Disenfranchising Our Wounded Warriors

We now help our active duty troops register to vote, why don't we help our wounded warriors? Yesterday I received an email from Attorney Scott Rafferty about a client of his who wants to help veterans institutionalized on VA campuses have the opportunity to register to vote.

Wounded veterans shouldn't have to rely upon outside help to register to vote. The VA would be the best choice to help its own clients register to vote. Not only does the Veterans Administration fail to assist our wounded and also homeless veterans in registering to vote, but "During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters."

As a federal agency, the Veterans Administration falls under the "Motor Voter Act" and should offer voter registration assistance to its clients. The executive order implementing motor voter requires federal agencies to accept designation by state's top election official to perform motor voter registration duties. But loopholes exist that can allow the VA to refuse to help register voters.

Why doesn't the VA help veterans register to vote? It is purely a policy decision - there is no law to prohibit assisting our veterans in voting. Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could immediately order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

The United States government policy has been to disenfranchise our active duty military and veterans. Only this past December 2009 did the Department of Defense agree to act as a voter registration agency and assist our military personnel in registering to vote, updating their registration and casting a ballot.
[ NY Times: "All Military Installations to Aid in Voter Registration" Dec 18, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/politics/18vote.html?_r=1 ]

Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

Please see below Attorney Rafferty's email which brought the issue to my attention:

From: Scott Rafferty
Date: 12 April 2010
Subject: Helping Wounded Warriors Register to Vote


We had an opportunity to work together during the Kerry for President campaign. On behalf of my client, Santa Clara County Democratic Chair, Steve Preminger, I am asking for advice on how we can resolve a piece of unfinished business - getting homeless and institutionalized veterans the opportunity to register. The matter raises important issues for veterans rights, voter registration, and administrative law. But italso raises a policy issue - why do the Civil Division and the United States Attorney continue to defend a former administration policy that Senator Obama called "shameful" and introduced (with Senators Kerry and Feinstein) legislation to overturn? My client would be grateful for any assistance in obtaining policy review by the new Administration. And I would be grateful for legal guidance that any of you may be able to volunteer.

In 2007, after three years of litigation over a 2004 incident in Menlo Park, Steve filed a rulemaking petition seeking some solution that would comprehensively register veterans who live on VA campuses. In the middle of the 2008 campaign, the VA circumvented an adverse Federal Circuit decision (and notice-and-comment procedures) by issuing a "directive" that allowed 1400 facility heads to restrict voter registration according to their own local policies, none of which has been published. According to the VA, this directive resulted in the registration of 350 veterans nationwide in 2008, since only 176 volunteers had been "authorized" nationwide. Former VA Secretary Peake waited until 5 days before the election before denying it, stating that the unpublished directive was adequate.

During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters. Additionally, the VA provides no affirmative voter registration services, and most of these wounded warriors do not get motor-voter aid from DMVs or state health and welfare agencies. The Kerry Obama bill to extend motor-voter passed the House by voice vote, but did not come to a vote in the Senate.

This basis for these restrictions was originally a Nixon-era rule that provides six months in jail for conducting an "authorized demonstration." The VA interprets this to include any private political conversation, even voter registration. After four years of litigation, Judge Fogel dismissed the "as applied" case because the Federal Circuit held the rule was "facially" constitutional. The Federal Circuit decision later recognized a Circuit conflict on unfettered discretion in non-public forums and granted rehearing.

On rehearing, the Federal Circuit held, as a matter of regulatory interpretation, that this particular rule cannot be used as a prior restraint to censor any subject matter or to discriminate based on party affiliation. In the Ninth Circuit, Preminger prevailed on standing. However, without briefing or reference to the intervening Federal Circuit decision, the Court "affirmed on the merits" the district court judgment, which had not addressed the injunctive claim. On rehearing, the Ninth Circuit amended this decision to acknowledge that it was limited to the single incident, which had given rise to a damage claim. Judge Fogel acknowledges that the issue of injunctive relief is unadjudicated and has indicated that he would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion.

The Federal Circuit heard argument last Thursday for more than an hour. The Civil Division took the position that the Federal Circuit could neither review the directive, nor require a rulemaking, but could only send Preminger's petition back for more reasons to be stated for its denial. "There is no end to this," Chief Judge Michel observed. The Rule 60(b) motion was filed Friday before Judge Fogel, with
hearing sought before the May 2010 registration deadline.

Again, my client and I would be grateful for your help reversing this "shameful" policy and guaranteeing our wounded warriors an opportunity to register.

