Mandatory audit

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall audit') and explicitly requires the State Board of Election Commissioners to conduct post-election audits for 'each preferential primary election and general election,' establishing that a post-election audit is legally required for every election.

Article 50 codifies the recount-of-voting-results mechanism: candidates, parties running in elections, candidates for community head, and proxies who were present at the summarisation may request recount. While not 'every election' automatically, the audit-by-request mechanism is statutorily codified — combined with Article 73 (district commission validity-check of all precinct protocols), creating de facto layered audit.

Article 83 codifies regional/Minsk-city aggregation of district-commission protocols. Article 79 codifies Central Commission verification of results. Article 89 codifies establishment of local results. Article 13 transparency framework. Protocol-aggregation audit through commission hierarchy codified.

Cal. Elec. Code § 19204.5(a) prohibits SOS certification of any voting system that cannot facilitate a ballot-level-comparison risk-limiting audit. Combined with § 19270 (VVPAT mandate), § 19233 (random software audits), and the 1% manual tally codified in Div 15 (canvass), CA mandates audit at multiple layers.

The statute mandates that a post-election audit (manual random audit) must be conducted following each specified type of election. The use of 'shall' creates a legal requirement for counties to perform the audit, satisfying the criterion that a post-election audit is legally required.

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall conduct') requiring registrars to perform audits after every federal, state, and municipal election or primary within specified timeframes. The audit covers at least five percent of voting districts and specific offices, making post-election audits legally mandatory statewide.

“Not earlier than the fifteenth day after any federal or state election or primary and not later than two business days before the canvass of votes by the Secretary of the State, Treasurer and Comptroller, and (2) not earlier than the fifth day after any municipal election or primary and not later than two business days before the canvass of votes by the town clerk, the registrars of voters shall conduct a manual audit, or an electronic audit authorized under section 9-320g , of the votes recorded in not less than five per cent of the voting districts in the state, district or municipality, whichever is applicable.”

This section mandates that the municipal Board of Elections shall conduct an audit following certification of every election to reconcile voter counts across different voting methods. The use of 'shall' establishes a mandatory requirement for post-election audits.

“The municipal Board of Elections, following certification of the election and the resolution of any contest, shall audit the election records in order to reconcile the number of voters who cast ballots as compared to the number of voters who returned absentee ballots and voted on voting machines.”

§ 73 codifies that 'for each polling district the election commission shall conduct a NEW count and assessment of the cast ballots under the rules of §§ 68, 69, and 74a' — every ballot is recounted by the district commission. § 72 codifies the fintælling (final recount) the day after voting. § 68 codifies the initial public count. Mandatory dual-count of every ballot codified.

“For hvert afstemningsområde foretager valgbestyrelsen en ny optælling og bedømmelse af de afgivne stemmesedler efter reglerne i §§ 68, 69 og 74 a.”

§ 48⁷ requires, before every electronic voting, a risk assessment, an audit of the applied security measures and technical penetration testing; § 48⁸ adds a mandatory process-and-data audit by an information-systems auditor. A post-election integrity audit is mandatory for the electronic channel at every election.

“Before electronic voting begins, the following is carried out with regard to the electronic voting system:”

§ 87 codifies the mandatory check-count (tarkastuslaskenta): 'on the day after the election at 09:00, examination shall begin of the ballots cast in election-day voting and of the tallies of the polling committees and central election committees.' Every ballot is re-examined. § 78 codifies the preliminary count. § 86 codifies advance-vote counting. Mandatory dual-count of every ballot codified.

“Vaalien jälkeisenä päivänä kello 9 on ryhdyttävä tarkastamaan vaalipäivän äänestyksessä annettuja äänestyslippuja sekä vaalilautakuntien ja 82 §:n 3 momentissa tarkoitettuja kunnan keskusvaalilautakuntien laskelmia.”

§ 101.591 codifies a mandatory post-election voting-system audit (manual or automated independent) immediately following certification. § 101.5911 adds detailed rulemaking authority.

“Immediately following the certification of each election, the county canvassing board or the local board responsible for certifying the election shall conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit of the voting systems used”

§ 21-2-498 codifies mandatory precertification tabulation audits 'for any federal or state general election' beginning November 2020. Audits performed by manual inspection of random samples of paper official ballots, completed before final certification.

