EAdIElection Administration Index

No matching sections in corpus.

This section codifies a clear right to judicial review of an election-authority (secretary of state) administrative decision, with standing (any citizen), timeline (10 days), and venue (district court of Ada County for statewide measures) explicitly defined. It establishes a statutory accountability mechanism for challenging improper refusal to file petitions.

“If the secretary of state shall refuse to accept and file any petition for the initiative or for the referendum with the requisite number of signatures of qualified electors thereto attached, any citizen may apply, within ten (10) days after such refusal to the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel him to do so.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 34-2412 does not establish an election commission at all. It prescribes only the composition of precinct-level election boards (election judge and clerks) for voting-machine precincts. The section is silent on any executive commission, its charter, or constitutional grounding. COMM.1 requires constitutional (or at minimum statutory) establishment of the election commission's existence and core mandate; this section addresses only local precinct staffing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: I.C. § 34-1701 addresses recall elections and defines which public officers are subject to recall (governor, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, city council members, etc.). It does not establish, authorize, or regulate any election commission or its appointment structure. The section is entirely procedural with respect to removals of elected officials, not institutional governance of an election administration body. It therefore contains no statutory structure governing multi-branch appointment of election commissioners.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 34-2413 addresses the procedural preparation of voting machines and training of election board members before elections. It contains no provisions regarding commissioner appointment, term length, staggered cycles, or statutory removal grounds. It does not establish any institutional structure for an election commission or commissioners.

The statute requires political-balance representation on precinct election boards, but only conditionally — balance is mandatory only 'if a list of applicants has been provided' by party precinct committeemen at least 60 days before the primary. This makes balance discretionary and dependent on party initiative rather than a binding statutory mandate. The requirement lacks teeth: there is no enforcement mechanism, no obligation on parties to submit lists, and no consequence if political balance is not achieved.

“Each election board shall contain personnel representing all existing political parties if a list of applicants has been provided to the county clerk by the precinct committeemen of the precincts at least sixty (60) days prior to the primary election.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 34-914 governs ballot disclosures and levy election procedures; it does not establish or address the budget structure of any election authority. It contains no statutory line item for election administration funding, no protection against mid-cycle reallocation, and no specification of how election authorities are to be funded. The section is silent on institutional funding independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 34-1803 concerns referendum petition procedures, filing deadlines, and the timing of elections on ballot measures. It contains no language addressing election-administration budgeting, funding cycles, or financial appropriations. It does not establish or reference any multi-year funding framework for election infrastructure.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute requires county clerks to 'carry on a program of in-service training,' which establishes a mandatory training obligation. However, the content and frequency are not defined by statute—they are left to the county clerk's discretion ('as the county clerk considers desirable'). The criterion requires both mandatory training AND statutory definition of content and frequency; this section satisfies only the first element.

“Carry on a program of in-service training for local election officials in his county by periodically distributing to them such bulletins, manuals and other informational instructional materials and by establishing and conducting such classes of instruction pertaining to the administration of the election laws by local election officials as the county clerk considers desirable.”

The statute codifies the certification process with explicit criteria (compliance with chapter requirements, public examination, testing by an independent lab), a designated evaluator (secretary of state), and a defined timeline (within 30 days for filing the determination). It further specifies requirements for submission (UECA guidelines documentation), public procedures (public examination, copies sent upon request), and decertification standards (periodic review against NIST/UECA guidelines with public hearing).

The statute establishes an initial certification process and identifies one trigger (material changes that impair accuracy, efficiency, or capacity), but it fails to codify mandatory recertification triggers for defects discovered post-certification or periodic review schedules. Section (7) permits periodic review and decertification after public hearing, but does not mandate recertification triggers or a fixed schedule. The burden is on the Secretary of State's discretion ('may periodically review'), not a statutory obligation.

“After a voting machine or vote tally system has been certified by the secretary of state, any change or improvement in the machine or vote tally system that does not impair its accuracy, efficiency, or capacity shall not render necessary a reexamination or recertification of the machine or vote tally system.”

Subsection (7) explicitly establishes both the grounds (failure to meet UACA and NIST guidelines) and the procedure (periodic review and public hearing) for decertification. The statute provides clear, codified standards tied to recognized national guidelines and mandates a transparent public hearing before revocation, satisfying the criterion's requirement for statutory definition of decertification grounds and process.

“The secretary of state may periodically review the various voting systems that have been certified for use in the state to ensure such systems meet the guidelines set forth by the United States election assistance commission and the national institute of standards and technology. Any voting system that does not meet such guidelines may be decertified after a public hearing.”