Scott Rafferty
4730 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
mobile 202-380-5525

Respectfully yours;

Joyce McCloy, Editor
Voting News Blog
http://votingnews.blogspot.com/
336-794-1240



Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Press Release: Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

PRESS ADVISORY

#

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

North Carolina, Wednesday April 14, 2010/NCVVNewswire/ The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is pleased to present the first ever Spring 2010 Election Pinocchio Award to Maryland State Election Director Linda Lamone, for her "creative" elections budget forecast.

"Maryland's top elections chief deserves to be recognized for her ability to spin her state's expensive, buggy, paperless voting machines as accurate, reliable, and affordable in spite of the facts." said Joyce McCloy, Director of the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting. McCloy went on to say that: "These misleading claims have been used in other states, but nowhere as successfully as in Maryland. Ms. Lamone has truly outdone herself and all other defenders of paperless voting systems." says McCloy.

Linda Lamone is famous in her own right for her tireless advocacy of expensive unverifiable elections run on paperless machines. Lamone has overcome opposition of voters, nationally recognized computer experts, voting rights advocates, two Governors and even the Maryland State legislature. Lamone's battle is a matter of life or death, with Lamone on record saying the state would have paper ballots "over my dead body."

Now Lamone's achilles heel may be the bad economy. Lamone delayed the implementation of paper ballot systems by arguing that it would be far less expensive to keep the current paperless system. This tact has worked before, but in this bad economy Lamone has to account for her numbers.

The Maryland group SAVE our Votes found discrepancies in Lamone's cost claims:

The SBE provided cost projections ... to Board of Public Works members last October showing that the cost of switching to a new optical scan voting system would be roughly $19 million for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 while the cost of using the existing equipment would be about $6 million. However, after procurement of the new system was postponed, the SBE requested nearly $11 million to operate the existing equipment in this year’s elections.

The Maryland General Assembly has ordered an independent study of voting system costs:

"The study will examine the current and projected operating and maintenance costs and the projected lifespan for the state’s existing touch-screen voting equipment as well as the costs of procuring and implementing an optical scan system in the most cost-effective manner. It will also review the voting system costs and contracts of other jurisdictions that currently use paper ballot/optical scan voting systems. The report is due December 1, 2010...." ~ SaveOurVotes.org press release.

More background:

Read
Why Maryland STILL Does Not Have Paper Ballots
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Maryland-STILL-Does-No-by-Joyce-McCloy-100320-69.html

# # #

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website http://www.ncvoter.net/

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at

http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

NC SBoE says Alamance Co. in violation of Voter Registration Act

Alamance County is in the doghouse with the NC State Board of Elections. According to the State Board of Elections, the Alamance Dept of Social Services has "substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.” Burke and Johnston Counties have also been a problem until recently. Is Alamance County, North Carolina's Department of Social Services helping clients register to vote (as required by law) or not? The problem is that we don't know, since the Department of Social Services (DSS) has not been sending in the required paperwork to the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The DSS has made excuses but that dog won't hunt since 97 other counties complied without whining. If the DSS truly is assisting clients in registering to vote, then why not send the paperwork in?

DSS, state elections board still at odds
April 03, 2010 3:20 PM
Robert Boyer / Times-News

The squabble over voter registration record-keeping continues between the Alamance County Department of Social Services and the state Board of Elections.

This week, the county DSS sent 560 voter preference forms to the county Board of Elections. Among other things, the forms list whether clients register to vote or decline to register.

Osborne said until this week, the DSS has been storing the preference forms, but hasn’t been sending them to the county Board of Elections.

A 1993 federal law requires agencies that provide public assistance to ask clients if they have registered and help them register if clients wish.

Don Wright, the state elections board’s top attorney, said such practices violate state and federal election law.

According to a Feb. 25 letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the DSS offices in Alamance, Burke and Johnston counties “have consistently and substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.”

The letter went on to ask the agencies to comply. “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring compliance with the NVRA and will, where appropriate, bring enforcement actions in federal district court to ensure such compliance ...” wrote T. Christian Herren Jr., the acting chief of the division's Voting Section.

Osborne countered Wednesday that her agency has “always” complied with Section 7 requirements. “We have lots of work to do, work that we are mandated to do. We’ve been meeting the mandate of the law. We just haven’t been doing some of the extra steps” the state Board of Elections is requiring. The state requirements are policy and are not law. Wright said they are part of state law.

