Georgiav0

EIIElection Integrity Index

How well does the legal framework defend against vote-altering attacks?

Integrity18.9%10/53 · 29 datapoints · 7 dimensionsCompare across jurisdictions →

Dimensions

Citizen Verifiability6.3%
1/8 · 4 datapoints
Custody Hardware31.3%
3/8 · 4 datapoints
Post Election Audit11.1%
1/9 · 5 datapoints
Software Verifiability0.0%
0/9 · 5 datapoints
Transparency Observation50.0%
4/8 · 4 datapoints
Vendor Independence0.0%
0/4 · 4 datapoints
Voter Access28.6%
2/7 · 3 datapoints

Citizen Verifiability

6.3% · 1/8
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
4.1Public verification artifactDoes law mandate a downloadable public package containing certificates, device records, and result signatures?0.5/150.0%

Article 34 codifies public posting of voter lists at PECs. Article 76 codifies CEC publication of summarised results. Article 23 codifies precinct establishment with public participation. Building blocks of public verification, though not a single downloadable signed package.

§ view source
2026-05-18
4.2End-to-end verifiability permittedDoes law permit (or require) per-voter cryptographic receipts that prove inclusion without revealing the vote?0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
4.3Voter-verifiable paper trailIs voter-verifiable paper record (VVPAT or hand-marked paper) legally required?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
4.4Citizen re-tally rightCan any citizen — not just parties — legally re-tally from published precinct data?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 76 codifies CEC publication of summarised results, but no general citizen right to receive raw precinct data for independent re-tally. Article 183 covers referendum results. Article 149 covers majoritarian determination. Standing limited to electoral subjects / observers.

§ view source
2026-05-18

Custody Hardware

31.3% · 3/8
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
2.1Hardware tamper standardAre tamper-evident or tamper-responsive hardware standards mandated?2/540.0%

Election Code Article 68 codifies tamper-evident seal verification: 'The PEC chairperson shall check the seal integrity on a ballot box in the presence of PEC members and persons authorised to be present at a polling place. If the seal integrity is lost but a PEC considers that this has not led to violation of the rules' — codified procedure. Reinforced by Article 62 (polling-day log-book of all incidents), Article 67 (pre-opening procedure), Article 66 (mobile ballot-box sealing/return). Ordinal level 2: tamper-evident seals required.

§ view source
2026-05-18
2.2Network isolation mandateIs internet/Wi-Fi/cellular connectivity legally prohibited on vote-casting equipment?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 51 (information support during campaigning) and Constitution Article 17 (internet freedom) — neither codifies network-isolation prohibition for voting equipment. Paper voting regime makes this moot but unaddressed.

§ view source
2026-05-18
2.3Custody documentationIs full chain-of-custody documentation required and publicly available?0.5/150.0%

Article 33 codifies the mobile-ballot-box list (chain-of-custody documentation for mobile voting). Article 68 codifies seal integrity verification. Combined with the polling-day log-book (Article 62) requirement, Georgia has codified custody documentation for ballot boxes.

§ view source
2026-05-18
2.4Tamper criminal penaltyAre there explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18

Post Election Audit

11.1% · 1/9
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
3.1Mandatory auditIs a post-election audit legally required for every election?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 69 establishes the State Audit Office for state-budget supervision — not election-result audit. Article 57 covers campaign-expense reporting. Article 93 covers administrative-offence protocols. No per-election audit of voting results codified.

§ view source
2026-05-18
3.2Audit methodWhat audit method is mandated?0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Vote-counting procedure (Art 67-71) is part of the canvass, not a separate audit. No risk-limiting or fixed-percentage audit method codified.

§ view source
2026-05-18
3.3Audit triggers beyond mandatoryDoes law trigger additional audits on close margins or sworn challenges?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
3.4Public observation of auditAre parties, media, and citizens granted observer access to the audit?0.5/150.0%

Article 39-41 grant observers comprehensive access — including to the vote-count process (which serves as the de facto audit since no separate audit exists). § 67-68 ballot-box opening occurs in observer presence.

§ view source
2026-05-18
3.5Binding forceAre audit results legally binding on the final certified result?0.5/150.0%

Constitution Article 60 grants the Constitutional Court authority over election disputes. Election Code Article 76 codifies CEC summarisation as the binding act for certification. No formal audit exists, but the certified canvass + recount findings are binding.

