Public observation of audit

The statute mandates that the vote count and scrutiny must be conducted under permanent vigilance of authorized party representatives (fiscales), with observers granted access to the counting process. The section explicitly provides for the presence of accredited fiscales, representatives, and candidates who request it, ensuring transparent observation during the audit/scrutiny process.

The statute explicitly grants party representatives observer access to hand counts (a form of audit) and permits them to record the proceedings. While the section specifically mentions party representatives, it establishes a clear right of observation and documentation during the audit process, satisfying the criterion's requirement for observer access to audits.

The section explicitly grants scrutineers (who represent parties, candidates, and potentially media and citizen observers under electoral law) access to detailed records of computerised scrutiny proceedings, including preferences, transfers, and progress at each count. This satisfies the requirement for public observation of the audit process.

“Subject to subsections (6AA) and (6AB), for proceedings under section 273 and subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the requirements of paragraph 265(1)(c) are met if the scrutineers have access to: (a) a record of the preferences on the ballot papers that have been received by the Australian Electoral Officer and whose details have been stored in the computer (including informal ballot papers, and formal ballot papers that are not sequentially numbered); and (b) a record of the ballot papers that are notionally transferred, or exhausted, at each count; and (c) a record of the progress of the count of the votes, at each count.”

The statute explicitly requires that manual or electronic audits of votes be noticed in advance and open to public observation, which directly satisfies the criterion of granting parties, media, and citizens observer access to the audit.

“Such manual or electronic audit shall be noticed in advance and be open to public observation.”

The statute explicitly mandates that audits be conducted in public, which grants parties, media, and citizens the opportunity to observe the audit process. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for observer access.

“The Department shall conduct an audit under this section in public.”

§ 72 codifies that 'the fintælling is public' (Fintællingen er offentlig). § 68 codifies that 'the vote count is public' (Stemmeoptællingen er offentlig). Every count stage is statutorily public. § 107 codifies order rules. § 124 codifies parallel for chair duties.

§ 59¹(7) makes the counting of electronically cast votes public, and § 19⁴/§ 23⁴ give everyone the right to observe the acts and procedures of electoral committees — covering the integrity verification conducted in the presence of an information-systems auditor.

“Counting of votes cast by electronic means is public.”

§ 184 codifies that party / joint-list / voters'-association election agents (or their authorised persons) have the right to be PRESENT at the committee meetings held for ballot sorting, counting, and determination of the result. The same right belongs to 'a person representing the Ministry of Justice or authorised by it observing the elections.' § 54 codifies an observer present at home voting. Comprehensive observation-of-counting framework codified.

“Vaalilautakunnan, kunnan keskusvaalilautakunnan ja vaalipiirilautakunnan kokouksissa, jotka pidetään ehdokkaiden numeroiden määräämistä, äänestyslippujen järjestämistä tai laskemista taikka vaalien tuloksen määräämistä varten, puolueiden ja yhteislistojen sekä yhteislistaan kuulumattomien valitsijayhdistysten vaaliasiamiehillä taikka heidän kutakin vaaliviranomaista varten erikseen kirjallisesti valtuuttamillaan henkilöillä on oikeus olla läsnä.”

§ 101.591(4) operationalizes audit observability through canvassing-board procedure conducted in public session under Florida sunshine law. § 101.5911 rules further detail public observation.

“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 that the audit must be completed 'in public view' with details provided to the public within 48 hours of completion, plus public posting of unofficial final tabulated results before the audit begins. Comprehensive public-observation mandate.

“Complete the audit in public view; and Provide details of the audit to the public within 48 hours of completion.”

The section explicitly grants public access (jedermann = everyone) to the polling place during the voting process and the determination and verification of election results, which encompasses audit and result verification activities. This satisfies the requirement for observer access by parties, media, and citizens.

“Während der Wahlhandlung sowie der Ermittlung und Feststellung des Wahlergebnisses hat jedermann zum Wahlraum Zutritt, soweit das ohne Störung des Wahlgeschäfts möglich ist.”

The statute explicitly grants observer access to postelection audits for news media, interested candidates, political parties, and political committees. The statute mandates that procedures include provisions allowing these entities to appoint designated observers, satisfying the criterion's requirement for parties, media, and citizen access.

