Citizen re-tally right

Cal. Elec. Code § 19381 requires precinct boards to 'immediately transmit UNSEALED' a copy of the result of votes cast — 'OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION.' § 15371 + § 15500 require results to be compiled and posted publicly. § 15281 requires posting at the polling place for 48+ hours. Together: any citizen can record + re-tally precinct totals.

§ 104 codifies that ballot papers, polling books, electoral rolls, voter cards, and other election material are retained by the municipal council — accessible via public-records framework. § 72 codifies that the fintælling is public. § 68 codifies that the initial count is public. Citizen access to count-stage material codified.

§ 21-2-72 codifies that primary and election records of each superintendent, registrar, and political-party committee 'shall be open to public'. § 21-2-51 codifies parallel for Secretary of State records. § 21-2-586 codifies criminal penalty for refusing public inspection. § 21-2-73 codifies preservation of election records. Citizen re-tally is enabled through open-records access.

“Except when otherwise provided by law or court order, the primary and election records of each superintendent, registrar, municipal governing authority, and committee of a politica”

§ 49 of the Saeima Election Law requires the complete election results — including the votes received by each candidate in each list in each polling station — to be published in a separate publication freely available to anyone in State libraries; § 48 of the EP Election Law publishes the equivalent per-polling-station data on the CEC website. Any citizen can re-tally from this published precinct-level data.

“freely available in State libraries.”

§ 73 (referendum) and § 85 (elections) require the Central Electoral Committee to publish results in the Valstybės žinios Official Gazette within statutory deadlines, and § 25 of the Funding Law posts financial statements on the CEC website — any citizen has the data needed to re-tally.

“no later than within 4 days of the referendum vote”

§ 204C.28 codifies that county auditors 'permit public inspection of the summary statements' on election night. § 204B.275 codifies the central election reporting system (public unofficial results). § 205.16 / § 205A.07 codify published notice. § 202A.20 codifies caucus-result public information. Citizen access to precinct-level result data codified.

§ 13-1-109 makes all election records public and open to inspection, and § 13-15-113 requires precinct-level ballot counts to be posted to the county election website — any citizen can obtain the precinct data needed to re-tally.

“all records pertaining to elector registration and elections are public records.”

§ 10-5(4) codifies that 'the counting shall be public', enabling citizen observation/re-tally during the canvass. § 11-6 / § 12-4 / § 13-4 codify publication of election protocols. § 10-15 codifies that protocols document the election conduct. Combined, citizen access to count-level data is codified.

“Opptellingen skal være offentlig.”

§ 12-21-34 codifies that 'the certificate as to the result of the recount and the certificate as to disputed ballots shall be filed and preserved by the county auditor as PUBLIC RECORDS.' § 12-17B-13 codifies that automatic-tabulating returns are open to the public. § 12-4-9 codifies public-inspection of master registration file. Citizen re-tally access through public records codified.

13 kap. 1 § codifies that the county-administrative-board final count is public. 12 kap. 1 § codifies that the municipal count is public. 11 kap. 1 § codifies that the polling-station count is public. 8 kap. 1 § codifies the polling-place layout. Citizen access to ALL count stages is codified — citizens may observe and tally independently. 14 kap. 25 § codifies result publication on agency website.

Wis. Stat. § 7.60 requires county clerks to post all election returns ('post all returns, by ward or reporting unit') on election night and keep the office open to receive precinct reports. § 7.41 grants public access. § 7.52 governs absentee canvassing transparency. Together these enable citizen re-tally from publicly posted precinct totals.

Article 85 codifies CEC publication of Duma results within 3 days. Article 107 codifies Council of Republic results. Article 79 codifies presidential results publication. Some public access to results codified, but standing for re-tally limited to commissions + parties — not general citizens.

Ascertainment of results is public at both the voting-district committee (§ 57) and National Electoral Committee (§ 61) levels, and § 19⁴ gives everyone the right to observe. Estonia does not, however, codify a specific citizen right to re-tally from published raw precinct data.

“The ascertaining of the voting results in the National Electoral Committee is public.”