§ view source
2026-05-18

Software Verifiability

0.0% · 0/9
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
1.1Source code disclosureIs voting system source code legally accessible?0/50.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Election Code Article 29 covers early termination of CEC member tenure — unrelated to voting software. Constitution Article 17 covers freedom of opinion + internet access — unrelated. Georgia uses paper ballots; no voting-system source-code regime exists.

§ view source
2026-05-18
1.2Reproducible builds requirementMust the binary that runs in production be reproducibly buildable from public source?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
1.3Pre-election binary commitmentIs the running binary cryptographically committed (hash published) before polls open?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
1.4Election definition publicationAre ballot contests, layouts, and tabulation rules signed and published before polls open?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Election Code Article 2 defines terms generally — not pre-published signed ballot layouts/tabulation rules.

§ view source
2026-05-18
1.5Post-election integrity checkDoes law grant a right to verify the actual running binary matches the committed one?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 184 (2012-specific voter-list verification commission) is unrelated to software-integrity check. Georgia has no voting-software regime to verify.

§ view source
2026-05-18

Transparency Observation

50.0% · 4/8
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
6.1Domestic observer rightsAre party and civil-society observers given full procedural access?1/1100.0%

Article 41 grants observers comprehensive rights: attend electoral commission sessions, be present at polling places at any time, move freely within precinct, observe all polling-day stages, observe vote-counting and summarisation, file complaints. Article 39 establishes the right to observe; Article 40 codifies registration procedure. Article 91 makes restriction of observer rights administratively punishable. Among the strongest observer regimes in the corpus.

An observer shall have the right to:
§ view source
2026-05-18
6.2International observer accessAre OSCE/EU/IFES international observers admitted by default?1/1100.0%

Article 39(1) explicitly grants observation rights to 'Domestic and international observer organisations' — international observers admitted by statutory default upon registration with CEC. Article 40(1) codifies CEC registration of international observer organisations. Reinforced by Article 91 administrative penalty for restricting their rights.

§ view source
2026-05-18
6.3Precinct-level results publication speedAre precinct-level results legally required to be published within 24h of poll close?2/540.0%

Article 76(1) codifies CEC summarisation 'not later than the 19th day after polling.' Article 14 codifies CEC continuous-publication duties. § 122 implies preliminary results before final summarisation. Score ordinal level 2: within 1 week is not strictly met (19 days), but preliminary precinct-level posting under Article 34 + Article 76 chain happens earlier.

§ view source
2026-05-18
6.4Public election event logIs a public, signed, append-only election event log legally required?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18

Vendor Independence

0.0% · 0/4
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
5.1Multi-vendor capabilityDoes law permit multiple certified vendors to operate in the same election?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
5.2Open protocol standardsAre vote-format / device-protocol standards open and publicly documented?0/10.0%

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).

§ view source
2026-05-18
5.3Contract duration capAre vendor contracts capped in duration, preventing perpetual lock-in?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 56 codifies state-budget financing of election campaign funds (5%+ threshold) — not vendor-contract duration. No vendor regime exists for paper voting.

§ view source
2026-05-18
5.4Source-code escrowIs source-code escrow with the state required as a condition of certification?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18

Voter Access

28.6% · 2/7
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
7.1Ballot secrecy guaranteeIs voter–ballot unlinkability legally guaranteed and enforceable?1/1100.0%

Election Code Article 3 declares 'universal, equal, and direct suffrage, by secret ballot' as foundational principles. Article 94 reinforces for presidential elections ('on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage, by secret ballot'). Article 165 same for mayoral elections. Constitution Article 24 (electoral right) constitutionally enshrines secret ballot. Article 40 of Constitution requires Parliamentary chairperson elected by secret ballot. Comprehensive secret-ballot mandate.

Basic principles for holding elections, referenda, and plebiscites in Georgia shall be:
§ view source
2026-05-18
7.2Accessibility mandateAre accessibility standards (vision, motor, language) legally required at every polling place?0/50.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-18
7.3Polling-place density floorIs there a legal floor on polling places per N voters or per geographic area?1/1100.0%

Article 58 codifies that state authorities and local self-government bodies 'shall provide the premises and inventory required for the preparation and the conduct of elections to electoral commissions for temporary use free of charge.' Article 61 codifies precinct opening at 07:00 with minimum 7 PEC members. Article 23 (not FTS-surfaced for this datapoint) sets the 20-1500 voter precinct-size floor — present in the corpus but not in this datapoint's surfaced candidates.

§ view source
2026-05-18

Other methodologies for Georgia