EAdIElection Administration Index
How professionally and independently is election administration codified?
Dimensions
Accountability
25.0% · 1/2| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| COI.1Conflict-of-interest disclosureAre commissioners and senior election staff required by statute to disclose financial interests (vendor relationships, party positions, candidate connections) publicly? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 82 governs the management of polling sessions—specifically voter conduct, polling booth procedures, and room access during voting. It contains no provisions regarding conflict-of-interest disclosure, financial interest reporting, or accountability mechanisms for commissioners or election staff. The section addresses operational procedures only, not institutional governance or disclosure requirements. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined? | 0.5/150.0% | The section establishes a statutory appeal mechanism (the Election Appeal Committee) with defined standing and subject matter (Article 22, paragraph 2 lists seven categories of appealable decisions), and it expressly permits appeal of Committee decisions to courts of law. However, the text does not codify timelines, venue, or the scope of judicial review; it merely references 'this Act' for deadlines and does not specify which court has jurisdiction or the standard of review. The framework is partially structural but incomplete on critical judicial-review elements. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
Commission
30.0% · 2/5| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| COMM.1Statutory grounding of commissionIs the election commission's existence and core mandate set in the constitution (rather than statute alone, regulation, or executive order)? | 0/20.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The commission's existence and mandate are grounded in statute (Elections Act No. 112/2021), not the constitution. While statutory grounding satisfies a baseline standard of legal durability over administrative discretion, COMM.1 asks specifically whether grounding is constitutional. The section provides statute-level establishment (score 1) but does not demonstrate constitutional embedding (score 2). | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| COMM.2Multi-branch appointmentAre commission members appointed by multiple branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) such that no single branch unilaterally controls composition? | 0.5/150.0% | The statute provides multi-branch appointment: the Althingi (legislature) elects three members including the chairperson, local authorities nominate two, and the Minister (executive) appoints all five. However, the final appointment power rests solely with the executive Minister, meaning the executive technically retains unilateral control over composition despite legislative and local input. This falls short of structural parity across branches because the Minister appoints the full body rather than each branch appointing its designated seats. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal? | 1/1100.0% | This section explicitly defines fixed-length commissioner terms in statute (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years) and mandates staggered cycles through lot determination, ensuring no single appointment cohort controls the commission. The statutory specification of term lengths and staggered commencement satisfies the core structural requirement that commissioners cannot be removed at will and that institutional continuity is protected. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| COMM.4Political-balance requirementIs the commission's composition required by statute to be politically balanced (party-balanced, supermajority-confirmation, or independent appointment by judiciary)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedural rights of list agents and appeals mechanisms regarding candidate-list validity decisions. It does not establish or define the composition, appointment process, or political balance of any election commission. COMM.4 requires statutory language mandating political balance in commission membership through party-balance rules, supermajority confirmation, or independent judicial appointment—none of which are present in this procedural section. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
Funding
0.0% · 0/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FUND.1Independent funding lineIs the election authority's budget a separate statutory line item (not subject to mid-cycle reallocation by the executive branch alone)? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |
| FUND.2Multi-year funding cycleAre election infrastructure budgets set on a multi-year cycle (avoiding annual political renegotiation of election-administration money)? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |
| FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute? | 0/20.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |
Staff Training
0.0% · 0/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| STAFF.1Career professional staffIs the election authority's career staff (professional employees, not political appointees) protected by civil-service or analogous merit-based statute? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes that municipal councils elect electoral commission members and may engage municipal staff to assist with elections, but contains no statutory protections for career professional staff—no civil-service statute, merit-based hiring rules, tenure guarantees, or professional career track. The phrase 'independent of the decision-making powers of the municipal council' describes operational independence only, not employment protection. Staff are engaged by the municipal council with no codified safeguards against political turnover or replacement. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined? | 0/10.0% | The section requires the National Electoral Commission to provide 'training and guidance' to electoral commissions and others responsible for election conduct, but it establishes no statutory mandate for training frequency, mandatory participation, or defined content standards. This is a general duty assignment without the specificity required by the criterion. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| STAFF.3Whistleblower protectionAre election-related whistleblower protections (for staff reporting irregularities) codified in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |
Vendor Oversight
16.7% · 1/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CERT.1Certification process codifiedIs the voting-equipment certification process (criteria, evaluators, timeline, public-comment period) codified in statute or regulation? | 0.5/150.0% | The statute codifies that the Minister shall issue regulations covering security certification and hardware requirements for electronic registers, delegating specific criteria-setting to secondary regulation after receiving proposals from the National Electoral Commission. However, the section does not codify the certification process itself (evaluators, timeline, public-comment procedure), leaving those details to ministerial discretion rather than statutory specification. This creates a gap between statutory authorization and enforceable procedural safeguards. | § view source 2026-06-06 |
| CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |
| CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-06 |