§ 80 codifies that constituency committees, central election committees and polling committees publicly communicate (tiedottavat) the preliminary-count results. § 181 codifies result publication in the Statute Book. § 184 codifies observer access to counting. Precinct-level result data is publicly communicated, though a general citizen right to a raw-data re-tally is limited to the observation framework.

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 126 codifies citizen-petition grounds for election contest (incl. § 125 standing for any registered elector in the district). Re-tally is via the Ανώτατο Ειδικό Δικαστήριο contest mechanism, not a direct citizen-recount right.

10 ILCS 5/24C-15 supports retabulation on discrepancy. Citizen-petition recount rights are in § 22-9.1 (95%-margin + 5-electors-on-question), but that section did not surface for this FTS query.

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

KRS 117.383(10) requires the county board to produce 'accurate precinct-by-precinct summaries of tabulation sheets showing the results of each precinct,' and KRS 117.383(8) opens the hand-to-eye audit to public viewing. Precinct-level result data is published and the audit is publicly observable, but a formal re-tally right is limited to candidates through the recount process under KRS Chapter 120.

§ 9-126 codifies the unofficial tally of election results — chair of inspectors delivers tally results to the board of elections, county clerk, and (in Nassau) makes data publicly available. § 15-140 codifies transmission of publicly available data to the NY voting and elections database after each election. Precinct-level data exists publicly, though standing for re-tally is limited to candidates/parties/election officials.

§ 16.1-02-13 codifies that the county auditor generates pollbooks from the central voter file. § 16.1-13-42 codifies that the auditor 'shall keep open for public inspection a list of all individuals who have applied to vote for presidential electors as new residents.' § 16.1-15-22 (not in FTS top-5) codifies certified abstract transmittal. Citizen access to precinct data is codified through public-inspection provisions, though standing for an independent re-tally is limited.

Article 72 codifies: 'Commission shall provide for inspection the voting results for each electoral district, referendum district, the territory within the area of responsibility of the commission, referendum results within the scope...' — public inspection of precinct-level data codified. Combined with Article 30 (commissions openness) and Article 78 (right to file appeals about voting results), citizen access to results for verification is codified. Standing for re-tally limited to candidates/observers/CSO standing per Article 75-77.

§ 66.057 codifies that precinct election returns become public information once the general custodian completes the unofficial tabulation for that precinct, and the records in envelope no. 3 become public when delivery of precinct records is complete — enabling re-tally from published precinct data. Formal recount standing, however, is limited to candidates and parties under Title 13, so a general citizen re-tally right is only partial.

Art. IV-282 codifies promulgation of results within 5 days. Art. II-100 (presidential candidate disclosures) is unrelated. Precinct-level protocols are publicly posted (Art. II-115 / III-166), enabling citizen re-tally from public data, though standing is limited.

