EIIElection Integrity Index
How well does the legal framework defend against vote-altering attacks?
Dimensions
Citizen Verifiability
31.3% · 3/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1Public verification artifactDoes law mandate a downloadable public package containing certificates, device records, and result signatures? | 0.5/150.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.91 codifies the requisites for approval of ballots, voting devices, and automatic tabulating equipment — including certification by the elections commission. § 5.905 codifies software-component disclosure. Combined with § 7.41 public-access, Wisconsin has the building blocks but no single downloadable verification package mandate. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 4.2End-to-end verifiability permittedDoes law permit (or require) per-voter cryptographic receipts that prove inclusion without revealing the vote? | 0/50.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 4.3Voter-verifiable paper trailIs voter-verifiable paper record (VVPAT or hand-marked paper) legally required? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.77 codifies that paper-ballot procedures apply when electronic systems use paper ballots distributed to electors. § 5.82 codifies write-in paper-ballot provisions. § 5.655 codifies consolidated paper-ballot use. § 5.76 codifies adoption/experimentation/discontinuance of electronic systems — Wisconsin's regime is paper-as-primary with optional automatic tabulating equipment. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 4.4Citizen re-tally rightCan any citizen — not just parties — legally re-tally from published precinct data? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 7.60 requires county clerks to post all election returns ('post all returns, by ward or reporting unit') on election night and keep the office open to receive precinct reports. § 7.41 grants public access. § 7.52 governs absentee canvassing transparency. Together these enable citizen re-tally from publicly posted precinct totals. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Custody Hardware
50.0% · 4/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1Hardware tamper standardAre tamper-evident or tamper-responsive hardware standards mandated? | 2/540.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.85 codifies ballot/equipment handling at the polling place under canvass procedures. § 7.25 codifies voting-machine officials' duties including 'setting, adjusting, and putting the machine in order.' § 7.51 codifies local board of canvassers' procedures. § 7.52 codifies absentee-ballot canvassing custody. Combined: tamper-evident sealing of materials required (ordinal level 2). | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 2.2Network isolation mandateIs internet/Wi-Fi/cellular connectivity legally prohibited on vote-casting equipment? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 2.3Custody documentationIs full chain-of-custody documentation required and publicly available? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 7.54 codifies contestant rights to have ballots opened and inspected: 'the contesting parties have the right to have the ballots opened and to have all errors of the inspectors, either in counting or refusing to count any ballot, corrected by the board of canvassers or court.' § 5.84 codifies equipment testing + retention. § 5.06 codifies compliance-review procedure. § 7.37 codifies inspectors' duties around ballot handling. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 2.4Tamper criminal penaltyAre there explicit criminal penalties for unauthorized device access? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 12.13 codifies the 'Election fraud' criminal regime — comprehensive enumeration of prohibited acts by electors, election officials, and others, with criminal penalties throughout Ch. 12. § 5.92 supplements with bond authority for electronic-voting-system contracts. “12.13 12.13 Election fraud. 12.13(1) (1) Electors. Whoever intentionally does any of the following violates this chapter:” | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Post Election Audit
50.0% · 5/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1Mandatory auditIs a post-election audit legally required for every election? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.90 codifies recount procedure: 'recounts of votes cast on an electronic voting system shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in s. 9.01.' § 9.01 codifies the complete recount procedure (petition rights, fees, threshold rules, manual vs. machine recount choice). § 7.08 establishes the elections commission's general audit authority. § 7.23 codifies retention of election materials for post-election review. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 3.2Audit methodWhat audit method is mandated? | 2/540.0% | Wis. Stat. § 9.01 codifies the recount method: recount petitioner may request recount conducted manually (hand count) or by means of the voting system. § 9.01(1)(b) sets margin-based recount-cost rules. § 5.90 governs electronic-system recounts. Ordinal level 2: fixed-mechanism hand recount option codified. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 3.3Audit triggers beyond mandatoryDoes law trigger additional audits on close margins or sworn challenges? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 3.4Public observation of auditAre parties, media, and citizens granted observer access to the audit? | 0.5/150.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.05 grants the elections commission general supervisory authority. § 7.08 enumerates commission duties. § 7.41 (Public's right to access) opens polling places + canvass to the public — which extends to recount/audit proceedings under § 9.01. Audit observation rights are codified via the general public-access principle. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 3.5Binding forceAre audit results legally binding on the final certified result? | 1/1100.0% | § 5.05 grants the elections commission authority to certify results — the audit/recount findings are binding because they alter the certified canvass per § 9.01. § 7.08 enumerates commission duties including issuance of certificates. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Software Verifiability