“the local election superintendents shall conduct precertification tabulation audits for any federal or state general election in accordance with requirements set forth by rule or regulation of the State Election Board.”

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall identify and order') requiring the secretary of state to conduct a post-election audit after every primary or general election. The audit applies to 'any election' and specified categories of elections, establishing a legally binding requirement rather than a discretionary option.

“After the completion of all county canvasses for any primary or general election, the secretary of state shall identify and order a postelection audit of certain paper ballots cast in any election”

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall') requiring the state commissioner to conduct an audit after each general election. Section 5 extends this requirement to all other elections as well, establishing a comprehensive mandatory post-election audit system.

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall conduct') requiring a post-election audit for every election where canvassers certify results. The audit covers 1% of all precincts (minimum one precinct) and reviews specific contested races based on election type, making it a legally mandated post-election audit procedure.

“After an election and prior to the meeting of the county board of canvassers to certify the official election results for any election in which the canvassers certify the results, the county election officer shall conduct a manual audit or tally of each vote cast, regardless of the method of voting, in 1% of all precincts, with a minimum of one precinct located within the county.”

KRS 117.383(8) mandates a post-election audit: the State Board of Elections must provide for 'the conducting and review of an election audit' establishing a hand-to-eye audit in which the Secretary of State randomly selects, 'in all counties of the Commonwealth,' one ballot scanner and one race for a hand-to-eye audit performed by each county board of elections. A mandatory post-election audit in every county is codified.

The statute mandates that the secretary of state 'shall' conduct audits of ballot counting devices in every election, establishing a post-election audit requirement. The mandatory language ('shall') and the absence of any exception or discretionary language indicates this audit must occur for every election.

“The secretary of state shall randomly select not less than 8 ballot counting devices used by towns or city wards to be audited.”

§ 9-211 codifies a mandatory 3% manual audit of voter-verifiable audit records after every general, special, primary, and village election. § 16-113 adds court-ordered manual audit on petition where the § 9-211 standard triggers further audit or where evidence shows substantial possibility of result change. § 16-106 codifies contest procedure.

“the board of elections or a bipartisan committee appointed by such board shall audit the voter verifiable audit records from three percent of voting machines or systems within the jurisdiction of such board.”

§ 10-11 codifies a mandatory second count of every ballot from the first count. Combined with § 10-5(1) (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint), which codifies that 'all ballots shall be counted two times in the municipality' (Alle stemmesedler skal telles to ganger i kommunen), and § 10-8 (manual first count), Norway codifies a built-in audit of every ballot in every election.

The statute mandates that the board of elections 'shall audit' the official results of any election, establishing a legally required post-election audit for every election. The use of 'shall' creates a binding obligation, not a discretionary practice.

The statute mandates that at every primary, general, and special election, the county clerk must conduct either a hand count audit or a risk-limiting audit. There is no exception or discretionary waiver—the clerk must choose one of these two audit methods for each election.

12 kap. 1 § codifies the second-tier mandatory count: 'On the Wednesday after election day the municipal election commission shall meet to review and count the votes not counted at the polling stations. The meeting is public.' 11 kap. 1 § codifies the first (preliminary) public count. 13 kap. 1 § codifies the THIRD-tier final count by the county administrative board (länsstyrelsen). Sweden codifies triple-count of every ballot — strongest mandatory-recount regime in the corpus.

“På onsdagen efter valdagen ska valnämnden sammanträda för att granska och räkna de röster som inte räknats i vallokalerna. Sammanträdet är offentligt.”

The statute explicitly requires that county election commissions 'shall conduct automatic mandatory audits' following each November general election, using mandatory language that creates a binding legal obligation. This clearly mandates post-election audits for every general election.

