Multi-vendor capability

Cal. Elec. Code § 19215 governs the multi-vendor regime: 'If a voting system or part of a voting system has been certified or conditionally approved by the Secretary of State, the vendor or, in cases where the system is publicly owned, the jurisdiction shall notify the Secretary of State and all local elections officials who use the system.' Multiple certified vendors operate concurrently in CA elections (Dominion, ES&S, Hart, etc.).

§ 21-2-379.24 codifies BMD examination + approval process — any person/organization may request Secretary of State examination, with approval/revocation procedure. § 21-2-379.2 codifies parallel for DRE voting systems. § 21-2-368 codifies optical-scan systems. § 21-2-324 codifies general voting machine examination. Multiple vendors may seek certification.

The statute allows any voting machine or vote tally system that receives state certification to be used in elections, with no restriction limiting elections to a single vendor. Multiple certified vendors can therefore operate simultaneously in Idaho elections.

“Any voting machine or vote tally system that receives the certification of the secretary of state may be used for conducting elections in this state.”

§ 206.57 codifies that 'a vendor of an electronic voting system may apply to the secretary of state to examine the system' — open vendor-certification process. § 206.805 codifies state voting-system contracts soliciting bids 'from each vendor selling or leasing voting systems that have been certified.' Multiple-vendor framework codified.

“A vendor of an electronic voting system may apply to the secretary of state to examine the system and to report as to its compliance with the requirements of law”

Montana approves voting systems by type (§ 13-17-101, § 13-17-103) and each county independently acquires and pays for its own system; nothing restricts the state to a single vendor, so multiple certified vendors may operate across counties in the same election.

“A county that acquires the new voting system shall cover the cost of the third-party test.”

§ 7-204 codifies that 'contracts for purchase of voting machines or systems of types approved by the state board of elections' include vendor requirements (training, support) — implying multiple approved vendors are permitted concurrently. NY uses multiple certified systems (ImageCast / DS200 / Verity) at the county level.

The statute establishes a certification process for multiple voting systems and permits any certified system to be used in elections without restricting the number of vendors. The language stating certified systems 'shall be valid in any election' without limitation to a single vendor supports the operation of multiple certified vendors simultaneously.

“Those certified voting systems shall be valid in any election held in the State or in any county, municipality, or other electoral district in the State.”

The statute explicitly authorizes the State Election Commission to approve and adopt multiple voting systems, which permits multiple certified vendors to operate within South Carolina elections. This directly satisfies the requirement for multi-vendor capability.

“approve and adopt multiple voting systems if the commission, in its discretion, determines not to adopt one voting system”

§ 12-17B-11 codifies equal party representation among persons employed to receive/process/tabulate ballots — explicit acknowledgment of vendor presence with bipartisan-balance counterweight. § 12-17B-2 codifies State Board certification of multiple systems. Multi-vendor framework codified.

“Except for any specially trained technicians representing the equipment vendor and required for the operation of the automatic tabulating equipment, there shall be equal representation from each political party”

The statute explicitly permits different kinds (vendors) of electronic voting systems to be used within the same county or city, including within the same precinct, subject to State Board approval. This directly enables multi-vendor capability in a single election.

“Systems of different kinds may be adopted for use and be used in different precincts of the same county or city, or within a precinct or precincts in a county or city, subject to the approval of the State Board.”

The statute permits multiple vendors to obtain authorization certificates to print ballots, using the phrase 'Any vendor' without limiting the number of certified vendors that may operate. Section (d) requires the Secretary of State to maintain and distribute a list of 'all vendors authorized to print ballots,' further indicating the system contemplates multiple certified vendors.

“Any vendor authorized to do business in West Virginia and in good standing may apply for a certificate of authorization to print ballots for elections in this state”

Wis. Stat. § 5.92 codifies the multi-vendor framework: 'Before entering into a contract for the purchase or lease of an electronic voting system or any ballots, voting devices, automatic tabulating equipment or related equipment or materials,' municipalities may require bond — implying competitive vendor procurement. § 5.91 codifies system certification by the commission (multiple certified vendors operate concurrently).

