TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA Voting Trends Maricopa County Community - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
tgdc presentation on uocava voting trends
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA Voting Trends Maricopa County Community - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 27, 2022 116 likes •1.1k views

TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA Voting Trends Maricopa County Community Network August 31 st , 2011 When the Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002 it established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as well as three other boards to

slide-1
SLIDE 1

TGDC Presentation on UOCAVA Voting Trends

Maricopa County Community Network August 31st, 2011

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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
slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5

The E AC 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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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.

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 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 VOTE RS = Special challenges

slide-8
SLIDE 8

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.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Federal Voting Assistance Program

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Federal Voting Assistance Program

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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Why did MCE D 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.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

UOCAVA Voting Trend Analysis & Risk Assessment Maricopa County, Arizona

Tammy Patrick Federal Compliance Officer Maricopa County Recorder/Election Department

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

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”)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

With that said.

  • UOCAVA voting behaviors in Maricopa County

2004‐2010

  • Review of ballots returned, & their

dispositions

  • Review of who did not return ballots
slide-18
SLIDE 18

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Voter Type Ballot Type

Disposition Failure

Location Age Party Affiliation FPCA

slide-19
SLIDE 19

UOCAVA BY TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOTS

2004‐2010

slide-20
SLIDE 20

2004‐2010 UOCAVA Comparison

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Sent 2004 Return 2004 Sent 2006 Return 2006 Sent 2008 Returned 2008 Sent 2010 Returned 2010

65%

2004

22% 66% 28%

2006 2008 2010

Ballots

slide-21
SLIDE 21

2004‐2010 UOCAVA Comparison

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizens Overseas Employee Electronic Sent 2004 Return 2004 Sent 2006 Return 2006 Sent 2008 Returned 2008 Sent 2010 Returned 2010

2006 OSC & OSE were grouped together

slide-22
SLIDE 22

2004‐2010 Presidential Cycle UOCAVA Comparison

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

slide-23
SLIDE 23

2004‐2010 Mid‐term Cycle UOCAVA Comparison

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizens Overseas Employee Electronic Sent 2006 Return 2006 Sent 2010 Returned 2010

2006 OSC & OSE were grouped together

slide-24
SLIDE 24

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%

slide-25
SLIDE 25

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Military

Ballot Type

Disposition Failure

Location Age FPCA Party Affiliation

slide-26
SLIDE 26

UOCAVA BY PERCENTAGE OF BALLOTS

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizens Overseas Employee Electronic Returned 2004 Returned 2006 Returned 2008 Returned 2010

slide-28
SLIDE 28

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%

slide-29
SLIDE 29

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%.)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

2010 UOCAVA Requests & Returns

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Overseas Cit Overseas Emp Overseas Mil Domestic Mil Electronic Fax Requests Returns 68% 12% 26% 18% 23% 80%

slide-31
SLIDE 31

RETURNED BALLOT& VOTER TYPE ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

slide-32
SLIDE 32

2008 UOCAVA Returned Ballot Types

Military Standard Military FWAB Civilian Standard Civilian FWAB

53% 45%

slide-33
SLIDE 33

2010 UOCAVA Returned Ballot Types

Military Standard Military FWAB Civilian Standard Civilian FWAB Electronic

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

  • nes tabulated.

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

slide-34
SLIDE 34

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Disposition Failure

Location Age FPCA Party Affiliation Standard

Military

slide-35
SLIDE 35

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

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total EV UOCAVA Counted Late No Sig Bad Sig

0.2% ( 1485)

98%

1.5% (80) 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1%

99.3%

%

slide-36
SLIDE 36

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

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total EV UOCAVA Counted Late No Sig Bad Sig

0.1% ( 2680)

97%

2% ( 29 ) 0.4% 1% (11) 0.5% 0%

99%

%

slide-37
SLIDE 37

2010 UOCAVA Ballots Returned Late

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee Electronic

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

  • n time.

34% 17% 38% 10%

slide-38
SLIDE 38

2010 UOCAVA Ballots Without Signature

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee Electronic

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%

slide-39
SLIDE 39

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Location Age FPCA Party Affiliation Standard

Military

slide-40
SLIDE 40

UNRETURNED BALLOT VOTER TYPE ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

slide-41
SLIDE 41

2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee

33% 27% 22% 18%

slide-42
SLIDE 42

2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Voter Type

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee Electronic

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%

slide-43
SLIDE 43

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

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee Electronic 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

  • Dom. Mil was
  • nly slightly

higher than ‘08 # of Ballots

slide-44
SLIDE 44

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

Domestic Military Overseas Military Overseas Citizen Overseas Employee Electronic 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

%

slide-45
SLIDE 45

FPCA ANALYSIS

2010 General Election

slide-46
SLIDE 46

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.

slide-47
SLIDE 47

10 20 30 40 50 60 First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year 2008 2010

% of UOCAVA Ballots

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

slide-48
SLIDE 48

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year 2008 2010

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

% of UOCAVA 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??

slide-49
SLIDE 49

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year 2008 2010

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

% of UOCAVA Ballots

slide-50
SLIDE 50

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year 2008 2010

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

% of UOCAVA Ballots

slide-51
SLIDE 51

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Location Age After 1 year of FPCA Party Affiliation Standard

Military

slide-52
SLIDE 52

UNRETURNED BALLOT VOTER PARTY AFFILIATION ANALYSIS

General 2008 & 2010

slide-53
SLIDE 53

2008 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat Republican Libertarian Other

26% 36% 37%

slide-54
SLIDE 54

2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat Republican Libertarian Other

30% 36% 34%

The shift

  • ccurred

with 4% more Dem voters not returning & more Rep did return.

