Decertification grounds & procedure

The statute clearly defines decertification grounds (installation/use of non-certified systems or unauthorized hardware/firmware versions in certified devices) and the procedure (Secretary of State authority to revoke certification or prohibit purchase/lease/use for up to five years). The grounds are specific and legally cognizable, and the authority is grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion.

Cal. Elec. Code § 19201 codifies post-decertification conditional approval, presupposing a decertification process. § 19219 and § 19294 give SoS injunctive-relief authority over non-compliant vendors. Decertification grounds and remedies are codified.

The statute clearly defines grounds for decertification (noncompliance with applicable standards or deviation from certified system) and establishes a detailed procedure: written order by the secretary of state specifying remedies or decertification, written notice to all subdivisions and providers with reasons and effective date, and a mandatory public hearing with opportunity for interested parties to present testimony or documentation before decertification can be affirmed or reversed. This satisfies the statutory codification requirement for vendor oversight.

§ 21-2-379.24 codifies BMD examination procedure including revocation of approval and penalty to vendors for improper conduct. § 21-2-379.2 / § 21-2-368 codify parallel decertification grounds for DRE and optical scan. § 21-2-101 codifies certification programs for election superintendents.

§ 35(3) expressly authorizes the Federal Ministry of Interior to establish by regulation the grounds (Voraussetzungen) and procedures for revocation (Rücknahme) and withdrawal (Widerruf) of official certification of voting machine designs. The statute explicitly delegates to regulation the framework for decertification, satisfying the requirement that grounds and procedure be defined in statute (or statutory delegation). The provision mandates that these rules be established and published, creating a statutory basis for decertification oversight.

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

Subsection (7) explicitly establishes both the grounds (failure to meet UACA and NIST guidelines) and the procedure (periodic review and public hearing) for decertification. The statute provides clear, codified standards tied to recognized national guidelines and mandates a transparent public hearing before revocation, satisfying the criterion's requirement for statutory definition of decertification grounds and process.

“The secretary of state may periodically review the various voting systems that have been certified for use in the state to ensure such systems meet the guidelines set forth by the United States election assistance commission and the national institute of standards and technology. Any voting system that does not meet such guidelines may be decertified after a public hearing.”

The statute establishes clear, specific grounds for decertification (use of uncertified systems or unapproved versions) and defines the procedural consequence (revocation of approval and prohibition from marketing/selling for up to 5 years). This satisfies the structural requirement for statutory definition of both grounds and remedial procedure.

The statute defines two decertification grounds: discretionary decertification when the system 'no longer merits certification' and mandatory decertification when the system fails to meet applicable standards previously defined in § 9–102(d)(1)(i)–(iii). The statute also specifies the State Board's authority to determine the effective date and conditions, establishing a procedural framework within statute rather than leaving decertification to unreviewable administrative discretion.

“(1) may decertify a voting system previously certified if the State Board determines that the system no longer merits certification; and (2) shall decertify a previously certified voting system if the voting system no longer meets one or more of the standards in § 9–102(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this subtitle. (b) The State Board shall determine the effective date and conditions of the decertification.”

The statute clearly defines decertification grounds (non-compliance with Election Code requirements and federal voluntary voting system guidelines) and establishes a procedure (investigation by the secretary of state triggered when non-compliance is identified, with tests and inspections following Section 1-9-14). Both grounds and procedure are statutorily codified rather than left to administrative discretion.

§ 16.1-06-26 codifies Secretary of State authority to adopt rules for certifying AND decertifying voting systems — including any software, hardware, and firmware components. Rules may establish criteria, certification/decertification procedures, and define what constitutes a vote. Comprehensive decertification framework codified.

“The secretary of state may adopt rules according to subsection 3 of section 16.1-01-01 for certifying and decertifying voting systems”

§ 16-11 codifies grounds and procedure for the National Election Board to declare an election invalid. § 15-3 codifies municipality-level validity decisions. § 15-2 codifies county-level. § 16-12 codifies Supreme Court review. § 17-1 codifies re-election procedure. Comprehensive 'decertification' framework for the election itself.

§ 207 codifies decertification procedure for voting apparatus: when affecting 50%+ counties, the Department must submit a 180-day pre-effective-date written plan to legislative leaders with grounds, replacement costs, replacement plan, and effective date.

