EIICitizen Verifiability4.2

End-to-end verifiability permitted

Does law permit (or require) per-voter cryptographic receipts that prove inclusion without revealing the vote?

max 5 · weight 1ordinal rule

Scoring rule

{
  "type": "ordinal",
  "max": 5,
  "levels": [
    {
      "score": 0,
      "label": "prohibited"
    },
    {
      "score": 3,
      "label": "permitted"
    },
    {
      "score": 5,
      "label": "required"
    }
  ]
}

Jurisdiction scores

JurisdictionScoreRationale & evidenceSource
Estoniaee4/580.0%

§ 48¹⁰ codifies a voter's right to verify, via a separate verification application, that their electronic vote reached the system according to their intention — individual (cast-as-intended / recorded-as-cast) verifiability, mandated rather than merely permitted. It stops short of full end-to-end verifiability proving inclusion in the final tally, so it maps just below the top of the ordinal.

A voter has an opportunity to verify whether the application used for electronic voting has transferred the vote cast by the voter to the electronic voting system according to the voter’s intention.
§ view source
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-21
Alabamaus-al0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-09
Alaskaus-ak0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Argentinaar0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-10
Arizonaus-az0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-152 addresses voter registration forms and the information required thereon. It does not address cryptographic receipts, end-to-end verifiability, or any technology related to proving vote inclusion. The section's mention of a 'voter receipt' in subsection B is limited to evidence of valid registration for provisional ballot purposes, not a cryptographic proof of vote inclusion.

§ view source
claude-haiku-4-5
2026-06-04
Arkansasus-ar0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-08
Armeniaam0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-17
Australiaau0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-08
Austriaat0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Belarusby0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-18
Belgiumbe0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-13
Brazilbr0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-02
Bulgariabg0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 213б addresses transparency and security measures for machine voting systems, including source code access, cryptographic key management, and pre-election verification procedures. However, it does not mention or address per-voter cryptographic receipts, voter-verified paper trails, or any mechanism for individual voters to obtain cryptographic proof of vote inclusion. The section focuses on system-level security and party observer access rather than end-to-end verifiability mechanisms available to individual voters.

§ view source
claude-haiku-4-5
2026-05-11
Californiaus-ca0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-17
Canadaca0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-05
Chinacn0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-01
Coloradous-co0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-02
Connecticutus-ct0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Croatiahr0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Czechiacz0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-14
Delawareus-de0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Denmarkdk0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
Finlandfi0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-20
Floridaus-fl0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-15
Francefr0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-12
Georgiage0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-18
Georgiaus-ga0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
Germanyde0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-07
Greecegr0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-13
Greenlandgl0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-06
Hawaiius-hi0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Icelandis0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-06
Idahous-id0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration accuracy and data collection from state entities and federal sources. It does not address cryptographic receipts, end-to-end verifiability, or any cryptographic voting mechanisms. The criterion concerns voting technology and ballot verification, which is not the subject of this registration accuracy statute.

no FTS match
claude-haiku-4-5
2026-06-01
Illinoisus-il0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (nomination petition form) was the only FTS hit — wrong domain.

§ view source
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-13
Indianaus-in0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-12
Iowaus-ia0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-06
Irelandie0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-03
Kansasus-ks0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-06
Kazakhstankz0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-02
Kentuckyus-ky0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-20
Latvialv0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-22
Lithuanialt0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-23
Louisianaus-la0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section La. R.S. 18:1312 addresses the retention, storage, and handling of physical ballots and voting records but does not address cryptographic receipts, end-to-end verifiability mechanisms, or any form of voter-verified cryptographic proof of vote inclusion. The section is entirely focused on ballot custody and preservation procedures, not on technological voting verification systems.

§ view source
claude-haiku-4-5
2026-06-08
Luxembourglu0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Madagascarmg0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-09
Maineus-me0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Maltamt0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Marylandus-md0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-101 is a definitional section that establishes terminology for Maryland election law, including definitions of 'canvass,' 'vote tabulation,' 'vote tallying,' and 'counting center.' It contains no language addressing cryptographic receipts, end-to-end verifiability, voter-accessible proofs, or any mechanism to prove ballot inclusion without revealing votes. The section is entirely about naming and defining procedural concepts, not about voting technology or verification methods.

§ view source
claude-haiku-4-5
2026-06-15
Massachusettsus-ma0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-10
Mexicomx0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-07
Michiganus-mi0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-11
Minnesotaus-mn0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 204C.10 codifies the polling-place roster + voter signature certificate — voter identity verification, not cryptographic per-voter receipts. Minnesota does not codify end-to-end cryptographic verifiability.

§ view source
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-20
Mississippius-ms0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-09
Missourius-mo0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-08
Moldovamd0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-09
Montanaus-mt0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-22
Nebraskaus-ne0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-05
Netherlandsnl0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-08
Nevadaus-nv0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-01
New Hampshireus-nh0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
New Jerseyus-nj0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
New Mexicous-nm0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-04
New Yorkus-ny0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-18
North Carolinaus-nc0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
North Dakotaus-nd0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
North Koreakp0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-01
Norwayno0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
Ohious-oh0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-11
Oklahomaus-ok0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-07
Oregonus-or0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-31
Pennsylvaniaus-pa0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-11
Polandpl0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-30
Portugalpt0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Rhode Islandus-ri0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Romaniaro0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-11
Russiaru0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-18
Serbiasr0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-15
South Africaza0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-08
South Carolinaus-sc0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
South Dakotaus-sd0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
Spaines0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16
Swedense0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
Tennesseeus-tn0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-11
Texasus-tx0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-20
Turkeytr0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Article 47 governs voter-register handover to YSK Voter Register Directorate — not E2E verifiability.

§ view source
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-17
Ukraineua0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-19
United Kingdomgb0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-31
United Statesus0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-11
Utahus-ut0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-02
Vermontus-vt0/50.0%

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

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-21
Virginiaus-va0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-15
Washingtonus-wa0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-05-26
West Virginiaus-wv0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-14
Wisconsinus-wi0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
claude-opus-4-7
2026-05-18
Wyomingus-wy0/50.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
no-fts-match
2026-06-16

About this datapoint

Each score is one of: strong, partial, gap, or no codified provision. The evidence quote is a byte-exact substring of the cited statute section at scoring time. If the statute is amended, the old score is preserved with is_current=0 and a new score is inserted on top — never overwritten.