EAdIElection Administration Index

No matching sections in corpus.

Section 1-11-213(2) codifies judicial review of district court decisions arising from election contests, establishing appellate review as a statutory right. The section further establishes standing (by definition of 'contestor' as an eligible elector), timeline (within ten days of official survey), and venue (district court of the political subdivision), all grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion. This satisfies the accountability dimension by creating a clear statutory framework for judicial oversight of election administration disputes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign contribution restrictions for state agencies and political subdivisions; it does not establish, authorize, or ground the existence of an election commission or its mandate. The criterion requires constitutional or statutory establishment of the commission itself. This section is a standalone campaign finance limitation and falls outside the scope of commission structural analysis.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: C.R.S. § 1-4-802 addresses minor party and unaffiliated candidate nomination procedures — petition requirements, signature thresholds, and filing deadlines. It contains no provisions regarding the appointment, composition, or governance of any election commission. The criterion COMM.2 requires statutory structure for multi-branch appointment of commission members; this section does not address commission structure at all.

The statute establishes a fixed four-year term and provides staggered election cycles (e.g., in counties under 70,000 population, one commissioner elected every four years and two every four years on a different schedule). However, the statute does not specify statutory grounds for removal of commissioners, which is a required element of term protection under COMM.3. The structure satisfies two of three elements (fixed length and staggered cycles) but lacks explicit removal protections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-12-207 governs vacancy-filling on nonpartisan boards through appointment by remaining directors or county commissioners, with no statutory requirement for political balance, party representation, supermajority confirmation, or judicial appointment. The statute ensures vacancies are filled but does not mandate any composition requirement addressing partisan representation or independent judicial selection.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-5-105 addresses polling location restrictions and facility requirements; it contains no provisions regarding election authority budgeting, funding mechanisms, or statutory line items. This section is procedurally focused on election conduct logistics and does not engage with the institutional funding structure that FUND.1 evaluates.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses recall petition signature requirements for school district officers and contains no provision regarding election infrastructure budgets, multi-year funding cycles, or any aspect of election administration funding. It is entirely inapplicable to the FUND.2 criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section regulates foreign funding of independent expenditures and political committees, not foreign funding of the election authority itself or election administration vendors. FUND.3 requires a statutory prohibition on foreign sources funding election administration institutions and their vendors; this statute addresses campaign finance disclosure and restrictions on political speech, which is outside the scope of election administration institutional funding.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section requires the secretary of state to *create* training materials, but only for county jail voting contexts, not as a comprehensive mandatory training program for election officials and poll workers across the state. The statute does not define content, frequency, or compliance requirements for broader election official training—it merely mandates production of educational resources for a single use case. This falls short of STAFF.2's requirement for mandatory training with defined content and frequency.

The statute codifies the certification process by specifying the evaluator (secretary of state), the criteria for examination (compliance with sections 1-5-615 and 1-5-616), the mandatory timeline (120 days), and provision for expert appointment and written reports. The process is further detailed in modification provisions (§1-5-618) with explicit timelines and review thresholds. Professional expertise requirements and conflict-of-interest prohibitions reinforce institutional rigor.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute clearly defines grounds for decertification (noncompliance with applicable standards or deviation from certified system) and establishes a detailed procedure: written order by the secretary of state specifying remedies or decertification, written notice to all subdivisions and providers with reasons and effective date, and a mandatory public hearing with opportunity for interested parties to present testimony or documentation before decertification can be affirmed or reversed. This satisfies the statutory codification requirement for vendor oversight.