“Such an audit shall be open to attendance by news media personnel. By directive issued at least sixty (60) days prior to the election, the secretary of state shall determine the procedures by which the postelection audit is to be conducted. Such procedures shall be developed in consultation with county clerks and shall include provisions allowing each interested candidate and political party, and each political committee that publicly reported expending money on a ballot question for which the results will be audited, to appoint a designated observer.”

The statute explicitly requires the audit to be conducted in a public setting and authorizes candidates and entities to appoint poll agents to observe the audit. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for observer access to audits.

“The audit shall be conducted in a public setting. Any candidate or entity who is authorized to appoint a poll agent may appoint a poll agent for the audit.”

KRS 117.383(8) makes the hand-to-eye audit public: the sealed ballot boxes and tabulator tally tape 'shall be accessible for public viewing,' the ballots are unsealed 'in the presence of... public witnesses,' and a video recording of the audit 'may be streamed for public internet viewing' and is subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act. KRS 120.157(5) requires the county board to authorize news media to observe a recount. Public observation of audits codified.

Article 169 explicitly mandates that ballot counting occurs before all members of the electoral board, delegates, observers, and voters present. This directly satisfies the criterion by granting observer access (including observers as an explicit category) to the audit/counting process.

The statute establishes post-election audits as public proceedings and explicitly grants access to members of the public and representatives of the media, satisfying the requirement for observer access. While the Secretary of State may limit attendance due to space constraints, the default rule guarantees public and media observation.

The statute explicitly requires the State Board to allow public observation of the manual audit process. While the phrase 'to the extent practicable' introduces a limitation, the statute clearly grants access to parties, media, and citizens (as members of the public) to observe the audit process.

“The State Board shall allow for public observation of each part of the manual audit process to the extent practicable.”

Section 109A(d)(1) explicitly requires audits to be performed in full public view and mandates that the time and place be publicly announced in advance. Additionally, subsection (c) specifies that the precinct selection drawing shall be 'fully observable to the public and representatives of each political party,' establishing clear observer access for citizens and party representatives.

“The audits shall be performed in full public view”

§ 13-17-506(3) requires the audit process to be public, § 13-17-505(2) opens the precinct-selection process to the public, and § 13-17-507(4) makes the audit results public.

“The audit process must be public.”

The statute explicitly mandates that the new ballot recount is performed 'in het openbaar' (in public), which grants parties, media, and citizens the ability to observe the audit process. The public nature of the recount ensures observer access as required by the criterion.

“Een nieuwe stemopneming als bedoeld in het eerste lid, wordt onder mandaat en machtiging van het centraal stembureau in het openbaar uitgevoerd”

The statute explicitly provides that audits are open to the public, which affords parties, media, and citizens observer access. The restriction on touching ballots or equipment relates to handling procedures, not visibility or observation rights.

“The audit shall be open to the public, but no one except audit team members shall be allowed to touch any ballot or any of the audit equipment.”

§ 9-211(1) codifies that 'Each candidate, political party or independent body entitled to appoint watchers to attend at a polling place shall be entitled to appoint such number of watchers to observe the audit.' At least 5-day prior notice to candidates/parties/independent bodies of audit-selection time and place is codified.

“Each candidate, political party or independent body entitled to appoint watchers to attend at a polling place shall be entitled to appoint such number of watchers to observe the audit.”

§ 16.1-16-01 codifies recount procedure under Secretary of State guidelines. § 16.1-05-09 (election observers, not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies that election observers have uniform and nondiscriminatory access to 'all stages of the election process, including the certification of election technologies, early voting, absentee voting, voter appeals, vote tabulation, and recounts.' Combined, public observation of recount/audit is statutorily codified.

The statute explicitly requires the board to permit observers during all phases of audit preparation and conduct. This ensures public observation access to the audit process, satisfying the criterion that parties, media, and citizens are granted observer access.

ORS 254.532(4)(a) explicitly requires that risk-limiting audits must permit members of the public to observe the procedures and verify the results. This directly satisfies the criterion by granting observer access to parties, media, and citizens conducting the audit.

The statute explicitly requires that risk-limiting audits be conducted 'in public view,' which grants parties, media, and citizens observer access to the audit process. This mandatory public conduct requirement directly satisfies the criterion for observer access.

“The state board, in conjunction with the local boards, shall conduct the audit in public view by manually interpreting the ballots according to rules established by the state board in accordance with chapter 35 of title 42.”

Voter Register Law Article 22o codifies public observation of the Commission audit work: 'Рад Комисије је јаван' + observers from registered civil-society associations may attend Commission sessions. While this is voter-register audit (not vote-count audit), it is the closest statutory analog of public audit observation in Serbian law.