But Gary O. Bartlett, the state board’s executive director, continues to side with his attorney.

In a March 17 letter to Herren, Bartlett wrote that his “office continues to have difficulty in working with” the Alamance County DSS. “We will be happy to provide you with any data you request about voter registration statistics coming from Alamance County and specifically generated at the Alamance County Department of Social Services.”

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

NC House Election Law Committee Contact Information

Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform
House Standing Committee

Chairman, Vice Chairman:

Melanie.Goodwin@ncleg.net , Bill.Current@ncleg.net , Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net , Mickey.Michaux@ncleg.net , Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net

Members:

Angela.Bryant@ncleg.net , Pearl.Burris-Floyd@ncleg.net , Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.net , Susan.Fisher@ncleg.net , Rosa.Gill@ncleg.net , Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net , Carolyn.Justice@ncleg.net , David.Lewis@ncleg.net , Grier.Martin@ncleg.net , Efton.Sager@ncleg.net , Paul.Stam@ncleg.net , Edgar.Starnes@ncleg.net, Alice.Underhill@ncleg.net

Members

Chairman Rep. Goodwin ............. Melanie.Goodwin@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Rep. Current........ Bill.Current@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Rep. Luebke........ Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Rep. Michaux....... Mickey.Michaux@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Rep. Ross............ Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net

Members
Rep. Bryant ................ Angela.Bryant@ncleg.net
Rep. Burris-Floyd....... Pearl.Burris-Floyd@ncleg.net
Rep. Cotham.............. Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.net
Rep. Fisher................. Susan.Fisher@ncleg.net
Rep. Gill...................... Rosa.Gill@ncleg.net
Rep. Harrison............. Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net
Rep. Justice............... Carolyn.Justice@ncleg.net
Rep. Lewis................. David.Lewis@ncleg.net
Rep. Martin................. Grier.Martin@ncleg.net
Rep. Sager................. Efton.Sager@ncleg.net
Rep. Stam................... Paul.Stam@ncleg.net
Rep. Starnes............... Edgar.Starnes@ncleg.net
Rep. Underhill............. Alice.Underhill@ncleg.net


Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Internet voting utopianism

Internet voting sounds like a great idea but should we use it for our elections? Internet voting is the latest fad to hit elections, and poses an exponentially greater threat to our democracy than paperless e-voting ever was. I-voting is spreading in Canada, and in the US, it is our overseas military who are the initial target. Internet voting, online voting, email balloting, some even mask it as "electronic transmission of votes" to make it sound better. It isn't! Please share this article with your friends, colleagues, public officials and lawmakers.


"urban renewal, greenwashing, technoyouth, and Internet voting utopianism"
Sunday, March 07, 2010 Richard Akerman

This is in reaction to the Elections Canada Internet voting event, some of the followup to it, and the ongoing trend for Canadian municipalities to adopt Internet voting (as well as the announcement that the province of Alberta will investigate it as well).

Our society loves the new. This is sometimes good, and sometimes appallingly, disastrously bad.

We had decades of "urban renewal", starting in the 50s and gaining momentum in the 60s, that with traffic planning as an essential element, very nearly destroyed the downtown cores of many cities in Canada, and actually succeeded in destroying the cores of many US cities. New is not always better. We are now, with enormous effort and expense, slowly attempting to undo some of the worse excesses of urban renewal, rebuilding and reinhabiting city cores, restricting the previously unlimited role of the fast-moving car in urban planning.

The people at the time had legitimate concerns. They found their cities old and tired, the trolleys familiar and worn. They literally could not imagine that their dense urban neighbourhoods would, rather than being improved by sweeping expressways and demolishing "urban blight", instead be turned into a dead landscape of poverty and neglect. Good intentions can have terrible consequences. We almost always cannot predict the future.

But Internet voting is an area where we actually have a tremendous asset, a community of computer security experts. UPDATE: As well, we can look the the experiences of other countries and jurisdictions. And we can look at other types of online activities. We can make some good guesses about the future. The experts tell us that computer networks are very hard to secure. Other countries show us that the complexity of a good technology implementation can lead to high expenditures with private companies, unsatisfactory results, and law suits. The ongoing, continuous security compromises of existing systems, with credit card numbers and other high-value information repeatedly stolen, tells us we are far from a world of high security on the public Internet. ENDUPDATE

We also have a recent trend of greenwashing - corporations that want to make money, but cloak it in some new language of social responsibility or environmentalism. Less paper is not always good. What consumes more resources, a single piece of paper you use once, or a computer in a data centre that is on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, requiring round-the-clock high physical and network security? In any case, since when is the foundation of democracy about how "green" your election is? Elections hinge on trustworthy results. You want a green election? How about we just all hold up our hands and someone writes the result down on a chalkboard? No paper wasted! No electricity burned! Making some vague green claims about reduced paper consumption is a diversion from critical, core process and security issues associated with Internet voting.

