Tamper criminal penalty

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties (Class A misdemeanor) for unauthorized access to voting machines, including tampering, injury, misuse, and unauthorized possession of machine keys. This directly addresses the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Any election officer or other person, who shall tamper with, injure, or attempt to injure any electronic voting machine to be used or being used in an election, or who shall willfully misuse any such machine, or who shall prevent or attempt to prevent the correct operation of such machine, or any unauthorized person who shall make or have in his or her possession a key to a voting machine to be used or being used in an election, shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class A misdemeanor.”

The statute explicitly criminalizes tampering with election results through unauthorized device access (computer, machine, or other device) and imposes a class 3 felony penalty. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized access to election hardware.

“A person who knowingly substitutes, forges, counterfeits or tampers with ballot tabulations or totals or election results by electronic means or through the use of a computer, machine or other device is guilty of a class 3 felony.”

The statute explicitly criminalizes tampering with voting machines and fraudulently affecting their results. Subsection (b)(1) classifies conviction as a Class D felony, providing explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized access or manipulation of voting devices.

The section establishes explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized interference with ballot boxes and ballot papers, which are the physical devices used to store and record votes. The provision criminalizes unlawful opening or interference with these devices and prescribes imprisonment of up to 6 months, directly addressing the requirement for criminal penalties against device tampering.

Cal. Elec. Code § 18564(a) imposes felony imprisonment of 2-3-4 years for tampering with the correct operation of voting equipment before or during an election. § 18564.5 adds civil-action authority for the SoS, AG, and local elections officials. Strong tamper-penalty regime.

“Any person is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for two, three, or four years who, before or during an election: (1) Tampers with, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, the correct operation of”

The statute explicitly criminalizes unauthorized access to and tampering with voting equipment as a class 5 felony, establishing a clear criminal penalty for unauthorized device access. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties.

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized tampering with voting tabulators and related devices. Any person who is not an election official and tampers with, disarranges, defaces, injures, or impairs a voting tabulator or ballot is guilty of a class C felony, directly satisfying the criterion for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Any person, not being an election official, who, with intent to cause or permit any ballot, voting tabulator or other appliance used in connection with such tabulator to fail to correctly register any vote cast upon such ballot, tabulator or other appliance, during any election or before any election, tampers with a voting tabulator, disarranges, defaces, injures or impairs the same in any manner, or mutilates, injures or destroys any ballot or any other appliance used in connection with such tabulator, shall be guilty of a class C felony.”

The statute explicitly criminalizes tampering with and unauthorized access/manipulation of voting machines, imposing both fines and imprisonment. This directly satisfies the criterion for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Whoever before the opening of the election registers any vote on a voting machine or at any time tampers with, disarranges, defaces, impairs in any manner or destroys a voting machine or any part thereof, including the ballots on its face, shall be fined not less than $300 nor more than $500 and may be imprisoned not less than 1 nor more than 2 years.”

§ 106(1) codifies penalty (fine or imprisonment up to 4 months) for violations including impartiality breaches, ballot tampering, and voter-coercion provisions. § 106(2) codifies corporate criminal liability. § 106(3) codifies penalty for double-voting between mainland and Faroe/Greenland. § 4 codifies disqualification for crime. Comprehensive criminal-penalty framework codified.

§ 186 codifies criminal penalties: 'penalties for electoral crime, electoral bribery, fraudulent voting and falsification of the election result are laid down in Chapter 14, sections 1-4 of the Criminal Code.' § 185 codifies the criminal liability of election officials. Cross-referenced criminal-penalty framework codified.

“Rangaistus vaalirikoksesta, vaalilahjonnasta, vilpillisestä äänestämisestä ja vaalituloksen vääristämisestä säädetään rikoslain 14 luvun 1―4 §:ssä.”

§ 104.30 codifies a criminal penalty regime for unauthorized possession and tampering with voting systems (misdemeanor first degree). Ch. 104 broadly criminalizes election interference.

“Any unauthorized person who unlawfully has possession of any voting system, components, or key thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree”

The section establishes an explicit criminal penalty of ten years imprisonment for unauthorized tampering with ballot materials during the counting process. While the language addresses ballot tampering rather than 'devices' in the modern technological sense, it applies criminal penalties to unauthorized access and manipulation of election materials in custody.