10 ILCS 5/24C-16 (DRE approval) and § 24A-16 (optical-scan approval) permit any system meeting requirements — multiple-vendor capable. No active multi-vendor mandate.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the timeline for examination and certification of voting systems (90 days), but contains no language regarding whether multiple certified vendors may operate concurrently in the same election. It is procedural and does not address multi-vendor capability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes approval standards for voting machines and vote tally systems but does not address whether multiple vendors can operate in the same election. It specifies approval criteria and conditions but contains no language permitting or restricting multiple vendors' simultaneous operation.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute permits adoption of multiple 'type or types, make or makes, model or models' for statewide certification, suggesting multiple vendors' equipment can be certified. However, the text does not explicitly address whether multiple certified vendors can operate simultaneously in the same election—it only addresses what can be certified statewide. The section focuses on certification authority rather than operational multi-vendor deployment in individual elections.

“The committee shall submit its recommendations to the secretary of state who shall make final adoption of the type or types, make or makes, model or models to be certified for use in this state.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses manufacturer demonstration and employee assistance requirements for voting machines, but contains no language permitting or prohibiting multiple certified vendors from operating in the same election. It is silent on vendor competition, certification, or multi-vendor capability and therefore does not satisfy the criterion.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 47 covers campaign-content restrictions. Article 45 (election campaigning). Paper-ballot regime — no voting-equipment vendor framework. Not applicable.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Brazilian Constitution lists economic principles (national sovereignty, private property, social function of property, and free competition) and does not address election administration, voting systems, vendors, or election technology. It is wholly unrelated to the criterion regarding multi-vendor capability in elections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 66 addresses incompatibilities and conflicts of interest for members of district election commissions. It contains no provisions regarding certified vendors, multi-vendor systems, or vendor operations in elections. The section is entirely about personnel eligibility rules and has no relevance to the criterion concerning multiple certified vendors.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 126 of the Canada Elections Act addresses ballot security and fraud prevention through prohibitions on forging, unauthorized printing, and ballot box tampering. It does not address vendor certification, vendor independence, or the number of certified vendors permitted to operate in an election. This section is about ballot integrity controls rather than vendor licensing or multi-vendor capability.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section permits federally accredited laboratories to test and qualify voting systems, and the secretary of state may certify systems for use by political subdivisions. However, the statute does not explicitly address whether multiple vendors can operate simultaneously in the same election—it only addresses the certification process for systems generally. The section is procedurally permissive but does not affirmatively guarantee multi-vendor capability within a single election.

The statute permits different voting tabulators to be provided for different voting districts, which could theoretically involve multiple vendors. However, the section does not explicitly permit or require multiple certified vendors to operate simultaneously in the same election within a single voting district or municipality-wide, nor does it mandate vendor diversity. The provision allows variation by district but does not establish multi-vendor capability as a requirement or guarantee.

“Different voting tabulators may be provided for different voting districts in the same municipality.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses financial reporting and asset return obligations for independent representatives and members of local/regional bodies after their mandates end. It contains no provisions regarding certified vendors, election systems, or multi-vendor capability in elections. The section is entirely focused on campaign finance and accounting matters, not vendor management or election administration infrastructure.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the preparation, inspection, testing, and certification of voting devices before elections, but does not address vendor certification, multi-vendor capability, or whether multiple vendors may operate in the same election. The statute is about procedural requirements for device preparation, not vendor independence or selection policies.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 101.295 penalties for purchase violations. Not multi-vendor capability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the French Electoral Code (L195) establishes eligibility restrictions for candidates to departmental councils, listing specific public officials and functionaries who are ineligible based on their roles and tenure. It has no relevance to vendor independence, certified vendors, or multi-vendor capability in elections. The criterion concerns election administration technology and vendor diversity, which is outside the scope of this candidate eligibility provision.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

While the statute permits different voting systems in different precincts, it does not explicitly address whether multiple certified vendors can operate in the same election. The discretion to use different system types does not directly establish vendor independence or multi-vendor capability within a single election context.

“Voting systems of different kinds may, at the discretion of the chief election officer, be adopted for different precincts within the same district.”

No matching sections in corpus.

This section addresses voting system approval renewal and vendor sanctions but does not directly address whether multiple certified vendors may operate in the same election. The section establishes a certification and renewal process for vendors but does not affirmatively permit or prohibit multiple vendors from operating concurrently in a jurisdiction or statewide election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the testing, examination, and certification procedures for optical scan voting systems. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election—a question about multi-vendor capability and electoral jurisdiction. The section establishes the regulatory process for approving systems but contains no language permitting or prohibiting concurrent use of systems from multiple vendors.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute permits counties to use different voting systems within the same county (e.g., combining electronic systems with optical scanning or paper ballots), but this addresses mixing different system types rather than multiple certified vendors of the same system type. The section does not explicitly authorize multiple vendors to supply voting systems for simultaneous use in a single election, which is the core element of multi-vendor capability.