“Following each November general election any county election commission utilizing a precinct-based optical scanner shall, in accordance with this section, conduct automatic mandatory audits of the voter-verified paper ballots cast for the president of the United States in a presidential election and the governor in a gubernatorial election”

§ 66.005 codifies a mandatory post-election integrity check for every election: not later than the 30th day after election day the general custodian 'shall prepare a reconciliation of the total number of votes cast and the total number of voters accepted to vote' at each polling place, and post the results online. This is reinforced by the separate mandatory § 127.201 1% hand-count audit and the § 127.302 risk-limiting audit. A post-election audit is legally required for every election.

“the general custodian of election records shall prepare a reconciliation of the total number of votes cast and the total number of voters accepted to vote”

§ 2493(a)(3)(A) codifies a mandatory post-election audit: 'the Secretary of State shall conduct a random postelection audit of any polling place election results for a general election within 30 days of the election.' A mandatory random post-election audit of general elections is codified.

“The Secretary of State shall conduct a random postelection audit of any polling place election results for a general election within 30 days of the election.”

The statute mandates that county auditors 'shall conduct' both a duplicated ballot audit and at least one of four additional audit methods prior to election certification. The use of 'shall' creates a legally binding requirement applicable to every election. This requirement is unconditional and does not contain carve-outs for specific election types.

“Prior to certification of the election as required by RCW 29A.60.190, the county auditor shall conduct an audit of duplicated ballots in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, and an audit using at minimum one of the following methods:”

Wis. Stat. § 5.90 codifies recount procedure: 'recounts of votes cast on an electronic voting system shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in s. 9.01.' § 9.01 codifies the complete recount procedure (petition rights, fees, threshold rules, manual vs. machine recount choice). § 7.08 establishes the elections commission's general audit authority. § 7.23 codifies retention of election materials for post-election review.

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall conduct') and applies the requirement to 'any election in which the tabulating equipment was used,' establishing a legal requirement for post-election audits. This satisfies the criterion that a post-election audit is legally required for every election where automated tabulating equipment is employed.

“The county clerk shall conduct a random audit of ballots by processing the preaudited group of test ballots as described in W.S. 22-11-104(b)(iii) on five percent (5%) of the automated tabulating equipment for that county, but on not less than one (1) machine, within thirty (30) days of any election in which the tabulating equipment was used.”

10 ILCS 5/24C-15 codifies a precinct-level audit triggered by an obvious discrepancy. Not a routine across-the-board audit; on-condition only.

“if there is an obvious discrepancy regarding the total number of votes cast in any precinct, shall have the ballots for that precinct audited”

§ 13-17-503 mandates a random-sample audit by the county audit committee after every federal election; § 13-17-510 makes the audit only optional after nonfederal elections, so it is not required for every election.

“the county audit committee shall conduct a random-sample audit”

Article 60 codifies 'Supervisory and Auditing Services' attached to election commissions: 'For the purposes of supervision over proper spending of funds allocated to commissions for preparation and conduct of elections, a referendum, and over sources, proper accounting, and use of electoral funds, referendum funds, for auditing of...' Combined with Article 68 (open vote counting) and Article 77 (cancellation of voting results upon discovered violations), audit framework exists but mostly oriented toward financial oversight, not result verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section permits the Secretary of State to conduct an audit at discretion (using 'may') for only a single, specific election (November 8, 2022). It does not establish a mandatory audit requirement for every election; rather, it grants optional authority limited to one past election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedural form and requirements for filing recount applications, not post-election audits. It deals with who can request a recount, what information must be included, and who may represent applicants and observe the process. It does not establish or mandate any post-election audit requirement for every election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 108 establishes the right of political parties to designate poll observers (fiscales) and to monitor the counting process, including verification of software used in vote processing. However, it does not establish or mandate a post-election audit as a systematic verification mechanism. Party observation and software verification are oversight functions, not the same as a legally required post-election audit of election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses court-ordered recounts in contested elections, not mandatory post-election audits of every election. It describes the procedure when a recount is certified by a superior court following an election contest, which is a remedial measure for specific disputes, not a systematic audit requirement applied universally to all elections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 60 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 addresses the composition and appointment of Redistribution Committees for electoral divisions. It does not contain any provisions regarding post-election audits or audit requirements. The section is concerned with the administrative structure for boundary redistribution, not election auditing.

