EIIElection Integrity Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 52 of the Swiss Federal Political Rights Act requires publication of election results in official bulletins and transmission of election protocols, but does not mandate a downloadable public package containing certificates, device records, or result signatures. The provision addresses transparency through publication and complaint procedures, not the specific technical artifacts required by criterion 4.1.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute requires that a protocol (record) be created for each voting booth documenting the results of voting, including ballot counts and vote tallies. This establishes a legally mandated paper record of voting outcomes that can be verified and audited, satisfying the requirement for a voter-verifiable paper trail.

“Über das Ergebnis einer Abstimmung wird in jedem Stimmbüro ein Protokoll erstellt, das die Gesamtzahl der Stimmberechtigten und die Zahl der stimmberechtigten Auslandschweizer, der Stimmenden, der leeren, ungültigen und gültigen Stimmzettel sowie der Ja- und Nein-Stimmen angibt.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 92 of the Swiss Federal Political Rights Act (BPR) addresses only the referendum procedure and the date of entry into force of the statute (1 July 1978). It contains no provisions regarding voting equipment, network connectivity, internet access, or any technical specifications related to vote-casting devices. This section is entirely procedural and does not address election integrity safeguards.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 60 BPR concerns signature list requirements for referenda, including warnings about falsifying signature collection results and bribery in the signature collection process. It does not address criminal penalties for unauthorized access to devices or hardware, which is the subject matter of criterion 2.4 on custody hardware security.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the determination of referendum results and specifies when a recount is required (only if irregularities are credibly established and could substantially affect the result). It does not establish a mandatory post-election audit requirement for every election, nor does it apply to elections as opposed to referendums. The provision is about recounting votes under specific circumstances, not systematic auditing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the determination of elected candidates and alternates based on vote counts, using tie-breaking procedures by lot. It does not address post-election audits or any audit methodology. The section is about candidate selection, not election integrity auditing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 80 of BPR concerns appeals to the Federal Court against decisions by cantonal governments and federal chancellery regarding party registration, initiatives, and referendums. It addresses the jurisdiction and procedure for bringing complaints, not post-election audit triggers or mechanisms for auditing close margins or sworn challenges.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 43 of the BPR addresses the determination of elected candidates and alternates based on votes received, using vote counts and lot-drawing for tie-breaking. It does not address post-election audits, audit procedures, or the legal binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 5 of BPR establishes general principles for voting methods and ballot handling (use of official ballots, secrecy requirements, proxy provisions). It does not address publication, signing, or pre-election disclosure of ballot contests, layouts, or tabulation rules—topics that criterion 1.4 requires.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the determination of elected candidates and alternates based on vote counts and lot-drawing in case of tie votes. It concerns candidate selection and ranking procedures, not software verification, cryptographic commitment, or binary code integrity verification. The criterion requires a legal right to verify that election software matches a committed version, which is entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the transmission and publication of preliminary voting results by cantonal authorities to federal bodies and the public. It contains no provisions regarding observer rights, procedural access for party observers, or civil-society observer credentials. The criterion concerns observer access to voting procedures; this section is about result reporting timelines and data specifications.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section requires the cantonal government to publish the election protocol 'sofort' (immediately) in the official gazette, which indicates prompt publication. However, 'sofort' is vague and does not establish a specific legal timeframe of 24 or 48 hours. The term suggests expedited publication but falls short of a binding 24-hour requirement, making it align more with a general 'within one week' standard.

“Die Kantonsregierung veröffentlicht den Inhalt des Wahlprotokolls ohne ihre Bemerkungen und Entscheide sofort im kantonalen Amtsblatt.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section explicitly guarantees ballot secrecy as a legally binding principle that cannot be impaired. This directly addresses the requirement for voter-ballot unlinkability by establishing an enforceable legal prohibition on any action that would compromise the secrecy of the vote.

“Das Stimmgeheimnis darf nicht beeinträchtigt werden.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.