§ 2603 codifies that the result of an election for any office (other than the General Assembly) or public question 'may be contested by any legal voter entitled to vote' on it, by filing a complaint alleging count or return errors. § 2688 lets a registered voter demand a recount on a public question decided by under a 5% margin. A citizen route to re-examination of the count is codified, though a general candidate-race re-tally runs through the contest/recount process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section requires posting of election results for public inspection at the courthouse, but it does not grant citizens any legal right to conduct a re-tally or audit of those results. The statute mandates transparency in result posting but does not establish a mechanism or authority for citizens to independently verify or re-count from the posted data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the formal application procedures and representation requirements for requesting an official recount, not the independent right of citizens to re-tally from published precinct data. It addresses candidate and voter petitions for official recounts, not unilateral citizen verification or re-tallying using public election results. The criterion asks about citizens independently re-tallying from published data, which is a different legal right than requesting an official recount through this application process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the publication and distribution of voter rolls (padrones) and their physical format for elections, including authentication and filing procedures. It does not address citizen rights to re-tally votes from precinct data or access to precinct-level election results that would enable independent verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes the contents and distribution of the official canvass—specifically what information must be recorded and to whom it must be mailed or delivered. It does not address whether citizens have a legal right to access precinct-level data or to conduct their own re-tally. The statute is silent on citizen verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses secure voter registration for domestic violence victims, protecting their address information and establishing eligibility criteria. It contains no provisions regarding citizen re-tally rights, access to published precinct data, or any mechanism for citizens to verify or recount election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 102 codifies the National-Assembly-election challenge mechanism — but standing is limited to candidates and parties, NOT general citizens. Article 75 codifies CEC publication of results but does not grant citizens raw precinct data for independent re-tally.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 181C concerns privacy exemptions for personal information in nomination documents and does not address citizen rights to re-tally votes from published precinct data. The section is about what privacy laws do not apply to nomination materials, not about public access to election results or vote tallying data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 108 NRWO describes the Federal Election Authority's procedures for determining preference votes and allocating mandates, including publication requirements in paragraph (6). However, the section does not grant any citizen the legal right to re-tally votes from published precinct data. It addresses only the authority's internal procedures and limited distribution to election observers (§ 20a), not a general right of citizen verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 162 describes procedural steps for tallying and transmitting election results (insertion of tallying data into minutes, public proclamation of results, sealing of documents), but it does not address whether citizens have a legal right to re-tally from published precinct data. The section is procedurally focused on official conduct rather than citizen verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section addresses disclosure of financial, budgetary, and fiscal information by government entities in electronic format for public access and traceability, but does not address voting precinct data, election tallying, or citizen rights to recount or verify election results. This is fiscal transparency law, not electoral procedure law, and is therefore irrelevant to the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 170 addresses campaign financing transparency and verification procedures conducted by the Court of Accounts (Сметната палата), including checks on donation sources and financial disclosures. It does not address precinct-level election result data, citizen audit rights, or any mechanism allowing citizens to re-tally voting results from published precinct data. The section concerns campaign finance compliance, not vote tabulation verification.

The section grants electors and candidates the right to contest elections through court application, which provides a formal legal mechanism for challenging results. However, it does not explicitly address the ability to conduct independent re-tallies from published precinct data; it addresses only court-based contestation on specific grounds (eligibility and irregularities/fraud). The criterion asks specifically about the right to re-tally using published data, which is a different procedural right than judicial contestation.