“La violation du scrutin faite, soit par les membres du bureau, soit par les agents de l'autorité préposés à la garde des bulletins non encore dépouillés, sera punie de dix ans d'emprisonnement.”

§ 21-2-580 makes unlawful tampering with voting machines/BMDs/tabulating machines a felony. § 21-2-582 specifically covers DRE/BMD tampering. § 21-2-566 makes broader election-interference (including ballot box / voting-machine tampering) a felony punishable by 1-10 years imprisonment + $100,000 fine. § 21-2-582.1 (penalty for voting-equipment modification) provides additional sanctions.

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 118 codifies criminal penalty (≥1 year imprisonment + 2–5 years deprivation of office) for falsification of electoral lists, voter-ID tampering, or other electoral data alteration by public officials. Άρθρο 117 punishes voters; Άρθρο 119 criminalizes other electoral offenses. Strong tamper-penalty regime.

“τιμωρείται με φυλάκιση τουλάχιστον ενός χρόνου”

The section explicitly establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized access to electronic voting systems. Subsection (10) specifically criminalizes wilful access to any electronic voting system with intent to cause inaccurate recording, tallying, or reporting of votes, which directly satisfies the criterion for explicit criminal penalties regarding unauthorized device access.

“Every person who, directly or indirectly, personally or through another, wilfully designs, alters, accesses, or programs any electronic voting system to cause the system to inaccurately record, tally, or report votes cast on the electronic voting system”

10 ILCS 5/29-7 makes tampering with voting machines / counting devices a Class 4 felony (interfere with operation, alter results, place illegal votes). § 29-20 adds Class 3 felony for vote-by-mail ballot tampering.

“Any person who tampers with any machine or device used in connection with voting or the counting of votes”

The section explicitly establishes a criminal penalty (Level 6 felony) for tampering with or disarranging voting systems, which directly addresses unauthorized device access through tamper conduct. This satisfies the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties against tampering with voting hardware.

The section explicitly criminalizes intentional alteration or damage to voting equipment and related systems under election misconduct in the first degree (subsection 1.f), which is classified as a class D felony under subsection 2. This directly establishes a criminal penalty for unauthorized device access and tampering.

The statute explicitly establishes a criminal penalty (severity level 9 nonperson felony) for unauthorized access to optical scanning equipment. This directly satisfies the criterion of explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“accessing without authorization or facilitating the unauthorized access to optical scanning equipment”

KRS 119.115 codifies explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access: unauthorized possession of a key to a voting machine, equipment, or system is a Class A misdemeanor (subsection 1); willfully tampering with, disarranging, defacing, or destroying a voting machine, e-poll book, or voting system — or tampering with the sealed record of the vote — is a Class D felony (subsection 2); and an election official who unlawfully opens or disarranges voting equipment is guilty of a Class D felony (subsection 3).

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties (fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years) for tampering with voting equipment, which directly satisfies the criterion for criminal penalties on unauthorized device access.

The statute explicitly prohibits tampering with voting devices and establishes a criminal penalty for violation. Section 2 specifies that violation of subsection 1 constitutes a Class B crime, which is an explicit criminal penalty for unauthorized device access.

“a person may not intentionally or knowingly: A. Tamper with or injure a voting device, ballot or other record or equipment used in the election or interfere with the correct operation of such a device or equipment or the secrecy of voting”

The section explicitly establishes criminal penalties (felony, fine up to $10,000, imprisonment up to 3 years) for unauthorized access and tampering with voting equipment, including unauthorized possession of keys to voting equipment. This directly satisfies the requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 3 years or both.”

The section explicitly establishes criminal penalties—both fines and imprisonment—for unauthorized tampering with election apparatus including ballot boxes and related equipment. This directly satisfies the requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Whoever wilfully or maliciously injures, tampers with or destroys a ballot box or any of the blank forms or apparatus furnished to a city or town under this section or section twenty-six shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.”

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties for tampering with voting machines, including felony imprisonment of 3–10 years for willful tampering. It also penalizes unauthorized possession of voting machines or keys as a misdemeanor with jail time and fines, which addresses unauthorized device access.

