§ 101.015 Standards for voting systems.
Overview of Statute
(1) The Department of State shall adopt rules which establish minimum standards for hardware and software for electronic and electromechanical voting systems. Such rules shall contain standards for:
(a) Functional requirements;
(b) Performance levels;
(c) Physical and design characteristics;
(d) Documentation requirements; and
(e) Evaluation criteria.
- Chain of custody of ballots, including a detailed description of procedures to create a complete written record of the chain of custody of ballots and paper outputs beginning with their receipt from a printer or manufacturer until such time as they are destroyed.
- Transport of ballots, including a description of the method and equipment used and a detailed list of the names of all individuals involved in such transport.
- Ballot security, including a requirement that all ballots be kept in a locked room in the supervisor’s office, a facility controlled by the supervisor or county canvassing board, or a public place in which the county canvassing board is canvassing votes until needed for canvassing and returned thereafter.
- Each supervisor shall establish written procedures to assure accuracy and security in his or her county, including procedures related to early voting pursuant to s. 101.657. Such procedures shall be reviewed in each odd-numbered year by the department.
- Each supervisor shall submit any revisions to the security procedures to the department at least 45 days before early voting commences pursuant to s. 101.657 in an election in which they are to take effect.
(c) Each supervisor of elections shall submit any revisions to the security procedures to the Department of State at least 45 days before early voting commences pursuant to s. 101.657 in an election in which they are to take effect.
(5)(a) The Department of State shall adopt rules which establish standards for provisional approval of hardware and software for innovative use of electronic and electromechanical voting systems. Such rules shall contain standards for:
- Functional requirements;
- Performance levels;
- Physical and design characteristics;
- Documentation requirements;
- Evaluation criteria;
- Audit capabilities; and
- Consideration of prior use of a system.
- No provisionally approved system may be used in any election, including any municipal election, without the authorization of the Department of State.
- An application for use of a provisionally approved system shall be submitted at least 120 days prior to the intended use by the supervisor of elections or municipal elections official. Such application shall request authorization for use of the system in a specific election. Each application shall state the election, the number of precincts, and the number of anticipated voters for which the system is requested for use.
- The Department of State shall authorize or deny authorization of the use of the provisionally approved system for the specific election and shall notify the supervisor of elections or municipal elections official in writing of the authorization or denial of authorization, along with the reasons therefor, within 45 days after receipt of the application.
(d) A contract for the use of a provisionally approved system for a specific election may be entered into with the approval of the Department of State. No contract for title to a provisionally approved system may be entered into.
(e) The use of any provisionally approved system shall be valid for all purposes.
s. 4, ch. 89-348; s. 16, ch. 90-315; s. 551, ch. 95-147; s. 6, ch. 2001-40; s. 10, ch. 2004-252; s. 7, ch. 2019-162, eff. July 1, 2019.
- Technological Requirements
- Voting Technology
1. Definition for Department
The Department of State. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(7).
2. Definition for Supervisor
The supervisor of elections. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(36).
3. Definition for Early Voting
Casting a ballot prior to election day at a location designated by the supervisor of elections and depositing the voted ballot in the tabulation system. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(9).
4. Definition for Voting System
5. Definition for Ballot
As used in the Electronic Voting Systems Act, ballot means the card, tape, or other vehicle upon which the elector’s choices are recorded. Fla. Stat. § 101.5603(2).
6. Definition for Division
The Division of Elections of the Department of State. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(8).
7. Definition for Election
Any primary election, special primary election, special election, general election, or presidential preference primary election. Fla. Stat. § 97.021(12).
8. Definition for Purchase
As used in ss. 101.292-101.295, “purchase” means a contract for the purchase, lease, rental, or other acquisition of voting equipment. Fla. Stat. § 101.292(3).
9. Definition for Software
As used in the Electronic Voting Systems Act, software means the programs and routines used to employ and control the capabilities of data processing hardware, including, without limitation, operating systems, compilers, assemblers, utilities, library routines, maintenance routines, applications, and computer networking programs. Fla. Stat. § 101.5603(7).
Case Name: Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning
Citation: 28 So.3d 880
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/d7674593077064c593b61614ebd3b14a
Case Summary: Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning held that the state’s Election Code does not preempt the field of election law.
Case Name: Wexler v. Lepore
Citation: 878 So.2d 1276
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/a64f9a0c363eae4d70f7c6981b8b7616
Case Summary: Wexler v. Lepore held that the Secretary of State had statutory authority under the Electronic Voting Rights Act to handle how recounts would be conducted. As such, Weller's suit was dismissed.
Case Name: Gore v. Harris
Citation: 773 So.2d 524
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/16990a46dcc2ad479b9eeb904e277a45
Case Summary: Gore v. Harris held that because adequate standards for a manual recount could not be developed by the deadline set by the United States Supreme Court, appellants Gore and Lieberman were given no relief.
Case Name: Wexler v. Lepore (federal)
Citation: 342 F. Supp. 2d 1097
Federal District Court: Southern District of Florida
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/d62da39f2d02d9313ee18e623a681e91
Case Summary: Wexler v. Lepore held that Florida's updated standards for manual recounts in counties that used touchscreen or optical scan systems complied with the 5th and 14th Amendments' equal protection requirements because the standards were uniform and non-differential.
Case Name: Bush v. Gore
Citation: 531 U.S. 98
Federal District Court: Eastern District of Virginia
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/ffe23a532d148e534fb47425579e2894?query=531%20U[...]
Case Summary: Bush v. Gore held that Florida's recount procedures were inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer.
Regulations & Guidance
1 FLA ADC 1S-2.004; Purchase, Sale, and Uses of Voting Equipment and Systems
1 FL ADC 1S-2.015; Minimum Security Procedures for Voting Systems.
1 FL ADC 1S-5.026; Post-Election Certification Voting System Audit.
1 FL ADC 1S-9.005; Comprehensive Emergency Suspension of Election Plan.