EAdIElection Administration Index
How professionally and independently is election administration codified?
Dimensions
Accountability
50.0% · 1/2| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| COI.1Conflict-of-interest disclosureAre commissioners and senior election staff required by statute to disclose financial interests (vendor relationships, party positions, candidate connections) publicly? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
| COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined? | 1/1100.0% | 52 USC § 30110 codifies FECA judicial review with enumerated standing (FEC, political party, any voter eligible for President), venue (district court → certify to Court of Appeals en banc), and procedure (immediate certification). “The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President may institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
Commission
60.0% · 3/5| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| COMM.1Statutory grounding of commissionIs the election commission's existence and core mandate set in the constitution (rather than statute alone, regulation, or executive order)? | 1/250.0% | 52 USC § 30106 codifies the FEC: 6 voting members appointed by President with Senate advice/consent, 6-year staggered terms, party-balance rule (no more than 3 of same party). Statutory grounding (not constitutional). “There is established a commission to be known as the Federal Election Commission” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| COMM.2Multi-branch appointmentAre commission members appointed by multiple branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) such that no single branch unilaterally controls composition? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 20944 codifies the EAC Board of Advisors with 37 members appointed by 14 stakeholder organizations (NGA, NCSL, NASS, NACo, US Conference of Mayors, etc.) plus federal officials — multi-stakeholder rather than strictly multi-branch federal. The FEC commissioners (§ 30106 in COMM.1 candidates) are appointed by the President with Senate advice/consent. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 20924 codifies the EAC Executive Director with a fixed 4-year term; reinforces term-structure framework for senior EAC staff. “The Executive Director shall serve for a term of 4 years” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| COMM.4Political-balance requirementIs the commission's composition required by statute to be politically balanced (party-balanced, supermajority-confirmation, or independent appointment by judiciary)? | 1/1100.0% | 52 USC § 20943(a)(3) codifies an explicit party-balance rule for the EAC Standards Board. § 30106 (FEC, in COMM.1 candidates) caps same-party members at 3 of 6. “The two members of the Standards Board who represent the same State may not be members of the same political party” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
Funding
12.5% · 1/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FUND.1Independent funding lineIs the election authority's budget a separate statutory line item (not subject to mid-cycle reallocation by the executive branch alone)? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 21133 codifies transfer of property/records/personnel from FEC's Office of Election Administration to EAC; touches budget mechanics but not a separate statutory line. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| FUND.2Multi-year funding cycleAre election infrastructure budgets set on a multi-year cycle (avoiding annual political renegotiation of election-administration money)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 10301 (VRA section 2); not multi-year budget. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute? | 0/20.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30121 prohibits direct and indirect foreign-national contributions to elections, political parties, and electioneering communications. This is a comprehensive ban for ELECTIONS/CAMPAIGNS — not specifically for funding of the federal election authority (which is funded by congressional appropriation, not subject to foreign funding mechanisms). | § view source 2026-05-12 |
Staff Training
16.7% · 1/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| STAFF.1Career professional staffIs the election authority's career staff (professional employees, not political appointees) protected by civil-service or analogous merit-based statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
| STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 20901(b)(1)(D) codifies that HAVA payments may be used by states for 'Training election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers' — federal funding conditional on training but not itself a federal training mandate with content/frequency. “Training election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| STAFF.3Whistleblower protectionAre election-related whistleblower protections (for staff reporting irregularities) codified in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
Vendor Oversight
66.7% · 2/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CERT.1Certification process codifiedIs the voting-equipment certification process (criteria, evaluators, timeline, public-comment period) codified in statute or regulation? | 1/1100.0% | 52 USC § 20971 codifies EAC testing/certification of voting-system hardware/software by accredited labs (NIST recommendation + EAC approval). Comprehensive certification framework. “The Commission shall provide for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 20971(a)(1) grants EAC authority for 'decertification, and recertification' of voting systems but the surfaced text does not enumerate specific recertification triggers (material updates, defects, fixed schedule). | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute? | 0.5/150.0% | 52 USC § 20971 grants EAC decertification authority but the surfaced text does not enumerate decertification grounds or procedure. | § view source 2026-05-12 |