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties (felony classification with imprisonment up to five years or fines of $2,500-$10,000) for unauthorized access to and tampering with voting machines and tabulating equipment. This directly addresses criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Willfully tampering with, disarranging, defacing, materially altering, impairing, or destroying any voting machine or automatic tabulating equipment owned or leased by or loaned to an election authority.”

§ 13-35-205 makes it a crime (tampering with public records or information, punishable under 45-7-208) to install or use a modem or other unauthorized external communication device in a voting system; § 13-35-206 criminalizes physical tampering with voting equipment.

“installs a modem or other unauthorized external communication device in a voting system”

The section explicitly establishes criminal penalties for tampering with or interfering with election equipment and computer programs. Category D felony charges apply for attempts to prevent proper operation, and category B felony charges apply when attempting to influence election outcomes, directly addressing unauthorized device access.

The statute explicitly criminalizes unauthorized device access, tampering, and possession of keys to electronic ballot counting devices, imposing class B felony penalties for natural persons. This directly addresses criminal penalties for unauthorized access to election equipment.

“Whoever shall take away, tamper with, injure, attempt to injure, destroy, or attempt to destroy any electronic ballot counting device for the counting of ballots to be used or being used in an election or whoever shall prevent or attempt to prevent the correct operation of such device or whoever shall tamper with software used in the counting of ballots or design such software so as to cause incorrect tabulation of the ballots or any unauthorized person who shall make or have in his or her possession a key to an electronic ballot counting device to be used or being used in an election shall be guilty of a class B felony if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person.”

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized access to voting machines, including opening, unlocking, inspecting, tampering, resetting, or adjusting county-owned voting machines without lawful authority. The penalty is designation as a fourth degree felony, which satisfies the criterion for explicit criminal penalties on unauthorized device access.

“Whoever commits unlawful opening of a voting machine is guilty of a fourth degree felony.”

§ 5-614 governs the statewide voter registration list (FTS-surfaced for this datapoint). Article 17 codifies criminal penalties: § 17-136 makes intentional false canvass a felony; § 17-106 makes misconduct of election officers a misdemeanor; § 17-152 codifies conspiracy. The FTS-top section is registration-related but the broader Article 17 codifies unauthorized-access penalties in the elections context.

§ 16.1-06-25 makes tampering with a voting system or device a class C felony — explicit codified criminal penalty. § 16.1-02-11 codifies central voter file rules.

“Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter relating to voting systems, who tampers with or injures any voting system or device to be used or being used in any election, or who prevents the correct operation of any such system or device to be used or being used in any election is guilty of a class C felony.”

§ 16-1(b) codifies that a complaint may be lodged when 'an act has occurred that fulfils the objective elements in Penal Code §§ 151, 152, 153 or 154' — referring to the Norwegian Penal Code's election-tampering provisions (electoral fraud, ballot-box tampering, etc.). § 16-11(1)(b) makes such acts a ground for declaring the election invalid. Cross-reference to criminal penalties codified.

The section explicitly establishes a criminal penalty for violations of the tampering and unauthorized possession prohibitions regarding voting machines and tabulating equipment. A felony of the fifth degree is a clear, explicit criminal penalty for unauthorized device access.

“Whoever violates this section is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.”

The statute explicitly establishes a felony-level criminal penalty for unauthorized access to or tampering with election-related hardware and systems. This directly satisfies the requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

This section explicitly establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized access to voting machines, including tampering, opening, injuring, or possessing keys without authorization. The penalties include fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment up to two years, directly addressing the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

The statute explicitly criminalizes unauthorized tampering with voting equipment, including physically tampering with, injuring, or disarranging equipment, and using equipment known to be improperly set or programmed, with violations classified as felonies. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Any person having the custody of voting equipment under this chapter, or any election or primary officer, who, with intent to cause or permit any voting equipment to fail to correctly register all votes cast, tampers with, injures, or disarranges the voting equipment in any way, or any part of the voting equipment, or who causes or consents to the voting equipment being used for voting at any election or primary with knowledge of the fact that the voting equipment is not in order or not properly set and programmed so that it will correctly register all votes cast, or who, for the purpose of defrauding or deceiving any voter or of causing it to be doubtful for what candidates or question any vote is cast, or of causing it to appear upon the voting equipment that votes cast for one candidate or question were cast for another candidate or question, removes, changes, or mutilates any computer ballot or any part of any computer ballot, or does anything to defeat the will or intention of a voter in casting a lawful vote, shall be guilty of a felony.”

MP Election Law Article 106 codifies criminal penalty (fine or up to 1 year imprisonment; 3 months–3 years for officials) for soliciting how someone voted, voting under another's name, multiple voting, destroying/altering/concealing ballots or election documents. Article 104 imposes up to 3 years for election officials who alter vote counts or publish false results. Strong tamper-penalty regime.

“Новчаном казном или казном затвора до једне године казниће се за кривично дело”

The statute explicitly criminalizes tampering with or attempting to tamper with voting machines and establishes a specific criminal penalty of imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than three years. This directly satisfies the criterion by providing explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Any person who wilfully tampers with or attempts to tamper with, disarrange, deface or impair, in any manner whatsoever, or destroy any such voting machine while it is in use at any election or who shall, after such machine is locked in order to preserve the registration or record of any election made by it, tamper with or attempt to tamper with such machine or who instigates, aids or abets any other person in any case herein mentioned, with intent to destroy or change the record of votes on a voting machine, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than three months nor more than three years.”

§ 12-26-23.1 makes tampering with automatic-counting / DRE / ballot-marking systems a Class 5 felony. § 12-26-23 makes ballot/ballot-box/poll-list tampering a Class 6 felony. § 12-19-33 makes ballot-handler tampering a Class 6 felony. Comprehensive criminal-penalty framework codified.

“No person may intentionally program or alter an automatic ballot counting device, direct recording electronic voting machine, or electronic ballot marking system to erroneously mark, record, or count voted ballots or to render an erroneous total. A violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.”

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties for unauthorized tampering, interference, and damage to voting devices and systems. The section concludes by specifying that violations constitute a Class D felony, providing an explicit criminal penalty for unauthorized device access and tampering.

“A person commits an offense who, before, during, or after an election: Intentionally tampers, interferes, or attempts to interfere with the correct operation of, or damages in order to prevent the use of, a voting machine, electronic poll book, voting device, voting system, vote tabulating device, or ballot tally software program source codes”

§ 276.013 (Election Fraud) criminalizes knowingly altering a ballot, causing a ballot not to reflect voter intent, counting votes known to be invalid, or altering a report — a second-degree felony (first-degree if committed by an elected official). § 276.012 escalates organized election-fraud activity. § 129.051(i) requires documenting unauthorized seal removal. Explicit criminal penalties for tampering codified.

“An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree”

Law 298 Article 164 imposes 5–8 years' imprisonment for anyone who alters or causes alteration of election results, or forges/tampers election records — increased to 5–10 years if committed by board members/officials. Strong tamper-penalty regime. Reinforced by Article 148 (fake voter-register), Article 113 of Law 2820 (party-record tampering 1–3 years), Article 112 of Law 2820 (election manipulation), Article 111 of Law 2820 (refusal-to-provide-information sanctions).

The statute explicitly criminalizes tampering with voting devices and equipment, and prescribes a third degree felony penalty for violation. This directly addresses unauthorized access and modification of election hardware.

“It is unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly damage, modify, steal, tamper with, or destroy a voting device, voting equipment, or an automated voting system.”

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties (Class 5 felony) for tampering with voting and registration equipment, electronic devices, and software used in the election process. This directly addresses unauthorized access to election hardware and related devices.

The statute explicitly criminalizes unauthorized access to voting machines and election systems as a class C felony, establishing a direct criminal penalty for the conduct described in the criterion.

