EIIElection Integrity Index
How well does the legal framework defend against vote-altering attacks?
Dimensions
Citizen Verifiability
12.5% · 1/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1Public verification artifactDoes law mandate a downloadable public package containing certificates, device records, and result signatures? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 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 matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 4.3Voter-verifiable paper trailIs voter-verifiable paper record (VVPAT or hand-marked paper) legally required? | 1/1100.0% | The section mandates that paper ballots (stembiljetten) are collected, grouped by validity status, sealed in packages, and stored with verification information. This establishes a voter-verifiable paper trail requirement, as physical paper ballots form the basis of vote recording and verification in Dutch elections. “Vervolgens worden de stembiljetten met een blanco stem en de ongeldig verklaarde stembiljetten in pakken gedaan, die worden verzegeld. Op deze pakken wordt vermeld: a. de naam van de provincie; b. het aantal stembiljetten dat het pak bevat. 3 Daarop worden de geldige stembiljetten, lijstgewijs gerangschikt, in een pak gedaan, dat wordt verzegeld.” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 4.4Citizen re-tally rightCan any citizen — not just parties — legally re-tally from published precinct data? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Custody Hardware
0.0% · 0/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1Hardware tamper standardAre tamper-evident or tamper-responsive hardware standards mandated? | 0/50.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 2.2Network isolation mandateIs internet/Wi-Fi/cellular connectivity legally prohibited on vote-casting equipment? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 2.3Custody documentationIs full chain-of-custody documentation required and publicly available? | 0/10.0% | The section requires documentation (a record/minutes) of ballot package destruction, but it does not establish a comprehensive chain-of-custody documentation system or require public availability of such records. The requirement is limited to documenting destruction at the end of the retention period, not full custody tracking throughout the electoral process. “Van deze vernietiging wordt proces-verbaal opgemaakt.” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 2.4Tamper criminal penaltyAre there explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Post Election Audit
33.3% · 3/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1Mandatory auditIs a post-election audit legally required for every election? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 3.2Audit methodWhat audit method is mandated? | 2/540.0% | The section establishes that representative bodies may decide to conduct a new recount of ballots, which constitutes a manual recount audit method. However, it is discretionary (via 'kan besluiten') rather than mandatory, and no specific percentage or risk-limiting framework is prescribed, making it closer to a basic hand recount than a structured audit method. “kan het vertegenwoordigend orgaan ten behoeve van het onderzoek, bedoeld in artikel V 4, eerste lid , besluiten tot een nieuwe opneming van de stembiljetten” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 3.3Audit triggers beyond mandatoryDoes law trigger additional audits on close margins or sworn challenges? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 3.4Public observation of auditAre parties, media, and citizens granted observer access to the audit? | 1/1100.0% | The statute explicitly mandates that the new ballot recount is performed 'in het openbaar' (in public), which grants parties, media, and citizens the ability to observe the audit process. The public nature of the recount ensures observer access as required by the criterion. “Een nieuwe stemopneming als bedoeld in het eerste lid, wordt onder mandaat en machtiging van het centraal stembureau in het openbaar uitgevoerd” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 3.5Binding forceAre audit results legally binding on the final certified result? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Software Verifiability
0.0% · 0/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1Source code disclosureIs voting system source code legally accessible? | 0/50.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 1.2Reproducible builds requirementMust the binary that runs in production be reproducibly buildable from public source? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 1.3Pre-election binary commitmentIs the running binary cryptographically committed (hash published) before polls open? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 1.4Election definition publicationAre ballot contests, layouts, and tabulation rules signed and published before polls open? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 1.5Post-election integrity checkDoes law grant a right to verify the actual running binary matches the committed one? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Transparency Observation
37.5% · 3/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1Domestic observer rightsAre party and civil-society observers given full procedural access? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the designation of polling locations and voting procedures, including provisions for restricted access polling stations. It does not contain any provisions regarding observer rights, party observer access, or civil-society observer participation in electoral procedures. The section is about venue selection and access restrictions rather than observer transparency rights. | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 6.2International observer accessAre OSCE/EU/IFES international observers admitted by default? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 6.3Precinct-level results publication speedAre precinct-level results legally required to be published within 24h of poll close? | 3/560.0% | The statute requires the central election bureau to publish its results (proces-verbaal) electronically 'without delay' (onverwijld), which mandates prompt publication but does not specify a precise timeframe such as 24 hours or 48 hours. The term 'onverwijld' is less specific than the scoring rule's discrete time benchmarks, suggesting urgency but falling short of explicit 24-hour or 48-hour requirements. “Het centraal stembureau maakt zijn proces-verbaal, met weglating van de ondertekening, onverwijld op een algemeen toegankelijke wijze elektronisch openbaar.” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 6.4Public election event logIs a public, signed, append-only election event log legally required? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Vendor Independence
0.0% · 0/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1Multi-vendor capabilityDoes law permit multiple certified vendors to operate in the same election? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 5.2Open protocol standardsAre vote-format / device-protocol standards open and publicly documented? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 5.3Contract duration capAre vendor contracts capped in duration, preventing perpetual lock-in? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
| 5.4Source-code escrowIs source-code escrow with the state required as a condition of certification? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-08 |
Voter Access
42.9% · 3/7| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1Ballot secrecy guaranteeIs voter–ballot unlinkability legally guaranteed and enforceable? | 1/1100.0% | The statute explicitly mandates that polling stations ('stemlokaal') are arranged in such a way that ballot secrecy ('stemgeheim') is guaranteed ('gewaarborgd'). This directly establishes a legal guarantee of voter-ballot unlinkability by requiring institutional design that prevents disclosure of how individuals voted. “Het stemlokaal is zodanig ingericht dat het stemgeheim is gewaarborgd.” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 7.2Accessibility mandateAre accessibility standards (vision, motor, language) legally required at every polling place? | 2/540.0% | This section permits assistance for voters with physical disabilities at polling places, addressing motor accessibility. However, it does not establish comprehensive accessibility standards, does not mandate accessibility features at every polling place, and does not address vision or language accessibility requirements. “Wanneer aan het stembureau blijkt dat een kiezer wegens zijn lichamelijke gesteldheid hulp behoeft, staat het toe dat deze zich laat bijstaan.” | § view source 2026-06-08 |
| 7.3Polling-place density floorIs there a legal floor on polling places per N voters or per geographic area? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the administrative procedures for the central election committee to remove candidates and party designations from provincial election lists based on eligibility criteria. It does not concern polling-place density, accessibility, or the legal requirement for a minimum number of polling places per voter or geographic area. | § view source 2026-06-08 |