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Gen 2008 vs. Gen 2010 UOCAVA Not Returned by Party

Democrat Republican Libertarian Other 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

26%

‘08 ‘08 ‘08 ‘08 ‘10 ‘10 ‘10 ‘10 # of Ballots

slide-56
SLIDE 56

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Location Age After 1 year of FPCA

Unaffiliated

Standard

Military

slide-57
SLIDE 57

UNRETURNED BALLOT AGE OF VOTER ANALYSIS

Ballot Sent, Not Returned 2010 General Election

slide-58
SLIDE 58

2010 Ballot Sent, Not Returned Total by Decade of Birth

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

slide-59
SLIDE 59

2010 Ballot Sent, Not Returned By Decade & Voter Type

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s MIL OSM OSC OSE

slide-60
SLIDE 60

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Location After 1 year of FPCA

Unaffiliated

Standard

Military

slide-61
SLIDE 61

RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE ANALYSIS

2010 General Election

Undeliverable Ballots

slide-62
SLIDE 62

2010 Returned Undeliverable Voting History

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Domestic Military 2008 VOTED 2008 SENT 2008 NA 2006 VOTED 2006 SENT 2006 NA % of Ballots 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.

slide-63
SLIDE 63

2010 Returned Undeliverable Voting History

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Overseas Military 2008 VOTED 2008 SENT 2008 NA 2006 VOTED 2006 SENT 2006 NA % of Ballots Cast in Each Election 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.

slide-64
SLIDE 64

2010 Returned Undeliverable Voting History

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Overseas Citizen 2008 VOTED 2008 SENT 2008 NA 2006 VOTED 2006 SENT 2006 NA % of Ballots Cast in Each Election 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.

slide-65
SLIDE 65

2010 Returned Undeliverable Voting History

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Overseas Employee 2008 VOTED 2008 SENT 2008 NA 2006 VOTED 2006 SENT 2006 NA % of Ballots Cast in Each Election 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

slide-66
SLIDE 66

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Domestic Mailing Address After 1 year of FPCA Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

slide-67
SLIDE 67

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF NON‐MILITARY UOCAVA VOTERS

Spring 2011

slide-68
SLIDE 68

ALL NON‐MILITARY UOCAVA VOTERS

50 100 150 200 250 CANADA MEXICO INDIA SINGAPORE IRELAND COSTA RICA SAUDI ARABIA TURKEY KUWAIT ALBANIA GHANA PERU BELIZE VIETNAM BURMUDA HAITI MACEDONIA TRINIDAD TOBAGO CAMBODIA FIJI ISLANDS LITHUANIA NAMIBIA SLOVENIA ZAMBALES

slide-69
SLIDE 69

101+ VOTERS BY COUNTRY

CANADA UNITED KINGDOM GERMANY CHINA AUSTRALIA 50 100 150 200 250

229

slide-70
SLIDE 70

51‐100 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MEXICO FRANCE JAPAN ISRAEL SPAIN

slide-71
SLIDE 71

25‐50 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

10 20 30 40 50 60

slide-72
SLIDE 72

11‐24 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

5 10 15 20 25 30

slide-73
SLIDE 73

5‐10 VOTERS BY COUNTRY

2 4 6 8 10 12

slide-74
SLIDE 74

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
slide-75
SLIDE 75

CITIZENS & EMPLOYEES

slide-76
SLIDE 76

VOTER TYPES

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

38% 61%

slide-77
SLIDE 77

COUNTRIES WITH MORE THAN 100 VOTERS

VOTER TYPES

slide-78
SLIDE 78

CANADA: 229 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

19% 81%

slide-79
SLIDE 79

UNITED KINGDOM: 214 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

35% 65%

slide-80
SLIDE 80

GERMANY: 144 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

27% 73%

slide-81
SLIDE 81

CHINA: 136 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

58% 42%

China has more temporary UOCAVA voters than any

  • ther country.
slide-82
SLIDE 82

AUSTRALIA: 118 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

26% 74%

slide-83
SLIDE 83

MEXICO: 81 VOTERS

OVERSEAS CITIZENS OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES

33% 67%

slide-84
SLIDE 84

DOES THE UOCAVA VOTER AT RISK PROFILED ACCESS ONLINE SERVICES?

Presidential Election 2008

slide-85
SLIDE 85

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
  • f online traffic from UOCAVA voters.
slide-86
SLIDE 86

% of UOCAVA Online Voters

48% 4% 2% 13% 1% 2% 4% 8% APO= 13% FPO= 3% DPO= 1%

slide-87
SLIDE 87

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Domestic Mailing Address After 1 year of FPCA Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

slide-88
SLIDE 88

Decade of Birth of UOCAVA Online voters

(From the SOS data)

50 100 150 200 250 300 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 null # voters

slide-89
SLIDE 89

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Domestic Mailing Address After 1 year of FPCA Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

slide-90
SLIDE 90

Requesting to Register to Vote?

Yes No

36% 64%

slide-91
SLIDE 91

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 5 10 15 20 25 30 29 voters used the service to register after standard deadline on October 6th

slide-92
SLIDE 92

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Domestic Mailing Address After 1 year of FPCA Standard

Military

Unaffiliated

slide-93
SLIDE 93

Requesting an Early Ballot?

Yes No

87% 13%

slide-94
SLIDE 94

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 10 20 30 40 50 60 66 voters used the service to request a ballot after standard deadline

  • n

October 24th

slide-95
SLIDE 95

UOCAVA Voter At Risk

Returned Late

Born in 1980’s Domestic Mailing Address After 1 year of FPCA Standard

Unaffiliated

Military

slide-96
SLIDE 96

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.

slide-97
SLIDE 97

More info on the TGDC

  • All presentations given are available
  • nline at:

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

  • The full webcast of both days are also

available there.