EAdIElection Administration Index
How professionally and independently is election administration codified?
Dimensions
Accountability
0.0% · 0/2| 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 matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-01 |
| COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-01 |
Commission
40.0% · 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)? | 2/2100.0% | Article 114 of the DPRK Socialist Constitution establishes the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly as a constitutional body with explicit mandate to issue ordinances, decisions, and directives. This places the commission's authority at the constitutional level, satisfying the highest tier of statutory grounding (constitution, not statute or executive discretion). “최 고 인 민 회 의 상 임 위 원 회 는 정 령 과 결 정, 지 시 를 낸 다” | § view source 2026-06-01 |
| COMM.2Multi-branch appointmentAre commission members appointed by multiple branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) such that no single branch unilaterally controls composition? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section addresses only the term continuity of the Supreme People's Assembly Presidium (최고인민회의 상임위원회), not the appointment mechanism or multi-branch structure for commission composition. It contains no statutory provision establishing multi-branch appointment authority, political balance requirements, or shielding from single-party control. The DPRK's one-party constitutional structure provides no institutional safeguards against executive unilateral control of election administration. | § view source 2026-06-01 |
| COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the term of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly (a legislative body), not an independent election commission. It specifies that the Standing Committee's term matches the Supreme People's Assembly and continues until a new committee is elected, but provides no statutory framework for an independent election commission with fixed commissioner terms, staggered removal protections, or defined grounds for removal. The EAdI criterion requires institutional independence from the legislative/executive structure itself; a provision governing legislative continuity does not establish such independence. | § view source 2026-06-01 |
| 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: Section 4 of the DPRK Socialist Constitution describes the locus of sovereignty in the working people and their exercise of power through the Supreme People's Assembly and local people's assemblies. It contains no institutional framework for an election commission, no appointment mechanism, no political-balance requirement, and no structural safeguards against single-party capture. The section is a statement of constitutional principle about popular sovereignty, not a statutory structure governing election administration independence. | § view source 2026-06-01 |
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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section sets out the powers of the Supreme People's Assembly (highest legislative body) in the DPRK constitution, including approval of the state budget (item 15). It does not establish any independent election authority, nor does it create a separate statutory budget line for election administration shielded from executive reallocation. The section is silent on election administration structure entirely, and the budget approval power remains vested in a single-party legislature without multi-branch safeguards or independence from executive control. | § view source 2026-06-01 |
| FUND.2Multi-year funding cycleAre election infrastructure budgets set on a multi-year cycle (avoiding annual political renegotiation of election-administration money)? | — no data | No rationale recorded. | no FTS match |
| FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute? | — no data | No rationale recorded. | no FTS match |
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? | — no data | No rationale recorded. | no FTS match |
| STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined? | — no data | No rationale recorded. | no FTS match |
| STAFF.3Whistleblower protectionAre election-related whistleblower protections (for staff reporting irregularities) codified in statute? | — no data | No rationale recorded. | no FTS match |
Vendor Oversight
0.0% · 0/3| 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? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-01 |
| 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 2026-06-01 |
| 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 2026-06-01 |