EIIElection Integrity Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter electronic-mail addresses for military-overseas voters and ballot delivery procedures. It does not mandate or address downloadable public packages, certificates, device records, or result signatures related to election verification or auditing.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly mandates that all ballots must be printed on paper, which creates a voter-verifiable paper trail for election verification and auditing purposes. This requirement directly satisfies the criterion for a legally required voter-verifiable paper record.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electronic mail addresses for covered voters and military-overseas ballot procedures. It contains no provisions regarding citizen rights to re-tally votes, access to precinct data, or verification procedures. The section is entirely unrelated to the criterion of citizen re-tally rights.

The statute mandates tamper-evident seals for voting devices, ballot boxes, transfer cases, and election results storage media, which satisfies the tamper-evident component (score 2). However, the section does not address logging mechanisms or tamper-responsive auto-quarantine features, so it does not reach the higher ordinal levels.

The statute prohibits internet connectivity on ballot counting/tabulation devices, which addresses network isolation for vote-counting equipment. However, the criterion specifically asks about vote-casting equipment (the machines voters use to cast ballots), not counting/tabulation devices. This section protects the tabulation stage but does not address whether vote-casting equipment itself is prohibited from internet connectivity.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses sealing methods to detect tampering but does not establish requirements for chain-of-custody documentation or public availability of such documentation. It focuses on the mechanics of sealing ballots and materials, not on documenting the custody and transfer of election materials.

The statute explicitly establishes a felony-level criminal penalty for unauthorized access to or tampering with election-related hardware and systems. This directly satisfies the requirement for explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access.

The statute requires post-election audits for certain specified election dates (those in Sections 1-101, 1-102, 1-103, and 20-101) but does not mandate audits for every election. The definition in subsection E also emphasizes that audits are conducted 'only at the direction of' the Secretary, preserving discretion. This falls short of a requirement for every election.

The section authorizes post-election audits and permits ballot boxes to be returned for that purpose, but it does not specify what audit method is mandated. The actual audit method is deferred to 'Section 1 of this act,' which is not included in the provided text. Without seeing that referenced section, the audit methodology cannot be determined from this section alone.

The statute establishes recount triggers based on close margins for ballot issues (sections B and C), which are procedurally similar to audits. However, the section addresses recounts initiated by candidates and voters through petitions with deposit requirements, not automatic audits triggered by election officials. The criterion asks about audits triggered beyond mandatory audits, and this section focuses on discretionary recounts requested by interested parties rather than system-level post-election audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses restrictions on political fund-raising on state property and is entirely unrelated to post-election audits or observer access to audits. It does not mention audits, observation rights, or any audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the use of public property for political purposes and equal access to facilities. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit procedures, or the binding effect of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section is entirely outside the scope of election auditing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This statute addresses confidentiality of voter information and election official disclosure obligations, not voting system source code accessibility. It is entirely unrelated to the criterion regarding whether voting system source code is legally accessible to the public, academics, or certifying authorities.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the reproduction and distribution of physical ballots for educational purposes and does not concern software, binary builds, reproducibility, or any aspect of electronic voting systems or code compilation. It is entirely outside the scope of the software verifiability criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only definitional provisions for the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act, establishing terms like 'covered voter,' 'overseas voter,' and 'uniformed-service voter.' It does not address ballot contests, layouts, tabulation rules, or any requirement for pre-election publication or signing of election materials. The section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion.

The statute authorizes post-election audits to check that voting devices and software 'correctly tabulated votes,' but it does not specifically grant a right to verify that the running binary matches the committed/certified binary before or after the election. The audit focuses on ballot examination outcomes, not source code or binary integrity verification. This addresses election integrity generally but not the specific technical verification criterion requested.

The statute explicitly grants party representatives the right to observe voting device testing and verify their proper condition. The provision mandates notice to political parties and affords them an opportunity to observe the testing process, which constitutes procedural access for partisan observers to election administration activities.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses fraud penalties and complaint procedures, not the publication or timing of precinct-level election results. It contains no requirements regarding when results must be published or made public.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns ethics rules governing gifts that state officers and employees may accept from vendors doing business with their agencies. It does not address election vendor certification, multiple vendor operations, or any aspect of election systems. The criterion asks about permitting multiple certified vendors in elections, which is entirely outside the scope of this ethics/gift rule.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses verification of voter citizenship through database comparisons and proof-of-citizenship procedures. It does not concern vote-format standards, device protocols, or vendor independence in voting systems, which is the subject matter of criterion 5.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute addresses ballot printing contract procedures, bidding requirements, and insurance provisions, but contains no language establishing or capping contract duration. There is no mention of term limits, contract periods, renewal restrictions, or any mechanism to prevent perpetual lock-in with vendors.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section permits the use of secrecy folders to conceal votes but does not legally guarantee or enforce ballot-voter unlinkability as a mandatory system requirement. The language 'may insert' indicates optional use rather than a binding guarantee, and the statute does not establish enforceable safeguards against ballot linkage to voter identity.

The statute mandates accessibility measures for voters with blindness, disability, or inability to read/write at every polling place and in-person absentee location. However, the requirement is limited to providing 'a means' for assistance without specifying comprehensive accessibility standards (e.g., physical accessibility, language assistance, or detailed technical requirements). The manner of provision is delegated to the Secretary of the State Election Board, leaving specificity incomplete.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the preparation and printing of sample ballots for elections. It contains no provisions regarding polling-place density, the number of polling places per voter population, or polling-place distribution per geographic area. The criterion requires a legal floor or minimum standard for polling-place availability, which is entirely absent from this statute.