“Any elector who was eligible to vote in an electoral district, and any candidate in an electoral district, may, by application to a competent court, contest the election in that electoral district on the grounds that”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the municipal clerk's duties regarding filing, storage, and public availability of campaign finance reports and disclosures under Article 45. It does not address election tallying, precinct data publication, or citizen re-tally rights. The section is about disclosure and filing requirements for candidates and committees, not ballot counting verification or access to precinct-level election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses moderator and municipal clerk duties regarding recording, counting, declaring, preserving, and destroying absentee ballots and related materials. It does not address citizen rights to conduct independent re-tallies from published precinct data. The statute governs official procedures and document preservation, not public access rights or citizen verification procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign financing disclosure requirements and does not concern vote tallying, precinct data publication, or citizen re-tally rights. It mandates that candidates disclose the sources and amounts of their campaign spending, which is unrelated to the criterion's focus on citizen ability to independently verify election results from published precinct-level voting data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the announcement and publication of election results on official bulletin boards by the registration office. It does not establish any legal right for citizens to re-tally votes from precinct-level data, nor does it create a mechanism for accessing detailed voting data necessary for independent verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses confidentiality of voter addresses and protection of personal information in voter records. It does not address citizen re-tally rights, published precinct data, or the ability to conduct independent vote verification. The criterion concerns transparency and auditing of election results, which is entirely outside the scope of this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 98.045 voter-registration administration. Not citizen-recount right.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section requires public display of ballot counts and transmission of official records to the prefecture, but does not establish any legal right for citizens to independently re-tally or verify results from precinct data. It addresses transparency through public posting, not citizen verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 76 codifies CEC publication of summarised results, but no general citizen right to receive raw precinct data for independent re-tally. Article 183 covers referendum results. Article 149 covers majoritarian determination. Standing limited to electoral subjects / observers.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses preparations for voting, including publication of voting times, polling places, and candidate nomination deadlines, as well as election official record-keeping and ballot verification procedures. It does not address citizen rights to re-tally or access to published precinct-level voting data that would enable independent verification of results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-158 governs mandatory recounts initiated by election officials when vote margins fall below specified thresholds. It establishes procedures for official recounts, allows affected candidates and their representatives to witness recounts, but does not grant any citizen the right to independently re-tally votes from published precinct data. The section addresses official recount procedures, not citizen verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses notification and publication of election results by the National Electoral Commission, but does not establish any legal right for citizens to conduct independent re-tallies from precinct data. It describes administrative procedures for informing elected officials and publishing results in the Government Gazette, with no mention of public access to detailed precinct-level data or citizen verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses recount applications by candidates and ballot measure supporters/opponents, not citizens generally. It requires application through official channels (attorney general or county clerk) rather than authorizing independent citizen re-tallies from published precinct data. The statute governs who may request an official recount, not whether ordinary citizens can independently verify election results using public data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electronic mail filing procedures for recount and contest petitions and whether the state recount commission may receive filings by email. It does not establish or address any right for citizens to re-tally election results from published precinct data. The section is procedurally focused on filing mechanisms, not on citizen access to data or re-tally rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 68B.32B addresses complaint procedures for ethics violations under Iowa campaign finance and lobbying law. It has no connection to ballot tallying, precinct data, or citizen audit/verification rights. The criterion asks whether citizens can re-tally from published precinct election data, which is entirely outside the scope of this ethics complaint procedure statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 44 of the Referendum Act 1994 addresses procedural requirements for presenting referendum petitions to the High Court, including filing deadlines, security deposits, and notice to officials. It does not address citizen rights to re-tally votes from published precinct data or any verification rights related to electoral tallying.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs confidentiality of commission records and complaint handling procedures. It does not address citizen access to published precinct data or the right of any citizen to conduct a re-tally. The section is about record confidentiality, not about data publication or re-tally rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 125 addresses the establishment and publication of election results by territorial election commissions but contains no provision granting citizens the right to conduct independent re-tallies or audits of precinct-level data. The section does not authorize citizen verification or re-tally procedures beyond the commission's official tallying process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18:403 addresses the retention and preservation of election records and their status as public records open to inspection, but it does not establish or guarantee a citizen's legal right to re-tally or recount votes from published precinct data. The statute merely requires that records be kept and made available for inspection; it does not address the substantive right to conduct an independent re-tally or recount.

The section establishes that any voter (tout électeur) may access a copy of the ballot count record deposited at the district court, enabling inspection of precinct data. However, the text does not explicitly authorize or guarantee a legal right to re-tally or recount the data—it only provides a right to consult the records. Access to published data differs from an affirmative right to conduct an independent re-tally.

