Recertification triggers

Cal. Elec. Code § 19216 codifies the recertification trigger: once certified/conditionally approved, a voting system 'shall not be changed or modified until the Secretary of State has been notified in writing and has determined that the change or modification does not impair' system integrity. § 19291 mirrors this for remote accessible vote-by-mail systems.

Connecticut statute clearly codifies a fixed-schedule recertification trigger for regional election advisors: certifications expire every two years, and renewal requires completion of an abridged recertification process prescribed by the Secretary. This satisfies the fixed-schedule component of CERT.2. The statute also provides for revocation 'with or without cause, at any time,' creating a mechanism for response to defects or material changes.

“Any such initial certification granted under this subdivision shall expire two years after the date of such granting. Prior to expiration of the initial or any subsequent certification, a regional election advisor may undergo an abridged recertification process prescribed by the Secretary, and upon successful completion thereof, such certification shall be renewed for two years after the date of such completion.”

§ 13-17-212 codifies recertification triggers — at least 10% of each voting-system type is randomly retested and recertified every calendar year, and § 13-17-507 bars a machine that fails a post-election audit from reuse until re-examined and re-approved.

“at least 10% of each type of voting system in the state has been randomly tested and certified at least once every calendar year”

The statute codifies multiple recertification triggers: (1) a fixed schedule (review during the year following a presidential election, with testing to begin no later than June 1), and (2) an event-based trigger (whenever the secretary of state becomes aware that a system no longer complies with statutory or federal standards). Both triggers are statutory mandates, not discretionary, and include explicit procedural requirements.

The section codifies a fixed recertification schedule (at least every 8 years) as a mandatory duty of state officials ('shall reexamine'). This establishes a clear, statutory recertification trigger that does not depend on administrative discretion or reactive discovery alone. The 8-year cycle is specific and enforceable.

“Before the 2002 election cycle and at least every eight (8) years thereafter, the state coordinator of elections and the state election commission shall reexamine all voting machines to ensure such machines still meet the minimum criteria for certification.”

The statute requires the secretary of state to adopt standards specifying criteria for loss of certification (subsection C) and mandates recertification after loss of certification, but does not itself codify what those triggers are — only that they must exist and be adopted. The statute also addresses emergency modifications and requires decertification after six months (subsection G), but lacks fixed schedules or automatic recertification triggers tied to material updates or defect discovery. The authority to establish criteria is delegated to the secretary of state via administrative rulemaking, not set in statute.

“After consultation with the committee prescribed by subsection A of this section, the secretary of state shall adopt standards that specify the criteria for loss of certification for equipment that was used at any election for federal, state or county offices and that was previously certified for use in this state.”

§ 87 codifies that Folketinget approves the validity of candidates' elections and can demand new calculations by the Minister. Re-validation triggers via Folketinget. § 16a/§ 96b codify recertification of voter eligibility for citizens abroad.

§ 143 codifies that on a presidential candidate's — or the President-elect's — permanent incapacity or death, 'the election of the President must be undertaken anew.' § 189 codifies postponement of the election date. § 39/§ 40 codify re-resolution of candidate applications. Re-certification / re-run triggers codified, though not voting-system recertification (not applicable to a paper regime).

The statute grants the federal interior ministry authority to set conditions for official approval and withdrawal/revocation of certification via regulation, and contemplates periodic public testing. However, the text does not codify specific recertification triggers—such as material software/hardware updates, discovery of defects, or fixed temporal schedules. The delegation to regulation is standard German practice, but CERT.2 requires that triggers themselves be codified (in statute or regulation), not merely that rulemaking authority exist. The section provides structural authority for oversight but leaves the substantive trigger framework to discretionary regulatory definition.

“die Voraussetzungen für die amtliche Zulassung der Bauart von Wahlgeräten sowie für die Rücknahme und den Widerruf der Zulassung”

The statute requires rules to codify recertification triggers after equipment/program modifications and for non-compliance with performance standards, satisfying material-update and defect-discovery triggers. However, no fixed-schedule recertification requirement is codified in the statute itself—only a delegation to the state commissioner to adopt rules. The criterion demands codified triggers, and while two of three are addressed by rule-making authority, the fixed-schedule element and the rules themselves remain administrative discretion rather than statutory mandate.

15 kap. 13 § codifies that 'the Valprövningsnämnden shall annul an election to the extent necessary and decide on a re-election (omval) in the relevant constituency if there were irregularities in the preparation… or in the carrying out of the election.' Re-certification triggers via the Election Review Board codified.

