EAdIElection Administration Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section requires candidates for general public office (state, county, municipal, school board) to file financial disclosures with the Ethics Commission, but does not address disclosure requirements for election commissioners or senior election staff. COI.1 requires statutory disclosure obligations specifically for those who administer elections, not candidates running for office. The section is outside the scope of election administration institutional structure.

The statute codifies multiple avenues for judicial review (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) with explicit standing (any officer subject to Chapter 3 duties; boards of canvassers), defined timeline (circuit court within 15 days; Supreme Court within 10 days for special session, issues determined within 5 days), and venue (circuit courts initially, Supreme Court of Appeals for review). This provides clear statutory accountability mechanisms for election-authority decisions.

“A mandamus shall lie from the Supreme Court of Appeals, or any one of the judges thereof in vacation, returnable before court, to compel any officer herein to do and perform legally any duty required of him or her. In an election of a member of the House of Delegates and state senator, a writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition shall lie from the Supreme Court of Appeals, or a judge thereof in vacation, returnable before the court, to correct any error of law and review and correct the proceedings of any circuit court, or the judge thereof in vacation, or any board of canvassers.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes poll-level boards of election officials through statutory language only, not constitutional provision. It codifies their composition (team structure, party balance) and appointment process (county commission notification to party committees), providing clear statutory authority. However, COMM.1 specifically requires constitutional grounding to score 2; statute alone scores 1. The section provides no constitutional basis for the commission structure.

While the statute requires Senate advice and consent for four of five commission members, the Governor retains appointment power and the Secretary of State (a Governor-appointed executive officer) is an ex officio member. This creates executive dominance: the Governor effectively controls a majority of the commission (5 of 6 potential votes if the Governor-appointed Secretary casts a vote, or 4 of 6 if not). The statute lacks appointment by the judiciary or independent commission authority, and the Secretary of State membership ensures executive branch primacy. Advice and consent is a meaningful constraint but insufficient to constitute true multi-branch control when the appointing power remains unilaterally with the executive.

“four persons appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”

The statute defines a fixed two-year term for ballot commissioners, satisfying the fixed-length requirement. However, the structure fails term protection in critical ways: (1) terms are not staggered—all commissioners turn over simultaneously every two years, creating complete board replacement; (2) commissioners can be reappointed annually by partisan county executive committees, creating no insulation from removal through non-reappointment; (3) no statutory grounds for removal are defined, and the appointment mechanism itself (party-committee discretion) permits practical removal at will. The dual-scholar test would find this insufficient because even a nonpartisan observer cannot distinguish between a genuinely protected term and pure at-will service when reappointment is entirely within partisan hands with no stagger.

“Ballot commissioners shall be appointed between January 15 and January 30, in each year in which a general election is to be held, for a term of two years beginning on February 1 next ensuing.”

This section mandates statutory political balance at the operational level by requiring that every team of poll clerks and election commissioners consist of persons from opposite political parties, with explicit prohibition of same-party or no-party teams. This structural requirement ensures bipartisan composition for the officials who directly conduct and oversee voting and ballot counting, satisfying the political-balance criterion through mandatory statutory design rather than discretionary appointment.

“The term "team of poll clerks" or "team of election commissioners" means two persons appointed by opposite political parties to perform the specific functions of the office: Provided , That no team of poll clerks or team of election commissioners may consist of two persons with the same registered political party affiliation or two persons registered with no political party affiliation”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance disclosure requirements for candidates and political committees, not the election authority's budget structure. It contains no provisions establishing an independent statutory funding line for the election administration agency itself, nor any protections against mid-cycle reallocation by the executive branch. The section is entirely devoted to what information must be reported by candidates and their treasurers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses legislative vacancies and appointment procedures; it contains no provisions governing election infrastructure budgets, funding cycles, or budgetary autonomy for election administration. It is entirely outside the scope of funding mechanisms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prohibits foreign nationals from making political contributions to candidates, committees, and parties, and from making independent expenditures — a campaign finance restriction. It does not address foreign-source funding of the election authority itself, election administration operations, or election vendors. FUND.3 requires statutory prohibition on foreign funding of the administrative institution and its vendors, not regulation of campaign spending by foreign nationals.

No matching sections in corpus.

W. Va. Code § 3-1-46 statutorily mandates training for all election officials (commissioners and poll clerks) before each election, with specific content defined (procedures, duties, voting systems) and frequency defined (no fewer than seven days before each election, with a 30-day requirement prior to service). The statute also requires county clerks to attend biennial Secretary of State training on election law.

“No person may serve as an election commissioner or poll clerk in any election unless he or she has attended the instructional program required by subsection (a) of this section within thirty days prior to an election.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The section codifies a certification process with clear timelines (one week before count, retesting before official count), specified evaluators (county commission), public notice requirements, and detailed test procedures. However, the section does not codify evaluation criteria for certifying the equipment, does not establish a public-comment period on certification, and grants the county commission broad discretion in determining what constitutes 'free from error.' The institutional structure satisfies timeliness and transparency (notice and public observation) but lacks codified technical standards and a deliberative approval mechanism beyond county-commission sign-off.

“The tabulating equipment to be used in the election shall be immediately certified by the county commission to be free from error as determined by the test.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter registration procedures at service agencies under the National Voter Registration Act, not vendor or election system recertification. It contains no codified triggers for recertification of voting equipment, software, or election systems—whether based on material updates, discovered defects, or fixed schedules. The criterion CERT.2 addresses institutional oversight of election technology vendors and systems; this section addresses agency-based voter registration distribution and handling.

The statute explicitly defines decertification grounds: failure to substantially comply with printing, packaging and delivery specifications, or loss of eligibility. The procedure is also statutorily specified: written notice by certified mail with reasons, a 60-day appeal window to the State Election Commission, and a mandated rulemaking for a hearing process. These elements satisfy CERT.3.

“the Secretary of State may deny the application to issue or renew the certificate of authorization, or may suspend or revoke the certificate of authorization upon a determination that the vendor has not substantially complied with the printing, packaging and delivery specifications in the printing of ballots for any state, county or municipal election, or that the vendor is not eligible or is no longer eligible to print ballots pursuant to the provisions of this section. The Secretary of State shall give written notice of any such determination by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the vendor setting forth the reason for the suspension, revocation or the denial of the application or the denial of the renewal thereof. The applicant may, within sixty days of the receipt of such denial, file a written appeal with the state Election Commission. The State Election Commission shall promulgate rules establishing a hearing process for such appeals.”