“any unauthorized person who accesses or assists another person or entity with unauthorized access to a voting center, election office, ballot counting area, ballot storage area, or election system, voting machine, or device to be used or being used in a primary or special or general election, is guilty of a class C felony”

The statute explicitly establishes criminal penalties for tampering with election devices, including imprisonment for one to ten years and fines of at least $5,000. This directly satisfies the criterion by providing explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

“Any person not an election officer or other public official who shall tamper or attempt to tamper with any vote-recording device, electronic poll book, ballot label, ballot or ballot card, program deck, standard validation test deck or automatic tabulating equipment or in any way intentionally impair or attempt to impair their use and any person who shall be guilty of or shall attempt any dishonest practice upon any such devices or equipment, or with or by their use, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in a correctional facility for not less than one year nor more than ten years or fined not less than $5,000, or both.”

Wis. Stat. § 12.13 codifies the 'Election fraud' criminal regime — comprehensive enumeration of prohibited acts by electors, election officials, and others, with criminal penalties throughout Ch. 12. § 5.92 supplements with bond authority for electronic-voting-system contracts.

“12.13 12.13 Election fraud. 12.13(1) (1) Electors. Whoever intentionally does any of the following violates this chapter:”

§ 206.845 codifies prohibited connections and unauthorized-access prohibitions for ballot recording/tabulating systems (and bars creating/disclosing electronic images of the system). § 203B.03 (PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES, not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies criminal penalties for ballot fraud. § 204C.16 codifies ballot-mismarking offenses. Minnesota's broader election-crime penalties live in Minn. Stat. ch. 609 (Criminal Code). Tamper-prohibition + criminal-penalty framework codified.

The statute explicitly establishes third-degree felony penalties for tampering with ballots or documents used in an election. However, it does not specifically address 'unauthorized device access' to election hardware or custody equipment—the term 'tampers' is broad but primarily applies to physical ballot/document tampering rather than digital or hardware-specific access control violations.

“who shall knowingly certify falsely in any paper required under this act, or who, at any time, tampers with any ballot or document used in an election”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only definitional language for election-related terms. It does not address criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or tamper prevention. Criminal penalties would typically appear in a different section of the statutes dealing with election crimes or offenses.

The statute imposes criminal penalties for tampering with ballot boxes (urnas) and ballot materials, which addresses physical election hardware. However, the criterion asks about 'unauthorized device access,' which typically refers to electronic voting devices or digital systems. The statute addresses tampering with physical ballot containers and documents, not modern electronic voting devices or their digital access controls.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses eligibility requirements for candidacy in Austrian National Council elections, specifically disqualifications based on criminal convictions. It is entirely unrelated to custody, hardware, device access, or tampering with election equipment. The criterion concerns criminal penalties for unauthorized device access in an election context, which is not addressed in this eligibility statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 200 addresses criminal penalties for tampering with ballots and vote counts during voting and counting procedures, not for unauthorized access to devices or hardware. The criterion asks about criminal penalties for unauthorized device access, which is a distinct topic not covered by this ballot-tampering provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Brazilian Electoral Code outlines the jurisdiction and powers of electoral tribunals regarding registration of political parties and candidates, conflicts between electoral judges, and various electoral disputes. It contains no provisions regarding criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or tamper-related offenses. The section is entirely unrelated to the custody or security of election hardware.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses qualifications and disqualifications for members of municipal election commissions, focusing on education requirements, language proficiency, and criminal history related to fitness for office. It does not address criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or tampering with election hardware.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses criminal offences related to ballot printing, forgery, and ballot box manufacture, but does not establish criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or tampering with electronic voting or ballot-counting equipment. It focuses on physical ballot document crimes rather than cybersecurity or device security breaches.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the PRC Constitution addresses the immunity from arrest and prosecution enjoyed by National People's Congress delegates. It concerns parliamentary privilege and does not address criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or tamper protection, which is the subject of criterion 2.4.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 9 of the Croatian Law on Elections to the Parliament addresses eligibility requirements and disqualifications for parliamentary candidates based on criminal convictions and incompatible positions. It contains no provisions regarding unauthorized device access, tampering with electoral hardware, or criminal penalties for such conduct. The section is entirely focused on candidate eligibility rules, not cybersecurity or equipment tampering.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses civil remedies for election invalidity (grounds for challenging election results in court) and establishes the procedure and standing for such challenges. It contains no provisions regarding criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or equipment tampering. The section is entirely focused on judicial review of elections, not criminal law or equipment security.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the German Federal Electoral Law (BWahlG § 21) addresses the nomination of party candidates through member assemblies and representative assemblies. It contains procedural requirements for candidate selection, including secret ballots, notification requirements, and oversight mechanisms. The section does not address criminal penalties for unauthorized device access or any hardware tampering issues, which fall entirely outside its scope.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute provides criminal penalties for tampering with voting materials and election hardware (up to four years imprisonment for falsifying polling, tampering with vote counts, and related acts). However, the criterion specifically asks about 'unauthorized device access,' which is narrower than the general tampering provisions here. The section addresses physical tampering with ballots and counting processes but does not explicitly address unauthorized electronic device access to election systems.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 109 establishes criminal penalties for counterfeiting ballots and fraudulently altering ballots during voting or counting, but it does not address unauthorized access to devices or hardware. The criterion concerns 'custody_hardware' and 'device access,' which are not topics covered by this provision about ballot fraud and tampering.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 216 establishes criminal penalties for various electoral fraud offenses related to voter registration, voting, and documentation, but does not address unauthorized access to devices or hardware. The section focuses entirely on voter enrollment fraud, multiple voting, and fraudulent identity use—not device tampering or custody.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 16 addresses voter registration and voting rights in electoral divisions, establishing penalties for voting in unauthorized divisions. It does not address device access, hardware custody, or tamper protection—topics that fall outside its scope and are not mentioned in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 251 addresses campaign duration, campaign activity timing restrictions, and polling/survey rules during electoral processes. It contains no provisions regarding device custody, hardware tampering, unauthorized access to electoral equipment, or criminal penalties for such conduct. The section is entirely focused on campaign scheduling and opinion polling restrictions.