52 USC § 20971(a)(1) grants EAC authority for 'decertification, and recertification' of voting systems but the surfaced text does not enumerate specific recertification triggers (material updates, defects, fixed schedule).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns political action committee registration and disclosure requirements, not election system vendor oversight or recertification. CERT.2 addresses whether voting equipment or election software vendors must be recertified after material updates, defects, or on a fixed schedule. Alabama § 17-5-5 imposes no codified recertification triggers for vendors; it merely requires PACs to file organizational statements and report material changes to the Secretary of State. The institutional structure for vendor recertification is entirely absent from this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes the organization and permanent updating of the voter registry by the Cámara Nacional Electoral, but does not codify any recertification triggers—whether after material updates, after discovered defects, or on a fixed schedule. The statute requires continuous updating and depuration of records (permanent, ongoing maintenance) but contains no language mandating recertification events, periodic vendor audits, or triggering conditions that would initiate a formal recertification process. Permanent maintenance is not the same as codified recertification triggers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs petition verification procedures for ballot initiatives and referenda, establishing timelines for Secretary of State review and correction processes. It contains no provisions addressing recertification triggers for election equipment, voting systems, or other vendor products — the domain of CERT.2. The criterion requires codified triggers for material updates, discovered defects, or fixed-schedule recertification of certified systems; this section does not address those institutional structures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 337 addresses criminal penalties for electoral fraud in witnessing and signing electoral papers; it contains no institutional framework governing recertification of voting systems, equipment, procedures, or vendors. Recertification triggers are not codified in this section, nor does it establish any mechanism for periodic review or material-change certification.

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 (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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the termination and creation of mandates (elected office) for regional council members in Czech Republic, covering grounds for loss of office (death, incapacity, incompatibility, criminal conviction) and procedural mechanisms for their adjudication. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recertification triggers, vendor oversight, material updates to election systems, discovery of defects, or fixed-schedule recertification of any election administration infrastructure or equipment. The criterion CERT.2 concerns election system certification and recertification; this section concerns only mandate termination procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration procedures through state agencies and motor vehicle licensing, not vendor oversight or recertification of election equipment or systems. It contains no codified triggers for recertification after material updates, discovery of defects, or on a fixed schedule. The criterion CERT.2 concerns election vendor accountability; this section deals with registration administration and is outside the scope of vendor oversight.

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: § 102.111 establishes Elections Canvassing Commission — not recertification triggers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidate observer rights and notification procedures for electronic voting operations. It does not establish any recertification triggers, material-update protocols, defect-discovery mechanisms, or fixed-schedule recertification requirements for electronic voting systems. Vendor oversight and system recertification are absent from the text.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

§ 21-2-499 codifies state board canvassing/computation duties (including recanvass on discrepancy). § 21-2-495 codifies recount/recanvass procedure. Recertification triggers not separately codified — handled through State Election Board rules.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24 concerns voter registration list maintenance and appeals, not vendor oversight or election system recertification. It establishes procedural rules for voter eligibility determinations and administrative review, with no reference to vendors, voting systems, equipment certification, or recertification triggers following material updates, defects, or fixed schedules.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes an initial certification process and identifies one trigger (material changes that impair accuracy, efficiency, or capacity), but it fails to codify mandatory recertification triggers for defects discovered post-certification or periodic review schedules. Section (7) permits periodic review and decertification after public hearing, but does not mandate recertification triggers or a fixed schedule. The burden is on the Secretary of State's discretion ('may periodically review'), not a statutory obligation.

“After a voting machine or vote tally system has been certified by the secretary of state, any change or improvement in the machine or vote tally system that does not impair its accuracy, efficiency, or capacity shall not render necessary a reexamination or recertification of the machine or vote tally system.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter registration form distribution at social service agencies under the National Voter Registration Act. It does not address vendor oversight, recertification triggers, or quality assurance for election vendors (e.g., voting machine manufacturers, tabulation software providers). The criterion concerns institutional safeguards for third-party election vendors; this section concerns voter registration access at unrelated government agencies.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section designates county election officers and defines voter registration agencies and deputy appointment authority, but contains no language about vendor recertification, material updates, defects, or any recertification schedule. The criterion requires statutory codification of recertification triggers for vendors (likely election equipment or software); this section addresses administrative personnel structure, not vendor oversight.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The FTS query surfaced only KRS 116.048 (NVRA voter-registration agencies), which is unrelated to voting-system recertification. KRS 117.379 provides for 'reexamination' of an approved system, but no recertification-trigger provision was surfaced for this datapoint.

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: Section 18:434 governs the selection and commissioning of precinct election commissioners and alternate commissioners through a lottery-based drawing process. It contains no provisions addressing recertification triggers, material updates, defect discovery, or fixed recertification schedules. The criterion CERT.2 concerns vendor oversight and recertification protocols—topics entirely outside the scope of this section's focus on commissioner selection procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 92 addresses electoral campaign propaganda and media regulation under the supervision of the national media authority and the electoral commission. It contains no codified recertification triggers, fixed schedules, or procedures for recertifying vendors or systems after material updates or discovered defects. The section is silent on vendor oversight and certification mechanisms entirely.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 3-204.2 addresses voter registration procedures across multiple state agencies and institutions of higher education. It contains no language regarding vendor oversight, equipment recertification triggers, material updates, defect discovery protocols, or fixed-schedule recertification requirements. The section is entirely procedural for voter registration access and reporting, not vendor management or election system certification.

