8-2011 TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA MCED...The EAC website has excellent information regarding the...

TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA Voting TrendsMaricopa County Community NetworkAugust 31st, 2011

What is the TGDC?

• When the Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002 it established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as well as three other boards to provide counsel to the EAC:• Advisory Board: comprised of 37 appointments and positions by

national organizations such as NASS, NASED, NACO, IACREOT, FVAP, DOJ, etc.• Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell is a member

• Standards Board: comprised of a state and a local official from each state and territory, of differing parties• Maricopa County Assistant Elections Director Rey Valenzuela &• Arizona State Elections Director Amy Bjelland are members

• Technical Guideline Development Committee (TGDC)• Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell is a member

NIST: National Institute of Standards & Technology

ANSI: American National Standards Institute

IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

NASED: National Association of State Elections Directors

The EAC website has excellent information regarding the

numerous acronyms used in elections as well as all of the

board’s functions, meeting notes, and resolutions:

www.eac.gov

What is UOCAVA?

• Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act• Implemented in 1986• It requires that the states and territories allow certain

groups of citizens absent from their home jurisdiction to register and vote absentee in elections for Federal offices.

• This includes citizens living abroad, members of the military as well as their families.

• UOCAVA voters create a unique challenge for election administration: • Highly mobile voting population• Unconventional locations• Frequent changes in location• Potential lack of access to resources

UOCAVA VOTERS = Special challenges

MOVE Act of 2010

• The Military Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2010 set out some new guidelines for providing access to voting materials for UOCAVA voters, namely:• Allow voters the ability to receive their ballot electronically• All ballots must be sent out 45 days prior to Election Day

• The MOVE Act also reiterated a 2002 Department of Defense Authorization Act requirement to conduct a demonstration project for the casting of ballots electronically.

Federal Voting Assistance Program

Slide taken from FVAP’s TGDC presentation on July 26th, 2011

Why did MCED present?

• The TGDC established a working group in May of 2010 to develop high-level guidelines for the demonstration project.• Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell is on this working group• MCED staff have participated on the calls

• Establishing a baseline of the risks in the current vote-by-mail (VBM) system was discussed on a call in February of 2011.

• MCED gathers data relevant to that discussion and shared that with the working group.

• Based on the information provided we were asked to present at the July 26-27th TGDC meeting at the NIST campus.

UOCAVA Voting Trend Analysis

& Risk AssessmentMaricopa County, Arizona

Tammy PatrickFederal Compliance Officer

Maricopa County Recorder/Election Department

UOCAVA Working Group• Overall assessment of current Vote By Mail (VBM) UOCAVA system was circulated in February of this year identifying areas of potential vulnerability.

• Maricopa County collects data which speak to two of the categories:– Denial of Service/Misdirected or Diversion– Authentication

• As a background, Arizona has allowed for the delivery and return of ballots electronically since the 2008 election cycle and is an important element of this presentation.

Denial of Service/Misdirected or Diversion

• Discussed as:– Accidental or malicious failure of the voter receiving their ballot either due to inherent qualities of the delivery system of the ballot or the voter not providing accurate/sufficient/timely information.

– Competing resources for the delivery of necessities (FVAP’s 4B’s: “Beans, Bullets, Bandages, and Ballots”)

Authentication

• For existing VBM systems this is usually in reference to the signature verification of the returned balloting materials.

• This is a two‐fold issue:– Lack of signature– Signature which does not match

MOVE Act• It is important to note in this discussion that this analysis is not a comprehensive review of the impact of the MOVE Act because the State of Arizona did not reduce the coverage period MOVE allows until this legislative session.

• Therefore, there were still many voters who had requested to be a covered UOCAVA voter up to 4 years prior to the 2010 General Election, consequently impacting the efficacy of MCED’s ability to successfully transmit a ballot to the voter.

With that said.

• UOCAVA voting behaviors in Maricopa County 2004‐2010

• Review of ballots returned, & their dispositions

• Review of who did not return ballots

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Voter Type

Ballot Type

Disposition Failure

Location

Age

Party Affiliation

FPCA

UOCAVA BY TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOTS

2004‐2010

2004‐2010 UOCAVA Comparison

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000 Sent 2004

Return 2004

Sent 2006

Return 2006

Sent 2008

Returned 2008

Sent 2010

Returned 201065%

2004

22%

66%

28%

2006 2008 2010

Ballots

2004‐2010 UOCAVA Comparison

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

DomesticMilitary

OverseasMilitary

OverseasCitizens

OverseasEmployee

Electronic

Sent 2004Return 2004Sent 2006Return 2006Sent 2008Returned 2008Sent 2010Returned 2010

