Election Integrity Principles | Election Integrity Network

Principle X Checklist for Election Integrity

A. Citizens Should Have Statutory Standing to Enforce Election Laws (Such as Appeal of HAVA Decisions), and to Enforce Election Statutes Against Officials Ignoring / Breaking Election Laws

Grant explicit statutory standing to any U.S. citizen, registered voter, or eligible elector in the state to bring civil actions to enforce election laws, including mandamus, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, or other remedies against election officials or jurisdictions that fail to comply with statutory requirements.
Provide specific statutory authority for citizens to appeal or challenge to a court of competent jurisdiction (state or federal) administrative decisions made under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) or related federal-state election administration processes when such decisions violate state election integrity statutes, including proof-of-citizenship, voter ID, list maintenance, or verification requirements.
Authorize citizens to sue to compel enforcement of any election statute being ignored or violated by officials, including failures in voter roll maintenance, citizenship verification, absentee ballot procedures, transparency obligations, or technology/security standards.

B. Election Law Challenges Require Facts Establishing Particularized Injury to Individuals Impacted or to Be Impacted, Not Speculative Assertions by Groups

Require that any citizen-initiated challenge or lawsuit under election laws must plead and prove particularized, concrete injury to the plaintiff (e.g., dilution of vote, denial of equal protection in verification processes, or direct impact from non-compliance affecting the plaintiff’s vote or election integrity in their jurisdiction), consistent with applicable doctrines of standing.
Prohibit standing based solely on generalized grievances, ideological disagreement, or speculative future harm asserted by organizations or groups without individualized injury to named plaintiffs.
Mandate that challenges demonstrate a direct nexus between the alleged violation and the plaintiff’s particularized harm, ensuring enforcement actions are targeted and non-frivolous.

C. Election Laws Should Be Self-Executing, with Severe Penalties for Violations

Declare election integrity statutes to be self-executing, providing for immediate penalties and recourse when statutes are disregarded, ignored, or violated.
Election laws should be written clearly and when changes are made in one section of the law, other sections must be revised to conform to current revisions.
Election laws should not require significant rulemaking or allow for substantial discretion by local officials who may alter or violate the meaning and intent of the legislature in the implementation of the election code.
Establish enforcement mechanisms for all provisions of the election code, conferring authority in designated law enforcement officials for investigating and pursuing violations.
Impose meaningful civil penalties on jurisdictions, election officials and their employees, for willful or negligent violations of law, including but not limited to failures to verify voter eligibility and citizenship, failure to maintain accurate voter rolls, denial of public access to the election process and/or election records, failure to conduct required audits, failure to ensure accuracy of election results, or who engage in a pattern of failure to follow applicable law or fail to enforce statutory requirements to ensure accurate elections.
Establish criminal penalties (e.g., misdemeanor or felony depending on severity and intent) for knowing and/or willful violations that undermine election integrity, such as allowing ineligible voting or failure to establish protocols to identify and prohibit ineligible voting, destroying records, withholding public records, failing to enforce election results accuracy verification requirements, or other such failures or violations, with enhanced penalties for repeat or systemic offenses.

Election laws are only as strong as their enforcement mechanisms and the willingness of citizens and officials to apply them even when it is politically inconvenient. This Principle provides Model Laws to give individual citizens targeted standing to enforce election statutes and appeal certain administrative decisions, and to make the election code self‑executing with clear civil and criminal penalties for officials who ignore or violate the law. Together, these measures help keep enforcement from being monopolized by partisan actors, ensure courts can hear concrete election‑law disputes, and create real consequences for noncompliance.

Index – Model Laws for Principle X: Enforcement, Standing, and Penalties

Citizen Standing and Targeted Election Enforcement Act
Grants citizens standing to enforce state election laws and appeal certain HAVA‑related or administrative decisions, while requiring a particularized injury and a clear nexus between the violation and the harm so that cases are concrete rather than generalized political grievances.
Self‑Executing Election Code and Penalties Act
Declares election statutes self‑executing to the fullest extent possible, limits reliance on discretionary rulemaking that can dilute legislative intent, and establishes meaningful civil and criminal penalties for willful or negligent violations—including coordination with citizen enforcement actions.

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "UOCAVA Statewide Administration and Records Act."

Section 2. Single Statewide Point of Contact for UOCAVA Voters.