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 voter registration procedures (in-person, mail, online), not voting system vendor recertification triggers. It is unrelated to CERT.2.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: NRS § 293.504 addresses voter registration agency duties and procedures for accepting and transmitting voter registration applications. It does not establish or codify any recertification triggers for election equipment, systems, or vendors—whether tied to material updates, discovered defects, or fixed schedules. The section is entirely procedural regarding voter registration administration and contains no language addressing vendor oversight, equipment certification, or recertification mechanisms.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

§ 17-210 (NY VRA) codifies preclearance procedure for covered jurisdictions — applies to election-procedure changes, not voting-system recertification. NY ELN doesn't codify a structured recertification-trigger framework for voting systems.

The section establishes initial certification requirements and gives the State Board power to decertify systems, but does not codify specific recertification triggers—such as mandatory recertification after material software updates, after discovered defects, or on a fixed schedule. The authority to decertify is discretionary, and there is no statutory language requiring recertification under defined circumstances. This leaves recertification timing entirely to State Board administrative procedure rather than statutory mandate.

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: ORC 3503.10 governs voter-registration program responsibilities for designated agencies; unrelated to equipment recertification triggers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 26-4-109.2 addresses voter registration agency operations and procedures but contains no codified recertification triggers for any systems, equipment, or processes. The section does not establish fixed schedules, material-update thresholds, or defect-discovery procedures that would require recertification of voting systems, election infrastructure, or vendor products. This is an administrative procedure statute governing agency designation and voter registration form handling, not a certification or recertification framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter registration agency designation and conduct under the National Voter Registration Act, but contains no codified recertification triggers for election vendors or equipment. It addresses voter registration card processing and compliance assessment by the Secretary of State, neither of which constitutes vendor recertification—a distinct institutional safeguard requiring periodic re-evaluation of equipment/software vendors after material updates, defects, or on fixed schedules. No statutory mechanism for vendor oversight recertification is present.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 1325 codifies government-agency voter-registration distribution duties; unrelated to recertification triggers 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: CERT.2 asks whether recertification triggers for election systems or vendors are codified. This section addresses voter registration procedures at designated agencies—a substantive policy about registration access, not institutional oversight of election vendors or systems certification. There are no triggers, schedules, or procedures for vendor recertification mentioned.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 7-5-310 addresses voter registration agency procedures and application processing requirements. It does not contain any provisions regarding vendor recertification, material updates, defect discovery, or fixed recertification schedules. The section is silent on vendor oversight mechanisms entirely.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedural rules for constituting Electoral Tables (polling place management committees) on election day, including succession rules and contingency procedures when members fail to appear. It does not address recertification of voting systems, election administration procedures, or any periodic review or validation mechanisms. The criterion CERT.2 concerns codified triggers for recertification after material updates, defects, or on fixed schedules—institutional safeguards for election technology and administration systems. This article is purely operational and local in scope, dealing with ad-hoc staffing issues, not systemic recertification protocols.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The FTS query surfaced only § 20.031 (voter-registration-agency form on 'recertification' of agency services), which is unrelated to voting-equipment recertification. Reexamination of an approved voting system is codified in § 122.038-122.039, but no recertification-trigger provision was surfaced for this datapoint.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter application attestation and proxy/postal voting procedures under the Representation of the People Act 1983. It does not codify recertification triggers for election administration systems, equipment, or vendors. The criterion CERT.2 requires statutory specification of when vendors or systems must be recertified after material updates, discovered defects, or on fixed schedules. This section contains no such provision.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2145b concerns voter-registration agencies. No recertification-trigger provision for voting equipment is codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-411.2 addresses voter registration agency designation and procedures under the National Voter Registration Act. It does not address election system vendor certification, recertification triggers, or any mechanism for certifying or re-certifying voting equipment or election management systems. This section is purely about access to voter registration services at designated state agencies and contains no structural safeguards for vendor oversight or equipment recertification schedules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses suspension or modification of financial disclosure reporting requirements for elected officials and state officers—a procedural exception mechanism for hardship cases. It contains no codified triggers for recertification of election systems, voting equipment, software, or other vendor products after material updates, defect discovery, or on fixed schedules. CERT.2 requires statutory triggers for recertification of election administration infrastructure; this section governs conflict-of-interest reporting waivers and is entirely outside that domain.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter registration procedures at service agencies under the National Voter Registration Act, not vendor or election system recertification. It contains no codified triggers for recertification of voting equipment, software, or election systems—whether based on material updates, discovered defects, or fixed schedules. The criterion CERT.2 addresses institutional oversight of election technology vendors and systems; this section addresses agency-based voter registration distribution and handling.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.