it should be the military
voter, stresses the EACs Rodriguez.
When President Truman raised alarm bells about mili-
tary voting during the Korean War, he asked Congress
for helpful, temporary legislationcertain that states and
territories, given time, would rectify the biggest problems.
But interest waned, as it has time and again after subse-
quent conflicts. As Americans again prepare to make their
voices heard at the polls, it is not clear how many of their
countrymen in uniform will be able to equally exercise a
privilege the Supreme Court in 1886 called preservative
of all other rights.
Mr. Henry received his too-late-to-count ballot for the 1980 presidential
election while serving as a Marine at sea off iran. now a Washington,
D.C.-based broadcast journalist, his television reporting on military
voting can be seen at www.ChasHenry.com.
too many. And in the states, there is little talk of reform.
Elected officials, says the National Defense Commit-
tees Carey, were elected by the current laws, which dis-
enfranchise military personnel. And the military personnel
dont represent that big of a voting bloc. They are also a
group unable, by law and military custom of deference to
civil authority, to advocate on their own behalf for better
ballot box access.
If change is to take place, it might take the shape of
top-down reformCongress, for instance, identifying a
federal class of voters and instituting common rules for
handling their votes. A bottom-up approach could find
statesmuch as they did when, among themselves, they
agreed on a Uniform Commercial Codeagreeing to a
common set of laws for treating absentee ballots received
from military and overseas voters.
Change, however, frequently challenges political equi-
ties. Some strategists worry about creating precedents that
further ease any form of absentee voting. State and county
election officials say they wish they could help, but dont
have the resources. While a handful of small changes may
help dozens or hundreds vote more easily this election
cycle, it appears any wide-scale online voting is far off.
As hundreds of thousands of men and women serving
their country try to vote this election year, defense leaders
THe fLoriDA reCounT Duke universitys peter feaver recalls the bipartisan uproar when Democratic party activists took steps to challenge
military absentee votes in the 2000 presidential election. for anyone tinkering with the military vote, says feaver, the consequences would
be horrific.

r
e
U
t
e
r
S
/
C
o
r
b
I
S

(
M
A
r
C

S
e
r
o
t
A
)