“may use such a system in all or any part of the voting areas within the county or in combination with an optical scanning voting system or with regular paper ballots”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 14 describes the authorities and responsibilities of territorial election commissions in Kazakhstan, covering tasks such as supervising election legislation, registering candidates and proxies, managing lower commissions, and conducting elections. The section contains no provisions regarding vendors, certification of vendors, or multi-vendor capability in elections. This is a different topic entirely.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 117.379 allows any person or corporation owning, manufacturing, or selling a voting system to request examination by the State Board of Elections — implicitly permitting multiple vendors to seek certification — but no explicit multi-vendor capability or open-competition mandate is codified.

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

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

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes the Voting System Proposal Evaluation Committee and its review process for voting system proposals, but it does not address whether multiple certified vendors may operate simultaneously in the same election. The statute focuses on the committee's composition and procurement procedures, not on multi-vendor capability or system architecture.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the design, approval, and use of official ballot boxes but does not address vendor certification, multi-vendor operation, or vendor independence. It concerns ballot box specifications and Secretary of State approval requirements, not vendor plurality in elections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 68 concerns physical polling booth arrangements, ballot box construction, candidate photographs, and polling place security. It does not address vendor certification, vendor selection, or the use of multiple vendors in elections. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of multi-vendor capability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the decertification of voting systems by the State Board but does not establish or permit the use of multiple certified vendors in elections. It concerns removal of certification, not authorization of multiple vendors to operate simultaneously.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs bonds and indemnification requirements for manufacturers or distributors of marking and tabulating units leased or purchased by municipalities. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election or contain any provisions relating to vendor certification, vendor competition, or multi-vendor capability.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting requirements for expenditures made by agents and independent contractors. It does not address vendor certification, election administration systems, or the ability of multiple vendors to operate in the same election. The criterion concerns election technology or service vendor competition, which is unrelated to the subject matter of this campaign finance reporting provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 23-15-883 concerns exceptions to labor restrictions for state highway and public road maintenance and construction contracts. It is entirely unrelated to election administration, certified vendors, or voting systems. It does not address multi-vendor capability or any election integrity matter.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute addresses approval and certification of electronic voting systems by the secretary of state, and requires compliance with federal standards. However, it does not explicitly permit or require multiple certified vendors to operate in the same election. The section focuses on equipment approval, testing standards, and security requirements, but contains no language addressing whether multiple vendors can be used simultaneously within a single election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses cooperation between the Central Electoral Commission and various government ministries and agencies in organizing and conducting elections. It contains no provisions regarding certified vendors, multi-vendor capability, or vendor independence in election systems. The section is focused on institutional coordination and administrative responsibilities, not vendor management or election technology procurement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting requirements for agents, independent contractors, and petition signature gatherers. It contains no provisions regarding certified vendors, election systems, or multi-vendor capability. The statute is about disclosure and expenditure reporting, not vendor certification or competition.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section requires voting systems to meet federal EAC standards but does not address whether multiple certified vendors can operate in the same election. It is a quality/approval standard, not a multi-vendor capability requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses coercion of political contributions by employers and businesses and has no relevance to vendor independence, certified vendors, or election administration systems. It is entirely outside the scope of the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains legislative findings and declarations regarding campaign contributions by business entities and government contracts. It addresses political corruption and procurement integrity, not election vendor certification or operations. The criterion concerns whether multiple certified vendors may operate in the same election, which is entirely outside the scope of this statutory provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a voting system certification committee and outlines its composition, membership qualifications, and procedural requirements. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors may operate simultaneously in the same election; it only creates the institutional framework for reviewing and certifying voting systems.

§ 16.1-06-02 codifies ballot printing/distribution authority (county auditor for local elections, Secretary of State for others). § 16.1-06-26 (not in FTS top-5) codifies Secretary of State voting-system certification with potential decertification. Multiple vendors may seek certification but no explicit multi-vendor mandate codified.

