Whistleblower protection

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 73 of Ley 26.215 establishes the National Electoral Chamber's functions, including auditing and regulatory powers, but contains no statutory codification of whistleblower protections for staff reporting irregularities. The section addresses institutional structure, audit oversight, and funding mechanisms, but is silent on safeguards for employees who expose misconduct or violations within the electoral administration.

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 321DA addresses foreign campaigner prohibitions and civil penalties for unauthorized electoral matter; it contains no whistleblower protection mechanisms, statutory safeguards for staff reporting irregularities, or any provisions related to employee protections. This section regulates electoral conduct, not election administration staff accountability or protection.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 110 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses unauthorized access to polling locations and penalties for trespass or obstruction during voting operations. It contains no statutory framework for whistleblower protection, confidentiality safeguards for staff reporting irregularities, non-retaliation provisions, or any accountability mechanism designed to protect election workers who disclose misconduct. The section is purely procedural and penal in nature, unrelated to the institutional protection of staff who report violations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 342 of the Brazilian Electoral Code addresses criminal penalties for the Public Ministry's failure to prosecute or execute sentences, not whistleblower protections for election staff. The section imposes duties on prosecutors but contains no statutory framework protecting staff who report election irregularities from retaliation or establishing safe channels for disclosure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 186 codifies removal/seizure of campaign materials; not whistleblower protection.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section criminally prohibits retaliation against persons who report or expose election violations, which addresses whistleblower protection substantively. However, it does not establish affirmative statutory protections for whistleblowers (immunity, anti-retaliation procedures, confidentiality safeguards, or remedies), nor does it create institutional accountability mechanisms to enforce whistleblower safety. It is purely penal in nature.

“对 于 控 告、检 举 选 举 中 违 法 行 为 的 人，或 者 对 于 提 出 要 求 罢 免 代 表 的 人 进 行 压 制、报 复 的。”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 94 addresses publication of election results and cost allocation for election implementation. It contains no codified whistleblower protection language, no mechanisms for staff to report irregularities without retaliation, and no statutory safeguards for protected disclosures. The criterion requires explicit statutory protections for election staff; this section does not provide them.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses incompatibility of functions for Members of the European Parliament under Czech law (Zákon č. 62/2003 Sb., § 53). It establishes conflict-of-interest prohibitions but contains no codified whistleblower protections for election staff reporting irregularities. The section is entirely outside the institutional framework for election administration and staff safeguards.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article L238 of the French Electoral Code addresses municipal council membership restrictions and conflict-of-interest rules (prohibition of dual mandates, family relation limits). It contains no language addressing whistleblower protections for election staff reporting irregularities. The section is purely about candidate eligibility and council composition, not institutional safeguards for staff reporting.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses absentee ballot signature verification procedures and voter notification requirements. It contains no statutory language establishing whistleblower protections for election staff reporting irregularities, conflicts of interest, retaliation safeguards, or accountability mechanisms. The section is purely procedural for ballot handling, not protective of staff.

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 (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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 126 of the Luxembourg Electoral Law addresses parliamentary compensation, benefits, and working conditions for elected members — it does not establish any statutory whistleblower protection framework for election administration staff. The section contains no language governing the reporting of irregularities, protection from retaliation, or safeguards for disclosure of misconduct by election officials.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 66 concerns the designation and qualifications of campaign treasurers—their civil capacity, conflicts of interest, and eligibility rules. It does not establish any statutory mechanism for whistleblower protection, reporting of irregularities, non-retaliation safeguards, or procedural protections for staff who raise concerns about election administration misconduct. The criterion requires codified whistleblower protections for election-related staff; this section addresses campaign finance administration only.

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: Article 474 Bis addresses procedural requirements for electoral violation complaints and sanctions but contains no statutory provision establishing whistleblower protections for staff reporting irregularities. The section regulates the complaint process, admissibility standards, and hearing procedures; it does not create legal safeguards, immunity, or anti-retaliation measures for internal staff disclosures. Multiple provisions carry inconstitutionality notices, further undermining reliance on this text as a stable legal foundation.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in Michigan election or campaign-finance statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section establishes a duty to report irregularities to prosecutorial authorities, which addresses accountability mechanisms. However, it imposes a mandatory reporting obligation rather than protecting whistleblowers who report voluntarily or in good faith. True whistleblower protection requires statutory shields against retaliation, anti-intimidation safeguards, confidentiality provisions, or safe channels for reporting—none of which are codified here. This section creates a reporting duty but not the institutional protections that define whistleblower safeguards.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article J 24 regulates voter identity verification and admission to polling stations. It contains no statutory language establishing whistleblower protections for election staff reporting irregularities. The section is procedurally focused on voter authentication requirements, not staff accountability mechanisms or protections for employees disclosing misconduct.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 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: Article 13 addresses judicial review of political party registration applications and procedural defects in party registration filings. It contains no provisions establishing whistleblower protections for election staff or personnel reporting irregularities. This section governs party registration procedures, not employment protections or internal accountability mechanisms for election administrators.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 152 addresses only penalties for failure to participate in electoral duties (poll workers abandoning their posts). It contains no provision establishing whistleblower protections, reporting mechanisms, anti-retaliation safeguards, or confidentiality protections for election staff or officials who report irregularities. This section is purely punitive toward non-participation, not protective of those making good-faith disclosures of misconduct.

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: Constitution Article 54 — freedom of peaceful assembly. Not whistleblower protection.

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: Article 19 of LOREG defines the competencies and powers of Spain's electoral commissions (Junta Electoral Central and subordinate units) but does not establish any statutory whistleblower protections for staff reporting irregularities. The section addresses disciplinary authority over election officials, conflict resolution, and administrative enforcement, but contains no language protecting employees or staff who disclose electoral violations or misconduct to authorities.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Article 82 governs ballot-box-area order maintenance, Article 132 covers YSK records-inquiry, Articles 130/166 cover challenge procedures — none codify whistleblower protection for staff reporting irregularities.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.