Source-code escrow

The statute explicitly requires that computer programs (source code) for vote tabulating devices be filed with the secretary of state and held in escrow for a three-year period. This directly satisfies the criterion of requiring source-code escrow with the state as a condition of using vote tabulating devices in elections.

Cal. Elec. Code § 19212(a)(1) explicitly requires source-code escrow with the Secretary of State within 10 business days of certification. Strongest source-code-escrow language across scored jurisdictions.

“the vendor or county seeking certification or approval of the voting system shall cause an exact copy of the approved source code”

The statute explicitly requires voting system providers to place election software in escrow with the secretary of state (or an approved independent escrow agent) as a condition of certification. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for source-code escrow with the state as a certification condition.

10 ILCS 5/23-15.1 codifies mandatory escrow of voting-system computer code at the State Board within 90 days of approval. Clear yes on escrow mechanism.

“place in escrow all computer code for its voting system with the State Board of Elections”

The statute explicitly requires vendors to provide documentation that the voting system's source codes have been escrowed with an escrow agent approved by the election division. This mandatory requirement is a condition of the application for certification of voting systems in Indiana.

The statute mandates that vendors providing voting system software must place source code in an escrow account, which satisfies the requirement for source-code escrow with the state as a condition of providing such systems. The section establishes this as an affirmative obligation ("shall place") for vendors of electronic voting systems.

§ 206.805 codifies an EXPLICIT source-code escrow mandate: 'The contracts must give the state a perpetual license to use and modify the software. The contracts must include provisions to escrow the software source code.' Among the clearest source-code-escrow provisions in the corpus.

“The contracts must give the state a perpetual license to use and modify the software. The contracts must include provisions to escrow the software source code.”

The statute explicitly requires source-code escrow with the state as a condition of both initial and continued certification of voting systems. This directly satisfies the criterion by mandating that source code be placed in escrow and made accessible to New Mexico.

The statute clearly mandates that vendors contracting to provide voting systems in North Carolina must place source code and related software in escrow with an independent escrow agent approved by the State Board of Elections. This is a binding contractual requirement enforced by felony and civil penalties, establishing source-code escrow as a condition of providing voting systems in the state.

“Every vendor that has a contract to provide a voting system in North Carolina shall do all of the following: The vendor shall place in escrow with an independent escrow agent approved by the State Board of Elections all software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system, including, but not limited to, a complete copy of the source and executable code”

The statute explicitly requires that all source codes for optical scan voting systems be placed in escrow by the manufacturer before the system can be used in elections. This is a mandatory condition of certification, as stated in subsection (I). The source codes must be made available to the State Election Commission under specified circumstances, and manufacturers must place all updates in escrow as well.

“Before an optical scan voting system may be used in elections in the State, all source codes for the system must be placed in escrow by the manufacturer, at the manufacturer's expense, with the authority approved by the Federal Election Assistance Commission.”

Wis. Stat. § 5.905 codifies source-code escrow at the elections-commission level: the vendor must provide the commission with the software components defined in subsection (1) and consent to inspection. Strong escrow language.

“5.905 5.905 Software components. 5.905(1) (1) In this section, “software component” includes vote-counting source code, table structures, modules, program narratives and other human-readable computer instructions used to count votes with an electronic voting system.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

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: Section 129 concerns campaign deposit requirements for political parties, coalitions, and initiative committees participating in elections. It addresses financial deposits, not source-code escrow or vendor certification requirements. This section is entirely unrelated to the criterion regarding source-code escrow as a condition of certification.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

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 matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 121.256 governs civil enforcement of campaign-finance law. No source-code escrow requirement is codified as a condition of voting-system certification.

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 matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

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 employer payroll deduction programs for campaign contributions and recordkeeping requirements. It contains no provisions regarding source-code escrow, vendor certification, or any election system vendor requirements. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance regulations, specifically restrictions on contributions and expenditures through various payment methods. It contains no provisions relating to source-code escrow, state certification of voting systems, or vendor independence requirements. The criterion concerns technical safeguards for election infrastructure; this statute concerns political committee financial disclosures.

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 violations of campaign finance and lobbying contribution/expenditure rules, including enforcement mechanisms, refunds, disgorgement, and penalties. It contains no provisions relating to source-code escrow, election technology certification, or vendor independence requirements. The section is entirely outside the scope of the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 3506.05 establishes requirements for certification of voting equipment, including examination by a board of examiners, submission of procedural manuals and support arrangements, and disclosure of patents and copyrights. However, the text contains no mention of source-code escrow, escrow arrangements, or any requirement for the state to hold source code as a condition of certification.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 79 of the Polish Electoral Code addresses the deposit and handling of voting documents and election commission seals by district election commission chairs. It contains no provisions regarding source-code escrow, software certification requirements, or vendor independence in election systems. This section deals with physical document management, not technological or vendor-related safeguards.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 of LOREG addresses voting procedures for Spanish citizens residing abroad, including mail-in voting, ballot delivery, and in-person deposit at embassies and consulates. It contains no provisions related to source-code escrow, vendor certification, election technology, or software security arrangements. The criterion concerns source-code escrow requirements for election system vendors, which is entirely absent from this section.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute requires vendors to place information in escrow with a state-designated agent, but it does not specifically mandate source-code escrow as a condition of certification. The text refers to 'all information required by law, rule or regulation' rather than explicitly requiring source code, and the escrow requirement appears to be a general vendor obligation rather than a specific certification prerequisite.

“vendors shall provide access to all information required by law, rule or regulation, which shall be placed in escrow with an agent designated by the secretary of state”

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: Anayasa Article 166 economic planning — unrelated.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.