2006 OSC & OSE were grouped together

2004‐2010 Presidential CycleUOCAVA Comparison

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizens Overseas Employee

Sent 2004

Return 2004

Sent 2008

Returned 2008

Others participated at a higher rate in 2008

Some participated at a higher rate in 2004

Some of the Domestic Military in ‘04 could possibly be a portion of the Overseas Military voters 4 years later

2004‐2010 Mid‐term CycleUOCAVA Comparison

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

DomesticMilitary

OverseasMilitary

OverseasCitizens

OverseasEmployee

Electronic

Sent 2006

Return 2006

Sent 2010

Returned 2010

2006 OSC & OSE were grouped together

2004‐2010 Overall Return Rate:• Domestic Military 53%• Overseas Military 43%• Overseas Citizen 47%• Overseas Employee 56%• Electronic 68%

• Total Military 49%• Total Civilian 51%


Military

Ballot Type

Disposition Failure

Location

Age

FPCA

Party Affiliation

UOCAVA BY PERCENTAGE OF BALLOTS

2004‐2010 UOCAVA Comparison% of Ballots Returned by Voter Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DomesticMilitary

OverseasMilitary

OverseasCitizens

OverseasEmployee

Electronic

Returned 2004Returned 2006Returned 2008Returned 2010

2010 UOCAVA Rate of Return• The average return rate for UOCAVA voters was 28%, well below the average return rate of 77%.

• Although faxing was the smallest category, it had the highest rate of return of 80%.

• Notice that providing an electronic mechanism for UOCAVA voters to access and return their ballot greatly improved their participation/return rate to 68% over the other UOCAVA Categories:– Overseas Citizen 26%– Overseas Employee 12%– Overseas Military 18%– Domestic Military 23%

Rate of Return• General Election 2008 UOCAVA voters returned their ballots 64% of the time, total ballot return for all early voters was 92%.

• General Election 2010 UOCAVA voters returned their ballots 28% of the time, total ballot return for all early voters was 77%. (But electronic return was much closer at 68%.)

2010 UOCAVA Requests & Returns

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Overseas Cit OverseasEmp

OverseasMil

DomesticMil

Electronic Fax

RequestsReturns

68%

12%

26%

18%23%

80%

RETURNEDBALLOT& VOTER TYPE ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

2008 UOCAVA Returned Ballot Types

Military Standard

Military FWAB

Civilian Standard

Civilian FWAB

53%45%

2010 UOCAVA Returned Ballot Types

Military StandardMilitary FWABCivilian StandardCivilian FWABElectronic

29%38%

33%

We had 0% voters use the FWAB in the 2010 General Election—there were a handful returned but the voters also submitted full ballots so those were the ones tabulated.

Voters demonstrated their support of the electronic return by using it for the return of their ballots.


Disposition Failure

Location

Age

FPCA

Party Affiliation

Standard

Military

2008 UOCAVA vs. Total EV Return& Disposition of the Ballot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total EV UOCAVA

Counted LateNo SigBad Sig

0.2%

( 1

485)

98%

1.5%

(80

)

0.2%

0.4%

0.3%

0.1%

99.3%

%

2010 UOCAVA vs. Total EV Return& Disposition of the Ballot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total EV UOCAVA

Counted LateNo SigBad Sig

0.1%

( 2

680)

97%

2% ( 29 )

0.4%

1% (11)

0.5%

0%

99%

%

2010 UOCAVA Ballots Returned Late

Domestic MilitaryOverseas MilitaryOverseas CitizenOverseas EmployeeElectronic

2010 had a higher percentage of voters returning their ballots late; however, none of them had received their ballot electronically—all of those voters returned their ballot on time.

34%

17%

38%

10%

2010 UOCAVA Ballots Without Signature


2010 had a higher percentage of voters returning their ballots without a signature; 1 voter returned theirs electronically without the necessary signature.

45%

18%

27%

9%


Returned Late

Location

Age

FPCA

Party Affiliation

Standard

Military

UNRETURNED BALLOTVOTER TYPE ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type

Domestic Military

Overseas Military

Overseas Citizen

Overseas Employee

33%27%

22%

18%

2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type


2010 saw a very different picture of the ballots not returned than 2008. A large shift occurred to Overseas Cit not returning –28% compared to only 18% in 2008.24%

21%

20%28%

6%

‘08 vs. ‘10 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type

DomesticMilitary

OverseasMilitary

OverseasCitizen

OverseasEmployee

Electronic0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000Dom. Mil was only slightly

higher than ‘08

# of Ballots

‘08 vs. ‘10 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type As % of All UOCAVA Not Returned

DomesticMilitary

OverseasMilitary

OverseasCitizen

OverseasEmployee

Electronic0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

FPCA ANALYSIS2010 General Election

Quick Methodology Narrative• This query looked at those voters on the voter file as of the date of the analysis.