“Commonwealth may not disapprove or decertify a voting apparatus in 50% or more counties”

The statute defines both the ground for decertification (failure to be accurately and efficiently usable by electors) and the procedure (reexamination by the State Election Commission followed by immediate revocation). Subsection (E) also grants the Commission discretionary reexamination authority when evidence of accuracy or performance concerns is presented. The framework is clear and statutorily codified.

“if, upon the reexamination of any type vote recorder previously approved, it appears that the vote recorder so reexamined can no longer be accurately and efficiently used by electors at elections as provided by law, the approval of the vote recorder must immediately be revoked by the State Election Commission, and no such type vote recorder shall thereafter be purchased for use or used in this State”

RCW 29A.12.190 establishes statutory grounds for decertification (failure to meet federal guidelines, material misrepresentation, unauthorized modifications, and rule-authorized reasons) and explicitly empowers the secretary of state to revoke certification and withdraw authority for future use. The grounds are enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, and the mechanism (secretary of state action) is clearly specified.

The statute explicitly defines decertification grounds: failure to substantially comply with printing, packaging and delivery specifications, or loss of eligibility. The procedure is also statutorily specified: written notice by certified mail with reasons, a 60-day appeal window to the State Election Commission, and a mandated rulemaking for a hearing process. These elements satisfy CERT.3.

“the Secretary of State may deny the application to issue or renew the certificate of authorization, or may suspend or revoke the certificate of authorization upon a determination that the vendor has not substantially complied with the printing, packaging and delivery specifications in the printing of ballots for any state, county or municipal election, or that the vendor is not eligible or is no longer eligible to print ballots pursuant to the provisions of this section. The Secretary of State shall give written notice of any such determination by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the vendor setting forth the reason for the suspension, revocation or the denial of the application or the denial of the renewal thereof. The applicant may, within sixty days of the receipt of such denial, file a written appeal with the state Election Commission. The State Election Commission shall promulgate rules establishing a hearing process for such appeals.”

The statute defines grounds for re-examination when tabulator alterations materially affect accuracy or functionality, and grants the Secretary discretion to require inspection before continued use. However, the section does not explicitly define a formal decertification procedure or grounds for revoking an already-approved tabulator's certification status. The mechanism addresses alteration review but lacks statutory procedures for permanent decertification, rescission of approval, or removal from the approved list.

“If any such alterations appear to materially affect the accuracy, appearance or efficiency of the tabulator, or modify the tabulator so that it can no longer be used at elections, primaries or referenda held pursuant to this title, at the discretion of the Secretary of the State, the company shall submit such alterations for inspection and approval, at its own expense, before such altered tabulators may be used.”

§ 34 codifies candidate-withdrawal procedure with Ankestyrelsen. § 32a codifies vote-buying prohibition. § 13 codifies party-name de-registration grounds. § 89 codifies invalidation of constituency voting. § 69 codifies ballot-invalidity grounds. Decertification framework codified.

§ 85 codifies grounds of ballot invalidity (äänestyslipun mitättömyys): a ballot is invalid if the electoral envelope contains more than one ballot or something other than one ballot, if the ballot or envelope bears an unauthorized marking, if the candidate number is illegible, etc. § 40 codifies post-resolution decisions on candidate applications. Decertification of ballots codified; voting-system decertification not applicable (paper-only).

§ 101.015 provides decertification grounds via standards-noncompliance pathway. § 101.5605(2) (4911) implies decertification authority but not explicit procedure.

“The Department of State shall adopt rules which establish minimum standards for hardware and software for electronic and electromechanical voting systems.”

The statute defines one specific ground for decertification (failure to participate in cyber security testing) and establishes the secretary of state's authority to revoke certification. However, the section is truncated mid-sentence and does not provide a complete, codified procedure for decertification (e.g., notice requirements, hearing rights, appeal process). The grounds are narrowly defined to cyber security failures and test participation rather than comprehensive vendor performance standards, and procedural safeguards are absent from the visible text.

“The secretary of state shall have authority to require cyber security testing, including penetration testing, of vendor machines, programs, and systems. Failure to participate in such testing shall result in a revocation of vendor certification. Upon notice from another jurisdiction of cyber security failures or certification withholds or revocation, the secretary of state shall have authority to revoke or withhold certification”

§ 13-17-507 codifies a defect-triggered suspension — a vote-counting machine implicated in an audit discrepancy may not be used in another election until examined by a computer software expert and re-approved by the Secretary of State; a formal decertification (approval-withdrawal) procedure with enumerated grounds is not separately codified.

