EAdIElection Administration Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 5-304 addresses candidate filing requirements and financial disclosure for candidates running for office, not conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements for election commissioners or senior election staff. The section does not establish or reference any statutory framework requiring commissioners or election administrators to disclose financial interests, vendor relationships, party positions, or candidate connections. This section is procedurally focused on candidate candidacy forms and does not address institutional accountability mechanisms for election officials themselves.

The statute codifies the right to judicial review of voter-registration eligibility determinations with clear standing (aggrieved individual or registered voter), explicit venue (Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County), and a defined timeline (no later than the third Tuesday before the next election). This provides robust accountability for election-authority administrative decisions in the voter-registration context.

“Any final determination regarding the eligibility of an individual to register to vote or remain registered to vote is subject to judicial review. (i) 1. A petition for judicial review shall be filed with the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. 2. The petition may be brought at any time, except that it may not be later than the third Tuesday preceding the next succeeding election.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses certification of elected individuals by the State Board but does not establish the commission's constitutional grounding. The reference to 'State Board' implies statutory creation, but this section alone does not establish whether the commission exists under constitution or statute. Without constitutional text, the structure defaults to statutory grounding (score 1), not constitutional (score 2).

Maryland's statute vests appointment authority in the Governor with mandatory Senate confirmation, dividing control between the executive and legislative branches. Additionally, § 2-101(e)(2) imposes a statutory political-balance requirement (2-3 members from each principal party), and § 2-101(f)(3) limits members to three consecutive terms, all of which are codified structural safeguards against unilateral single-branch capture.

“be appointed by the Governor in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection, with the advice and consent of the Senate of Maryland”

The statute establishes fixed 4-year terms for all county board members, synchronized to gubernatorial elections, with explicit hold-over protection ensuring continuity until a successor is appointed. Removal is statutorily limited to 'incompetence, misconduct, or other good cause' with written notice and hearing rights. These provisions provide the core structural safeguards of term protection against arbitrary removal.

“(d) (1) The term of a member is 4 years and begins on the first Monday in June of each year following a gubernatorial election. (2) At the end of a term, a member continues to serve until a successor is appointed and qualifies.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidate nomination procedures and filing requirements for candidates seeking political party nomination. It contains no provisions regarding commission composition, appointment procedures, political balance requirements, or the structure of any election administration body. The criterion COMM.4 concerns the institutional independence and political balance of an election commission; this section is entirely procedural and candidate-focused, not structural.

The statute creates a special, continuing, nonlapsing fund with explicit protection from lapsing (reversion of unspent funds), satisfying the mid-cycle reallocation concern. However, this section does not establish a statutory appropriation or budgetary carve-out; instead, it depends on moneys 'appropriated in the State budget' and 'approved budget amendments' (subsection (b)), leaving execution vulnerable to annual legislative discretion and executive budget recommendations. The structural safeguard is incomplete without a mandatory dedicated appropriation or statutory minimum funding level.

“The Fund is a special, continuing, nonlapsing fund that is not subject to § 7-302 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 13-236.1 addresses foreign funding prohibitions for ballot issue committees and independent expenditure groups, not for the election authority itself or election administration vendors. The criterion FUND.3 specifically requires statutory prohibition on foreign-source funding of the election authority and its vendors; this section does not govern election administration funding at all.

The statute mandates that local board employees are either covered by county merit systems (with classified status and personnel regulation protections) or placed in the State Personnel Management System (skilled/professional service with statutory appointment and removal procedures). This dual framework ensures career staff are protected by codified merit-based employment rules rather than serving at executive pleasure, satisfying STAFF.1.

“if the employees of a local board are covered by its county merit system: (i) the employees shall be classified employees under the county merit system; and (ii) the employees may be appointed and removed subject to the personnel regulations of the county in which the local board is located. (2) If the employees of a local board are not covered by its county merit system: (i) the employees shall be in the skilled service or professional service of the State Personnel Management System; (ii) appointment and removal of the employees shall be in accordance with the provisions of the State Personnel and Pensions Article that govern skilled service or professional service employees”

The statute mandates training participation for election judges, with content and frequency defined by the State Board's program (voting systems, disability access, voter rights) and compensation tied to completion. The statute requires training completion as a condition of service, except only in emergencies, establishing a clear mandatory regime with defined substantive content.

“Each local board shall conduct election judge training based on the program developed by the State Board.”

No matching sections in corpus.

Maryland law codifies the voting-equipment certification process by statute, requiring the State Board to adopt regulations and establishing explicit statutory criteria (accuracy, ballot secrecy, security, voter-verifiable paper records, independent testing by EAC-approved labs, federal performance standards, and public interest). The statute further mandates public demonstration and accessibility evaluation before selection, and requires local board testing with political-party observation before each election—all statutory requirements that structure the certification and oversight framework.

“The State Board shall adopt regulations for the review, certification, and decertification of voting systems.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 3-204.2 addresses voter registration procedures across multiple state agencies and institutions of higher education. It contains no language regarding vendor oversight, equipment recertification triggers, material updates, defect discovery protocols, or fixed-schedule recertification requirements. The section is entirely procedural for voter registration access and reporting, not vendor management or election system certification.

The statute defines two decertification grounds: discretionary decertification when the system 'no longer merits certification' and mandatory decertification when the system fails to meet applicable standards previously defined in § 9–102(d)(1)(i)–(iii). The statute also specifies the State Board's authority to determine the effective date and conditions, establishing a procedural framework within statute rather than leaving decertification to unreviewable administrative discretion.

“(1) may decertify a voting system previously certified if the State Board determines that the system no longer merits certification; and (2) shall decertify a previously certified voting system if the voting system no longer meets one or more of the standards in § 9–102(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this subtitle. (b) The State Board shall determine the effective date and conditions of the decertification.”