• The data includes: – Date of the voter’s FPCA request – History of any election post request– Status of ballot for each election in voter’s history

• Graphs reflect the percentages of ballots for all elections the voter was eligible for by year with raw numbers listed.

• Anomalies may be attributed to those voters who are no longer on the voter file.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year

20082010

% of U

OCA

VA Ballots

’08 vs ’10 Effective Ballots Returned in Years After FPCA Request

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


20082010

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Returned as Undeliverable in Years After FPCA Request

% of U

OCA

VA Ballots

Odd that the % is so consistent

within an election year—3% in 2008 & 1% in 2010 returned as

undeliverable.

Due to more emphasis by USPS in a Presidential

year??

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


20082010

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Sent But Never Returned in Years After FPCA Request

% of U

OCA

VA Ballots

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


20082010

’08 vs ’10 Ballots Cast by UOCAVA Voters at the Polls in Years After FPCA Request

% of U

OCA

VA Ballots


Returned Late

Location

Age

After 1 year of FPCA

Party Affiliation

Standard

Military

UNRETURNED BALLOTVOTER PARTY AFFILIATION ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat

Republican

Libertarian

Other

26%36%

37%

2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

DemocratRepublicanLibertarianOther

30%36%

34%

The shift occurred with 4%

more Dem voters not returning & more Rep did return.

Gen 2008 vs. Gen 2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat Republican Libertarian Other0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

26%

‘08

‘08

‘08 ‘08

‘10

‘10‘10

‘10

# of Ballots


Returned Late

Location

Age


Unaffiliated

Standard

Military

UNRETURNED BALLOTAGE OF VOTER ANALYSIS

Ballot Sent, Not Returned2010 General Election

2010 Ballot Sent, Not ReturnedTotal by Decade of Birth

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

2010 Ballot Sent, Not ReturnedBy Decade & Voter Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

MILOSMOSCOSE


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s

Location


Unaffiliated

Standard

Military

RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE ANALYSIS

2010 General Election

Undeliverable Ballots

2010 Returned UndeliverableVoting History

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Domestic Military

2008 VOTED2008 SENT2008 NA2006 VOTED2006 SENT2006 NA

% of B

allots Cast in Each Election

Domestic Military ballot which were

returned undeliverable had equal numbers of voters cast an

effective ballot in 2008 and most were not UOCAVA voters in

2006 election.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overseas Military


% of B


Overseas Military ballots returned saw 92% cast an effective ballot in 2008 (8% were not UOCAVA voters)

while 100% of them were not UOCAVA voters in 2006.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overseas Citizen


% of B


All of the ballots returned as undeliverable for Overseas Citizens were for voters who returned ballots in 2008 but none had requested for the 2006 General election.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overseas Employee


% of B


All of the ballots returned as undeliverable for Overseas Employees were for voters who returned ballots in both

the 2008 and the 2006 General elections


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s

Domestic Mailing Address


Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTIONOF NON‐MILITARY UOCAVA VOTERS