“may not be used in another election until it has been examined and tested by a computer software expert”

The statute defines one ground for decertification (noncompliance with ORS 246.560 requirements) and requires consultation with county clerks, but provides no procedural safeguards such as notice, hearing, written findings, appeal rights, or timeline for review and decision. The discretionary language ('may revoke') combined with lack of procedural detail falls short of a comprehensive decertification framework.

13 kap. 6 § codifies that 'if ballots submitted by voters have not been stored securely, they shall be declared invalid if it can be assumed that something unauthorized was done with them.' 13 kap. 7 § codifies ballot-invalidity grounds. 13 kap. 5 § codifies the protocol. Decertification of ballots/envelopes for tampering or improper handling codified; voting-system decertification not applicable (paper-only).

The statute identifies non-authorized use of voter registration data as a ground for vendor decertification and assigns this authority to the state election commission. However, the statute provides no procedural safeguards: it does not define notice, hearing, appeal, or due process requirements before decertification, nor does it specify timelines or standards of review. The grounds are stated but the procedure is absent.

“Non-authorized use by the vendor of the data shall constitute a Class B misdemeanor and grounds for decertification by the state election commission.”

The section establishes a statutory right to revoke accreditation and requires written reasons (subsection 6), satisfying procedural transparency. However, the statute provides no definition of grounds for revocation—subsection 5 grants the Commission unfettered discretion ('at any time') without specifying what misconduct, violations, or other criteria trigger decertification. This leaves the substantive basis for revocation to administrative discretion rather than statutory definition.

“The Commission may at any time revoke the grant of an application under subsection (1).”

52 USC § 20971 grants EAC decertification authority but the surfaced text does not enumerate decertification grounds or procedure.

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: Section 7-5-404 addresses absentee ballot applications and verification procedures. It contains no language concerning vendor certification, decertification grounds, revocation procedures, or oversight of election equipment or software vendors. This section is purely procedural guidance for ballot application processing and does not address the institutional framework for vendor accountability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 59 (ballot paper spec), Article 91 (candidate status), Article 116 (international treaties) — none are voting-equipment decertification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 96B addresses voting entitlements for Antarctic electors and roll annotation procedures; it contains no statutory grounds or procedures for revoking any certification. CERT.3 requires decertification grounds and procedures (typically applicable to election vendors or officials), which are entirely absent from this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 121-124 cover referendum result summarisation/publication. Article 148-149 cover Council of Republic recall procedures. No equipment decertification framework (no equipment regime).