“Le double reste déposé au greffe du Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg, où tout électeur peut en prendre connaissance.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 191-192 addresses the transmission and proclamation of electoral results by the National Independent Electoral Commission and competent electoral court, but contains no provision allowing citizens to independently re-tally votes from published precinct data. The section permits confrontation of official records at the request of candidates and their representatives, but does not extend re-tally rights to the general citizen population.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses public inspection and retention of completed code forms submitted by candidates, and designates certain codes as public records under Title 1, section 408-A. It does not address citizen re-tally rights or the publication of precinct-level election data from which citizens could perform independent tallies. The criterion asks whether citizens can legally re-tally from published precinct data, which is a distinct procedural and data-access matter not covered by this public records retention provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses public availability and disclosure of audited party financial accounts, not the right of citizens to re-tally election results from precinct-level data. It concerns financial transparency for political parties, which is unrelated to election result verification or citizen re-tally rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs recount petitions by defeated candidates, not citizen re-tallying rights. It explicitly limits the right to petition for a recount to 'a candidate for public or party office who has been defeated based on the certified results,' which excludes ordinary citizens. The statute contains no provision allowing any citizen to re-tally from published precinct data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute establishes a formal recount procedure initiated by petition from registered voters and conducted by registrars of voters. It does not authorize ordinary citizens to independently re-tally votes from published precinct data; recounts are official government processes requiring petition, notarization, and specific procedural requirements. The statute does not grant citizens a general right to re-tally from published precinct information.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses record-keeping and public inspection of nominating petitions and filing fees. It does not concern vote tallying, precinct data, or citizen rights to re-tally election results. The criterion asks whether citizens can legally re-tally from published precinct data, which is entirely outside the scope of this provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the selection procedures for county and state executive committees of political parties. It contains no language regarding citizen rights to re-tally election results, access to precinct data, or verification procedures. The criterion concerns citizen verifiability of election outcomes, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of this statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedures for a recount hearing and what the court shall consider, but it does not address whether citizens (as opposed to official parties or contestants) have a legal right to re-tally votes from published precinct data. The section concerns judicial review of alleged irregularities, not public access to data for citizen verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 97 establishes the competence of public authorities to examine appeals and disputes, but it does not confer any right upon individual citizens to independently re-tally votes or verify precinct-level data. The authority to examine appeals and recount votes (e.g., subsection 2(b) regarding vote recounts) is reserved to the Central Electoral Commission and other specified state bodies, not to citizens acting on their own initiative.

The section requires the Secretary of State to publish election results by precinct, which establishes a public record that could in theory support citizen re-tallying. However, the statute does not explicitly authorize or protect any citizen's legal right to re-tally from those results, nor does it state that results must be published in a format enabling independent verification or aggregation. The language is permissive regarding publication ('may...publish') and does not affirmatively grant citizens a right of access or re-tallying.