Section § 10 requires the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit) to control and audit parties' election advertising reports and financial statements. However, the section does not establish a mandatory comprehensive post-election audit of the election itself or voting process—it regulates party finance and reporting audits, which is a narrower scope than the criterion's requirement for a post-election audit of every election's integrity and conduct.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 129 addresses the printing, distribution, and verification of ballot papers before and during the election process. It does not establish or require a post-election audit. The verification mentioned concerns ballot counts during the counting process, not a post-election audit of election results.

The section requires an audit of electronic voting machines on election day through parallel voting, but this is limited to a sample basis (por amostragem) and focuses on machine functionality verification rather than a comprehensive post-election audit of results. A mandatory audit requirement typically implies systematic verification after all voting is complete, not just sampling on election day.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 114 addresses the rights of election observers to be present at various stages of the election process, including data entry and result verification. It does not establish or mandate a post-election audit requirement for every election. The section concerns observer access, not mandatory audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses criminal offences related to election conduct violations (removal of posted documents, false declarations, and candidates' limitations on parliamentary freedom), not post-election audit requirements. It is entirely unrelated to the criterion asking whether post-election audits are legally mandated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 99 of the PRC Constitution addresses the powers and functions of local people's congresses regarding legislative oversight, budget approval, and economic planning. It does not address post-election audits, election administration, or election verification procedures. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of mandatory post-election audits.

The section establishes oversight bodies (the State Electoral Commission and State Audit Office) with mandates to conduct financial audits and supervision of political parties and electoral campaign financing. However, it does not explicitly require a mandatory post-election audit for every election—it focuses on supervision of financial accounts, campaign financing, and annual financial reports rather than a comprehensive mandatory audit of the election itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the procedural rules for meetings of the College of the Office (Kolegia Úřadu), including matters of scheduling, voting, and decision-making authority. It does not address post-election audits or election audit requirements whatsoever. The section is entirely administrative in nature and unrelated to the criterion.

The section establishes a control commission responsible for general vote tallying and result proclamation, but does not mandate a post-election audit in the technical sense (systematic verification of voting equipment, ballot counts, or electoral processes after results are declared). The commission's functions focus on controlling regularity during the consultation and certifying results, not on post-election auditing as typically understood in election integrity frameworks.

“De procéder au recensement général des votes et à la proclamation des résultats.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 69 establishes the State Audit Office for state-budget supervision — not election-result audit. Article 57 covers campaign-expense reporting. Article 93 covers administrative-offence protocols. No per-election audit of voting results codified.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Σύνταγμα Άρθρο 54 is meta-reference; no mandatory post-election audit regime in surfaced PD 26/2012 sections.

The section mandates a recount (genoptælling) of votes on election day itself, requiring two consecutive counts to match before results are finalized. However, this is a same-day procedural recount rather than a post-election audit in the broader sense typically contemplated by election integrity standards, which usually involve statistical sampling, risk-limiting audits, or audits conducted after election day is complete.

“Umiddelbart efter optællingen af de afgivne stemmer foretages genoptælling af de afgivne stemmer.”

The statute requires a post-election audit, but only of a random sample of 10% of precincts and only when electronic voting systems are used. This does not constitute a mandatory audit of every election in full, as it covers only a portion of precincts and is conditional on using electronic voting systems. The criterion asks if audits are required for every election.

“The chief election officer conducts a post-election, pre-certification audit of a random sample of not less than ten per cent of the precincts employing the electronic voting system”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the role of Registers Iceland in administering the electronic electoral register and operating computer systems for elections, including provisions for audits of performance under a service agreement. However, it does not establish a legal requirement for post-election audits of election results themselves. The mention of 'audits of performance' refers to auditing the service provider's contract performance, not mandatory post-election audits of voting accuracy or election integrity.

The statute establishes post-election audit deadlines and procedures, but the secretary of state's authority to issue orders is explicitly conditioned on the absence of a filed petition for recount or contest. This language suggests audits are not universally mandatory for every election, but rather depend on whether a contest has been filed. The section does not clearly mandate audits for all elections regardless of circumstances.