(A) The [Chief Election Official] shall serve as, or shall designate within the chief election office, a single statewide point of contact for all voters covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), including uniformed services voters, their eligible dependents, and overseas civilian citizens.
(B) The statewide UOCAVA point of contact shall be responsible for:

(1) Issuing guidelines for registration and voting under UOCAVA;
(2) Receiving and processing Federal Post Card Applications (FPCAs);
(3) Verifying the identity, citizenship, and eligibility of UOCAVA applicants to vote in this State; and
(4) Issuing, receiving, and processing absentee ballots for UOCAVA voters, in coordination with local election officials.

Section 3. Records and Retention for UOCAVA Voters.

(A) The [Chief Election Official] shall maintain records for all UOCAVA voters, including:

(1) FPCAs and associated documentation;
(2) Copies of ballots issued and any ballot envelopes;
(3) Documents used to verify eligibility, identity, citizenship, residency, and prior state domicile; and
(4) Logs or databases tracking transmission and return of ballots and related communications.

(B) Records shall be retained and published or made available in accordance with state election‑records and public‑records laws, consistent with protection of sensitive personal information.

Section 4. Return of UOCAVA Ballots.

(A) UOCAVA ballots shall be returned in the manner prescribed by UOCAVA and this State’s election laws, including return by mail or secure electronic means as authorized under the Uniformed Services and Dependents Voting Protection Act and the Overseas Civilian Citizens Voting Protection Act.
(B) UOCAVA ballots shall not be hand‑delivered by third parties directly to polling places; they shall be returned to the [Chief Election Official] or designated UOCAVA office in accordance with law.

Section 5. Rulemaking and Implementation.

(A) The [Chief Election Official] may promulgate rules necessary to implement this Act, including procedures for coordination with local election officials and for secure handling of UOCAVA records.
(B) This Act shall be codified in [Title __, Chapter__ of the State Election Code], and any conflicting provision of law is repealed to the extent of the conflict.

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "Self‑Executing Election Code and Penalties Act."

Section 2. Election Laws as Self‑Executing.

(A) Election‑integrity statutes in this State are declared to be self‑executing to the fullest extent permitted by law, meaning that:

(1) Their requirements apply directly to election officials and jurisdictions without the need for additional rulemaking; and
(2) Violations give rise to immediate remedies and penalties as provided by statute.

(B) Election statutes shall be written and interpreted so that, when changes are made in one section, other sections are revised or construed to conform to those revisions and to avoid gaps or conflicts that would impede enforcement.
(C) Election laws shall not be administered in a manner that relies on significant discretionary rulemaking by local officials to define or alter core statutory requirements, nor may local rules be used to contradict or undermine the intent of the legislature.

Section 3. Enforcement Authority.

(A) Designated law‑enforcement authorities, including the [Attorney General], [District Attorneys], and other officials specified by law, shall have authority to investigate and prosecute violations of election statutes.
(B) The [Chief Election Official] shall refer suspected violations to appropriate law‑enforcement authorities and cooperate with investigations, while also exercising administrative enforcement powers, including decertification of non‑compliant practices or equipment where authorized.

Section 4. Civil Penalties for Violations.

(A) Meaningful civil penalties shall be imposed on jurisdictions, election officials, and employees who willfully or negligently violate election laws, including but not limited to:

(1) Failures to verify voter eligibility and citizenship;
(2) Failure to maintain accurate voter rolls;
(3) Denial of public access to election processes or records required by law;
(4) Failure to conduct required audits or reconciliations;
(5) Failure to ensure accuracy of reported election results; or
(6) Patterns or practices of failing to follow or enforce statutory requirements.

(B) Civil penalties may include:

(1) Fines assessed per violation or per day of non‑compliance;
(2) Corrective orders and mandatory training; and
(3) Administrative sanctions, including removal from election‑administration duties as permitted by law.

Section 5. Criminal Penalties for Serious Violations.

(A) Criminal penalties shall apply to knowing and/or willful violations that undermine election integrity, including but not limited to:

(1) Allowing ineligible persons to vote, or failing to establish and follow protocols to identify and prevent ineligible voting;
(2) Destroying, altering, concealing, or prematurely disposing of election records required to be retained;
(3) Withholding or falsifying public records related to elections;
(4) Intentionally failing to enforce verification or accuracy requirements that the official knows are necessary to ensure correct results; or
(5) Engaging in repeat or systemic violations that materially affect election integrity

(B) Such offenses may be classified as misdemeanors or felonies depending on the severity, intent, and impact of the conduct, with enhanced penalties for repeat offenses or for violations affecting multiple jurisdictions or elections.

Section 6. Coordination with Citizen Enforcement.

(A) Nothing in this Act shall limit or diminish citizen standing or private enforcement rights granted under the Citizen Standing and Targeted Election Enforcement Act.
(B) Courts may consider the existence of ongoing criminal investigations or prosecutions when fashioning civil remedies but shall not deny citizens relief solely because criminal proceedings are available or pending.

Section 7. Rulemaking and Implementation.

(A) The [Attorney General], in consultation with the [Chief Election Official], may promulgate rules and issue guidance to implement this Act, including penalty schedules and investigative protocols.
(B) This Act shall be codified in [Title __, Chapter__ of the State Election Code], and any conflicting provision of law is repealed to the extent of the conflict.
(C) This Act shall take effect on [date], and shall apply to conduct occurring on or after that date.

Private enforcement and citizen‑suit models

Congressional Research Service (CRS) and legal scholarship on private rights of action and citizen‑suit provisions (environmental, civil‑rights, open‑records analogues).

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Recent Developments in the Rights of Private Individuals to Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Legal Sidebar LSB10954, updated February 20, 2024).
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10954/LSB10954.2.pdf

Congressional Research Service (CRS): A Circuit Court Split Over Whether the Voting Rights Act Permits Minority Coalition Claims (Legal Sidebar LSB11297, April 30, 2025) — analyzes private rights of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, including circuit court splits on standing and enforcement implications.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11297

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Voter Registration: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress (Report R46406, updated February 7, 2025) — covers NVRA implementation, voter registration enforcement challenges, and related federal-state issues.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-02-07_R46406_9ccdf79e5f3ebf7e2a8c849a0c1b7bc400d03ff1.html

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Election Law and the Supreme Court in 2026: Pending Cases on Redistricting, Campaign Finance, and Mail-In Ballots (Legal Sidebar LSB11419, April 15, 2026) — provides an overview of pending Supreme Court cases with implications for election enforcement and private actions.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11419

(Example placeholder citation: CRS “Recent Developments in the Rights of Private Individuals to Enforce Federal Law.”)

State‑level citizen‑suit provisions in non‑election contexts (ethics, open meetings, public‑records, environmental enforcement), to be filled in with your chosen state examples.

Qui tam and whistleblower‑style accountability

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Qui Tam: The False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes (Report R40785, April 26, 2021) — explains qui tam actions (private citizens, known as relators, suing on behalf of the government to recover fraudulently obtained funds and sharing in the recovery), the structure of the False Claims Act, government intervention rights, relator incentives (15–30% of proceeds), dismissal standards, and related federal statutes. This is especially useful for readers unfamiliar with the term qui tam.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40785

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Qui Tam: An Abridged Look at the False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes (Report R40786, April 26, 2021) — a shorter version of the above for quick reference.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40786

Congressional Research Service (CRS): Legal Standards for Government Dismissal of Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act (Legal Sidebar LSB11047, September 27, 2023) — discusses standards for government dismissal of qui tam actions, including the Supreme Court’s Polansky decision and implications for relator rights.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11047.html

Scholarship on qui tam litigation against government officials under the False Claims Act, including separation‑of‑powers analysis.
https://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Beck-07.pdf

Additional commentary on government control over qui tam suits and relator‑based enforcement.
https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/07.-Li-Note.-Print.pdf

Practice‑oriented summaries of qui tam and whistleblower incentives.
https://natlawreview.com/article/qui-tam-litigation-answers-frequent-whistleblower-questions

Recent election‑law enforcement debates

Texas S.B. 1 bill text (2021) – enforcement and penalty structure for election offenses.
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1/id/2424492

Litigation and advocacy materials critiquing S.B. 1’s enforcement mechanisms, to anticipate arguments about private enforcement and penalties.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/major-victory-in-lawsuit-against-texas-anti-voter-law-s-b-1

Reports and model resources

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

No Taxpayer Money for Lobbying by Political Subdivisions Act

https://alec.org/model-policy/no-taxpayer-money-for-lobbying-by-political-subdivisions-act/

Prohibiting Foreign Funding from Ballot Measures Act

https://alec.org/model-policy/prohibiting-foreign-funding-from-ballot-measures-act/

Protecting Election Administration from Private Funding and Influence Act

https://alec.org/model-policy/banning-private-funding-and-influence-in-election-administration-act/

One Citizen, One Vote Act

https://alec.org/model-policy/safeguard-american-votes-and-elections-act-save-act/

Election Crime Prosecution Act

https://alec.org/model-policy/election-crime-prosecution-act/