1. Official election authorities
Election offices, official ballot language, official calendars, and certified election materials come first whenever Ballot Clarity can obtain them.
Neutrality policy Red-flag review Corrections required
How Ballot Clarity operationalizes neutrality
Ballot Clarity treats neutrality as a set of operating constraints, not a slogan. That means visible sourcing, constrained language, equal treatment, explicit uncertainty, and a public corrections path that can withstand legal and editorial scrutiny.
Purpose and scope
Informational, not advisory
The product is designed to help voters inspect what is documented on their ballot without telling them what conclusion to reach. Neutrality here means no endorsements, no partisan framing, no scorecards, and no attempt to hide tradeoffs behind a single fit metric.
Source hierarchy
What kinds of sources come first
2. Primary public records
Filings, vote records, fiscal notes, hearing materials, court records, and other government or regulated disclosures come before secondary interpretation.
3. Candidate-supplied material
Questionnaire responses, campaign websites, and submitted statements are labeled as candidate-supplied rather than treated as verified official records.
4. Supporting nonpartisan context
Research briefs or civic compilations can add context, but they do not replace official or primary records where those exist.
Language rules
How wording is constrained
- No rankings, fit scores, odds, or recommendation language.
- No loaded adjectives unless they are directly quoted and clearly attributed.
- No serious allegation stated as a Ballot Clarity house fact without source posture and supporting records.
- Quotes, questionnaires, and excerpts must preserve the speaker's meaning rather than edit toward a sharper conclusion.
- Symmetric structure for YES and NO outcomes on measure pages.
- Equal visual treatment for candidates and options in the same contest.
- Explicit labels for official text, candidate-supplied material, and Ballot Clarity summaries.
Organizational boundaries
Guardrails around candidate and measure coverage
- Ballot Clarity is designed to support a strict nonpartisan voter-education posture. It does not currently claim tax-exempt status.
- Candidate pages should never recommend, rank, or visually privilege one candidate over another in the same contest.
- Ballot-measure pages should separate legal effect, fiscal context, and attributed arguments so explanatory text does not become advocacy copy.
- If the project ever runs paid promotion, fundraising tied to election coverage, or sponsored political communications, that work should be routed through a separate compliance review before launch.
Workflow
The editorial and review path
Intake
Identify ballot-listed candidates and measures, gather attached source records, and log what is missing.
Source logging
Attach source records to each claim block and separate official text from candidate-supplied statements and Ballot Clarity interpretation.
Structured drafting
Draft plain-language summaries in a fixed structure designed to reduce framing drift and information overload.
Risk review
Run a red-flag review for quote integrity, allegations, omissions, and language that could imply endorsement or undisclosed facts.
Publish
Publish with timestamps, source panels, and stated limits so users can inspect the source trail.
Corrections
Accept error reports, update changelogs, and avoid silent edits to substantive content.
Red-flag review
Claims that need extra scrutiny
- Crime, fraud, corruption, ethics, or financial-misconduct allegations.
- Claims about private individuals who are not clearly public figures.
- Edited quotes, paraphrases, or questionnaire answers where meaning could shift.
- Content that relies on a single unverified secondary source for a serious claim.
- Page structures or design choices that could function like a scorecard, endorsement, or comparative ranking.
When these triggers appear, the page should receive an explicit verification pass before publication and may need narrower wording, clearer attribution, or a visible dispute note.
Corrections and disputes
How issues should be reported and resolved
- Users can report an error, omission, or framing concern through the public contact page or protected email link.
- Target response standard for this policy model: acknowledge within 2 business days and resolve straightforward factual issues within 7 business days.
- Substantive changes should create a visible update note or changelog entry rather than silently replacing earlier wording.
- Campaigns, researchers, or members of the public should be expected to provide source links or specific record references when challenging a claim.
Audit metrics
Signals worth monitoring
Coverage completeness
How many ballot-listed contests, candidates, and measures are actually covered.
Source density
Whether major claims are supported by visible source links rather than a single buried citation.
Readability
Whether summaries remain plainspoken and understandable without turning into slogans or legalese.
Correction latency
How quickly reported errors are acknowledged, investigated, and resolved.
Symmetry checks
Whether similar contests and measure options receive equivalent structure, caveats, and visual treatment.
Missing-data disclosure
Whether gaps are shown plainly instead of being hidden behind polished summary copy.