EIIElection Integrity Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses absentee ballot applications and voter verification procedures for requesting ballots. It does not address cryptographic certificates, device records, result signatures, or any downloadable public packages related to election verification artifacts. The section concerns voter eligibility and ballot request procedures, not public election verification mechanisms.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mandates that votes be cast by marking paper ballots, which creates a voter-verifiable paper record. The paper ballots are the official record that is counted by automatic tabulating equipment, satisfying the requirement for a hand-marked paper trail.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 68B.32B addresses complaint procedures for ethics violations under Iowa campaign finance and lobbying law. It has no connection to ballot tallying, precinct data, or citizen audit/verification rights. The criterion asks whether citizens can re-tally from published precinct election data, which is entirely outside the scope of this ethics complaint procedure statute.

The statute mandates tamper-evident seals on ballot drop boxes and requires detailed logging of retrieval activities (date, time, person's name), satisfying the tamper-evident-plus-logged standard. However, it does not mandate tamper-responsive auto-quarantine features that would automatically quarantine compromised ballots, which would be required for a score of 5.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 68A.506 addresses false caller identification in campaign communications and has no relevance to vote-casting equipment or network isolation requirements. It regulates telecommunications conduct in political advocacy, not the technical specifications or connectivity restrictions of voting machines.

The section requires board members to sign seals on ballot envelopes, which is a basic chain-of-custody measure, but it does not establish comprehensive chain-of-custody documentation requirements or mandate public availability of such documentation. The statute addresses only envelope sealing and signature placement, not full documentation of custody transfers or public disclosure.

The section explicitly criminalizes intentional alteration or damage to voting equipment and related systems under election misconduct in the first degree (subsection 1.f), which is classified as a class D felony under subsection 2. This directly establishes a criminal penalty for unauthorized device access and tampering.

The statute uses mandatory language ('shall') requiring the state commissioner to conduct an audit after each general election. Section 5 extends this requirement to all other elections as well, establishing a comprehensive mandatory post-election audit system.

Iowa Code § 50.51 mandates hand counting of ballots in selected precincts, which constitutes a fixed-percentage hand recount method. However, the statute allows the hand count to be 'of less than all ballots cast, in accordance with rules adopted by the state commissioner,' meaning the specific percentage is determined by rule rather than statute and may vary. This is a hand recount approach but lacks the more robust audit methodologies (comparison audit, risk-limiting audit, or RLA with reconciliation) contemplated by the scoring scale.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 43.67 addresses the process for nominees to be placed on the ballot, including requirements for write-in candidates to file affidavits of candidacy. It contains no provisions relating to post-election audits, close margin triggers, or sworn challenges that would initiate additional audits. The section is entirely about pre-election ballot access, not post-election audit procedures.

The statute grants observer access to political parties only, allowing up to five observers per party to witness administrative audits. However, the criterion requires access for parties, media, and citizens. The statute does not mention media or citizen observer access, extending rights only to political parties. This is a partial satisfaction that falls short of the full criterion requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 43.24 addresses the objection process for nomination petitions and certificates of nomination prior to elections. It does not concern post-election audits, audit results, or the binding force of audit findings on certified election results. This section is entirely about pre-election nomination validity challenges, not post-election audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns campaign finance disclosures for out-of-state and federal committees making contributions in Iowa. It is entirely unrelated to voting system source code accessibility, which is the subject of criterion 1.1 on software verifiability.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section defines voting systems and equipment terminology but does not address publication requirements for ballot contests, layouts, or tabulation rules before polls open. The section focuses on definitional matters related to optical scan systems, ballots, and automatic tabulating equipment, not on pre-election publication or signing of ballot materials.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 50.51 addresses post-election audits through hand counts of ballots and administrative recounts, but does not address verification of software, binaries, or the matching of actual running code against a committed version. The criterion requires verification of binary code integrity, which is a software/technology-specific control not contemplated by this ballot-audit statute.

Iowa Code § 49.104 explicitly authorizes political party observers (up to three per party) and nonparty observers to be present at polling places and to witness ballot counting. The statute also protects their access by prohibiting officials from obstructing observers fulfilling their duties, thereby establishing comprehensive procedural access for domestic observers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 50.48 addresses general recount provisions in Iowa elections, including procedures for requesting recounts, timeline requirements, composition of recount boards, and observer access. While subsection 2.c permits candidates and apparent winners to appoint observers to watch the recount, the statute contains no provision regarding admission of international observers from OSCE, EU, or IFES. The section is silent on international observer access entirely.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses post-election audits and hand counts of ballots, not the publication or release of precinct-level election results. It contains no requirement or timeline for publishing results to the public following poll closure.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the testing, examination, and certification procedures for optical scan voting systems. It does not address whether multiple certified vendors are permitted to operate in the same election—a question about multi-vendor capability and electoral jurisdiction. The section establishes the regulatory process for approving systems but contains no language permitting or prohibiting concurrent use of systems from multiple vendors.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Iowa Code § 49.21 addresses polling place designation, accessibility, signage, and candidate material restrictions. It contains no provisions regarding vote-format or device-protocol standards, which are the subject of the criterion about open protocol standards and vendor independence.

Iowa Code § 47.5(3) explicitly caps the duration of data processing service contracts for election administration at one year maximum, preventing indefinite vendor lock-in. This directly addresses the criterion's requirement that vendor contracts have a defined duration limit.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section explicitly mandates that the special precinct election board preserve ballot secrecy, which is a legal guarantee. The section further details procedures designed to maintain voter-ballot unlinkability, including requirements to intermingle ballots, remove them from affidavit envelopes without examination, and prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining information about the count. These provisions establish an enforceable legal obligation to maintain ballot secrecy.

This section addresses accessibility for absentee ballots by allowing assistance for voters with vision, literacy, or physical disabilities. However, it applies only to absentee ballots, not to in-person polling places, and it provides only one accessibility accommodation (assistance) without establishing comprehensive accessibility standards required at every polling location.

The section addresses polling place provision by requiring cities to avoid unnecessary precincts while ensuring voter access, but it establishes a ceiling (not creating too many precincts) rather than a floor (minimum number or density requirement). There is no specific numerical standard, geographic ratio, or minimum density threshold that would satisfy a polling-place density floor.