Spring 2011

ALL NON‐MILITARY UOCAVA VOTERS

0

50

100

150

200

250

CANAD

AMEXICO

INDIA

SINGAP

ORE

IRELAN

DCO

STA RICA

SAUDI ARA

BIA

TURK

EYKU

WAIT

ALBA

NIA

GHA

NA

PERU

BELIZE

VIETNAM

BURM

UDA

HAITI

MAC

EDONIA

TRINIDAD

TOBA

GO

CAMBO

DIA

FIJI ISLANDS

LITH

UAN

IANAM

IBIA

SLOVE

NIA

ZAMBA

LES

101+ VOTERS BY COUNTRY

CANADA UNITEDKINGDOM

GERMANY CHINA AUSTRALIA0

50

100

150

200

250

229

51‐100 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

MEXICO FRANCE JAPAN ISRAEL SPAIN


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


0

5

10

15

20

25

30


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

4 VOTERS• ECUADOR• GHANA• HUNGARY• LUXEMBOURG• MONOCCO• NICARAGUA• PERU• QUATAR• UKRAINE• VENEZUELA

• BANGLADESH• BELIZE• EL SALVADOR• MONGOLIA• SCOTLAND• SUDAN• VIETNAM• ZAMBIA

3 VOTERS 2 VOTERS 1 VOTER• AFGHANISTAN • BAHAMAS• BANGALORE• BURMUDA• BOSNIA

HERZEGOVINA• BRITISH WEST

INDIES• CROATIA• GUADEMALA• HAITI• KINGDOM OF

BAHRAIN• KYRGYZSTAN • LATVIA• LIBERIA• MACEDONIA• RWANDA• SENEGAL• SRI LANKA• TANZANIA• TRINIDAD TOBAGO• URUGUAY

• BOLIVIA• BOTSWANA• BULGARIA• CAMBODIA• CAYMAN ISLANDS• CYPRUS• ETHIOPIA• FEDERATED STATES OF

MICRONISIA• FIJI ISLANDS• FINLAND• GAMBIA• HONDURAS• IVORY COAST• LITHUANIA• MACAU• MALAWI• MAURITIUS • MOZAMBIQUE• NAMIBIA• NEPAL• PALESTINE• REPUBLIC OF GUINEA• SERBIA• SLOVENIA• SYRIA• TUNISIA• UGANDA• WEST INDIES• ZAMBALES

CITIZENS & EMPLOYEES

VOTER TYPES

OVERSEAS CITIZENSOVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

38%

61%

COUNTRIES WITH MORE THAN 100 VOTERS

VOTER TYPES

CANADA: 229 VOTERS


19%

81%

UNITED KINGDOM: 214 VOTERS


35%

65%

GERMANY: 144 VOTERS


27%

73%

CHINA: 136 VOTERS


58% 42%

China has more temporary UOCAVA voters than any other country.

AUSTRALIA: 118 VOTERS


26%

74%

MEXICO: 81 VOTERS


33%

67%

DOES THE UOCAVA VOTER AT RISK PROFILED ACCESS ONLINE SERVICES?

Presidential Election 2008

Data Source: MCED MILOS(MILitary and Over Seas)

• All UOCAVA emails go to a single email address—this includes directly from the voter, as well as inquiries made via the SOS or MCED website.

• The email information was then exported from Outlook into Excel for sorting, categorizing, and recording.

• Some emails were difficult to allocate as the voter failed to select or mention what their inquiry was for, they simply provided their information.

• This summary is presented as a general snapshot of online traffic from UOCAVA voters.

% of UOCAVA Online Voters

48%

4%

2%

13%

1%

2%

4% 8%

APO= 13%

FPO= 3%

DPO= 1%


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s



Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

Decade of Birth of UOCAVA Online voters(From the SOS data)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 null

# voters


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s



Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

Requesting to Register to Vote?

YesNo

36%

64%

Timeline for using SOS site in month leading up to the election for VR

26‐Sep

28‐Sep

30‐Sep

2‐Oct

4‐Oct

6‐Oct

8‐Oct

10‐Oct

12‐Oct

14‐Oct

16‐Oct

18‐Oct

20‐Oct

22‐Oct

24‐Oct

26‐Oct

28‐Oct

30‐Oct

1‐Nov

3‐Nov

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

29 voters used the service to register after standard deadline on October 6th


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s



Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

Requesting an Early Ballot?

YesNo

87%

13%

Timeline for using SOS site in month leading up to the election for EV

26‐Sep

28‐Sep

30‐Sep

2‐Oct

4‐Oct

6‐Oct

8‐Oct

10‐Oct

12‐Oct

14‐Oct

16‐Oct

18‐Oct

20‐Oct

22‐Oct

24‐Oct

26‐Oct

28‐Oct

30‐Oct

1‐Nov

3‐Nov

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 66 voters used the service to request a ballot after standard deadline

on October 24th


Returned Late

Born in 1980’s



Standard

Unaffiliated

Military

Conclusion• The existing VBM system has inherent risks which impact all UOCAVA voters, but in Maricopa County we have isolated particular voter characteristics which are more vulnerable.

• Providing online access to information and services aid in mitigating the impact of those risks.

• We are undergoing enhancements to our online system and data collection and have set our expectations high for 2012 voter participation.

More info on the TGDC

• All presentations given are available online at:

http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/july-2011-tgdc.cfm

• The full webcast of both days are also available there.

8-2011 TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA MCED...The EAC website has excellent information regarding the...

Documents

Transcript of 8-2011 TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA MCED...The EAC website has excellent information regarding the...