“Седницама Комисије могу да присуствују, у својству посматрача, до два представника удружења регистрованог у Републици Србији чији се циљеви остварују у области избора и које је Комисији поднело пријаву за посматрање рада Комисије”

§ 12-20-13 codifies that 'the county auditor shall tabulate election returns as rapidly as received and make the result available for the information of the public.' § 12-17B-13 codifies that automatic-tabulating returns are 'open to the public.' § 12-4-9 codifies public-inspection access to voter registration master file. § 12-14-15 codifies precinct boundary notice. Public-observation framework codified.

The statute explicitly establishes that the general audit (escrutinio general) is a public act (acto público), which grants parties, media, and citizens observer access to the audit process as required by the criterion.

“El escrutinio general es un acto único y tiene carácter público.”

13 kap. 1 § codifies that 'the county administrative board shall conduct the final vote count. The proceeding is public and shall be conducted without delay.' 12 kap. 1 § codifies that the municipal commission's count meeting is public. 11 kap. 1 § codifies that the polling-station count is public. 8 kap. 1 § codifies polling-place screening. Every count stage is statutorily public.

“Länsstyrelsen skall göra den slutliga rösträkningen. Förrättningen är offentlig och skall göras utan dröjsmål.”

The statute explicitly requires that the audit be conducted 'at a time and place open to the public,' which grants parties, media, and citizens observer access to the audit process. This language directly satisfies the criterion for public observation.

“At a time and place open to the public, the county election commission shall identify those ballot boxes containing the absentee by-mail ballots cast in the randomly selected voting precinct or precincts”

§ 127.302(e) codifies that a watcher may be present for the risk-limiting audit if appointed by a candidate, and § 127.302(d) requires posting notice of the audit's date, hour and place on the county website. § 127.201(d) grants each person entitled to appoint watchers the right to be present at the hand-count audit. Public/party observation of audits codified.

“A watcher may be present for the audit if appointed by a candidate in the election.”

Art. I-47 codifies public information about commission decisions including vote-counting. Art. I-23 (Publicity and Transparency) codifies that election commissions ensure transparency. Art. I-58 codifies official-observer access to all commission meetings including the canvass-verification meetings of district / territorial commissions.

The statute explicitly requires procedures ensuring transparency and direct observation rights for members of the public, candidates' representatives, and political party representatives. Additionally, the statute mandates that all risk-limiting audits 'shall be conducted in a place and manner that is open to the public,' directly satisfying the criterion for observer access.

“Procedures for ensuring transparency and understanding of the process by participants and the public, including guidelines for direct observation by members of the public, representatives of the candidates involved in the risk-limiting audit, and representatives of the political parties.”

The statute explicitly requires canvassing board meetings to be public meetings with times and locations accessible to the public and specifically grants parties, media, and citizens the right to 'attend or observe.' This directly satisfies the criterion for observer access to the audit process.

“Meetings of the county canvassing board are public meetings under chapter 42.30 RCW. Meetings must be conducted at times and locations that are accessible to the public to ensure that the public is informed and able to attend or observe.”

§ 19006 declares legislative intent for transparent certification but doesn't directly codify audit-observer access. However Div 15 (Canvass) at § 15104 (vote-by-mail processing 'shall be open to the public') and the RLA process under § 19204.5 inherit Cal. Elec. Code's public-process default. Partial — observer access is codified via the open-canvass framework but not as an audit-specific right in the candidates.

Article 39-41 grant observers comprehensive access — including to the vote-count process (which serves as the de facto audit since no separate audit exists). § 67-68 ballot-box opening occurs in observer presence.

§ 25 of the Funding Law requires the Central Electoral Commission to post audited financial statements and the auditor's findings on its website, and vote counting itself is observable by election observers and the media (§ 83); there is no separate post-election vote audit whose observation needs codifying.

§ 201.195 codifies public challenge petitions — 'any voter registered within a county may challenge the eligibility or residence of any other voter.' § 204C.28 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies public inspection of summary statements on election night; § 206.83 codifies that pre-election testing must be 'open to representatives of the political parties, candidates, the press, and the public.' Public-observation framework codified.

§ 2-7 codifies public display (utlegging til offentlig ettersyn) of the electoral roll. § 21-8 codifies the results-publication rules. § 10-5(4) (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies that 'the counting shall be public' (Opptellingen skal være offentlig). Combined with § 21-7 (accredited national + international observers' right to observe election conduct), public observation of counting is codified.