This is not to mention the fact that a good chunk of the supposed "savings" from Internet voting comes from eliminating polling places, from eliminating polling place workers. Do you seriously want a voting system that is less human, that involves fewer people, that has fewer eyes to identify and report problems?

In the most egregious example of Internet voting mythmaking, the myth of the technoyouth. The argument, almost always made by someone who is not young, almost always made without any supporting evidence whatsoever, goes as follows: young people "naturally" use technology, enjoy technology, interact with technology. If you can just "technologize" something, young people will use it.

This is utter nonsense. Young people like doing young people things. They do them with whatever tools are at hand. They don't think about the technology, it's background noise. They think about the activity. Making an activity that people aren't interested in available on a platform that they use, will not make them interested. The examples for this are trivial. It's a signature of the myth of the new that we are able to actually believe that somehow "the old rules" don't apply once you put a blinking light on something. You want an easy example: I watch TV. I watch shows I like on TV. I am not interested in sports. There are acres of sports on TV. You know what, this does not make me interested in sports. No one cares about technology channel for technology's sake except actual technologists. If you put boring middle-aged leaders talking about boring policies for senior citizens in a little video windows on a 20-year-old's iPhone, this is not going to make them interested in politics. It's nonsensical.

The overwhelming majority of the evidence from the few large scale examples we had at the Elections Canada Internet Voting discussion is that putting voting on the Internet doesn't magically translate into everyone who uses the Internet suddenly voting. It's just makes it easier for the people who already vote.

If you want turnout, then have a TURNOUT STRATEGY. A button on a web page is not a turnout strategy. Real turnout strategies might include:

* online and offline engagement with voters on issues they actually care about
- This is not easy. Real citizens have inconvenient interests. If you want to see how inconvenient true engagement can be, watch supposed super-Internet-connector Obama immediately dismiss even the possibility of a rational discussion about drug (specifically marijuana) policy, every single time it inevitably rises to the top of an Internet engagement attempt.

* Make election day a holiday
* Hold elections on Saturdays
* Put polling places everywhere - in workplaces, in grocery stores, wherever people actually go in their actual modern lives, not some theoretical church and community centre life that hasn't existed for decades
* Making voting mandatory, as it is in Australia

Notice how little of this involves technology.

Lastly, I want to address Internet voting utopianism. I would have thought the dotcom boom would have killed this, but it didn't. Life is not an endless progress towards a better and better world. Just because something is new, doesn't mean it is either inevitable or beneficial. The French Revolution loved their clean, modern new technology: the guillotine. There are lots of things that make no sense to do over the Internet. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it, IF IT ISN'T THE BEST SOLUTION.

Internet voting solves no problems, and introduces huge new ones, including:
* massive security issues at every step of the very long chain
* massive chain of custody issues
* massive privacy issues
* massive coercion issues
* handing over the core infrastructure of democracy to private companies and/or invisible government technologists
* creating a voting system that no one without a degree in computer science can actually understand

It will not save money except in some narrow sense. You can work numbers so that it looks like you're saving - oh look how much we save if we don't provide some education or some healthcare, as long as we ignore the huge future costs of impoverished people who are in and out of prison and huge numbers of expensive emergency room visits.

Oh look how much we save if we don't provide paper ballots - as long as we ignore the ongoing costs of data centres, legal challenges, and fundamentally undermining trust in our democracy.

Here's a simple thought experiment: would you hand a stranger $10 and ask them to deliver it to City Hall? A $100 bill? A million dollar bill? How much is your vote worth, how much is a national election worth? This is not banking, where you know the bank, they know you, and every single step along the way is auditable and reversable. This is a one-time handover of a treasure, your vote, to layer after layer of systems programmed by strangers, that you cannot inspect the internal workings of, where even the administrators of the systems can never truly know what is going on internally (a computer can always pretend to be executing one program, while actually executing another), in a system where you CANNOT VERIFY THE RESULT (because any system that lets you check how you voted, must inevitably provide the capacity for someone malicious to determine how you voted).