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 conflicts of interest involving elected officials' ownership stakes in voting equipment manufacturers and vendors, not the ability of multiple certified vendors to operate simultaneously in elections. The criterion asks whether law permits multiple vendors; this section does not address vendor certification or multi-vendor capability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns ethics rules governing gifts that state officers and employees may accept from vendors doing business with their agencies. It does not address election vendor certification, multiple vendor operations, or any aspect of election systems. The criterion asks about permitting multiple certified vendors in elections, which is entirely outside the scope of this ethics/gift rule.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses contractor and subcontractor liability for violations in petition signature gathering, not the operation of multiple certified vendors in elections. It has no relevance to vendor independence or multi-vendor capability in election systems.

Section 1106 governs the approval and examination of voting machines by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, establishing criteria for certification and prohibiting use of unapproved machines. However, the section does not directly address whether multiple certified vendors may operate simultaneously in the same election. The statute contemplates approval of different "kinds" of machines and allows for examination of machines from any "person or corporation," but it does not explicitly permit, restrict, or address the concurrent operation of multiple vendors in a single election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 10 of the Polish Constitution establishes the basic structure of the state's division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It contains no provisions regarding election vendors, election technology, or vendor certification. The section is entirely structural and does not address election administration or vendor management.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses tax benefits and exemptions for political parties and election campaigns. It does not concern vendor certification, vendor operations, or the number of certified vendors permitted to operate in elections. The criterion requires analysis of provisions governing multiple certified vendors, which is entirely absent from this tax-focused statute section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses notification, affidavits, and enforcement responsibilities for state vendors but does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate simultaneously in the same election. The section is procedural in nature and does not establish or permit multi-vendor capability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 28 concerns access control and authentication procedures for the electoral register, specifically addressing authorized personnel, authentication methods, and mandate suspension. It does not address vendor selection, certification, operation, or competition in elections, and therefore does not speak to whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 21 (CEC formation) and Article 23 (regional commissions) describe the state administrative structure. No multi-vendor regime — Russia procures voting equipment (KOIB/KEG scanners) through a single state-controlled vendor (state enterprise + selected suppliers).

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 91 addresses prohibitions on voting and election materials—printing, manufacture, supply, removal, damage, and use—and the chief electoral officer's authorization powers. It does not address vendor certification, vendor independence, or whether multiple vendors may operate concurrently in elections. The section is entirely silent on vendor operational frameworks.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section regulates the use of technological means and personal data by political parties during electoral activities, specifically addressing propaganda distribution and social media contracting. It does not address vendor certification, election system operations, or requirements for multiple vendors to operate in elections.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses testing, certification, and security requirements for precinct-based optical scanners, but does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election. The section focuses on equipment functionality and compliance standards rather than vendor selection or multi-vendor capability policies.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 122.032 sets approval requirements for voting systems (including US-manufacture requirements) and § 122.035 governs examiner appointment, but the Election Code codifies no explicit multi-vendor capability or open-competition mandate for concurrent certified vendors.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Anayasa Article 45 governs agriculture — unrelated.

Art. III-162 codifies CEC ballot-paper production via state-budget-funded printing-enterprise contracts. Art. IV-242 codifies local-election printing. Multiple printing enterprises permitted by tender; no voting-equipment vendors exist in a paper-only regime.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 92 of the RPA 1983 addresses restrictions on election-related matter broadcast from outside the UK and is entirely unrelated to vendor certification or the operation of multiple vendors in elections. It concerns broadcasting arrangements and illegal practices in the context of election communications, not vendor independence or certification systems.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 30104 establishes reporting requirements for political committees regarding receipts and disbursements. It does not address vendor certification, multi-vendor operations, or election administration systems. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion concerning multiple certified vendors operating in the same election.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses security of election equipment, record-keeping of service work, and access restrictions to equipment. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election or any aspect of vendor certification or vendor diversity.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2950 governs contractor campaign contributions. Vermont in fact requires the opposite of multi-vendor capability — § 2493(a)(1) mandates a single 'uniform vote tabulator approved by the Secretary of State' for all municipalities that use one.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses decertification procedures for voting systems and components that fail to meet standards or comply with requirements. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election or establish any multi-vendor capability framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section governs the conduct of elections using electronic voting systems and prescribes procedures for testing, security, and ballot handling, but does not address whether multiple certified vendors may operate in the same election. The statute contains no language permitting, requiring, or restricting vendor selection or plurality across a single election.