The section permits recounts at the discretion of the local returning officer or when requested by agents, and allows the referendum returning officer to direct recounts in 'appropriate cases,' but does not establish a mandatory post-election audit that is legally required for every election as a matter of course. The discretionary language ('may,' 'if required,' 'in an appropriate case') indicates that audits are not universally mandatory.

“The local returning officer may and, if required by an agent appointed under paragraph (c) of section 26 (1) , shall recount the votes recorded on all the ballot papers”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 56 of the Constitution addresses the exclusive responsibilities of the Mazhilis (lower chamber of Parliament), including acceptance of draft laws, confirmation of the Prime Minister candidate, and announcement of presidential elections. It does not contain any provision requiring or mandating post-election audits for every election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced the financial audit of political parties (§ 11) and the constitutional State Audit Office. Latvia codifies no mandatory post-election audit of the vote count itself — higher election commissions consolidate and may re-examine polling stations only on complaint or own initiative.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 24 of the Funding Law mandates an independent financial audit of political parties and campaigns, but Lithuania does not codify a post-election audit of vote-counting equipment — vote counting is by hand in the polling-district committee, so there is no separate machine audit to mandate.

The statute requires the secretary of state to adopt and implement uniform policies and procedures for post-election audits, but it does not explicitly mandate that such audits be conducted for every election. The language authorizes the establishment of audit procedures and policies rather than requiring their mandatory execution in all elections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 252 describes the procedure for counting and tallying votes at the main polling bureau, including recording results in tables and calculating totals. It does not mandate a post-election audit process; it merely describes the standard vote-counting procedures that are part of normal election administration.

Article 189 mandates a physical vote count/audit procedure by a designated Section that verifies vote tallies and records all anomalies. However, this describes a mandatory vote tabulation and verification process rather than a post-election audit in the sense typically understood (independent verification after initial results). The section addresses the material counting of votes but does not explicitly establish an independent audit of election results after the counting process is complete.

The statute requires the Secretary of State to report on post-election audits that have been conducted, but does not mandate that post-election audits be performed for every election. The language describes audits as optional activities ('any post-election audits'), not mandatory requirements. This creates a transparency and reporting mechanism but fails to establish a legal requirement that audits must occur.

“A summary of any post-election audits conducted”

The section requires audited accounts that include election campaign accounts to be delivered to the Commission, which addresses financial auditing related to elections. However, it does not explicitly mandate a distinct post-election audit for every election; rather, it requires audited accounts within four months of the financial year end that happen to include election-related accounts. The requirement is tied to financial year reporting cycles rather than to election cycles specifically, and does not clearly establish a mandatory audit requirement that applies to every election regardless of timing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses recounts upon petition (a discretionary process initiated by petitioners), not mandatory post-election audits that occur for every election. The statute governs procedures when a recount is requested and conducted, not an automatic audit requirement for all elections.

The section mandates audits following presidential general elections, but the criterion asks whether audits are required for 'every election.' This statute covers only presidential general elections, not all elections (e.g., primary elections, local elections, or non-presidential general elections). Thus it partially addresses the audit requirement but does not satisfy the criterion's broader scope.

“An audit shall be conducted pursuant to this section following any presidential general election.”

The section establishes a conditional recount mechanism triggered only when the margin between winning and second-place formulas is one percentage point or less. This is not a mandatory audit for every election, but rather a triggered procedure limited to close contests. Therefore, it does not satisfy the criterion for a universal post-election audit requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes procedures for postcertification recounts by boards of canvassers but does not impose a legal requirement that post-election audits be conducted for every election. The statute explicitly distinguishes recounts (which count votes) from audits (which investigate election conduct), and it does not mandate that audits occur. The section addresses only the voluntary recount process and its scope.

§ 206.88 codifies that 'the secretary of state may conduct a recount to verify the accuracy of vote counting and recording in one or more precincts.' § 204C.36 / § 204C.35 codify margin-triggered recounts. Minnesota does codify a post-election review (the statutory post-election review under § 206.89, not in FTS top-5) but the FTS-surfaced sections cover discretionary + margin-triggered recounts. Verification framework codified; partial because the FTS-surfaced provisions are discretionary/triggered rather than universal.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns filing fees for candidates entering primary elections. It is unrelated to post-election audits, which are procedures for verifying election results after voting concludes. The statute text contains no provisions regarding audit requirements.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses recount procedures when a recount is ordered by a court following an election contest, not a mandatory post-election audit for every election. The section describes who may be present and participate in a recount that is discretionary (ordered 'pursuant to section 115.539 or 115.601'), not a universal audit requirement applied to all elections.

