EAdIElection Administration Index

No matching sections in corpus.

This section provides explicit statutory codification of judicial review rights for apportionment decisions, grants original jurisdiction to the state's highest court, defines standing broadly to 'any citizen or group of citizens,' establishes a clear timeline (60 days for court apportionment if legislature fails), and designates venue (Supreme Judicial Court). The mechanism satisfies the accountability dimension by ensuring independent judicial oversight of election-authority reapportionment actions.

“The Supreme Judicial Court has original jurisdiction to hear any challenge to an apportionment law enacted by the Legislature, as registered by any citizen or group of citizens.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section merely defines 'Commission' by reference to its establishment in Title 5, section 12004-G(33), which is a statute, not a constitution. The section does not establish the commission itself or ground it in constitutional authority; it only provides a definitional cross-reference. Since COMM.1 requires constitutional grounding (scoring 2) versus statutory grounding (scoring 1) versus executive discretion (scoring 0), and this section evidences only statutory authority, the score is 1 (statute). However, the section itself satisfies 'no' because it does not meet the criterion's threshold of constitutional grounding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting requirements for candidates in Maine, not the structure, composition, or appointment of the election commission itself. It contains no provisions regarding how commission members are appointed, by which branches, or what safeguards exist against single-branch control. The section is entirely procedural and does not establish or describe any institutional framework for the commission.

The statute establishes fixed, defined terms for board members (3 years for party-nominated members, 4 years for clerk-nominated chair), creating staggered cycles. Removal is explicitly restricted: members may only be removed 'at any time during the member's term by the appointing authority if the appropriate nominating authority nominates a replacement,' which ties removal to the nominating process and requires continuity in the succession, providing substantial statutory protection against arbitrary dismissal.

“Each member nominated by the municipal committees of the major political parties and appointed to the board shall serve for 3 years and until the member's successor is appointed and sworn. The member nominated by the clerk of the municipality and appointed to the board shall serve for 4 years and until that member's successor is appointed and sworn.”

The statute mandates a three-member registration appeals board with explicit political-balance safeguards: two members must be nominated by and enrolled in the major political parties (one per party), and the third is nominated by the municipal clerk and represents a neutral/independent position. This structure ensures neither party can unilaterally control the board and prevents single-party capture.

“The municipal committee of each of the major political parties shall nominate one member, who must be enrolled in the party of the municipal committee that nominates the member, and the municipal officers shall appoint the persons nominated by the municipal committees and the 3rd member must be nominated by the clerk of the municipality and appointed by the municipal officers.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses ballot packaging, security containers, and post-election procedures—procedural election administration mechanics. It contains no provisions establishing a budget, funding structure, or appropriations line item for any election authority. The criterion requires statutory language creating independent funding mechanisms; this section is entirely silent on funding matters.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 111 addresses voter eligibility qualifications (citizenship, age, residence, registration, enrollment). It contains no provision regarding election infrastructure budgets, multi-year funding cycles, or any funding mechanism whatsoever. This section is categorically unrelated to the FUND.2 criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1 of Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, ch. 1 contains only definitional provisions (absentee voter, ballot label, candidate, clerk, etc.) and does not address funding of the election authority, foreign-source funding prohibitions, or any financial mechanisms. This section is purely definitional and does not establish any statutory framework for election funding or foreign funding bans.

No matching sections in corpus.

Maine statute § 505(7-A) mandates that municipal clerks attend Secretary of State–approved training at least once every 2 years, with specific content requirements (de-escalation, threat reporting). The statute defines frequency (biennially), content, and establishes the Secretary of State as the approving and offering authority, satisfying all elements of STAFF.2.

“Training. Attend a training session that is approved by the Secretary of State at least once every 2 years in regard to the conduct of elections. The training must include, but is not limited to, training on the de-escalation of conflicts and the process for reporting threats to or harassment of public officials related to the conduct of federal, state or municipal elections to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall offer training sessions regionally at least once every 2 years at no fee. The Secretary of State shall encourage municipalities to provide training biennially to all election officials”

No matching sections in corpus.

The section establishes that machines must be approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, but does not codify the certification process itself (criteria, evaluators, timeline, or public-comment procedures). The statute delegates substantive standard-setting to administrative discretion rather than mandating specific statutory or regulatory procedures.

“It must be of an identical type approved by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses municipal procurement and authorization to use voting devices, not vendor certification or decertification. It contains no statutory grounds, procedures, or mechanisms for revoking vendor certification of electronic tabulating systems. Decertification oversight is a separate matter of election administration accountability that is not addressed in this provision.