Electronic Voting for Community Associations: A State-by-State Legal and Adoption Analysis

Executive Summary

Electronic voting for community associations has shifted from a pandemic concession to a legislative priority. As of early 2026, at least 33 states have statutes or regulatory frameworks that explicitly authorize electronic voting for homeowner associations, condominium associations, or both. An additional group of states permit it under general nonprofit or corporate law without specific community association provisions. A shrinking minority — approximately 17 states — either prohibit electronic voting or lack any legal framework to support it.

This white paper catalogs the current legal status of electronic voting in all 50 states, identifies the specific statutory requirements that vary across jurisdictions, and examines the adoption data that is driving legislative change. The analysis draws on state legislative databases, Community Associations Institute (CAI) advocacy resources, published legal analyses from firms specializing in community association law, and industry adoption surveys.

Key Findings

1. 33+ states now have explicit statutes or regulatory frameworks authorizing electronic voting for community associations, up from approximately 20 in 2020.
2. Five major bills enacted in 2024–2025 significantly expanded electronic voting access: California AB 2159, Florida HB 913, Maryland HB 1534, Texas SB 2629, and Virginia's Condominium Act amendments.
3. Nearly 50% of community associations now use some form of electronic voting, up from approximately 15% before the COVID-19 pandemic (CAI industry survey data, 2025).
4. Security requirements vary dramatically across states — from comprehensive authentication mandates (Florida, California, Arizona) to no prescriptive rules at all (many states that simply "permit" e-voting).
5. Adoption is accelerating fastest in states with explicit enabling legislation, particularly those with detailed procedural frameworks that give boards legal certainty.

The Legislative Landscape

The legal authority for electronic voting in community associations derives from three distinct sources, which vary by state:

1. Specific community association statutes that explicitly address electronic voting (e.g., Florida Statutes §720.317, California Civil Code §5115)
2. General nonprofit corporation or business entity statutes that permit electronic actions and are applied to associations organized under those laws
3. Uniform law provisions, particularly the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) and its 2021 amendments recognizing virtual meetings and electronic voting

Understanding which framework governs a specific association is essential, because the procedural requirements — notice periods, authentication standards, ballot secrecy rules, and opt-in mechanisms — differ substantially depending on the legal source.

Major Legislation: 2024–2025

Five pieces of state legislation enacted in 2024 and 2025 represent the most significant expansion of electronic voting rights for community associations in the history of the industry.

California: Assembly Bill 2159 (Effective January 1, 2025)

AB 2159 amended the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act to authorize electronic secret ballots for most association elections. This is one of the most consequential pieces of HOA legislation in recent years, given that California has more than 50,000 community associations — the largest number of any state.

What AB 2159 authorizes:

• Election and removal of board directors
• Amendments to governing documents (CC&Rs, bylaws, articles of incorporation)
• Votes on rule changes and other matters requiring membership approval

What AB 2159 does NOT authorize:

• Votes on regular or special assessments, which still require written secret ballots under Civil Code §5100

Key procedural requirements:

• Associations must amend their election rules to authorize electronic voting at least 90 days before the election in which electronic ballots will first be used
• Members must be given the choice to opt in or opt out of electronic balloting; associations may designate electronic voting as the default (requiring opt-out for paper) or as opt-in
• Electronic voting systems must authenticate voter identity, ensure ballot validity, provide a receipt to the voter, permanently separate identifying information from the ballot for secret ballot elections, and securely store ballots for potential recounts or inspections
• Floor nominations for candidates may be eliminated when electronic voting is used

Sources: California Legislative Information, AB 2159 (2024); Roseman Law APC analysis; Kriger Scheuber Lyons & Needham commentary; Davis-Stirling.com statutory annotations.

Florida: House Bill 913 (Effective July 2025)

Florida has permitted electronic voting for community associations since 2016 under §720.317 of the Florida Statutes. HB 913 broadened the framework by providing clearer pathways for internet-based voting and email ballots while harmonizing the rules across HOAs (Chapter 720), condominiums (Chapter 718), and cooperatives (Chapter 719).

Key requirements under Florida law:

• Members must consent to electronic voting electronically or in writing
• The voting system must authenticate member identity and confirm device compatibility at least 14 days before the voting deadline
• The system must validate each electronic vote, transmit a receipt, and — for secret ballot elections — permanently separate identifying information from the ballot
• A member voting electronically is counted toward the meeting quorum
• HOA boards must approve electronic voting via a special meeting with proper statutory notice

Sources: Florida Statutes §720.317, §718.128, §719.129; Becker & Poliakoff legal analysis; Florida Legislature bill tracker.

Maryland: House Bill 1534 (Effective October 1, 2025)

Maryland's HB 1534 introduced significant new requirements for community association elections, including provisions that create a regulatory framework for electronic voting.

Key provisions:

• Elections for the governing body must be overseen by an independent party, which may include a third-party technology vendor
• To conduct online elections legally, platforms must provide verifiable voter identity, third-party administration, anonymity when required by governing documents, and audit-friendly results
• The independent oversight requirement effectively mandates that associations use professional election services rather than informal email polls

Sources: Maryland General Assembly, HB 1534 (2025); Simply Voting legislative analysis.