The section mentions the Court of Auditors and references an 'audit report' in paragraph (3), suggesting that some form of audit occurs. However, the text does not explicitly state that a post-election audit is legally mandatory for every election; it only requires reporting after audit approval without mandating the audit itself in this provision.

“the Court of Auditors”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedures for resolving tied elections through recounts and lot drawings, not post-election audits. It does not establish or mandate audit requirements for any elections.

No matching sections in corpus.

While the statute mandates that county clerks conduct risk-limiting audits, it does not require audits for every election. Section 1(b) allows the Secretary of State to adopt criteria determining which elections must be audited, making coverage contingent on future regulatory specifications rather than universal. This leaves open the possibility that not all elections will be audited.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the canvassing and counting of emergency ballots—specifically the mechanical process of marking and counting votes on emergency ballots. It contains no requirement or reference to post-election audits. The section is entirely procedural regarding vote tabulation, not audit mandates.

The section establishes a post-election audit mechanism (voting system check), but it is not mandatory for every election. The audit is waived entirely if all winning margins exceed 15 percent, meaning some elections may have no audit requirement at all. This fails to satisfy the criterion of a mandatory audit for every election.

The section addresses post-election audits and requires reporting after an audit is conducted, but it does not mandate that audits occur for every election. It describes procedural requirements for audits that are undertaken, not a legal requirement that audits must be performed in the first place.

§ 16.1-16-01 codifies mandatory recount triggers (auto-recount at 0.5% margin general, 1% primary, 0.25% measures). § 16.1-08.1-05 codifies Secretary-of-State audit of campaign-finance filings when irregularity is alleged. § 16.1-15-23 / § 16.1-15-28 codify canvass procedures. ND does not codify a separate per-election post-tabulation manual audit (no RLA, no fixed-percentage audit); the canvass + automatic-recount regime serves verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the appointment and dismissal of prosecutors by the Supreme Prosecutor's Office. It has no relevance to post-election audits or electoral procedures. The statute text addresses prosecutorial authority, not audit requirements for elections.

The statute requires post-election audits for certain specified election dates (those in Sections 1-101, 1-102, 1-103, and 20-101) but does not mandate audits for every election. The definition in subsection E also emphasizes that audits are conducted 'only at the direction of' the Secretary, preserving discretion. This falls short of a requirement for every election.

Section 1602-A references post-election audits 'required under this act' but does not itself establish or mandate that audits must occur for every election. The provision assumes audits exist elsewhere in the code and only requires reporting of their outcomes. This section does not satisfy the criterion because it neither mandates nor guarantees that audits are legally required for every election.

This section requires district electoral commissions to check the correctness of vote counting results in each precinct immediately upon receipt of voting protocols. However, it describes verification of results already submitted rather than a mandatory post-election audit of every election. The provision addresses procedural verification but does not establish a comprehensive mandatory audit of every election as a system-wide requirement.

This section mandates verification and tallying procedures at the district level (apuramento distrital), which are audit-like operations checking voter counts and vote totals. However, it describes vote counting and verification procedures rather than a post-election audit in the modern sense—it does not establish independent verification, testing of tabulation systems, or comparison of results against paper records, which are typical components of comprehensive post-election audits.

“O apuramento distrital consiste: a) Na verificação do número total de eleitores inscritos e de votantes no distrito; b) Na verificação do número total de votos obtidos por cada candidatura, do número de votos em branco e do número dos votos nulos.”

The statute mandates post-election audits but only for presidential preference primary and general elections commencing in 2020, not for every election. Other statewide elections (primary, general, special) are merely authorized but not required as of 2018, and many local or non-statewide elections are not addressed. This falls short of 'every election' as required by the criterion.