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses mandate termination for regional council members under Czech electoral law, not election administration certification or vendor oversight. It contains no statutory grounds or procedures for revoking certification of election administrators, officials, or electoral service providers. CERT.3 requires decertification grounds and procedures for election officials or vendors; this statute addresses only individual politician mandate loss.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 201A addresses continuity of functions and transfer of county election operations to the State Department of Elections. It does not establish grounds for decertification of voting systems or equipment, nor does it define any procedure for revoking certification. The section is purely transitional and administrative in nature, dealing with personnel, records, and contract transfers, not vendor oversight or certification revocation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced candidate-mandate provisions ('revoke' matched revocation of a candidate's registration). Estonia operates its voting system in-house, so there is no vendor certification to revoke and no decertification procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electoral propaganda restrictions on electronic communications and contains no statutory definition of decertification grounds, procedures, or any vendor oversight mechanism. The criterion requires codified grounds and procedure for revoking certification; this text is substantively unrelated to vendor certification or decertification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 60 (polling time/place) — unrelated to equipment decertification. No equipment regime exists.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Άρθρο 106 governs leave-suspension for civil servants during election period; not voting-system decertification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 19 addresses candidate nomination withdrawal procedures and voter endorsement rules. It contains no language concerning vendor certification, decertification grounds, revocation procedures, or vendor oversight mechanisms. The criterion requires statutory definition of grounds and procedures for revoking vendor certification; this section is silent on vendor regulation entirely.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 48A.5 addresses voter qualifications and registration requirements only. It contains no statutory language regarding certification, decertification grounds, procedures for revoking certification, or vendor oversight. This section does not engage the criterion at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 60 of the Electoral Act 1992 concerns the appointment, notification, and management of candidate agents during elections. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding certification, decertification, vendor oversight, grounds for revoking certification, or procedures for doing so. The criterion CERT.3 is entirely absent from this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 72 addresses signature collection procedures and authenticity verification for Senate candidate support, not decertification grounds or procedures for election vendors, equipment, or systems. The section governs candidate registration disqualification (denial of registration if >1% of signatures are inauthentic) under an administrative election process, not vendor oversight, certification revocation, or election administration system decertification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The surfaced candidates concern certification of vote counts (KRS 117.275) and campaign-finance reporting exemptions (KRS 121.180), not the grounds or procedure for revoking a voting system's certification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced result-revocation and repeat-voting provisions; Latvia uses no voting-technology vendor, so there is no certification to revoke.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Lithuania uses no voting-technology vendor, so there is no certification to revoke; § 14 of the Seimas Election Law has the Central Electoral Committee adopt uniform implementing rules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18:154 addresses public records, access, and confidentiality rules for voter registration data. It contains no statutory grounds or procedures for decertification of vendors, election systems, or any election-related entity. The criterion requires codified decertification grounds and procedure, which are entirely absent from this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 95 addresses electoral propaganda restrictions in electronic communications and does not address certification, decertification grounds, procedures, or vendor oversight. The section concerns campaign message regulation, not the statutory framework for revoking or maintaining vendor certifications.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses municipal procurement and authorization to use voting devices, not vendor certification or decertification. It contains no statutory grounds, procedures, or mechanisms for revoking vendor certification of electronic tabulating systems. Decertification oversight is a separate matter of election administration accountability that is not addressed in this provision.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedural notice requirements for revoking acceptance of special electoral provisions by political parties at the local level, not decertification of voting systems, election vendors, or equipment. CERT.3 requires statutory definition of grounds and procedures for revoking certification of vendors or voting systems; this text concerns intra-party adoption and revocation of electoral rules and imposes no decertification regime for vendors or equipment.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the effects of review resource resolutions (confirmation, modification, or revocation of challenged acts) and introduces a chapter on notifications within the electoral challenge system. It does not define grounds for decertification or procedures for revoking vendor certification. The text concerns judicial review of electoral disputes, not vendor oversight or certification management.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns prohibitions on public bodies using public resources for campaign contributions/expenditures and local ballot question communications. It has no relation to vendor certification or decertification grounds and procedures.

§ 209.07 codifies that a court may invalidate and revoke an election certificate following a contest. § 204C.10 codifies voter-eligibility attestation. Voting-system decertification specifically is handled via § 206.57 (re-examination after significant changes) rather than a distinct decertification clause.

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: § 14-104 (campaign-finance statements) is the FTS-top candidate but unrelated to voting-system decertification. NY ELN does not codify decertification grounds/procedure for voting systems; decertification operates via state board regulation rather than statute.

This section establishes notification duties when decertification occurs elsewhere and requires disclosure of defects, but it does not define the grounds for the State Board of Elections to decertify a voting system within North Carolina or specify the procedure for doing so. The statute imposes vendor penalties for violations and violations themselves constitute grounds for civil penalties, but lacks a statutory framework articulating when and how the State Board may revoke certification. The decertification procedure is left to administrative discretion rather than codified in statute.

“The vendor shall promptly notify the State Board of Elections and the county board of elections of any county using its voting system of any decertification of the same system in any state, of any defect in the same system known to have occurred anywhere, and of any relevant defect known to have occurred in similar systems.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORC 3501.27 governs revocation of an election officer's certificate of appointment ('may be revoked at any time by the board for good and sufficient reasons') — about precinct officials, not equipment decertification.

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 (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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

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: Art. I-72 codifies decisions on complaints (with potential consequence for commission/candidate registrations). Art. III-166 codifies MP candidate activity guarantees. Voting-system decertification is not codified — Ukraine has no voting machines.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2452 concerns the presiding officer. No grounds or procedure for revoking a voting system's certification are codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes the initial certification process and standards for electronic voting systems, including Board examination, vendor financial review, and technical requirements. However, it contains no statutory definition of grounds for revoking or suspending certification, nor any procedure for decertification. The section focuses entirely on approval criteria and initial testing, with no codified mechanism for post-certification oversight, removal, or revocation.

§ 5.91 implies decertification is possible (certification is a prerequisite to use), but no explicit decertification grounds + procedure are codified in surfaced corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration procedures, verification, and provisional ballots—not vendor certification, decertification grounds, or procedures for revoking certification of election equipment or service providers. The criterion CERT.3 requires statutory definition of grounds and procedures for revoking vendor certification; this section contains no such content.