“The Secretary of State shall retain the election results for at least five years and shall collate, arrange, computerize, or publish reports arranging the election results.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses recount procedures for presidential elector candidates and election contests filed in court, but does not address citizens' independent right to re-tally votes from published precinct data. The recount mechanism described is limited to candidates who file formal demands and deposit costs with the Secretary of State. The section does not grant or discuss any general citizen right to conduct independent re-tallies using publicly available precinct data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section restricts recount applications to specific candidates: those for whom votes were cast at a primary and those receiving at least 9 percent of votes in a presidential primary. It does not authorize any citizen to apply for or conduct a re-tally based on published precinct data. The recount right is conditioned on candidate status and official payment of fees to the secretary of state, not on general citizen access.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section requires emergency ballot reports to be prepared and made available as public records for inspection and copying, but does not grant citizens any explicit right to conduct or perform a re-tally or independent verification of election results from precinct-level data. It establishes a reporting requirement and public access to documents, not a substantive right to re-tally ballots.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses board of registration meeting procedures, public records access rules, and privacy protections for personal information. It does not address citizen rights to re-tally election results from precinct data or any aspect of vote tallying verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the collection and use of electronic mail addresses for military-overseas voters and election communications. It contains no provisions regarding citizen re-tallying rights, access to precinct data, or verification procedures that would enable any citizen to independently re-tally election results from published data.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses contribution limitations adjustments and reporting procedures for campaign finance disclosures. It does not address citizen re-tally rights, precinct-level election data publication, or audit/verification procedures related to vote counting. The section is entirely outside the scope of criterion 4.4.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electronic mail addresses for covered voters and military-overseas ballot procedures. It contains no provisions regarding citizen rights to re-tally votes, access to precinct data, or verification procedures. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of citizen re-tally rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 251.430 addresses the temporary exemption of candidate materials and ballot measure arguments from public records disclosure. It does not address citizen re-tally rights, precinct data publication, or any aspect of election result verification. The section is about access to campaign materials before a filing deadline, not about post-election data availability or verification procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1309-A is repealed and contains no substantive text. The section provides no information about citizen re-tally rights, published precinct data, or any election procedures. A repealed statute cannot satisfy any criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 51 concerns personal data protection, confidentiality, and access to personal information held by public authorities. It does not address election procedures, precinct-level vote tallies, or citizen rights to independently verify election results. The criterion asks about citizens' legal right to re-tally from published precinct data, which is an election integrity matter entirely outside the scope of this constitutional provision on data privacy.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the official counting procedures at polling stations and requires public notification of ballot counts, but it does not establish a legal right for citizens to independently re-tally or audit precinct data. The section addresses how officials conduct the count and make results public, not whether citizens have a right to verify or re-tally those results from published data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the public availability of voter registration records and related administrative records. It does not address whether citizens have a legal right to re-tally election results from published precinct data, which is the subject of criterion 4.4. The section is about registration transparency, not post-election audit or verification rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (§ 75) regulates exit polling by accredited opinion polling institutions and organizations. It does not address or establish any right for citizens to re-tally votes from published precinct data. The section is about media/polling access and restrictions on publishing exit polls, not about citizen verification rights or access to electoral tallying data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 73 governs military voting, not recount.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 107 addresses transparency requirements for electoral printed matter and advertising disclosures during election periods. It does not establish or address any right for citizens to re-tally votes from published precinct data, which is the substance of criterion 4.4. The section is concerned with campaign material labeling and publisher identification, not vote verification or citizen access to electoral data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the ethics committee process and House or Senate review of ethics committee actions. It does not concern election procedures, ballot counting, precinct data publication, or citizen rights to re-tally election results. The criterion asks about citizen re-tallying from published precinct data, which is entirely outside the scope of this ethics provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 98 of LOREG addresses the public posting of election results and distribution of scrutiny records to party representatives, interventors, and appointed administrators. It does not grant citizens generally the right to re-tally votes from published precinct data; the right to receive copies of the scrutiny act is limited to designated party representatives and officials, not to any citizen.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the handling and redaction of social security numbers in voter registration records and their availability for public inspection. It does not address citizen re-tally rights or access to published precinct-level election data needed for independent verification of results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 2972 Article 25 covers PARTY/CANDIDATE challenges to records leading to re-count — not general citizen re-tally right.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the classification of Electoral Commission records under the Public Records Act 1958, establishing that Electoral Commission records are public records. It does not address citizen rights to re-tally election results from published precinct data or any aspect of citizen verifiability of election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns a study and report on the feasibility of free postage for absentee ballots. It does not address citizen re-tally rights, precinct-level data publication, or vote verification procedures. The section is entirely administrative and procedural in nature, establishing no mechanism or right related to citizen verification of election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs retention, public inspection, and complaint procedures for campaign financial statements, not precinct-level election data or citizen re-tally rights. It addresses transparency of candidate and political committee finances, not the underlying vote tallies or voting records that would enable citizens to independently verify election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the costs and procedures for recounts petitioned by candidates or referendum petitioners, but does not establish or recognize a right for any citizen to independently re-tally votes from published precinct data. The statute focuses on who bears the expense of official recounts conducted by courts, not on citizen access to raw data for independent verification.

The statute permits certain citizens (candidates and groups of registered voters) to request recounts, but it governs official recounts conducted by election officials—not independent citizen re-tallying from published precinct data. The criterion asks whether citizens can independently re-tally from published data; this statute addresses only formal recount applications filed with officials, which is a different mechanism that does not satisfy the criterion of direct citizen access to independently verify tallies.

“An officer of a political party or any person for whom votes were cast at any election may file a written application for a recount of the votes or a portion of the votes cast at that election for all candidates for election to that office. Any group of five or more registered voters may file a written application for a recount of the votes or a portion of the votes cast upon any question or issue.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses what financial statement information may not be made publicly available—specifically contributor addresses, business affiliations, and treasurer addresses. It concerns campaign finance disclosure restrictions, not precinct-level election data publication or citizen re-tally rights. The section has no bearing on whether citizens can access and re-tally published precinct data.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs recount procedures, deposits, and expense allocation when a recount is requested. It does not address whether citizens can re-tally or independently verify election results from published precinct data. The statute is limited to the formal recount process initiated by candidates or election officials, not citizen verification rights.