Open protocol standards

Cal. Elec. Code § 19101(a) requires SOS to 'adopt and publish voting system standards and regulations governing the use of voting systems that meet the minimum requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and that incorporate best practices in election technology.' Standards are codified and publicly published.

The statute explicitly mandates that voter registration data provided on computer media must use open, publicly documented data standards (EBCDIC, ASCII, or BCD) and prohibits proprietary or encrypted formats. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for open protocol standards.

“If the information is provided on computer generated media such as disk, diskette, tape, telecommunications or any other form of magnetic media, then the information shall be provided in non-proprietary and non-encrypted form. Minimum data standards shall be EBCDIC (Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code), ASCII (American Standard Code Information Interchange) or BCD (Binary Coded Decimal).”

Wis. Stat. § 7.08(1) requires the elections commission to 'Prescribe all official ballot forms necessary under chs. 5 to 12' — published standardized ballot formats. § 5.87 codifies tabulating procedures under the requirements of the automatic tabulating equipment specification. § 5.02 codifies statutory definitions of voting-equipment categories.

The standard form of electronic votes is established by published resolution of the National Electoral Committee (§ 59¹), and § 48⁸ requires publication of the system source code — Estonia's vote format and protocol are publicly documented, though not framed as a formal open standard.

“An electronic vote which does not contain the registration number of the candidate or which does not comply with the standard form established by the National Electoral Committee is null and void.”

Article 68 (Procedure of Counting Votes) codifies open and transparent vote-counting procedures. Article 70 (Establishment of Results) codifies result-aggregation protocols. Statutory protocols are public, though no vote-format/device-protocol specification is codified for the KOIB/DEG systems.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses publication of voter registration lists in newspapers and does not concern vote-format or device-protocol standards. It is about voter list management and public notice, not about technical standards for voting devices or open protocols.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses confidentiality of voter registration records and exceptions for disclosure to various parties and agencies. It contains no information about vote-format, device-protocol standards, or the openness of technical specifications for voting systems. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion concerning open protocol standards for voting devices.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: A.R.S. § 16-1023 addresses digital impersonation and deepfakes in political contexts. It is entirely unrelated to vote-format standards, device protocols, vendor independence, or open standards for voting systems. The section deals with civil remedies for fraudulent digital media impersonation, not election technology infrastructure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7-1-113 addresses vote center operations, voter registration verification, and equipment maintenance standards, but does not address open protocol standards or publicly documented device-protocol specifications. The section authorizes the Secretary of State to promulgate rules for electronic equipment and connections but contains no requirement that such standards be open or publicly documented.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 51 enumerates CEC functions including 'supervision over the lawful and uniform application of the Code' but doesn't codify open vote-format/device-protocol standards (none needed for paper voting).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 273AB addresses assessment and verification of counting software accuracy, but does not address whether vote-format or device-protocol standards are open and publicly documented. The section requires independent assessment of software and publication of assurance statements, but contains no provisions regarding open standards or public documentation of protocols.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 96 covers elections in new administrative-territorial units — unrelated to vote-format/device-protocol standards (paper voting).

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns paid electoral advertising in print media and internet reproduction of newspapers. It is entirely unrelated to vote-format standards, device protocols, or voting technology standards, which is what the criterion addresses. The section regulates campaign communication, not voting system technical specifications.

The section requires that parties, coalitions, NGOs, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences receive access to devices, documentation, and source code during the certification process. However, this provides access only to registered observers and specific stakeholders during certification, not public documentation of open protocol standards. The criterion asks whether standards are open and publicly documented generally, which this section does not explicitly establish.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses funding, compensation, and budget allocation for village committees and public affairs. It contains no content related to voting systems, device protocols, technical standards, or vote formats. The criterion concerns election technology standards; this statute section is purely about fiscal administration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: C.R.S. § 1-40-124 addresses publication requirements for constitutional amendments and ballot measures in legal newspapers. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, vendor independence, or open technical standards for voting systems. This section is entirely about public notice and ballot measure dissemination, not voting technology specifications.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses preclearance requirements for election policies in Connecticut municipalities, focusing on voting access, districting, and anti-discrimination compliance. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format or device-protocol standards, nor does it address whether such standards are open or publicly documented. The section is entirely unrelated to vendor independence or technical standards for voting equipment.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the duties and powers of the Commissioner relating to campaign finance reporting, disclosure forms, and administrative procedures. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, voting technology, or vendor independence. The section is entirely about political committee reporting requirements and is unrelated to the criterion concerning open protocol standards for voting systems.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 100.011 poll opening/closing time. Off-topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the French Electoral Code addresses campaign account reporting requirements and financial disclosure procedures for candidates. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or open technical standards for voting systems. The criterion concerns election technology standards, while this section concerns campaign finance transparency.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 30 codifies CEC legal-act publication (ordinances, decrees, summary protocols). No open vote-format/device-protocol standards (none needed for paper).