Texas: Senate Bill 2629 (Effective September 1, 2025)

Texas expanded electronic voting options for community associations through SB 2629, with distinct provisions for different association types.

Key provisions:

• Condominium associations may allow electronic voting with measures to verify voter identities and maintain records
• Subdivision HOAs must allow members to vote by proxy, absentee ballot, or electronic means
• The bill creates an affirmative right for homeowners to use electronic voting, shifting the burden from opt-in to opt-out for subdivision associations

Sources: Texas Legislature, SB 2629 (2025); ElectionBuddy legislative analysis.

Virginia: Condominium Act and POAA Amendments (2024–2025)

Virginia amended both its Condominium Act and its Property Owners Association Act to enhance authority for electronic voting and virtual meetings.

Key provisions:

• Votes may be cast in person, by proxy, by absentee ballot, or by electronic means unless the association's governing documents specifically prohibit electronic voting
• Virtual meetings are formally authorized with parity provisions for remote participants

Sources: Virginia Common Interest Community Board; VA HOA Law analysis.

State-by-State Classification

Based on our analysis of current statutes, regulatory guidance, and published legal commentary, we classify all 50 states and the District of Columbia into four categories.

Category 1: Explicit Community Association Statute (19 States + DC)

These states have enacted legislation that specifically addresses electronic voting for HOAs, condominiums, or both. The statutory framework provides the strongest legal foundation for adoption.

| State | Primary Statute | Key Feature | |-------|----------------|-------------| | Arizona | A.R.S. §33-1812 | Authentication, receipt, and alternative method requirements | | California | Civil Code §5115 (AB 2159) | Opt-in/opt-out framework; 90-day rule amendment requirement | | Colorado | CCIOA §38-33.3-310.5 | Permitted under common interest ownership act | | Connecticut | CGS §47-250 | UCIOA-based provisions | | Delaware | Title 25, Ch. 81 | Bylaws may authorize electronic transmission of votes | | Florida | §720.317, §718.128 | 14-day device compatibility; quorum credit; mandatory consent | | Hawaii | HRS §514B-121 | Member consent and identity authentication required | | Illinois | CICAA §18.5(g) | 10–30 day notice; no proxy voting in board elections | | Maine | Title 33 §1603-110 | Board permission and member consent required | | Maryland | HB 1534 (2025) | Independent oversight; audit-friendly platform mandate | | Minnesota | §515B.3-110 | UCIOA framework | | Nevada | NRS §116.31083 | Detailed authentication and ballot secrecy requirements | | New Jersey | N.J.S.A. §46:8B-14 | Anonymous electronic ballots; quorum credit for e-votes | | New York | RPL §339-v | HOA bylaws may provide for electronic voting | | Oregon | ORS §94.647 | Planned community and condo provisions | | Pennsylvania | 68 Pa.C.S. §5310 | UCIOA-based; condominiums and planned communities | | Texas | SB 2629 (2025) | Mandatory electronic option for subdivision HOAs | | Virginia | §55.1-1900 et seq. | In-person, proxy, absentee, or electronic; unless docs prohibit | | Washington | RCW 64.38.025 | HOA electronic meeting and voting provisions | | DC | DC Code §42-1903 | Condominium Act provisions |

Category 2: Permitted Under General Law (14 States)

These states do not have community-association-specific e-voting statutes but permit electronic voting through general nonprofit corporation acts, business entity statutes, or the absence of any prohibition. Associations in these states can typically adopt electronic voting by amending their bylaws, though the legal certainty is lower than in Category 1 states.

Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

Category 3: Silent or Ambiguous (6 States)

These states have no explicit authorization or prohibition. The legality of electronic voting depends on the interpretation of governing documents and general corporate law principles. Legal counsel is strongly recommended before adoption.

Arkansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, West Virginia, Wyoming

Category 4: Not Currently Permitted (11 States)

These states either explicitly prohibit electronic voting for community associations or lack any legal framework that could support it. Some of these states are actively considering legislation.

Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee

Adoption Data

The acceleration in legislative activity reflects — and is driven by — rapid adoption on the ground.

Pre-Pandemic Baseline (2019)

Before COVID-19, approximately 15% of community associations used any form of electronic voting, according to CAI Foundation for Community Association Research industry data. Electronic voting was concentrated in large, professionally managed associations in states with early enabling legislation (Florida, Nevada, Virginia).

Pandemic-Era Surge (2020–2022)

Emergency orders in over 40 states temporarily authorized virtual meetings and electronic voting. Many associations that had never considered electronic voting adopted it out of necessity. By 2022, adoption had reached an estimated 40–45% of professionally managed associations.

Current State (2025–2026)

Industry surveys indicate that nearly 50% of all community associations — including both professionally managed and self-managed — now use electronic voting. Among professionally managed associations with 100+ units, adoption exceeds 65%.

