EAdIElection Administration Index

No matching sections in corpus.

The section explicitly codifies the right to seek judicial review of State Board of Election Supervisors decisions removing or suspending a registrar, specifying both trial de novo and appellate procedures by cross-reference to state administrative procedure statutes. Standing (registrar subject to removal), mechanism (trial de novo and appeal), and legal basis are all statutorily defined, satisfying the criterion for judicial accountability of election administrative action.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The Voting System Commission is created by statute (La. R.S. 18:1362.1), not by constitution. The statute provides clear grounding and a defined mandate, satisfying the statutory floor but not the constitutional requirement specified in COMM.1. The section scores 1 (statute) rather than 2 (constitution) because constitutional grounding is not evident.

The board composition is heavily dominated by executive-branch officials (lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general) who are not appointed to the board but serve by virtue of their elected or appointed offices. While subsection (7) requires gubernatorial appointment subject to Senate confirmation, this single appointment is insufficient to prevent executive capture when five of eight voting slots are controlled by the executive. The judiciary is entirely absent from the appointment structure, and the legislature has no direct appointment power—only a confirmation check on one position. This fails the multi-branch independence test despite the legislative confirmation requirement on one seat.

The section defines statutory grounds for removal (willful misconduct, failure to perform duty, incompetence, etc.) and provides procedural protections (hearing, judicial review), satisfying the 'statutory grounds for removal' element. However, it does not address the core components of COMM.3: it contains no language defining the length of registrar terms, staggered appointment cycles, or fixed term duration. The section only prescribes *how* registrars may be removed, not the structural framework of their tenure.

Louisiana's statute mandates a mechanical, transparent political-balance requirement: after random selection of the initial slate of commissioners, the drawing process must explicitly verify that each recognized political party with candidates on the ballot has at least one representative, and if not, the process continues until such balance is achieved. This requirement is set in statute, is automatic and non-discretionary, and applies at the precinct level across the state.

The statute establishes that election registrar salaries are 'annually appropriated' to the secretary of state, creating a formal statutory budget line, but it does not explicitly shield that appropriation from mid-cycle executive reallocation. The dual-fund structure (state and parish components) provides some structural protection for the state portion, yet lacks language prohibiting reallocation or establishing multi-year dedicated funding. The merit-evaluation freeze language in subsection F shows legislative intent to control salary progression, but does not address budget flexibility.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: La. R.S. 18:135.1 addresses the timeline for voter registration closure and requires the Secretary of State to examine feasibility and report findings to legislative committees, but contains no provisions governing election infrastructure budgets, multi-year appropriations, or funding cycles. The section is procedurally focused on legislative approval of registration deadlines and does not establish any mechanism for multi-year funding independence.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section explicitly defers to 'applicable civil service law,' indicating that career staff protections exist in Louisiana's civil-service statute rather than being defined in this section. However, § 18:60 itself does not establish or codify those protections—it merely acknowledges them. The section also imposes a procedural freeze on removal during registrar discipline proceedings (a safeguard), but STAFF.1 asks whether the section itself provides merit-based protection. The answer is partial: the section references civil-service protections (good) but does not establish them or detail what they entail (incomplete for this section's contribution).

The statute mandates that commissioners attend a course of instruction before service, satisfying the requirement for mandatory training. However, the section does not specify content standards or frequency requirements—the statute merely references an informational pamphlet developed by the secretary of state but does not codify what training must cover or how often it must be refreshed. This creates discretion in content and frequency rather than statutory definition.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies criteria (compliance with standards under R.S. 18:1353 and EAC voluntary guidelines), evaluators (secretary of state plus 3–5 independent experts), and the approval mechanism. However, the text does not establish a binding timeline for examination, a mandatory public-comment period, or transparency provisions beyond making the EAC certificate a public record. The lack of procedural deadlines and notice-and-comment requirements means that certification processes remain substantially within the secretary of state's discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18:434 governs the selection and commissioning of precinct election commissioners and alternate commissioners through a lottery-based drawing process. It contains no provisions addressing recertification triggers, material updates, defect discovery, or fixed recertification schedules. The criterion CERT.2 concerns vendor oversight and recertification protocols—topics entirely outside the scope of this section's focus on commissioner selection procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18:154 addresses public records, access, and confidentiality rules for voter registration data. It contains no statutory grounds or procedures for decertification of vendors, election systems, or any election-related entity. The criterion requires codified decertification grounds and procedure, which are entirely absent from this section.