EAdIElection Administration Index
How professionally and independently is election administration codified?
Dimensions
Accountability
0.0% · 0/2| 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. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |
| COI.2Judicial review of administrative decisionsIs the right to seek judicial review of election-authority decisions codified, with standing, timeline, and venue defined? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 26-12-101 governs the procedural mechanics of filling congressional vacancies (writs of election, timing, concurrent elections) and does not address judicial review of election-authority decisions, standing, timelines, or venue for challenging administrative determinations. The section contains no accountability mechanism for judicial oversight of administrative actions. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
Commission
30.0% · 2/5| 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)? | 0/20.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 26-8-113 addresses recount procedures and the appointment of candidate agents, not the establishment or constitutional grounding of an election commission. It contains no language creating, authorizing, or defining the mandate of an election commission. This section falls outside the scope of COMM.1, which evaluates whether an election commission's existence and core mandate are constitutionally (rather than statutorily) established. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| 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% | The statute provides for gubernatorial appointment with Senate confirmation, which involves two branches (executive and legislative) and thus prevents unilateral executive control. However, this structure is weaker than multi-branch appointment that would include the judiciary or structural party-balance requirements, and does not prevent a unified partisan legislature and governor from entirely controlling composition. The design provides some statutory safeguard but falls short of robust multi-branch insulation. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| COMM.3Term protectionAre commissioner terms defined in statute with fixed length, staggered cycles, and statutory grounds for removal? | 1/1100.0% | The statute establishes fixed four-year terms for county election board members, defined in statute with explicit length. Grounds for removal are also statutory: failure to attend five consecutive meetings or change in party affiliation. While terms are not explicitly staggered (which would further strengthen independence), the statute provides a clear statutory framework for term length and removal grounds that protects against arbitrary dismissal mid-term. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| COMM.4Political-balance requirementIs the commission's composition required by statute to be politically balanced (party-balanced, supermajority-confirmation, or independent appointment by judiciary)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains campaign finance reporting requirements for candidate committees and does not address the composition, appointment, or political balance of any election commission. It specifies what information must be reported on contribution and expenditure forms, not structural governance of the commission itself. COMM.4 requires statutory language mandating the commission's political composition; this text provides none. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
Funding
0.0% · 0/4| 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: This section prescribes procedures for independent presidential candidates and unrecognized political parties to appear on Oklahoma ballots. It contains no provisions regarding the election authority's budget structure, independent funding lines, or protection from mid-cycle reallocation. The section is entirely procedural and candidate-facing, not institutional. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| 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 matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |
| FUND.3Foreign funding prohibitionIs foreign-source funding of the election authority (and election administration vendors, where applicable) prohibited by statute? | 0/20.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |
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. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |
| STAFF.2Mandatory trainingIs training for election officials and poll workers required by statute, with content and frequency defined? | 1/1100.0% | The statute mandates training for precinct officials (inspectors, judges, clerks) at a defined frequency—at least biennially in even-numbered years, plus additional times as deemed necessary. While the Secretary retains discretion over method and curriculum, the training requirement itself is clearly statutory, binding, and covers the key categories of poll workers. This satisfies STAFF.2's requirement for mandatory, statutorily-defined training. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| STAFF.3Whistleblower protectionAre election-related whistleblower protections (for staff reporting irregularities) codified in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |
Vendor Oversight
0.0% · 0/3| 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? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter registration methods (federal postcard applications and write-in absentee ballot declarations) and does not address voting-equipment certification processes, evaluators, timelines, or public-comment periods. It falls entirely outside the scope of CERT.1. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| CERT.2Recertification triggersAre recertification triggers (after material updates, after defects discovered, on a fixed schedule) codified? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 26-4-109.2 addresses voter registration agency operations and procedures but contains no codified recertification triggers for any systems, equipment, or processes. The section does not establish fixed schedules, material-update thresholds, or defect-discovery procedures that would require recertification of voting systems, election infrastructure, or vendor products. This is an administrative procedure statute governing agency designation and voter registration form handling, not a certification or recertification framework. | § view source 2026-06-07 |
| CERT.3Decertification grounds & procedureAre the grounds for revoking certification, and the procedure for doing so, defined in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-07 |