Internet voting is a lose-lose situation. The easier you make it to vote online, the more convenient, the less complicated, the less encumbered by multiple steps and complexity, the easier you make it for a hacker to steal the election. Worse than that, it is quite likely it is actually impossible to secure the election to the multi-billion-dollar risk level that would be appropriate, you simply cannot provide that level of assurance using the public Internet. The best you can do is involve every possible computer security expert at every step of the process, and then have a very highly informed acceptance of an extremely high level of risk. I don't see anything even close to this happening, other than in the Estonian system, which requires a unique national ID certificate for every single citizen and even then doesn't address issues like coercion.

In brief, this is really hard, maybe impossible to do well, and just as with the half-assed Windows-based electronic voting machines visited upon the American people by Diebold (now part of ES&S, an elections vendor that provides technology to Canadian elections), I don't see anyone taking even close to the level of necessary care in the current Canadian Internet voting situations.

Which brings me to my concluding point: to do this well requires an extraordinary level of computer expertise, testing, auditing, risk assessment, and 24/7/365 datacentre security, and a huge set-aside for potential legal challenges in case of fraud accusations. This inconvenient truth exposes the lie of Internet voting as being an easy, cost-saving citizen convenience, and so in most cases what I see is Internet voting advocates who are either ignorant of these issues, ignoring these issues, or deliberately trying to spin them.



Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Internet or online voting- cases of lost votes, low turnout, denial of service

In reality, online voting, internet elections and email balloting, all are a high risk way to cast a vote. Internet voting is inherently insecure. In real life cases where internet elections have been held, votes have been lost, elections attacked with denial of services, and in one case the voter turnout was 85% lower than before. Add to that the fact that any time you transmit a ballot by email or online, you give up your secret ballot. In fact, states that offer email balloting to overseas military also ask the troops to sign a waiver over their right to a secret ballot. Eliminating the secret ballot opens up voters to coercion and increases the opportunity for ballot selling.

Readers, legislators, public officials, please read the "Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting" and also examine the list of computer technologists and their credentials at the link. If internet voting could be made secure, and if it could be done yet still have a secret ballot, then most people would support it as a suppliment to other voting methods.

There have already been internet or online voting experiments in the US, namely in Honolulu Hawaii. That election had the lowest reported voter turnout perhaps ever:

Honolulu Completes Internet/Telephone-Only Election
"Despite part of the reason for internet voting being that it would get more people involved a tiny 6.3% of the electorate participated raising numerous questions about why... and if the technology miscounted."

Other internet elections where something went terribly wrong:

On Second Thought, Finnish Gov't Rejects Defective E-Voting Results
April 14 2009. "Back in February, we found it disturbing that Finland was allowing the results of an election to stand, despite the fact that at least 2% of the votes had gone missing due to e-voting glitches. However, it looks like some sense of sanity has been restored as a higher court has now rejected the election results and ordered a new election."

And elections have also been attacked: a Canadian election in 2003 was subject to a denial of service attack. See article:

Hackers disrupt online election
CBC News reports that hackers apparently used a "distributed denial of service" attack to disrupt the (Canadian) National Democratic Party's election of its party leader.

The voting servers were down for several hours on election day, presumably disenfranchising many voters.

With internet voting, we cannot be certain as to who really had their vote counted, votes can be irretrievably lost, and we can not be certain as to whether the reported results are the true results.

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Military bases to help troops register and vote, thanks to Sen Coryn & Schumer, DEMOS, OVF and NC State Board of Elections

Finally, the Dept of Defense will act as a Voter Registration Agency. Thanks go to US Senators Schumer and Coryn . Thanks also to Gary Bartlett and the North Carolina State Board of Elections for writing a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 3 other states also sent similar letters to the DOD: Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri.

Schumer, Cornyn secure voter registration at military bases
Dec 18, 2009. The designation means that military bases will offer the same kind of voter registration services provided at motor vehicle departments and state agencies all around the country under the so-called “motor voter” law of 1993.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. See Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett also explained that costs would be minimal and the NCSBE would assist in training and materials.

An excerpt of the letter sent by Gary Bartlett, Director of the NC State Board of Elections:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

Designating the Department of Defense as a Voter Registration Agency will alleviate many of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops have to be registered to vote before they can vote. Problems of troops not getting the right ballot or the ballot being sent to the wrong place will be reduced as personnel will have help keeping their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned. Thanks to the MOVE act, troops will be able to download blank ballots and then return the ballots via free expedited mail service.


Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US