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the petition process for political parties to qualify for ballot access in Hawaii. It addresses requirements such as voter signatures, filing deadlines, and committee structure. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical documentation standards for voting systems.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the accuracy of voter registration information and data sharing between state entities and the Secretary of State. It does not address vote-format standards, device protocols, or open protocol standards for voting systems. The criterion relates to voting technology standards, which is not the subject matter of this registration-focused statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/9-15 enumerates State Board duties (forms, manuals, public-information access); no open-protocol standard for voting systems.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting systems and electronic filing procedures for candidate committees, not voting formats, device protocols, or election equipment standards. It has no relevance to the criterion regarding open and publicly documented vote-format or device-protocol standards.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Iowa Code § 49.21 addresses polling place designation, accessibility, signage, and candidate material restrictions. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are the subject of the criterion about open protocol standards and vendor independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section amends electoral finance and campaign expense reporting requirements under the Electoral Reform Act 2022. It addresses penalties for non-disclosure of election expenses and donations to the Standards in Public Office Commission. It does not concern vote-format standards, device protocols, or vendor independence in voting systems.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs hearing procedures before the Kansas Secretary of State, including evidentiary rules, testimony requirements, and public access to proceedings. It does not address vote-format standards, device protocols, or any technical specifications related to voting systems or election technology. The criterion concerns open and publicly documented standards for voting systems, which is outside the scope of administrative hearing procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 28 addresses the right to conduct pre-election campaigns, access to media, debates, and campaign materials. It does not address vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical specifications for voting systems. The criterion concerns technical standards for election devices and systems, which is outside the scope of this campaign-related provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 121.005 and KRS 121.120(6) require a 'nonproprietary standardized format... using industry standards' for electronic campaign-finance reporting, but no open, publicly documented vote-format or voting-device-protocol standard 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 addresses campaign finance disclosure and advertising payment requirements, including prohibitions on subterfuge and mandates for transparency in political advertisements. It has no connection to voting equipment, device protocols, vote formats, or technical standards for election systems.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of Maine law addresses disclosure requirements for political public communications and campaign funding transparency. It has no relevance to vote-format standards, device protocols, or open technical specifications for voting systems, which is the subject of criterion 5.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of Malta's Financing of Political Parties Act addresses accounting records and financial documentation requirements for political parties. It is entirely unrelated to vote-format standards, device protocols, or voting technology standards, which is what criterion 5.2 concerns. The statute deals with party finance transparency, not electoral device specifications.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter informational materials and signage to be posted in polling places. It contains no language regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, vendor specifications, or open documentation of technical voting systems. The criterion concerns the transparency and openness of voting device protocols, which is entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the administration of automatic voter registration, including registrar duties, notification requirements, and reporting obligations. It does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are the subject matter of the criterion. The section is entirely outside the scope of vendor independence and open protocol standards for voting systems.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 168.721 addresses the hours for opening and closing polling places and is governed by time zone considerations. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, vendor independence, or open protocol documentation. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of open and publicly documented election technology standards.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 200.04 (HAVA complaints) and similar FTS candidates do not codify open vote-data-exchange protocols. Minnesota does not codify open-protocol standards; the certification is by SoS examination under § 206.57.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a centralized voter registration database system and requires adherence to 'standard, industry accepted file format,' but it does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards for voting equipment or election devices. The criterion concerns open and publicly documented standards for voting technology, which is outside the scope of voter registration system specifications covered here.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses polling place designation, accessibility, and location requirements. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, vendor independence, or technical documentation requirements. The statute is entirely unrelated to the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 27 describes the Central Electoral Commission's administrative powers and responsibilities for managing elections, including supervising electoral bodies, coordinating procedures, and distributing materials. It does not address whether vote-format or device-protocol standards are open or publicly documented. The section is about electoral governance structure, not technical standard transparency.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 13-17-103 sets functional voting-system specifications and authorizes the secretary of state to adopt electronic security standards by rule, but Montana does not codify open, publicly-documented vote-format or device-protocol standards.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses poll hours and ballot receipt deadlines for elections in Nebraska. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or vendor independence. The section is entirely procedural regarding election timing and is unrelated to the criterion's focus on open protocol standards for voting systems.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes requirements for an elections procedures manual and its oversight, but does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, nor does it require such standards to be open and publicly documented. The section is about administrative procedures and compliance, not technical standards for voting devices or protocols.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter checklist preparation, composition, and maintenance procedures. It does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are the subject of criterion 5.2. The section is entirely unrelated to vendor independence or the openness of voting system protocols.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns publication of notice about mail-in ballot procedures and voter information dissemination. It does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are technical specifications governing how voting systems encode, transmit, or process votes. The criterion relates to vendor independence and open standards for voting technology, which is outside the scope of this notice publication statute.

The section requires voting systems to meet UACEC standards and state law, which establishes reference to external standards, but does not explicitly require that vote-format or device-protocol standards themselves be open and publicly documented. The statute mandates compliance with standards rather than mandating open protocol standards.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 5-800 (electronic voter registration transmittal), § 8-414 (absentee ballot tracking), § 14-114 (contribution limits), § 8-712 (early mail tracking) all codify electronic systems but none mandate open vote-format or device-protocol standards.

