quoroom.org Español Get a quote

California Civil Code § 5110

Inspector of elections

Every California HOA election that requires a vote of the members must be overseen by an independent inspector of elections. The association cannot use its own directors, its candidates, or anyone already under contract with it for other paid services — which excludes the management company and the individual managers it employs.

Section Civ. Code § 5110 Part of Davis-Stirling Act Amendment § 5110: AB 2159 (2024) In force § 5110 in force 2025-01-01 Text verified 2026-10-10

Civil Code § 5110 — the text

Inspector or Inspectors of Elections
Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 383, Sec. 2. (AB 2159) Effective January 1, 2025.

(a)The association shall select an independent third party or parties as an inspector of elections. The number of inspectors of elections shall be one or three.
(b)For the purposes of this section, an independent third party includes, but is not limited to, a volunteer poll worker with the county registrar of voters, a licensee of the California Board of Accountancy, or a notary public. An independent third party may be a member, but may not be a director or a candidate for director or be related to a director or to a candidate for director. An independent third party may not be a person, business entity, or subdivision of a business entity who is currently employed or under contract to the association for any compensable services other than serving as an inspector of elections.
(c)The inspector or inspectors of elections shall do all of the following:
(c)(1)Determine the number of memberships entitled to vote and the voting power of each.
(c)(2)Determine the authenticity, validity, and effect of proxies, if any.
(c)(3)Receive ballots.
(c)(4)Ensure compliance with all of the following, if the inspector or inspectors of elections conducts an election by electronic secret ballot pursuant to Section 5105:
(c)(4)(A)Each member voting by electronic secret ballot shall be provided with all of the following:
(c)(4)(A)(i)A method to authenticate the member’s identity to the internet-based voting system.
(c)(4)(A)(ii)A method to transmit an electronic secret ballot to the internet-based voting system that ensures the secrecy and integrity of each ballot.
(c)(4)(A)(iii)A method to confirm, at least 30 days before the voting deadline, that the member’s electronic device can successfully communicate with the internet-based voting system.
(c)(4)(B)Any internet-based voting system that is utilized shall have the ability to accomplish all of the following:
(c)(4)(B)(i)Authenticate the member’s identity.
(c)(4)(B)(ii)Authenticate the validity of each electronic secret ballot to ensure that the electronic secret ballot is not altered in transit.
(c)(4)(B)(iii)Transmit a receipt from the internet-based voting system to each member who casts an electronic secret ballot.
(c)(4)(B)(iv)Permanently separate any authenticating or identifying information from the electronic secret ballot, rendering it impossible to connect an election ballot to a specific member.
(c)(4)(B)(v)Store and keep electronic secret ballots accessible to elections officials or their authorized representatives for recount, inspection, and review purposes.
(c)(5)Hear and determine all challenges and questions in any way arising out of or in connection with the right to vote.
(c)(6)Count and tabulate all votes.
(c)(7)Determine when the polls shall close, consistent with the governing documents.
(c)(8)Determine the tabulated results of the election.
(c)(9)Perform any acts as may be proper to conduct the election with fairness to all members in accordance with this article, the Corporations Code, and all applicable rules of the association regarding the conduct of the election that are not in conflict with this article.
(d)An inspector or inspectors of elections shall perform all duties impartially, in good faith, to the best of the inspector or inspectors of elections’ ability, as expeditiously as is practical, and in a manner that protects the interest of all members of the association. If there are three inspectors of elections, the decision or act of a majority shall be effective in all respects as the decision or act of all. Any report made by the inspector or inspectors of elections is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the report.

Reproduced verbatim from the California Legislative Counsel's published text and verified word-for-word against a second source (leginfo (Legislative Counsel official bulk code database, LAW_SECTION_TBL) · California Public Law (Public.Law)). California statutes are government edicts and carry no copyright. This is an unofficial reproduction — the official version is published by the Legislative Counsel at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, and that version governs.
Machine-readable: /data/5110.json — the same text with its subdivision anchors, dates and sources.

Who may serve, and who may not

The statute names people who are eligible — a volunteer poll worker with the county registrar of voters, a licensee of the California Board of Accountancy, and a notary public — but that list is permissive, not exhaustive. A professional election firm need be neither an accountant nor a notary.

The disqualification is the operative part. The inspector may not be anyone currently employed by, or under contract to, the association for compensable services other than serving as an inspector. Directors, candidates, and persons related to a candidate are excluded as well.

Two consequences people miss

The management company is disqualified. It holds a services contract with the association, and so do the individual managers it employs. This is why associations that are otherwise fully managed still have to retain a separate inspector for every election.

A software vendor is not automatically disqualified. The bar is on holding a second contract with that association, not on being a technology company. A vendor that sells the association a subscription cannot then serve as its inspector; a firm whose only engagement with that association is the inspection can. Several California providers operate on exactly that basis.

What the inspector actually decides

The role is adjudicative, not clerical. The inspector determines the authenticity, validity and effect of proxies; counts and tabulates the votes; and hears and determines all challenges and questions arising out of the election. A platform that silently applies its own rules to a disputed proxy is making a decision the statute assigns to a named independent person.

Requirements for electronic voting

Where an association votes electronically, § 5110(c)(4)(B) sets out what the system must do. It reads as a specification, and it is the most useful paragraph in the Davis-Stirling Act for anyone evaluating a platform.

  1. Authenticate the member's identity. In practice this means binding the voter to the association's own membership register, not merely to an email address.
  2. Authenticate the validity of each electronic secret ballot and confirm it was not altered in transit. Transport encryption alone does not establish this — the ballot itself has to be verifiable after the fact.
  3. Transmit a receipt to each member who casts a ballot.
  4. Permanently separate any authenticating or identifying information from the ballot, rendering it impossible to connect a ballot to a specific member. Permanently, and impossible — not hidden behind a permission.
  5. Store and keep ballots accessible to elections officials for recount, inspection and review.

Requirements three and four sit in tension and have to be designed together: the member receives proof that their ballot was cast, while the association retains no path from that member to its content. Any product claim about electronic voting in California should be read against this list, clause by clause.

Related provisions