The statute grants candidates and their representatives (mandatários) the right to observe the general audit assembly with the ability to lodge complaints and protests, partially satisfying the criterion. However, the section explicitly grants access only to party representatives, not to media or general citizens, which limits the scope of public observation required by the criterion.

“Os candidatos e os mandatários das listas podem assistir, sem voto, mas com direito de reclamação, protesto ou contraprotesto, aos trabalhos da assembleia de apuramento geral.”

Article 60 (Supervisory and Auditing Services) codifies oversight bodies attached to election commissions. Article 30 (in 6.1 cands) codifies commission openness with observer presence at all stages, which extends to audit/recount proceedings. Public observation of audit codified via the general transparency framework.

§ 2493(a)(3)(C) requires the Secretary of State to 'publicly announce the results of the audit as well as the results from the original return of the vote.' Public disclosure of audit results is codified; the audit itself is conducted at the Secretary of State's office.

Wis. Stat. § 5.05 grants the elections commission general supervisory authority. § 7.08 enumerates commission duties. § 7.41 (Public's right to access) opens polling places + canvass to the public — which extends to recount/audit proceedings under § 9.01. Audit observation rights are codified via the general public-access principle.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes the alphabetical ordering of candidates on ballots and the sequence of offices—it addresses ballot layout and presentation, not election audits or observer access to audit procedures. It contains no provisions regarding audits, observation rights, or public access to audit processes.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly grants poll watchers access to observe audits under subsection (d)(10), but this access is limited to designated poll watchers (authorized representatives of candidates, political parties, and groups) rather than all citizens and media. The requirement for training, designation, and badge-wearing indicates a restricted observer class, not open public access.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 62 of the NRWO addresses the leadership and conduct of the election itself, including maintenance of order and authority of the election official during voting. It does not address post-election audit procedures, observer access, or participation by parties, media, or citizens in any audit process.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The section permits designated witnesses to attend sessions of the main cantonal bureau, which provides some form of observer access to proceedings. However, the section addresses witness designation and ballot counting procedures rather than specifically establishing post-election audit observation rights for parties, media, and citizens more broadly. The observer access is limited to designated witnesses rather than explicitly guaranteeing access to parties, media, and general citizens.

“Les témoins désignés pour assister aux séances du bureau principal de canton peuvent y être présents.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This constitutional section addresses public health actions and services, establishing that health matters are of public relevance and can be regulated and controlled by public authorities. It contains no provisions regarding election audits, observer access, or electoral processes, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to the criterion concerning public observation of post-election audits.

The section mandates real-time streaming of district electoral commission meetings and publication of protocols, decisions, and election results online, which provides transparency and indirect public access to proceedings. However, it does not explicitly grant in-person observer access to parties, media, and citizens during audits or verification processes—only remote viewing via internet. The criterion specifically asks about 'observer access,' which typically implies direct physical presence.

The section grants presence rights to candidates and their representatives during ballot counting and declaration verification, which is a limited form of observation. However, it does not extend observer access to parties generally, media, or citizens—only to candidate representatives—and it addresses ballot counting rather than post-election audit activities specifically. This is observer access for a subset of stakeholders at a related but distinct stage.

“A candidate or his or her representative may be present for the verification of the declarations referred to in paragraph 227(2)(c) and the counting of ballots”

The section provides for voter-selected poll observers and vote counters to participate in vote verification and record-keeping, which indicates some public oversight mechanism. However, it does not explicitly grant access to 'parties, media, and citizens' as distinct categories, nor does it address broader 'audit' processes beyond the immediate post-voting tabulation. The provision focuses narrowly on monitoring the vote count itself rather than comprehensive post-election audits.

The statute requires observation by canvass board members, but does not explicitly grant access to parties, media, or citizens. The restriction to canvass board members alone falls short of the broader public observation requirement specified in the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 28 regulates the timing and content restrictions of electoral campaign activities and the prohibition on publishing election results and candidate statements around election day. It does not address post-election audits, observer access to audits, or any procedures for verifying election integrity after voting concludes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 42 addresses the content and format of election result records (zápis) prepared by polling station commissions, including vote tallies and procedural notes. It does not address observer access to audits, audit procedures, or who may observe election-related activities. The criterion concerns post-election audit observation rights for parties, media, and citizens, which is not the subject of this section.

