Delawareeadi-v0

EAdIElection Administration Index

How professionally and independently is election administration codified?

Administration35.3%6/17 · 15 datapoints · 5 dimensionsCompare across jurisdictions →

Dimensions

Accountability0.0%
0/2 · 2 datapoints
Commission60.0%
3/5 · 4 datapoints
Funding0.0%
0/4 · 3 datapoints
Staff Training66.7%
2/3 · 3 datapoints
Vendor Oversight33.3%
1/3 · 3 datapoints

Accountability

0.0% · 0/2
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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidate financial disclosure requirements, not commissioner or senior election staff conflict-of-interest disclosure. It establishes a procedural consequence (publication of non-compliant candidate names) but contains no statutory requirement for commissioners or election staff to disclose their own financial interests, vendor relationships, party positions, or candidate connections.

§ view source
2026-06-15
COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns notice procedures for special elections and contains no codification of judicial review rights, standing, timelines, or venue for challenging election-authority decisions. It is purely procedural with respect to public notice, not an accountability mechanism.

§ view source
2026-06-15

Commission

60.0% · 3/5
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)?0/20.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 301 establishes the appointment, term, and compensation of the State Election Commissioner by statutory law (Delaware Code), not constitutional provision. The criterion COMM.1 specifically requires constitutional grounding to score 2; statutory grounding alone scores 1. This section provides only statutory grounding and therefore does not satisfy the constitutional requirement implied by the criterion question.

§ view source
2026-06-15
COMM.2Multi-branch appointmentAre commission members appointed by multiple branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) such that no single branch unilaterally controls composition?1/1100.0%

Delaware's statutory framework requires gubernatorial appointment combined with mandatory Senate confirmation, creating a genuine multi-branch check: the executive cannot unilaterally install commissioners without legislative approval. This dual-branch structure satisfies COMM.2, as neither the Governor nor the Senate alone controls composition. The provision also includes fixed four-year terms and explicit conflict-of-interest bars (subsections d and e), further insulating the office from political capture.

The State Election Commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor for a term of 4 years and confirmed by a majority of the members elected to the Senate.
§ view source
2026-06-15
COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal?1/1100.0%

Delaware statute defines fixed commission terms (initial 2-year or 4-year terms, then uniform 4-year renewal terms), implements staggered appointment cycles via initial cohorts of 5 members with different terms, and explicitly protects tenure by requiring successors to be duly qualified before a sitting member vacates office. While statutory grounds for removal are not explicitly enumerated in this section, the fixed-term structure with succession protection satisfies the core of COMM.3—terms are statutorily defined with fixed length and staggered effect.

§ view source
2026-06-15
COMM.4Political-balance requirementIs the commission's composition required by statute to be politically balanced (party-balanced, supermajority-confirmation, or independent appointment by judiciary)?1/1100.0%

Delaware statute § 220(b)(4) explicitly mandates equal representation of the two principal political parties on the Reports Appeals Subcommittee. This is reinforced by § 220(b)(3.a), which requires the Chair and Co-Chair to represent opposite parties on a rotating basis, and § 220(b)(5), which protects balanced voting. The statutory requirement for party balance is clear and enforceable.

Each of the 2 principal political parties shall have equal representation on the Subcommittee.
§ view source
2026-06-15

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%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 4512 addresses polling place designation, preparation, and facility requirements. It contains no provisions regarding election authority budgeting, funding mechanisms, statutory line items, or protections against mid-cycle reallocation. The section is procedural and operational, not fiscal.

§ view source
2026-06-15
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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7557A addresses the complaint procedure for unlawful election activity and the State Election Commissioner's authority to file suit; it contains no language regarding budgeting cycles, multi-year appropriations, or election infrastructure funding mechanisms. The section is narrowly focused on post-election dispute resolution and does not establish or reference funding structure.

§ view source
2026-06-15
FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute?0/20.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
2026-06-15

Staff Training

66.7% · 2/3
DatapointScoreRationale & evidenceSource
STAFF.1Career professional staffIs the election authority's career staff (professional employees, not political appointees) protected by civil-service or analogous merit-based statute?1/1100.0%

The statute explicitly requires election department employees to be placed under Delaware's state merit system, which provides statutory protection for career staff against at-will removal and political replacement. This is a clear civil-service safeguard that satisfies the structural requirement for professional career staff independence.

The employees of the Department shall be placed under the state merit system but subject to all provisions of this title.
§ view source
2026-06-15
STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined?1/1100.0%

The statute mandates training for election officers for each election, specifies content (election law, conduct of election, voting machine operation), and requires documentation via public filing of a report. This satisfies the binary criterion for statutorily-required training with defined content and frequency.

The Department shall train the appointed election officers on their duties for each election conducted in accordance with this title. This training shall include instruction on applicable election law, the proper conduct of the election and operation of the voting machines.
§ view source
2026-06-15
STAFF.3Whistleblower protectionAre election-related whistleblower protections (for staff reporting irregularities) codified in statute?0/10.0%

No matching sections in corpus.

no FTS match
2026-06-15

Vendor Oversight

33.3% · 1/3
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%

Del. Code tit. 15, § 5620A establishes detailed statutory criteria for logic and accuracy testing: specific technical requirements (proper programming, election definition, device functionality), testing timeline (immediately after maintenance/programming, publicly before use), notice requirements (7 days minimum), evaluator composition (election officials, party representatives, candidates), and recordkeeping with public inspection rights. The section mandates the State Election Commissioner promulgate rules to implement these criteria, thus codifying the certification process in statute with enforceable standards.

The State Election Commissioner, in consultation with the Department offices, shall promulgate rules relating to logic and accuracy testing of mail ballot tabulating machines. (b) Rules promulgated under this section must ensure all of the following: (1) All machines are thoroughly tested immediately following maintenance and programming to determine all of the following: a. The voting system is properly programmed. b. The election is correctly defined on the voting system. c. All of the voting system input, output, and communication devices are working properly. (2) Any machine deemed unsatisfactory is recoded, repaired, or replaced and must be retested. (3) Machines are publicly tested before use to ascertain that they will correctly count votes cast for all offices and all measures in the upcoming election. (4) Public notice of public tests is given at least 7 days before the tests being conducted. (5) The resetting and sealing of each publicly-tested machine is witnessed by the election officials, representatives of the political parties, and any candidates or candidate representatives who is in attendance. (6) Each publicly-tested machine is secured following the test in a state of readiness until the day of the election. (7) Records are kept of all pre-election testing of each mail ballot tabulating machine which shall be present and available for inspection and reference during public pre-election testing of that machine by any person in attendance during the testing.
§ view source
2026-06-15
CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration procedures through state agencies and motor vehicle licensing, not vendor oversight or recertification of election equipment or systems. It contains no codified triggers for recertification after material updates, discovery of defects, or on a fixed schedule. The criterion CERT.2 concerns election vendor accountability; this section deals with registration administration and is outside the scope of vendor oversight.

§ view source
2026-06-15
CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute?0/10.0%

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 201A addresses continuity of functions and transfer of county election operations to the State Department of Elections. It does not establish grounds for decertification of voting systems or equipment, nor does it define any procedure for revoking certification. The section is purely transitional and administrative in nature, dealing with personnel, records, and contract transfers, not vendor oversight or certification revocation.

§ view source
2026-06-15

Other methodologies for Delaware