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? | 0.5/150.0% | § 13-37-108 imposes detailed conflict-of-interest restrictions on the Commissioner of Political Practices — no conflicting positions, no political activity, no contributions, recusal from conflict matters — but a public financial-disclosure requirement for election officials sits in the general ethics code (Title 2, ch. 2), outside this corpus. | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined? | 0.5/150.0% | Montana provides judicial review of election matters — Chapter 36 election contests are heard in district court and the Administrative Procedure Act governs challenges to the Secretary of State's rules — but the surfaced provision (a district-court injunction against improper nominations) does not itself codify a general judicial-review right with standing, timeline and venue for election-authority decisions. | § view source 2026-05-22 |
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% | Montana has no single election commission — elections are administered by the Secretary of State and elected county election administrators, with statutory absentee election boards and county recount boards established by Title 13. The framework is statutory; level 1. “In a partisan election, each absentee election board or the authorized election officials who are appointed must consist of two members, one from each of the two political parties” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| COMM.2Multi-branch appointmentAre commission members appointed by multiple branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) such that no single branch unilaterally controls composition? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Montana's election administration is not a multi-branch-appointed commission — the Secretary of State and county election administrators are independently elected; there is no election commission whose composition is shared across branches. | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal? | 1/1100.0% | § 13-37-103 fixes the Commissioner of Political Practices's term at six years, § 13-37-102(3) permits removal only for incompetence, malfeasance or neglect of duty — in writing and subject to judicial review — and § 13-37-105 adds impeachment. A statutory fixed term with for-cause removal. “the individual selected to serve as commissioner is appointed for a 6-year term” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| 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% | § 13-4-102 codifies political balance for election boards — each board of election judges must include judges from all parties that submitted lists, and no more than a simple majority may come from one party; § 13-13-225 requires absentee election boards to take one member from each of the two leading parties. “No more than the number of election judges needed to obtain a simple majority may be appointed from the list of one political party in each county.” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
Funding
25.0% · 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)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced petition-form and joint-fundraising provisions; Montana does not codify the election authority's budget as a separate ring-fenced statutory line item — county election administration is county-funded and the Secretary of State is funded by general appropriation. | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| 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: FTS surfaced the biennial election-administrator training provision; Montana does not set election-infrastructure budgets on a codified multi-year cycle. | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute? | 1/250.0% | § 13-37-502 and § 13-37-505 bar foreign nationals — directly or through an intermediary — from funding candidate elections and statewide ballot issues, and § 13-35-238 bars the state and counties from accepting any private donation to fund election administration; comprehensive for election-related funding generally, though no clause names the election authority's foreign funding specifically. “It is unlawful for a foreign national, directly or through an intermediary, to make a disbursement for an electioneering communication, a contribution, or an expenditure” | § view source 2026-05-23 |
Staff Training
33.3% · 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 2026-05-22 |
| STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined? | 1/1100.0% | § 13-4-203 requires mandatory pre-election training of all election judges on current procedures and voting-system operation, with a certificate of completion required to serve; § 13-1-203 requires biennial training of election administrators plus six hours of annual continuing education. “Before each election, all election judges must be instructed by the election administrator on current procedures” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| 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 2026-05-22 |
Vendor Oversight
83.3% · 3/3| 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% | Montana codifies voting-system certification — § 13-17-101 and § 13-17-103 set approval and required specifications, § 13-17-212 requires the election administrator to publicly test and certify each system within 30 days before an election, and § 13-17-211 directs the Secretary of State to adopt uniform procedural rules. “the election administrator shall publicly test and certify that the system is performing properly” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified? | 1/1100.0% | § 13-17-212 codifies recertification triggers — at least 10% of each voting-system type is randomly retested and recertified every calendar year, and § 13-17-507 bars a machine that fails a post-election audit from reuse until re-examined and re-approved. “at least 10% of each type of voting system in the state has been randomly tested and certified at least once every calendar year” | § view source 2026-05-22 |
| CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute? | 0.5/150.0% | § 13-17-507 codifies a defect-triggered suspension — a vote-counting machine implicated in an audit discrepancy may not be used in another election until examined by a computer software expert and re-approved by the Secretary of State; a formal decertification (approval-withdrawal) procedure with enumerated grounds is not separately codified. “may not be used in another election until it has been examined and tested by a computer software expert” | § view source 2026-05-22 |