EAdIElection Administration Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16-312 addresses write-in candidate filing procedures and requirements, not election administration governance, commission structure, or staff accountability. The section contains no provisions regarding commissioners, senior election staff, conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, or public financial-interest reporting for election officials. It is entirely outside the scope of COI.1.

The section acknowledges judicial review as a remedy against civil penalties ('does not timely seek judicial review') and establishes that commission orders can be filed with superior court for enforcement. However, the statute does not codify the substantive right to judicial review, define standing, establish a timeline for seeking review, or specify venue—it only presupposes judicial review exists elsewhere in statute. This is a procedural reference rather than a complete codification of judicial-review rights.

“If the commission imposes a civil penalty on a person and that person does not timely seek judicial review, the commission may file a certified copy of its order requiring payment of the civil penalty with the clerk of the superior court in any county of this state.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The commission's existence and core mandate are set by statute (A.R.S. § 16-955), not by constitution. While Arizona's voters approved Prop. 105 in 1998 (noted in the caution), this section itself is codified statutory law, not constitutional text. The criterion asks whether the commission is grounded in the constitution rather than statute alone; this section provides only statutory grounding.

The statute establishes multi-branch appointment: the judiciary nominates (via the commission on appellate court appointments), and the executive branch selects, with additional safeguards including staggered five-year terms, political-party balance (no more than two from same party), and alternating governor/opposition-party-official selection for subsequent vacancies. No single branch controls composition.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-564 addresses ballot box handling procedures and emergency protocols during election day operations. It contains no provisions regarding commissioner appointment, term length, staggered cycles, or removal grounds. This section governs operational mechanics at polling places, not the institutional structure of election commissions.

Arizona A.R.S. § 16-531(A) mandates statutory political balance on election boards through an explicit equal-division requirement between the two largest political parties for inspectors, marshals, and judges. The statute also requires that when one party holds the inspector position, the other party must hold the marshal position, creating institutional checks at the precinct level. This structural balance is constitutionally grounded and applies uniformly across all precincts.

“they shall be divided equally between these two parties. There shall be an equal number of inspectors in the various precincts in the county who are members of the two largest political parties. In each precinct where the inspector is a member of one of the two largest political parties, the marshal in that precinct shall be a member of the other of the two largest political parties.”

The section establishes a separate statutory account for civil penalties dedicated to implementing and enforcing campaign finance law. However, this addresses only campaign finance enforcement, not the broader election administration budget. The statute does not establish election authority operational funding as an independent, multi-year line item protected from mid-cycle executive reallocation. The surcharge mechanism itself is also subject to commission discretion to suspend, weakening funding stability.

“Civil penalties collected for violations of this chapter shall be deposited in a separate account in the citizens clean elections fund established pursuant to chapter 6, article 2 of this title and used to defray the costs of implementing and enforcing this chapter.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-206 addresses election day designation and employee voting rights, not election infrastructure budgeting or multi-year funding cycles. It contains no provisions regarding budget authority, appropriations, or funding mechanisms for election administration.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mandates that election officers must hold a current certificate issued by the secretary of state, with certification required before specified deadlines (January 1 for odd-numbered years, June 1 for even-numbered years). The secretary of state is required to provide examination and certification programs covering technical, legal, and administrative aspects of elections, with a plan submitted annually to the legislature. This creates a statutory framework for mandatory, recurring training with defined content and timing.

“a person may not perform the duties or exercise the authority of an election officer or of the clerk of the board of supervisors or the county recorder in performance of election duties in or on behalf of any county unless, for persons who are certified in odd-numbered years, the person is the holder of an election officer's certificate issued by the secretary of state before January 1 of each general election year and, for persons who are certified in even-numbered years, the person is certified before June 1 of that even-numbered year.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The section codifies a testing and certification timeline and procedural requirements (preaudited ballots, error detection, sealed ballots), but critical elements are missing: the actual certification criteria for acceptance/rejection are undefined, and the statute explicitly delegates specification of timing, procedures, and certification standards to the secretary of state's discretion via the procedures manual. A.R.S. § 16-452, not this statute alone, governs the substantive certification framework. The statute therefore provides only partial codification—testing procedures are statutory, but certification criteria and evaluator qualifications remain administratively determined.

“Within the period of time before the election day prescribed by the secretary of state in the instructions and procedures manual adopted pursuant to section 16-452, the board of supervisors or other election officer in charge, or for an election involving state or federal candidates, the secretary of state, shall have the automatic tabulating equipment and programs tested to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures.”

The statute requires the secretary of state to adopt standards specifying criteria for loss of certification (subsection C) and mandates recertification after loss of certification, but does not itself codify what those triggers are — only that they must exist and be adopted. The statute also addresses emergency modifications and requires decertification after six months (subsection G), but lacks fixed schedules or automatic recertification triggers tied to material updates or defect discovery. The authority to establish criteria is delegated to the secretary of state via administrative rulemaking, not set in statute.

“After consultation with the committee prescribed by subsection A of this section, the secretary of state shall adopt standards that specify the criteria for loss of certification for equipment that was used at any election for federal, state or county offices and that was previously certified for use in this state.”

The statute clearly defines decertification grounds (installation/use of non-certified systems or unauthorized hardware/firmware versions in certified devices) and the procedure (Secretary of State authority to revoke certification or prohibit purchase/lease/use for up to five years). The grounds are specific and legally cognizable, and the authority is grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion.