Florida Statute 101.015 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 101
VOTING METHODS AND PROCEDURE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 101.015

101.015 Standards for voting systems.—

(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;

(d) Documentation requirements; and

(e) Evaluation criteria.

(2) Each odd-numbered year the Department of State shall review the rules governing standards and certification of voting systems to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of such rules in assuring that elections are fair and impartial.

(3) The Department of State shall adopt rules to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, and efficiency of the procedures of voting, including write-in voting, and of counting, tabulating, and recording votes by voting systems used in this state.

(4)(a) The Department of State shall adopt rules establishing minimum security standards for voting systems. The standards, at a minimum, must address the following:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

(b)1. 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.

2. 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.

(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:

1. Functional requirements;

2. Performance levels;

3. Physical and design characteristics;

4. Documentation requirements;

5. Evaluation criteria;

6. Audit capabilities; and

7. Consideration of prior use of a system.

(b) A voting system shall be provisionally approved for a total of no more than 2 years, and the Department of State has the authority to revoke such approval. Provisional approval of a system shall not be granted by the Department of State to supersede certification requirements of this section.

(c)1. No provisionally approved system may be used in any election, including any municipal election, without the authorization of the Department of State.

2. 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.

3. 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.

(6) All electronic and electromechanical voting systems purchased on or after January 1, 1990, must meet the minimum standards established under subsection (1). All electronic and electromechanical voting systems in use on or after July 1, 1993, must meet the minimum standards established under subsection (1) or subsection (5).

(7) The Division of Elections shall review the voting systems certification standards and ensure that new technologies are available for selection by boards of county commissioners which meet the requirements for voting systems and meet user standards. The Division of Elections shall continuously review the voting systems certification standards to ensure that new technologies are appropriately certified for all elections in a timely manner. The division shall also develop methods to determine the will of the public with respect to voting systems.

History.—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.

F.S. 101.015 on Google Scholar

F.S. 101.015 on Casetext

Amendments to 101.015

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 101.015

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 101.015.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 101.015

Total Results: 12

Haygood v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-02-14

Citation: 109 So. 3d 735, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 93, 2013 WL 535412, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 261

Snippet: court, and become a law unto themselves.” Id. at 101, 15 S.Ct. 273. In Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325

Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-02-11

Citation: 28 So. 3d 880, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 101, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 218, 2010 WL 455276

Snippet: subject to review by the Department of State. See § 101.015(4)(b)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). The board of county

R.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-08-19

Citation: 16 So. 3d 948, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11578, 2009 WL 2513826

Snippet: jurisdiction we have located. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2009) (defining "neglected juvenile" and interpreting

Browning v. Sarasota Alliance

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-10-31

Citation: 968 So. 2d 637, 2007 WL 3170111

Snippet: regarding the content and style of ballots. Section 101.015 also sets forth standards for voting systems to

Wexler v. Lepore

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-08-06

Citation: 878 So. 2d 1276, 2004 WL 1753408

Snippet: reviewing such rules each odd-numbered year. See § 101.015(1) & (5), Fla. Stat. (2003). It has the authority

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2003-06-06

Snippet: voting system standards and certification. Section 101.015, Florida Statutes, requires the Department of State

Gore v. Harris

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-12-22

Citation: 773 So. 2d 524, 2000 WL 1867628

Snippet: Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. § 101.015 (2000). Id. at 532-33. The Supreme Court ultimately

Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-03-20

Citation: 670 So. 2d 1070, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2660, 1996 WL 120343

Snippet: (emphasis omitted) (quoting Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 101, 15 So. 876, 881 (1894)). Here, it is readily apparent

Cinghina v. Racik

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1994-12-14

Citation: 647 So. 2d 289, 1994 WL 695520

Snippet: reasonable claim to support, from the deceased." Id. at 101, 15 So. at 881 (emphasis added). The state of dependency

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1990-12-28

Snippet: which is submitted for certification under s. 101.015, F.S.? In sum: 1. Only the material qualifying

Swinney v. Untreiner

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-01-22

Citation: 272 So. 2d 805

Snippet: (C.A. 3rd), cert. den. 382 U.S. 853, 86 S.Ct. 101, 15 L.Ed.2d 91 (1965), (ran for, and was elected, alderman

Mercer v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1898-05-17

Citation: 40 Fla. 216, 24 So. 154

Snippet: 70 Mo. App. 380; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 80 Tex. 101, 15 S. W. 705. We think the letter offered in evidence