The section imposes a criminal penalty (misdemeanor) but only for using unapproved ballot containers, not for unauthorized access or tampering with devices. The penalty addresses procedural non-compliance rather than explicit criminal liability for actual tampering or unauthorized device access.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the settlement of appeals within the electoral administration and court procedures, not criminal penalties for unauthorized access to devices or equipment. It deals with remedies and enforcement of electoral rules, not device tamper protections.

This section establishes criminal penalties for destruction, falsification, and tampering with ballots and election materials, but it does not explicitly address unauthorized access to election devices or hardware. The statute focuses on tangible ballot materials and paper records rather than electronic voting systems or device tamper protection. While the general intent aligns with election integrity, the criterion specifically asks about criminal penalties for unauthorized device access, which this section does not explicitly cover.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 248 addresses the transmission of personal data about elected members of parliament to the Minister of Justice and the Marshall of the Sejm, and disclosure of criminal records. It has no connection to custody of hardware, tamper protections, or criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of Portuguese electoral law addresses candidate eligibility requirements (passive electoral capacity) and constitutional amendments regarding voting rights restrictions. It contains no provisions regarding device security, tamper protection, or criminal penalties for unauthorized hardware access. The section is entirely unrelated to the custody_hardware dimension.

Section 62 establishes criminal penalties for falsifying electoral documents, manipulating voter lists, and introducing defective software or data that alter election results. However, it does not explicitly address criminal penalties for unauthorized physical access to or tampering with voting devices or hardware—it focuses on falsification, software manipulation, and data alteration rather than device custody or unauthorized hardware access itself.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 96 addresses electoral disputes and administrative penalties for electoral law violations, not criminal penalties for unauthorized device or hardware access. The section discusses sanctions for campaign violations and electoral misconduct but does not establish criminal penalties for tamper with or unauthorized access to electoral equipment or devices.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses criminal penalties for violations of electoral survey regulations, not for unauthorized access to voting or counting devices. The criterion requires explicit criminal penalties for tamper/unauthorized device access in election systems, which is not the subject matter of this provision.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a mandate for the Election Administration Commission to study electronic voting systems and report on issues including fraud prevention and security measures. However, it contains no criminal penalties, authorized or unauthorized, for device access or tampering. It is a procedural directive for research and reporting, not substantive criminal law.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2154 codifies access limits on the statewide voter checklist (a data-security measure), but no explicit criminal penalty for unauthorized access to voting equipment was surfaced for this datapoint.

No matching sections in corpus.