In late August the Pentagon submitted a pair of “emergency” requests that altered the two core documents of the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The changes arrived less than three weeks before the Sept. 19 deadline that states must meet to mail out absentee ballots for the upcoming midterm elections. By bypassing the usual months-long revision cycle, the department hoped to streamline the paperwork, but critics argue the timing threatens to bewilder thousands of Americans living abroad.
What the new forms remove
Both the Federal Post Card Application and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot have carried a checkbox since 2013 that lets an overseas voter indicate they have “never lived in the United States”. The latest version eliminates that box, leaving only two choices for non-military voters: a sworn declaration that they intend to return to the United States, or that they are uncertain about returning. This shift ignores the fact that some U.S. citizens were born abroad and have never set foot on American soil.
Bob Carey, a retired Navy captain who led FVAP until his departure in 2012 explained the original intent behind the checkbox. “I actually worked that regulation to change the form. But I didn’t want to do it right in the middle of the 2012 election, so I had it effective come 2013” he told NPR. At the time, state officials and overseas-voting advocates suggested the option would not substantially affect turnout, so the provision was added as a modest safeguard.
Legal fallout across the United States
Republican-backed lawsuits have surged since 2024 arguing that allowing “never-resided” citizens to vote breaches state constitutions. Courts in North Carolina have upheld the challenges, while judges in Michigan have rebuffed them twice. Similar cases are pending in Arizona and at least five other states. Plaintiffs claim these voters tend to register as non-Republicans, thus skewing election outcomes.
Despite the litigation, states can still process the older versions of the forms. When asked how long they would accept the legacy paperwork, the Pentagon replied, “States administer elections and can process any form or application that provides the information required to verify a voter’s eligibility to vote in their jurisdiction.” The agency also said it had directly emailed election officials and voters to announce the updates, though it posted no detailed guidance until a month after the change.
Reactions from voting-rights advocates
Advocates fear the revisions will produce the opposite of their stated goal. Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president of the U.S. Vote Foundation, warned, “I definitely believe that the new version of the form will create far more confusion than we ever encountered with any previous version.” She highlighted that the law governing overseas voting has not changed; only its presentation at the federal level has, leaving states with a narrow window to retrain staff and inform voters.
Sarah Stroyder, executive director of the Secure Families Initiative, echoed the concern about transparency: “What were the voices prompting this change? Where did this come from? Military families are stakeholders who should have been included… It’s just very insulting.” Meanwhile, Carey, now leading the National Defense Committee urged the defense undersecretary to flood voters with reminders, quipping, “Spam the crap out of everyone.”
When the Pentagon released a statement describing the revisions as a move to “eliminate voter confusion,” critics pointed out the timing—days after a White House agency approved the requests—suggested the change was more political than procedural. The Democracy Docket first reported the amendment, noting that the new language also touches on voter identification, a topic that has fueled heated debates in recent election cycles.
For the roughly 200,000 Americans who have never resided in the United States but maintain citizenship, the removal of the checkbox means they must now rely on alternative registration channels offered by the state where a qualifying relative lives. Until courts settle the broader constitutional questions, these voters remain in a limbo that could affect the composition of the electorate in the 2024 and future races.
