EAdIElection Administration Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses complaint procedures and arbitration for School District Campaign Reporting Act violations, not conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements for commissioners or senior election staff. It establishes administrative remedies and arbitration processes but contains no requirement for public disclosure of financial interests, vendor relationships, party positions, or candidate connections by any officials.

The section codifies judicial review via mandamus and specifies venue (district court, court of appeals, supreme court) with a clear duty to entertain applications. However, it defines standing only implicitly ('applicant for recount or recheck') and lacks an explicit timeline or deadline for filing. The scope is also narrow—limited to recounts/rechecks and failures to perform mandatory acts—rather than comprehensive review of election-authority discretionary decisions. While it satisfies the structural requirement for codified judicial review with venue, the absence of explicit standing, timeline, and breadth of reviewable decisions prevents a full 'yes.'

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the administrative assignment of precinct-level election board members by the county clerk. It contains no provision regarding the existence, mandate, or constitutional grounding of a state-level election commission. The section is a procedural rule about staff deployment, not a structural definition of the commission itself.

This section creates a seven-member citizen redistricting committee appointed through explicitly multi-branch mechanisms: four members appointed by legislative leadership (both chambers, both majority and minority), two members appointed by the state ethics commission without party affiliation, and one member appointed by the ethics commission who must be a retired state supreme court or appellate justice. No single branch controls composition—legislative appointment is split between majority/minority and both chambers, while the judiciary (via retired judges) and an independent ethics body provide additional checks. The statutory requirement of political balance (no more than three members from any party) further reinforces structural independence.

The statute defines fixed two-year terms for board members, satisfying the fixed-length requirement. However, the section provides no information on staggered cycles (which would prevent wholesale replacement), and critically, it includes no statutory grounds for removal—only a default hold-over clause. Without specified removal protections or grounds, commissioners lack full term protection against arbitrary dismissal.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only ballot layout and the order in which offices and questions appear on ballots. It contains no provisions regarding election commission composition, appointment procedures, term protection, political balance, or any structural safeguard against single-party capture. The criterion COMM.4 requires statutory language establishing political-balance requirements for a commission; this section is wholly silent on commission governance.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-19-34.6 governs civil penalties and enforcement procedures under the Campaign Reporting Act; it does not address election authority budgeting, appropriations, or funding structure. The section assigns enforcement authority to the state ethics commission and secretary of state but contains no statutory provision establishing an independent funding line, multi-year appropriation, or protection against mid-cycle reallocation. Funding-related criteria require examination of appropriations statutes, not enforcement-procedure sections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is purely definitional, establishing terms used in the Local Election Act (e.g., 'local election,' 'local government,' 'municipal officers'). It contains no language addressing budgeting, funding cycles, multi-year appropriations, or financial independence for election administration. Structural assessment of FUND.2 requires statutory provisions that specify how election budgets are allocated and protected; this section does not engage that topic.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section mandates by statute that voting system technicians must be trained and certified, establishes the secretary of state as the training authority, and specifies recertification frequency (prior to each primary election). Training content scope is defined by rule-making authority granted in subsection D. This satisfies the core requirement of statutory-grounded mandatory training with defined frequency and authority.

No matching sections in corpus.

§ 1-9-14 comprehensively codifies the certification process in statute: criteria (Election Code requirements and federal VVSG standards), evaluators (independent testing laboratories qualified to evaluate systems), timeline (applications by June 1 of odd-numbered years; 21-day public comment period; 30-day appeal/correction periods; 30-day certification decision deadline), and public accountability (written reports filed and posted online, public comment solicitation, voting system certification committee recommendation process). All procedural steps and substantive standards are established by statute, not administrative discretion.

The statute codifies multiple recertification triggers: (1) a fixed schedule (review during the year following a presidential election, with testing to begin no later than June 1), and (2) an event-based trigger (whenever the secretary of state becomes aware that a system no longer complies with statutory or federal standards). Both triggers are statutory mandates, not discretionary, and include explicit procedural requirements.

The statute clearly defines decertification grounds (non-compliance with Election Code requirements and federal voluntary voting system guidelines) and establishes a procedure (investigation by the secretary of state triggered when non-compliance is identified, with tests and inspections following Section 1-9-14). Both grounds and procedure are statutorily codified rather than left to administrative discretion.