55.6% · 5/9| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1Source code disclosureIs voting system source code legally accessible? | 4/580.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.905 explicitly defines 'software component' to include 'vote-counting source code, table structures, modules, program narratives and other human-readable computer instructions used to count votes' — and § 5.905(2)–(3) require the vendor to escrow this with the elections commission and grant the commission inspection rights. Ordinal level 4: academics-under-NDA-equivalent (certifying-authority access). “5.905 5.905 Software components. 5.905(1) (1) In this section, “software component” includes vote-counting source code, table structures, modules, program narratives and other human-readable computer instructions used to count votes with an electronic voting system.” | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 1.2Reproducible builds requirementMust the binary that runs in production be reproducibly buildable from public source? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 1.3Pre-election binary commitmentIs the running binary cryptographically committed (hash published) before polls open? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 1.4Election definition publicationAre ballot contests, layouts, and tabulation rules signed and published before polls open? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 5.84 codifies pre-election TESTING of automatic tabulating equipment (programs + ballots tested before each election) but doesn't codify SIGNED+PUBLISHED ballot layouts/tabulation rules per the EII criterion. Closest available is § 7.10 (county clerk ballot preparation) and § 7.15 (municipal clerk supervision). | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 1.5Post-election integrity checkDoes law grant a right to verify the actual running binary matches the committed one? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.905 grants the elections commission inspection rights over the escrowed software components — establishing the post-election software-integrity verification mechanism. Combined with § 5.84 (pre/post-election testing of automatic tabulating equipment), Wisconsin codifies the integrity-check regime. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Transparency Observation
75.0% · 6/8| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1Domestic observer rightsAre party and civil-society observers given full procedural access? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 7.41 codifies the 'Public's right to access' — any member of the public may be present at any polling place and at the municipal clerk's office during absentee voting. Reinforced by § 7.52 (canvassing absentee ballots openly), § 9.10 (recall procedures open). Strong domestic-observer regime. “7.41 7.41 Public’s right to access. 7.41(1) (1) Any member of the public may be present at any polling place, in the office of any municipal clerk whose office is located in a public building on any day that absentee ballots may be cast in that office, or at an alternate site under” | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 6.2International observer accessAre OSCE/EU/IFES international observers admitted by default? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
| 6.3Precinct-level results publication speedAre precinct-level results legally required to be published within 24h of poll close? | 5/5100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 7.60(1) codifies an explicit ELECTION-NIGHT publication mandate: 'On election night the county clerk shall keep the clerk's office open to receive reports from the ward inspectors and shall post all returns. On election night the clerk shall post all returns, by ward or reporting unit.' This satisfies the strictest level (within 24h — actually within hours of poll close). “On election night the county clerk shall keep the clerk’s office open to receive reports from the ward inspectors and shall post all returns. On election night the clerk shall post all returns, by ward or reporting unit,” | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 6.4Public election event logIs a public, signed, append-only election event log legally required? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-18 |
Vendor Independence
75.0% · 3/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1Multi-vendor capabilityDoes law permit multiple certified vendors to operate in the same election? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.92 codifies the multi-vendor framework: 'Before entering into a contract for the purchase or lease of an electronic voting system or any ballots, voting devices, automatic tabulating equipment or related equipment or materials,' municipalities may require bond — implying competitive vendor procurement. § 5.91 codifies system certification by the commission (multiple certified vendors operate concurrently). | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 5.2Open protocol standardsAre vote-format / device-protocol standards open and publicly documented? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 7.08(1) requires the elections commission to 'Prescribe all official ballot forms necessary under chs. 5 to 12' — published standardized ballot formats. § 5.87 codifies tabulating procedures under the requirements of the automatic tabulating equipment specification. § 5.02 codifies statutory definitions of voting-equipment categories. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 5.3Contract duration capAre vendor contracts capped in duration, preventing perpetual lock-in? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 5.05 (commission powers) is the only candidate but doesn't codify a contract duration cap on voting-equipment vendor contracts. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 5.4Source-code escrowIs source-code escrow with the state required as a condition of certification? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.905 codifies source-code escrow at the elections-commission level: the vendor must provide the commission with the software components defined in subsection (1) and consent to inspection. Strong escrow language. “5.905 5.905 Software components. 5.905(1) (1) In this section, “software component” includes vote-counting source code, table structures, modules, program narratives and other human-readable computer instructions used to count votes with an electronic voting system.” | § view source 2026-05-18 |
Voter Access
71.4% · 5/7| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1Ballot secrecy guaranteeIs voter–ballot unlinkability legally guaranteed and enforceable? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.91 codifies that voting devices/ballots must be certified by the commission. Wisconsin's ballot secrecy is constitutionally grounded in Wis. Const. Art. III § 3 (right to secret ballot) and statutorily reinforced through Ch. 6 + § 5.79 (voter instruction within enclosed voting booth) — though those specific articles weren't FTS-surfaced for this datapoint. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 7.2Accessibility mandateAre accessibility standards (vision, motor, language) legally required at every polling place? | 3/560.0% | § 12.13(1)(b) criminalizes vote tampering by/against electors with disabilities — protection via criminalization, not affirmative accessibility mandate. Wisconsin's HAVA-compliance accessibility provisions live in § 5.40+ + § 7.15 (not FTS-surfaced for this datapoint). Partial: some accessibility codified, but the full visual/motor/language mandate isn't surfaced. | § view source 2026-05-18 |
| 7.3Polling-place density floorIs there a legal floor on polling places per N voters or per geographic area? | 1/1100.0% | Wis. Stat. § 5.25 codifies polling-place requirements: 'All elections under chs. 5 to 12 shall be held at the polling places provided in this section. The places chosen shall be public buildings.' § 5.15 codifies ward boundaries. § 5.85 codifies ballot handling per polling place. Together: geographic density requirement codified (one polling place per ward, with ward population caps). | § view source 2026-05-18 |