150 Years of Military and Overseas Voting Now Under Threat

For over 150 years, Americans overseas have relied on absentee voting to participate in U.S. elections. From Union soldiers casting ballots on Civil War battlefields to today’s military members serving around the globe, the United States has a long history of protecting and expanding access for military and overseas voters. 

In recent years, however, this uncontroversial issue has moved into the political spotlight. We have tracked a growing number of coordinated attacks targeting these kinds of voters. While military and overseas voting, known as UOCAVA voting (after the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986), has remained safe and secure, we have identified four key trends re-shaping this time-tested system headed into 2026:

1. Litigation targeting UOCAVA voters 
2. New legislative restrictions at the state and federal levels
3. Federal administrative changes that affect ballot access
4. Positive innovations in some states to modernize voting systems

These trends underscore the need to debunk disinformation and modernize the systems that millions of eligible voters rely on to cast their ballots from abroad. 

A Brief History

For generations, Americans serving and living abroad have been able to vote in U.S. elections. This tradition dates back to the Civil War, when 19 Union states passed laws allowing soldiers to cast ballots from the battlefield. In the 1864 presidential election, approximately 150,000 out of 1 million Union soldiers cast absentee votes. This marked the first widespread use of absentee voting in U.S. history. 

Today, roughly 2.8 million of the estimated 4.4 million U.S. citizens living abroad are eligible to vote in U.S. elections. These voters, including active-duty military personnel, their families, and civilians, must navigate a unique set of barriers to vote from abroad, ranging from frequent relocations to limited access to mail systems, as well as the importance of protecting sensitive personal information. 

Historically, state and federal leaders have sought to address these barriers. For example, federal laws such as the Soldier Voting Act of 1942 and the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 required states to send ballots to military service members; however, they lacked a uniform system for implementation. In 1986, Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. This legislation established a set of uniform tools, including the Federal Post Card Application and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. In 2009, Congress strengthened these protections by requiring ballots to be sent at least 45 days before federal elections and mandating that ballots be available online. 

2024 Election Cycle: A Turning Point

The 2024 election cycle marked a significant shift from past precedent. Before the election, President Trump falsely accused Democrats of using “UOCAVA to get ballots.” He also erroneously claimed that the program does not conduct verification checks to prove voters’ eligibility and identity. In reality, voters undergo multiple checks and balances to verify their eligibility, including:

• Every voter must provide personal identification information, such as their date of birth, Social Security number, and driver’s license number. 
• Election officials verify every voter’s eligibility and confirm their identity through additional checks, such as signature verification. 
• Every voter must sign a declaration on each ballot application and ballot under penalty of perjury. 

Nonetheless, these false narratives helped inspire legal action in states such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Partisan-motivated actors in these states have pursued lawsuits seeking to exclude or invalidate UOCAVA ballots. At the same time, state legislatures diverged sharply, with some expanding access and others imposing new restrictions for these voters. Once in office, the Trump administration took administrative action that will make it harder for UOCAVA voters, such as discontinuing the use of the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s email-to-fax service. 

Trend #1: Litigation Targeting UOCAVA Voters

Starting in the last election cycle, several states pursued blatantly partisan litigation to block UOCAVA voters from voting and change election outcomes. Many of these efforts have failed in court, including:

• In North Carolina, a state Supreme Court candidate sought to invalidate ballots from more than 1,400 military and overseas voters. After a six-month legal battle from November 2024 to May of this year, Judge Jefferson Griffin ultimately conceded to Justice Allison Riggs, but not without adding new barriers. Going forward, the state will require a photo ID from UOCAVA voters when they submit their applications. 
• In Pennsylvania, a federal court dismissed a challenge to the state’s practice of waiving verification requirements for UOCAVA voters in 2024. The case — filed by Republican members of the state’s congressional delegation — sought to remove existing verification exemptions. 
• In Michigan, a state judge rejected a case from October of last year brought by the Michigan Republican Party challenging a rule that allows U.S. citizens (who have never lived in the state but are eligible to vote based on their parents’ residence) to register to vote. These “never-resided” voters also faced litigation challenging their right to vote in Arizona and North Carolina. 

Trend #2: New legislative restrictions at the state and federal levels

We are tracking a surge in legislation at the state level that will make it harder for UOCAVA voters to participate in our elections:

• Tennessee passed a new law (S.B. 1967)  in 2024 that moved up the absentee ballot deadline from seven days to 10 days before an election. This law will reduce the time voters have to apply for an absentee ballot.
• Ohio passed a new law (H.B. 458) in 2023 that repealed a law allowing election officials to correct a common ballot envelope mistake for overseas voters. 
• North Carolina is considering legislation (H.B. 958) that would require overseas voters to submit a copy of their photo ID with their ballot. The bill would also eliminate eligibility for individuals who were born abroad, whose parents are registered voters in North Carolina. 
• The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering a bill introduced in August of this year to amend UOCAVA to require civilian citizens overseas to show evidence of their residence in a state before they can receive a ballot. Additionally, the SAVE Act, which the House already passed, would require all voters, including overseas and military voters, to present documentation establishing citizenship in person when registering to vote. This burden would fall disproportionately on military and overseas voters who are less likely to have easy access to this documentation or their local election office.

Trend #3: Federal administrative changes that affect ballot access

The Trump administration’s efforts to radically overhaul our election systems are playing out in state legislatures and at the federal level. In August, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) ended its decades-old email-to-fax service, which had been critical for voters in areas without reliable mail or electronic return options. In March, the Trump administration issued a sweeping executive order that attempted to impose new burdens on overseas voters, including proof-of-citizenship and proof-of-residency mandates, as well as a new rule requiring all ballots to arrive by the close of polls on Election Day. 

A federal court blocked the proof-of-citizenship requirements in April, but other provisions are still under review. 

Trend #4: Positive innovations in some states to modernize voting systems

Despite these significant trends in restrictive legislation this year, some states have taken steps to modernize UOCAVA systems and improve the voting experience for election administrators and voters alike: 

• Electronic ballot return: States can offer electronic ballot return options. These allow UOCAVA voters to securely submit their ballots via email, fax, or online portals. Michigan recently launched a new electronic return system, and Rhode Island enacted legislation that creates strong cybersecurity standards for electronic ballot return.
• Ballot receipt grace periods: Given the unreliability of international mail, states can protect military and overseas voters by accepting ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive a few days later. Currently, 29 states count UOCAVA ballots received post-election Day, and 16 states offer grace periods for all voters. 
• Clarifying and standardizing policies to ensure “never-resided” citizens can vote: Establishing clear, uniform rules for U.S. citizens born and living abroad is crucial for ensuring all citizens have the freedom to vote. For example, states such as Colorado, Georgia, and South Dakota offer clear criteria for eligibility. In Colorado, citizens with a parent, legal guardian, spouse, or civil union partner whose last domicile was Colorado can vote in the state. In Georgia, citizens can vote if their parent or guardian was last domiciled in Georgia and if they have not registered or voted in another state. South Dakota allows citizens to vote if their spouse, parent, or guardian was last domiciled in the state, provided they have not registered or voted elsewhere.
  

A Safe and Secure System 

Military and overseas voting has been a fixture of American democracy since the 1860s. For generations, it has enabled millions of Americans to participate in our elections, regardless of where they live or serve. The current wave of litigation and legislative attacks threatens to undo that strong legacy.