The impact on participation is substantial and well-documented:

• 25–40% higher voter participation in associations using electronic voting compared to paper-only processes (CAI member survey data)
• First-attempt quorum success rates of 75%+ versus 55–60% for paper-only associations
• 40–60% reduction in election administration costs (printing, mailing, manual counting labor)
• 10–20% reduction in assessment delinquency where online payment portals accompany digital governance adoption

Adoption Barriers

Despite strong outcomes, barriers remain:

1. Legal uncertainty in Category 3 and 4 states deters risk-averse boards
2. Governing document restrictions — many associations have CC&Rs or bylaws that predate electronic voting and may require amendment before adoption
3. Digital divide concerns — boards worry about excluding elderly or less tech-savvy residents, though opt-in/opt-out frameworks (as in California) address this
4. Vendor selection complexity — boards lack guidance on evaluating electronic voting platforms for security, compliance, and usability
5. Board inertia — self-managed associations with no professional management support are the slowest adopters

Security Requirements: A Comparative Analysis

The security and authentication requirements imposed by state statutes vary from comprehensive to nonexistent. The most rigorous frameworks share five common elements:

| Requirement | FL | CA | AZ | MD | NV | IL | NJ | |------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|-----| | Voter identity authentication | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | | Ballot validity verification | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | | Voter receipt/confirmation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | — | | Ballot secrecy (ID separation) | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | | Audit trail / recount capability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | | Independent oversight | — | — | — | ✓ | — | — | — | | Device compatibility check | ✓ | — | — | — | — | — | — | | Advance notice period | 14d | 90d* | — | — | — | 10–30d | — |

*California's 90-day requirement applies to the election rule amendment, not individual voter notice.

Florida's framework is the most prescriptive, requiring device compatibility verification 14 days before the vote and mandatory written or electronic consent from each participating member. California's framework is the most procedurally detailed for the adoption process itself, requiring a formal election rule amendment. Maryland is unique in mandating independent third-party oversight of the election process.

States with minimal or no security requirements (general-law Category 2 states) leave associations to define their own procedures — which creates flexibility but also risk. Boards in these jurisdictions should implement authentication, ballot secrecy, and audit trail capabilities voluntarily, even if not legally mandated.

Recommendations

For Association Boards

1. Determine your state category using the classification above, then consult your association attorney to confirm current statutes and any pending legislation
2. Review your governing documents — many CC&Rs and bylaws predate electronic voting. Amendment may be required before adoption is legally permissible
3. Select a platform that meets the highest security standard, regardless of your state's minimum requirements. Voter authentication, ballot secrecy, receipt confirmation, and audit trail capabilities should be non-negotiable
4. Implement an opt-in/opt-out framework that ensures no member is disenfranchised by the technology transition. Paper ballots should remain available for any member who requests them
5. Document the adoption process meticulously — board resolution, member notice, election rule amendments, and vendor selection criteria — to protect against future challenges

For State Legislators

1. Adopt explicit enabling legislation rather than relying on general corporate law. Specific statutory authorization gives boards the legal certainty they need to modernize
2. Include minimum security requirements — authentication, ballot secrecy, and audit capability — to protect election integrity without being overly prescriptive about technology choices
3. Require opt-out rather than opt-in to maximize participation while preserving individual choice. California's model (AB 2159) provides a well-designed template
4. Harmonize requirements across HOA, condominium, and cooperative statutes within the same state. Florida's HB 913 addressed this gap; other states should follow

Methodology

This analysis reviews the statutory text of community association laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of February 2026. State classifications are based on published statutes accessed through official state legislative databases, supplemented by interpretive guidance from the Community Associations Institute (CAI), published legal analyses from Becker & Poliakoff, Roseman Law APC, Kriger Scheuber Lyons & Needham, and CondoControl's state law database. Adoption statistics are drawn from CAI Foundation for Community Association Research publications and industry surveys published by property management firms and legal practices. Where specific adoption figures are cited, they represent the best available published estimates; community association data is inherently approximate due to the decentralized nature of the industry.

References

• California Legislative Information — AB 2159 (2024), amending Civil Code §5100, §5115
• Florida Legislature — HB 913 (2025), Florida Statutes §720.317, §718.128, §719.129
• Maryland General Assembly — HB 1534 (2025)
• Texas Legislature — SB 2629 (2025)
• Virginia General Assembly — Condominium Act (§55.1-1900 et seq.), Property Owners Association Act amendments
• Community Associations Institute (CAI) — Foundation for Community Association Research, legislative tracking database, public policy resources
• CAI — 2024 Homeowner Satisfaction Survey
• Becker & Poliakoff — Florida electronic voting statutory analysis
• Roseman Law APC — California AB 2159 implementation analysis
• Kriger Scheuber Lyons & Needham — California electronic voting commentary
• CondoControl — State-by-state electronic voting law database
• ElectionBuddy — Legislative compliance analysis (Texas, California)
• Simply Voting — Maryland HB 1534 analysis
• Davis-Stirling.com — California Civil Code annotations
• Uniform Law Commission — Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), 2021 amendments