The statute grants candidates and lists the right to designate observers (scrutateurs) at the counting tables, but does not explicitly extend observer access to media or citizens generally. The provision addresses access for party representatives only, not the broader public observation required by the criterion.

“Si plusieurs candidats ou plusieurs listes sont en présence, il leur est permis de désigner respectivement les scrutateurs”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Σύνταγμα Άρθρο 54 (meta).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the display of voter rolls (valglisten) prior to election day, not the conduct or observation of post-election audits. It is therefore irrelevant to the criterion regarding public observation of audit procedures.

The statute requires that electronic voting systems be subject to inspection, audit, and experimental testing by 'qualified observers' before and after elections. However, the term 'qualified observers' is undefined in the statute and delegated to administrative rules, leaving unclear whether this includes parties, media, and citizens or only designated officials. The statute does not explicitly grant access to parties, media, and citizens.

“The electronic voting system is subject to inspection, audit, and experimental testing, by qualified observers, before and after the election, pursuant to administrative rules adopted by the chief election officer under chapter 91”

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the timing and ballot labeling of elections for state officials (secretary of state, state comptroller, and treasurer of state) in 2026 and beyond. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, observer access, or any audit-related procedures. The section is entirely procedural regarding when these offices are elected and how they appear on ballots.

The statute grants observer access to political parties only, allowing up to five observers per party to witness administrative audits. However, the criterion requires access for parties, media, and citizens. The statute does not mention media or citizen observer access, extending rights only to political parties. This is a partial satisfaction that falls short of the full criterion requirement.

This section provides access to candidate agents at the vote count, but does not explicitly grant access to media or the general public as observers. Access for citizens and media is discretionary (requires returning officer permission), falling short of a guaranteed observer access framework. The section addresses counting rather than formal post-election audit procedures.

“The returning officer, his assistants and clerks, members of the Garda Síochána on duty and the agents of the candidates duly appointed for the purpose under this Act may be present at the counting of the votes and no other person shall be present without the permission of the returning officer.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 58 of the Constitution addresses the structure and duties of parliamentary chamber chairpersons, including their role in nominating candidates for the Central Election Commission. It does not address public observation of audits, audit procedures, or observer access during post-election processes. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion regarding public observation of election audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced the campaign-finance election-declaration audit (§ 8²); Latvia codifies no post-election vote audit, so there is no audit-observation provision for the count. (The count itself is observable — see 6.1.)

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses qualifying fees for candidates in primary elections, payment methods, and additional fees imposed by political party committees. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, observer access to audits, or public observation of audit processes. The section is entirely focused on candidate qualification procedures and fee collection, which is unrelated to the criterion being evaluated.

The section grants witnesses (témoins) consultative voice in deliberations about contested ballots, which provides limited observer access during the ballot counting process. However, it does not explicitly guarantee access for parties, media, and citizens to broader audit procedures, nor does it establish comprehensive public observation rights beyond the witness role already described in the counting procedure.

“Les témoins ont voix consultative dans les délibérations relatives aux bulletins contestés.”

The section requires public disclosure and accessibility of audited accounts through copies available for inspection and posting on the Commission's website. However, it does not explicitly grant observer access to the audit process itself—it only mandates making the final audited statements publicly available after the fact. Public observation of the actual audit procedure (which the criterion asks about) is not addressed.

“it shall, within one month after receiving the statement, make a copy of the statement available for public inspection and it shall post the said statement on the website of the Commission and keep it available for public inspection and on the said website”

The section grants party representatives and independent candidate representatives access to verify the accuracy of the tally at the polling station level. However, it does not explicitly extend observer access to media or general citizens, nor does it address audit procedures beyond the initial polling station count verification. The provision covers only party participation in verification, not broader public observation of subsequent audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 4 addresses voting rights, registration, ballot access, and identity verification procedures. It does not contain any provisions regarding post-election audits or observer access to audit processes. This section is focused entirely on pre-election and election-day procedures, not post-election activities.

The statute grants observer access to the pre-election testing of tabulating equipment and requires it to be witnessed by political parties, candidates, press, and public. However, this addresses pre-election testing and certification, not a post-election audit. The criterion asks about post-election audit observation, which is a distinct requirement that would typically involve observation of the counting, verification, and reconciliation processes after votes are cast. While the section mentions tabulating equipment must pass 'the same test at the conclusion of the count,' it does not clearly establish that parties, media, and citizens have guaranteed observer access during the actual post-election audit process itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses complaint filing procedures and investigation by the ethics commission, not post-election audits or public observation rights. It focuses on the complaint process for campaign finance disclosure violations and does not mention audit procedures, observer access, or citizen participation in any audit process.