“Commencing in 2020, the state board, in conjunction with local boards, must conduct risk-limiting audits after the presidential preference primary and general elections in accordance with the requirements in this section.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 23 addresses voter registration procedures for EU citizens in local elections, specifically the documents required to be inscribed in the supplementary electoral list. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, mandatory or otherwise. This section is entirely focused on pre-election registration requirements and is irrelevant to the criterion of mandatory post-election audits.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 48-50 of the Electoral Act addresses objections to sorting and counting of ballot papers and the procedures for announcing provisional results and managing voting materials. These sections establish complaint and review mechanisms but do not mandate a post-election audit of voting results. The procedures described are specific to counting irregularities at individual voting stations, not comprehensive post-election audits required for every election.

The section mandates recounts but only when the margin between candidates is one percent or less, not for every election. It provides a threshold-based recount mechanism rather than a universal post-election audit requirement. This is a conditional audit triggered by close margins, not a comprehensive audit of all elections.

“Whenever the difference between the number of votes received by a candidate who has been declared nominated for an office in a primary election or who has been declared elected to an office in a general election and the number of votes received by any other candidate or candidate not declared so nominated or elected or whenever the difference between the number of votes received by a candidate who received the least number of votes to qualify for a runoff election and a candidate or candidates who did not so qualify shall be not more than one percent of the total votes which were cast for such office therein, the committee or board charged by law with canvassing such votes shall order a recount of such votes to be made forthwith”

§ 12-21-10 codifies candidate-petitioned recount at ≤2% margin — automatic-on-petition rather than mandatory-every-election. § 12-21-16 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies automatic recount on tie vote. § 12-21-11.1 codifies notice procedure. § 12-21-22 codifies multi-recount combination. SD does not codify a separate mandatory post-election audit (no RLA, no fixed-percentage audit); the recount-on-petition framework serves verification only when triggered.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 106 addresses the scrutiny process by the Electoral Board during vote counting, focusing on verification and correction of administrative errors. It does not establish or require a post-election audit as a separate, systematic process conducted after the election is concluded. The section deals with immediate counting procedures, not mandatory audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Ek Madde 1 governs YSK voter-education broadcasts, not post-election audit.

Art. IV-254 codifies territorial-commission continuous meeting after voting to receive and verify precinct protocols (acting as canvass verification). Art. I-35 codifies commission legal personality. No separate post-election manual audit is codified — verification operates through the canvass chain.

Section 81 mandates an audit, but only when campaign expenditure exceeds £250,000. This is a conditional rather than universal requirement—audits are not required for every election or every campaign, only those meeting the spending threshold. The criterion asks whether a post-election audit is legally required for every election, which this threshold-based approach does not satisfy.

“Where during a relevant campaign period the campaign expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a registered party in the relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom exceeds £250,000, a report must be prepared by a qualified auditor”

The section requires voting systems to have audit capacity and produce a permanent paper record available as an official record for any recount, but it does not mandate that a post-election audit be conducted for every election. It establishes the capability and availability of records for audits and recounts, but does not require audits to be performed routinely or systematically after each election.

“The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system.”

This section requires the lieutenant governor to study and report on post-election audit methods, but does not mandate that a post-election audit be conducted for every election. It addresses audit procedures and improvements rather than establishing a requirement that audits occur.

The statute mandates risk-limiting audits but only for specific elections (federal House, General Assembly, local offices in non-statewide years) and only for randomly selected contested races, not every election or every race. It does not require audits for every election overall, failing to meet the criterion's requirement for mandatory audits of all elections.

“In the year of a general election for members of the United States House of Representatives, a risk-limiting audit of at least one randomly selected contested race for such office”

The section mandates a risk-limiting audit process during canvass (manual count of at least 3% of precincts with potential expansion if discrepancies are found), but this is limited to precincts with voter-verified paper ballots and only occurs when certain triggering conditions apply (discrepancies exceeding 1% or different outcomes). This does not constitute a comprehensive post-election audit of every election or all ballots, so while an audit mechanism exists, it does not fully satisfy a requirement for mandatory audits of every election.

“During the canvass, at least three percent of the precincts are to be chosen at random and the voter-verified paper ballots are to be counted manually.”