EIIElection Integrity Index
How well does the legal framework defend against vote-altering attacks?
Dimensions
Citizen Verifiability
18.8% · 2/8| 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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 60 (supervisory services) covers financial oversight, not voter-verification package. Article 57-59 cover electoral funds. Articles 33, 38 cover candidate registration. No downloadable signed verification package for voting results codified. | § 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? | 1/1100.0% | Article 64 (Voting Procedure) establishes the foundational paper-ballot regime: voters cast ballots at polling stations, ballots placed in sealed ballot boxes. Article 63 (in 7.2 cands) details ballot specifications. Russia uses hand-marked paper ballots in the standard regime; KOIB scanners produce paper records; DEG (remote electronic) is the exception. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 4.4Citizen re-tally rightCan any citizen — not just parties — legally re-tally from published precinct data? | 0.5/150.0% | Article 72 codifies: 'Commission shall provide for inspection the voting results for each electoral district, referendum district, the territory within the area of responsibility of the commission, referendum results within the scope...' — public inspection of precinct-level data codified. Combined with Article 30 (commissions openness) and Article 78 (right to file appeals about voting results), citizen access to results for verification is codified. Standing for re-tally limited to candidates/observers/CSO standing per Article 75-77. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Custody Hardware
37.5% · 3/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1Hardware tamper standardAre tamper-evident or tamper-responsive hardware standards mandated? | 2/540.0% | Article 68(1) codifies: 'Vote counting shall be open and transparent, with all actions and results of the counting of ballots and votes of voters... openly and transparently announced.' Article 64 codifies the voting procedure including sealed ballot boxes. Article 67 codifies the precinct protocol. Article 65 codifies early voting with seal requirements. 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 46 (opinion polls), Article 45 (informing voters), Article 72 (results publication), Article 56 (campaign restrictions), Article 53 (mass campaigning events) — none address network-isolation prohibition for voting equipment. Russia's DEG (remote electronic voting) is by definition network-connected. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 2.3Custody documentationIs full chain-of-custody documentation required and publicly available? | 1/1100.0% | Article 69 codifies the chain-of-custody for protocols: 'First original copies of the protocol of voting results...' transmitted up the commission hierarchy. Article 62 codifies absentee certificate custody. Article 58 codifies electoral fund accounting. Article 4 establishes voter eligibility framework. Chain-of-custody documentation is codified. | § 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
38.9% · 4/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1Mandatory auditIs a post-election audit legally required for every election? | 0.5/150.0% | Article 60 codifies 'Supervisory and Auditing Services' attached to election commissions: 'For the purposes of supervision over proper spending of funds allocated to commissions for preparation and conduct of elections, a referendum, and over sources, proper accounting, and use of electoral funds, referendum funds, for auditing of...' Combined with Article 68 (open vote counting) and Article 77 (cancellation of voting results upon discovered violations), audit framework exists but mostly oriented toward financial oversight, not result verification. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 3.2Audit methodWhat audit method is mandated? | 2/540.0% | Article 68 codifies the vote-counting method as open, transparent hand-counting at the precinct level. Article 69 codifies protocol-aggregation up the commission hierarchy. Article 77 enables cancellation of voting results upon discovered violations. Ordinal level 2: fixed-mechanism hand recount through commission hierarchy. | § 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 60 (Supervisory and Auditing Services) codifies oversight bodies attached to election commissions. Article 30 (in 6.1 cands) codifies commission openness with observer presence at all stages, which extends to audit/recount proceedings. Public observation of audit codified via the general transparency framework. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 3.5Binding forceAre audit results legally binding on the final certified result? | 0.5/150.0% | Article 60 establishes binding nature of audit findings on commission financial accountability. Article 77 (cancellation of decision on voting results) makes audit/violation findings binding on the certified result — the commission may cancel results upon discovered violations. Findings are statutorily binding. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
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 candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 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: Article 61 (Polling Station) covers polling-station provision by municipal head. Article 2 (definitions) — neither codifies pre-poll signed publication of 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 candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
Transparency Observation
68.8% · 6/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1Domestic observer rightsAre party and civil-society observers given full procedural access? | 1/1100.0% | Article 30 codifies commission openness with comprehensive observer rights: 'Members of superior commissions and employees of their administration, candidate registered by this or superior commission or his attorney, authorized representative or attorney of election association which list of candidates is registered' may be present. Article 68 codifies observer rights during counting. Article 72 (public results inspection). Article 66 (outside-polling-station voting observation). Strong codified observer framework — though OSCE/ODIHR observer reports document widespread practical restrictions. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 6.2International observer accessAre OSCE/EU/IFES international observers admitted by default? | 0.5/150.0% | Article 30 codifies the openness framework which extends to international observers via Article 23-24 (subject-level commission appointment of foreign observers). However, international observers must be invited by the state and Russia withdrew accreditation invitations to OSCE/ODIHR for the 2021 Duma election. Codified in principle but heavily state-discretionary in practice. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 6.3Precinct-level results publication speedAre precinct-level results legally required to be published within 24h of poll close? | 4/580.0% | Article 72 codifies that 'Commission shall provide for inspection the voting results for each electoral district, referendum district, the territory within the area of responsibility of the commission, referendum results within the scope of its powers...' — within 48 hours of receiving subordinate protocols per Article 69 chained timeline. Ordinal level 4: within 48 hours codified. | § 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
12.5% · 1/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1Multi-vendor capabilityDoes law permit multiple certified vendors to operate in the same election? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 21 (CEC formation) and Article 23 (regional commissions) describe the state administrative structure. No multi-vendor regime — Russia procures voting equipment (KOIB/KEG scanners) through a single state-controlled vendor (state enterprise + selected suppliers). | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 5.2Open protocol standardsAre vote-format / device-protocol standards open and publicly documented? | 0.5/150.0% | Article 68 (Procedure of Counting Votes) codifies open and transparent vote-counting procedures. Article 70 (Establishment of Results) codifies result-aggregation protocols. Statutory protocols are public, though no vote-format/device-protocol specification is codified for the KOIB/DEG systems. | § 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 28 (commission organization), Article 16 (voter registration), Article 37 (signature collection), Article 59 (electoral fund expenditure) — none address vendor-contract duration caps. | § 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
42.9% · 3/7| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1Ballot secrecy guaranteeIs voter–ballot unlinkability legally guaranteed and enforceable? | 1/1100.0% | Article 7 explicitly codifies: 'Voting at elections and referenda shall be by secret balloting, which shall exclude any control over expression of a citizen's will.' Article 3(1) reinforces ('A citizen of the Russian Federation shall participate in elections on the basis of the universal, equal and direct electoral right by secret balloting'). Constitutionally grounded in Constitution Article 81 (presidential) and Article 32 (general suffrage). | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 7.2Accessibility mandateAre accessibility standards (vision, motor, language) legally required at every polling place? | 1/520.0% | Article 61 (Polling Station) covers polling-place provision; Article 63 (Ballot) covers ballot production. No specific accessibility (visual, motor, language) mandate codified in surfaced corpus — Article 66 (voting outside polling station) provides for some disability accommodation but not a comprehensive accessibility standard. Some accessibility provisions exist (e.g., Article 66 mobile voting for the disabled/elderly) but not the full visual/motor/language mandate. | § view source 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 19 codifies precinct formation: 'Election precincts, referendum precincts shall be formed to conduct voting and votes counting' — geographic precinct structure mandated. Article 27 codifies precinct commission formation. Article 17 (preparation of voter lists) ensures voter-list coverage. Geographic density floor codified though specific voter-cap thresholds aren't FTS-surfaced. | § view source 2026-05-18 |