The section grants some access to observe counting and verification of vote counts to 'persons authorised to attend electoral operations,' but it does not explicitly establish whether parties, media, and citizens have guaranteed observer access to post-election audits. The provision addresses transparency during the initial vote count at polling stations, not comprehensive audit procedures, and does not define who qualifies as 'authorised persons' or guarantee broad public observation rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the election and qualifications of state officials but does not address audit procedures, observer access, or post-election audits. It is irrelevant to the criterion about public observation of audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the disposition, preservation, and inspection of ballots and election materials after canvassing, but does not address or mandate public observation or observer access to any audit process. The section restricts inspection of voted ballots to judges, bodies, boards, or contest parties in contested election cases, and makes no provision for parties, media, or citizens to observe an audit.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute grants observation rights only to persons designated as county canvass observers for the hand recount portion of the audit, not to parties, media, and citizens generally. The section does not explicitly provide public observation access to the broader voting system check process or establish observer access for media and citizens without designation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedure for filling vacancies in state executive offices through gubernatorial appointment and election. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, observer access, media participation, or citizen observation of any audit process. The section is entirely focused on vacancy succession and is unrelated to the audit criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 159 of the DPRK Socialist Constitution addresses judicial proceedings and the right of the defendant to legal defense, establishing that trials are open and can only be closed in accordance with law. This provision concerns judicial trial transparency, not post-election audit procedures or observer access to election audits. The section is not relevant to the criterion regarding public observation of election audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses restrictions on political fund-raising on state property and is entirely unrelated to post-election audits or observer access to audits. It does not mention audits, observation rights, or any audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 912.1 addresses nominating petition signature requirements for primary candidates and has no connection to post-election audits, observer access, or audit procedures. This section governs candidate nomination processes, not election audits.

The statute permits party representatives (mężowie zaufania—'men of trust') to observe the tabulation process and submit objections, and grants them the right to participate in data transmission. However, it does not explicitly extend observer access to media or the general public, limiting transparency to designated party representatives only. This partial form of observation falls short of the criterion's requirement for broader public observation.

The section requires transparency in vote-counting operations but does not explicitly grant parties, media, or citizens observer access rights to audits. It mandates transparency as a principle for the counting process, which implies some form of observation is intended, but lacks specific provisions defining who can observe or how observation is organized.

“asigura desfăşurarea, în condiţii de transparenta şi în spiritul legii, a operaţiunilor de numărare a buletinelor de vot”

Section 47 addresses the counting of votes and handling of ballot papers at voting stations, including procedures for rejecting and disputing ballot papers. However, it does not explicitly address observer access or public observation rights during the audit/counting process. The section deals with procedural mechanics rather than transparency or observer access provisions.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the conduct of ethics complaints and investigations by the State Ethics Commission and legislative ethics committees. It addresses procedures for filing complaints, investigating violations of ethics laws, and conducting hearings—matters entirely unrelated to post-election audits or public observation of audits. The statute contains no provisions regarding election audits or observer access to any audit process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Article 108 codifies open/continuous district counting with party-rep attendance — but this is routine counting, not a codified audit process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 160 is a definitional section that provides meanings for terms used throughout PPERA 2000, such as 'qualified auditor', 'registered party', 'document', and 'public funds'. It does not address post-election audit procedures, observer access, or any provisions governing transparency or public observation of audits. This section is purely interpretive and definitional in nature.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section grants access exclusively to 'designated congressional election observers'—specifically House or Senate employees designated by congressional committee chairs or ranking minority members. It does not extend observer access to parties, media, or citizens for audits or other election administration procedures. The statute is narrowly limited to congressional observers and does not address public observation requirements.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses withdrawal of candidacy and notification procedures to candidates and voters. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, observer access, media presence, or citizen participation in audit processes. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of public observation of audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses certification of candidates for public campaign financing in nonpartisan judicial elections. It does not establish or describe any post-election audit procedures or grant observer access to audits. The section concerns campaign finance eligibility and fund distribution, not election auditing or audit observation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the formation election of special districts and initial director elections, including voting procedures and candidate eligibility. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, observer access to audits, or any audit-related procedures whatsoever.