EAdIElection Administration Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While § 8-13-310 imposes eligibility restrictions on State Ethics Commission members (including prohibitions on recent campaign contributions, family ties to elected officials, and lobbying registration), it does not establish a statutory requirement for ongoing public disclosure of financial interests, vendor relationships, party positions, or candidate connections by commissioners or staff. The section addresses conflict-of-interest avoidance through appointment screening but not through codified transparency mechanisms.

The section codifies a clear judicial review mechanism for state board election decisions, specifying venue (South Carolina Supreme Court), procedure (petition for writ of certiorari), standard of review (record-based), and priority treatment. Standing is implicit in the earlier provision that candidates in the protested race have notice and right to be heard, and the timeline is specified by the appellate procedure itself (certiorari review). All core elements of COI.2 are statutorily established.

“Appeals from decisions of the state board shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court on petition for a writ of certiorari only based on the record of the state board hearing and shall be granted first priority of consideration by the Court.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes the election commission's existence and core mandate in statute (S.C. Code § 7-5-10), not in the South Carolina Constitution. While statutory grounding is superior to executive discretion, COMM.1 specifically requires constitutional grounding to score 2; statutory grounding alone scores 1.

The statute establishes a clear multi-branch appointment structure: the Governor appoints four members (subject to political balance), the Senate selects two members (one per major party caucus), and the House selects two members (one per major party caucus), all subject to General Assembly confirmation. No single branch unilaterally controls composition, and the structure is constitutionally grounded with party-balance safeguards built into each appointment pathway.

“(a) four members must be appointed by the Governor, no more than two of whom are members of the appointing Governor's political party; (b) two members must be selected by the Senate, one upon the recommendation of the members of the majority political party in the Senate and one upon the recommendation of the members of the largest minority political party in the Senate; (c) two members must be selected by the House of Representatives, one upon the recommendation of the members of the majority political party in the House and one upon the recommendation of the members of the largest minority political party in the House. Each member must be appointed with the advice and consent of the General Assembly.”

The statute establishes fixed five-year terms with staggered initial appointments (three-year and five-year mix), ensures term-limited service with no hold-over, and specifies statutory removal grounds for each appointing authority. Removal is limited to defined causes (malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetency, absenteeism, conflicts of interest, misconduct, persistent neglect of duty, incapacity) that protect against arbitrary dismissal.

“The terms of the members are for five years. Vacancies must be filled in the manner of the original appointment for the unexpired portion of the term only. Members of the commission who serve less than a full five-year term may be reappointed for one full five-year term. Members of the commission who have completed a full five-year term are not eligible for reappointment. A member shall not serve on the commission in hold-over status after the member's term expires.”

The statute mandates statutory-grounded political balance by requiring at least one appointee from the majority party and at least one from the largest minority party. This structural requirement applies to every county board and is not subject to executive discretion. The balance mechanism is explicit and enforceable, satisfying the dual-scholar test for institutional protection against single-party capture.

“At least one appointee on the board shall be a member of the majority political party represented in the General Assembly and at least one appointee shall be a member of the largest minority political party represented in the General Assembly.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 7-7-960 addresses procedural requirements for notifying electors of precinct and ward boundary changes. It contains no language regarding budget structure, funding mechanisms, appropriations, multi-year funding commitments, or protection against mid-cycle reallocation. The section is entirely procedural and does not engage with the institutional funding framework that FUND.1 measures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7-9-10 addresses only political party certification and decertification procedures. It contains no language regarding election infrastructure budgets, funding cycles, or budgetary mechanisms of any kind. The section is entirely procedural, governing how parties apply to and maintain certification status with the State Election Commission, and does not engage with funding structure or multi-year budget cycles.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

South Carolina statute mandates training for all poll managers (election officials) as a precondition of appointment. Training content is defined statutorily as covering 'duties and responsibilities as a poll manager,' and certification is required. The State Election Commission approves the program and the county board administers it, creating a multi-level accountability structure for training compliance.

“No person may be appointed as a manager in a primary, general, or special election who has not completed a training program approved by the State Election Commission concerning his duties and responsibilities as a poll manager and who has not received certification of having completed the training program. The training program and the issuance of certification must be carried out by the county board of voter registration and elections.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute clearly codifies the certification process: the State Election Commission is the evaluator, certification must meet Federal Election Assistance Commission standards, and the executive director must attest to a formal report. Additional specific requirements are mandated, including field testing (subsection E), source-code escrow (subsection F), vendor disclosure of contracts and prior approvals (subsections C and D), and decertification procedures (subsection H). The criteria, evaluators, and procedural steps are all statutorily defined.

“Before any kind of voting system, including an electronic voting system, is used at an election, it must be approved by the State Election Commission, which shall examine the voting system and make and file in the commission's office a report, attested to by the signature of the commission's executive director, stating whether, in the commission's opinion, the kind of voting system examined may be accurately and efficiently used by electors at elections, as provided by law. A voting system may not be approved for use in the State unless certified by a testing laboratory accredited by the Federal Election Assistance Commission as meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of the latest federal voting system standards and guidelines.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 7-5-310 addresses voter registration agency procedures and application processing requirements. It does not contain any provisions regarding vendor recertification, material updates, defect discovery, or fixed recertification schedules. The section is silent on vendor oversight mechanisms entirely.

The statute defines both the ground for decertification (failure to be accurately and efficiently usable by electors) and the procedure (reexamination by the State Election Commission followed by immediate revocation). Subsection (E) also grants the Commission discretionary reexamination authority when evidence of accuracy or performance concerns is presented. The framework is clear and statutorily codified.

“if, upon the reexamination of any type vote recorder previously approved, it appears that the vote recorder so reexamined can no longer be accurately and efficiently used by electors at elections as provided by law, the approval of the vote recorder must immediately be revoked by the State Election Commission, and no such type vote recorder shall thereafter be purchased for use or used in this State”