The statute requires the State Board to make counting procedures and standards available to the public, which addresses transparency and documentation. However, the section does not explicitly establish that standards are 'open' in the sense of being based on open protocols that allow independent development or implementation. The requirement to publish in the North Carolina Register and make copies available is procedural transparency, not necessarily vendor independence or open protocol standards in the technical sense required by the criterion.

“Copies of those procedures and standards shall be made available to the public upon request or otherwise by the State Board.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16.1-06-14 codifies requirements for voting systems — must provide for voting for nominated/non-nominated candidates and questions/measures, etc. Functional requirements codified, but no open-protocol/open-format mandate for vote-data exchange.

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 defines terms related to armed services absent voter eligibility (dependent, overseas voter, uniformed services voter). It contains no provisions regarding vote-format, device-protocol standards, or vendor independence. The section is entirely about voter eligibility definitions and does not address technical standards or open protocols.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses verification of voter citizenship through database comparisons and proof-of-citizenship procedures. It does not concern vote-format standards, device protocols, or vendor independence in voting systems, which is the subject matter of criterion 5.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a Translation Advisory Council and its membership, qualifications, and duties related to voters' pamphlet translations. It does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are the subject of criterion 5.2 on vendor independence.

The statute requires development and publication of voting standards in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, establishing a mechanism for public documentation. However, the section does not explicitly require that these standards be 'open' in the sense of allowing independent implementation or modification, nor does it specify technical openness regarding device protocols. The focus is on uniform vote-definition standards rather than open protocol specifications for voting devices themselves.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 117 of the Polish Electoral Code addresses free airtime for electoral broadcasts by radio and television stations. It concerns media campaign rules and broadcasting procedures, not vote-format or device-protocol standards for voting systems. The section has no relevance to technical standards for voting devices or open protocol documentation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 170 of Lei n.º 14/79 addresses exemptions from taxes, fees, and charges related to electoral documents and procedures. It contains no provisions concerning vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical specifications for voting systems. The section is entirely unrelated to vendor independence or open protocol standards for electronic or mechanical voting devices.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 22 addresses the delimitation of voting sections by mayors, specifying administrative and territorial nomenclature requirements. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical specifications of voting equipment. The section is entirely unrelated to vendor independence or open protocol standards.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses remedies for breaches of ethical standards by public officials and employees, including warnings, reprimands, and recovery of improperly received benefits. It does not address vote-format standards, device protocols, or election technology specifications. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion concerning open and publicly documented voting standards.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 12-2-3 codifies polling hours (7am-7pm) — unrelated to open-protocol standards. SDCL Title 12 does not codify open vote-data exchange protocols; certification is by State Board rule under § 12-17B-2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 57 of LOREG addresses the allocation of public spaces and venues for electoral campaign activities. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical specifications for voting systems. The section is entirely about campaign infrastructure, not voting technology or standards.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 32.111 codifies published training standards for election judges and § 122.001 references the Election Assistance Commission voting-system standards, but no open, publicly documented vote-format or device-protocol specification is codified.

Law 298 Article 68 publicly specifies ballot-box physical dimensions/material — an open hardware standard for the box, but not for a vote-format/device-protocol (no devices used).

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 9A of PPERA 2000 establishes a framework for the Electoral Commission to determine and publish performance standards for electoral registration officers, returning officers, and counting officers. It contains no provisions relating to vote formats, device protocols, or technical standards for voting equipment. The section is concerned with administrative performance standards for election officials, not the technical specifications or openness of voting systems.

The section establishes a committee to develop voting system guidelines and requires publication of recommendations in the Federal Register, which addresses transparency and public documentation. However, the statute does not explicitly require that standards be 'open' (non-proprietary) or mandate that protocols themselves be publicly available—only that the Development Committee's recommendations be published. The section does prohibit private sector entities from obtaining intellectual property rights to guidelines, which supports openness, but does not affirmatively establish that vote-format and device-protocol standards will be open and publicly documented.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses local voter information pamphlet requirements, including notice procedures, written arguments for and against ballot propositions, and rebuttal processes. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, or technical specifications for voting systems. The section is entirely focused on voter communication and ballot measure procedures, not vendor independence or protocol standards.

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 addresses covered practices in elections (changes to election methods, district boundaries, polling places, and language access) and requires public notice and comment procedures or Attorney General certification. It does not address vote-format or device-protocol standards, open protocols, or vendor independence in voting systems. The statute is about procedural requirements for certain electoral changes, not technical standards for voting devices or formats.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses statewide surveys of ballot rejection rates and canvassing practices, not vote-format or device-protocol standards. It contains no discussion of open standards for voting devices, protocols, or technical specifications.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses fair campaign practices and ethical conduct by candidates for public office. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format standards, device protocols, open standards, or any technical specifications related to voting systems or election technology.

No matching sections in corpus.