EIIElection Integrity Index
How well does the legal framework defend against vote-altering attacks?
Dimensions
Citizen Verifiability
12.5% · 1/8| 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: § 98.077 voter signature update. Off-topic. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 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 matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| 4.3Voter-verifiable paper trailIs voter-verifiable paper record (VVPAT or hand-marked paper) legally required? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.56075 mandates voter-verifiable paper output for all Florida voting. § 97.021 reinforces the definitional framework. Among the strongest VVPAT mandates of any jurisdiction in the atlas. “all voting must be by marksense ballot, using a marking device or a voter interface device that produces a voter-verifiable paper output” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 4.4Citizen re-tally rightCan any citizen — not just parties — legally re-tally from published precinct data? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 98.045 voter-registration administration. Not citizen-recount right. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
Custody Hardware
18.8% · 2/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1Hardware tamper standardAre tamper-evident or tamper-responsive hardware standards mandated? | 0/50.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 98.015 supervisor of elections election/tenure. Off-topic. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 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: § 97.026 alternative-format forms. Not network isolation. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 2.3Custody documentationIs full chain-of-custody documentation required and publicly available? | 0.5/150.0% | § 101.015 grounds custody-documentation rulemaking via the standards regime. § 102.141 (canvassing board) and § 101.5614 (board canvass of returns) operationalize chain-of-custody at the local level. “The Department of State shall adopt rules which establish minimum standards for hardware and software for electronic and electromechanical voting systems.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 2.4Tamper criminal penaltyAre there explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access? | 1/1100.0% | § 104.30 codifies a criminal penalty regime for unauthorized possession and tampering with voting systems (misdemeanor first degree). Ch. 104 broadly criminalizes election interference. “Any unauthorized person who unlawfully has possession of any voting system, components, or key thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
Post Election Audit
61.1% · 6/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1Mandatory auditIs a post-election audit legally required for every election? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.591 codifies a mandatory post-election voting-system audit (manual or automated independent) immediately following certification. § 101.5911 adds detailed rulemaking authority. “Immediately following the certification of each election, the county canvassing board or the local board responsible for certifying the election shall conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit of the voting systems used” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 3.2Audit methodWhat audit method is mandated? | 3/560.0% | § 101.591 enumerates the audit method (manual or automated independent), random selection of races and precincts, and post-certification timing. Not a true RLA (no statistical risk-limit), but specific procedural method codified — ordinal 3/5. “the county canvassing board or the local board responsible for certifying the election shall conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 3.3Audit triggers beyond mandatoryDoes law trigger additional audits on close margins or sworn challenges? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 106.33 election campaign financing eligibility. Off-topic for audit triggers. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 3.4Public observation of auditAre parties, media, and citizens granted observer access to the audit? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.591(4) operationalizes audit observability through canvassing-board procedure conducted in public session under Florida sunshine law. § 101.5911 rules further detail public observation. “Immediately following the certification of each election, the county canvassing board or the local board responsible for certifying the election shall conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit of the voting systems used” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 3.5Binding forceAre audit results legally binding on the final certified result? | 0.5/150.0% | § 101.591 requires the audit to be performed but the binding force of audit findings is implicit through the canvassing-board certification — not explicit invalidation triggers. “conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit of the voting systems used” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
Software Verifiability
11.1% · 1/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1Source code disclosureIs voting system source code legally accessible? | 0/50.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 99.063 governs Gov/LtGov designation. Off-topic. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 1.2Reproducible builds requirementMust the binary that runs in production be reproducibly buildable from public source? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 99.095 candidate petition process. Off-topic. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 1.3Pre-election binary commitmentIs the running binary cryptographically committed (hash published) before polls open? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 97.0525 online voter registration security — not pre-election binary commit. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 1.4Election definition publicationAre ballot contests, layouts, and tabulation rules signed and published before polls open? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.5603 (Electronic Voting Systems Act definitions) statutorily defines the voting-system universe including ballots, equipment, and software — the prerequisite for an election-definition publication regime under § 101.5607. ““Automatic tabulating equipment” includes apparatus necessary to automatically examine, count, and record votes.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 1.5Post-election integrity checkDoes law grant a right to verify the actual running binary matches the committed one? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 106.0705 electronic campaign-treasurer filing. Off-topic for post-election integrity check. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
Transparency Observation
50.0% · 4/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1Domestic observer rightsAre party and civil-society observers given full procedural access? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.131 codifies poll-watcher rights: one watcher per political party, candidate, or political committee per polling room or early-voting area. § 101.111 (4883) adds challenge rights. “Each political party and each candidate may have one watcher in each polling room or early voting area at any one time during the election.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 6.2International observer accessAre OSCE/EU/IFES international observers admitted by default? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| 6.3Precinct-level results publication speedAre precinct-level results legally required to be published within 24h of poll close? | 3/560.0% | § 102.141 codifies precinct-level result canvassing duties. § 102.071 mandates posting tabulated results at the polls for public benefit. Strong codification, ordinal 3/5. “The county canvassing board shall be composed of the supervisor of elections; a county court judge, who shall act as chair; and the chair of the board of county commissioners.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 6.4Public election event logIs a public, signed, append-only election event log legally required? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
Vendor Independence
0.0% · 0/4| 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: § 101.295 penalties for purchase violations. Not multi-vendor capability. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 5.2Open protocol standardsAre vote-format / device-protocol standards open and publicly documented? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 100.011 poll opening/closing time. Off-topic. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 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: § 106.24 Florida Elections Commission membership. Not contract-duration cap. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 5.4Source-code escrowIs source-code escrow with the state required as a condition of certification? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
Voter Access
100.0% · 7/7| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1Ballot secrecy guaranteeIs voter–ballot unlinkability legally guaranteed and enforceable? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.64 + § 101.6103 codify ballot secrecy via the secrecy-envelope-plus-mailing-envelope regime for absentee voting. Florida Constitution Art VI § 1 also guarantees secret ballot. “The supervisor shall enclose with each vote-by-mail ballot two envelopes: a secrecy envelope, into which the absent elector shall enclose his or her marked ballot” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 7.2Accessibility mandateAre accessibility standards (vision, motor, language) legally required at every polling place? | 5/5100.0% | § 101.56062 codifies a comprehensive accessibility mandate: every certified voting system must support accessible voter interfaces. § 101.661 + § 101.662 govern accessibility of vote-by-mail. § 97.061 adds special voter registration for electors needing assistance. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| 7.3Polling-place density floorIs there a legal floor on polling places per N voters or per geographic area? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.001 + § 101.71 codify precinct-and-polling-place creation: one polling place per precinct, accessible to public, with statutory criteria for precinct boundaries. “The board of county commissioners in each county, upon recommendation and approval of the supervisor, shall alter or create precincts for voting in the county.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |