Californiaeadi-v0

EAdIElection Administration Index

How professionally and independently is election administration codified?

Administration29.4%5/17 · 15 datapoints · 5 dimensionsCompare across jurisdictions →

Dimensions

Accountability50.0%
1/2 · 2 datapoints
Commission20.0%
1/5 · 4 datapoints
Funding0.0%
0/4 · 3 datapoints
Staff Training0.0%
0/3 · 3 datapoints
Vendor Oversight100.0%
3/3 · 3 datapoints

Accountability

50.0% · 1/2
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-17
COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined?1/1100.0%

Cal. Elec. Code § 16462 codifies judicial review of election outcomes: affidavit must be filed with the superior-court clerk within 5 days after the official canvass; § 16442, § 16521 codify service and citation procedures. Standing, timeline, and venue (county superior court) all statutory.

§ view source
2026-05-17

Commission

20.0% · 1/5
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
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)?1/250.0%

Cal. Elec. Code § 15651 + § 15652 references the Secretary of State as the statutory authority for cross-county election determinations. The SoS office is established constitutionally in Cal. Const. Art. V § 11 (not ingested). The COMM.1 candidates surface only statutory roles; full constitutional grounding requires reading Art. V, which wasn't in the FTS-surfaced candidates.

§ view source
2026-05-17
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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-17
COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal?0/10.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-17
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: § 19260 covers a Pooled-Money-Investment-Board loan mechanism — unrelated to commission political balance. CA's elections commission structure (Fair Political Practices Commission for campaign-finance, statutory single SoS for elections) lives in Gov Code 81000+, not ingested.

§ view source
2026-05-17

Funding

0.0% · 0/4
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
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%

§ 19218 establishes a civil-penalty cap ($10k) for unauthorized voting-system changes, with funds collected — but this is enforcement, not an independent funding line. CA's elections budget lives in the annual Budget Act, not codified as a separate statutory line in the ingested mechanics divisions.

§ view source
2026-05-17
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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-17
FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute?0/20.0%

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

no FTS match
2026-05-17

Staff Training

0.0% · 0/3

Vendor Oversight

100.0% · 3/3
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
CERT.1Certification process codifiedIs the voting-equipment certification process (criteria, evaluators, timeline, public-comment period) codified in statute or regulation?1/1100.0%

Cal. Elec. Code § 19212 codifies the full certification process: source-code escrow within 10 business days, state-approved testing agency (§ 19220), reexamination authority (§ 19231), and pre-use certification requirement (§ 19202). The most thoroughly codified voting-equipment certification regime among scored jurisdictions.

§ view source
2026-05-17
CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified?1/1100.0%

Cal. Elec. Code § 19216 codifies the recertification trigger: once certified/conditionally approved, a voting system 'shall not be changed or modified until the Secretary of State has been notified in writing and has determined that the change or modification does not impair' system integrity. § 19291 mirrors this for remote accessible vote-by-mail systems.

§ view source
2026-05-17
CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute?1/1100.0%

Cal. Elec. Code § 19201 codifies post-decertification conditional approval, presupposing a decertification process. § 19219 and § 19294 give SoS injunctive-relief authority over non-compliant vendors. Decertification grounds and remedies are codified.

§ view source
2026-05-17

Other methodologies for California