Can a condominium vote online? The state-law answer

Condominium boards get the worst of both worlds on this question: they search for rules written for “HOAs” and find statutes that may not govern their building. In three of the five biggest condo states, the condominium electronic-voting statute is a different section of code from the homeowners-association one — and in one state, the HOA e-voting statute expressly excludes condominiums. This page gives the condo-specific answer for Florida, California, Texas, Arizona and Nevada, with the exact citations your board or counsel will ask for. It is not legal advice.

If you are running a condo election rather than researching it, our guide to running a board election online covers the mechanics end to end.

Florida: F.S. 718.128 — and How It Differs from the HOA Statute

Florida condominiums do not use s. 720.317 — that is the Homeowners’ Association Act. The condo statute is F.S. 718.128, which lets the association conduct elections and other unit-owner votes through an internet-based online voting system when a board resolution adopts it and each unit owner consents (electronically or in writing), with consent remaining valid until the owner opts out. The statute then imposes the operational list: identity authentication, secrecy and integrity of board-election ballots, a device check at least 14 days before the voting deadline, a receipt to the owner, and permanent separation of authentication data from the ballots themselves.

Two recent additions exist only on the condo side of Florida law. First, if at least 25% of voting interests petition the board to adopt online voting for the next scheduled election (petition within 180 days of the last annual meeting), the board must hold a meeting within 21 days to vote on the resolution (718.128(6)). Second, effective July 1, 2025, where online voting has not been adopted, owners may still return ballots by e-mail to an association-designated address, with the unit number and a typed first and last name functioning as the signature and a capitalized ballot-secrecy waiver warning on the face of the ballot (718.128(7)). The HOA statute has no petition trigger and no e-mailed-ballot fallback — for the HOA-side mechanics, see our Florida 720.317 guide.

Notice around the election comes from 718.112(2)(d): the annual meeting notice with agenda goes out at least 14 days before and is posted conspicuously for 14 continuous days; board elections use written ballots or voting machines with proxies prohibited, first notice 60 days out, candidate intent 40 days out, and the second notice with ballot 14–34 days out — and a valid election needs ballots cast by at least 20% of eligible voters even though no quorum applies.

California: Davis-Stirling Is Not Just the “HOA Law”

California condo boards sometimes assume the Davis-Stirling Act is for planned communities. Civil Code 4100(b) says otherwise, verbatim: a “condominium project” is a common interest development. That places every California condo under the same election machinery as any other CID — including the AB 2159 electronic secret ballot in Civ. Code 5105 and 5115. Regular and special assessment elections are excluded. Electronic-ballot rules must preserve the paper option and follow the notice and delivery deadlines in section 5115. The full mechanics are in our Davis-Stirling electronic voting guide — condo or not, the sections are the same.

The leading case on condo elections is a condominium case: Takiguchi v. Venetian Condominiums Maintenance Corp. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 880, covered below.

Texas: Your Condo Is Expressly Excluded from s. 209.00592

This is the trap the other pages on this topic miss. Texas’s electronic-ballot statute, Property Code 209.00592, lives in Chapter 209 — and Chapter 209 does not reach condominiums. Section 209.003(d) states it flatly: “This chapter does not apply to a condominium as defined by Section 81.002 or 82.003.” A Texas condominium that cites 209.00592 for its e-voting procedures is citing a statute that does not apply to it.

Texas condos have their own hook: Property Code 82.110(d), “Voting may be conducted electronically as provided by Section 6.002, Business Organizations Code.” Meeting notice defaults come from the Non-Profit Corporation Law that Chapter 82 imports (82.108(d) points to TBOC 22.156), proxies are preserved under 82.110(b), cumulative voting is banned under (c), and the default quorum is 20% unless the bylaws lower it to 10% (82.109(a)). Both 82.108 and 82.110 were amended effective September 1, 2025, so this is recent, living law — have counsel confirm your bylaws do not prohibit electronic voting before you rely on it.

Arizona and Nevada: Parallel Condo Statutes

Arizona wrote its rule twice, once per association type. The condo cite is A.R.S. 33-1250 (not 33-1812, which is the planned-community mirror): after declarant control, proxies are barred; the association must provide voting in person and by absentee ballot and may provide “some other form of delivery, including the use of e-mail and fax”; ballots carry the actual or electronic signature of the voter; and e-mailed or faxed votes “are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum” (33-1250(D)). Ballots are kept at least one year.

Nevada is the opposite of Texas: one statute covers both association types. NRS 116.027 defines a condominium as a common-interest community, so the board-election rules in NRS 116.31034(15) apply directly: the association must provide a secret paper or electronic ballot to each owner, allow at least 15 days to return it by physical or electronic means, and impose no quorum requirement for executive-board elections. Candidates and incumbents may not access electronic-ballot data before tallies are announced. The detail is in our state-by-state electronic voting guide.

State Comparison Table: Condo vs. HOA Electronic Voting

The pattern across all five: condominium e-voting is permissive-with-procedure (Florida, California, Arizona, Nevada) or bylaws-plus-corporate-law (Texas). No state found bans condo online voting outright — but no statute reaches a condo unless you cite the right section.

Quorum, Secrecy, and the Condo Election That Ignored Its Virtual Attendees

Takiguchi v. Venetian Condominiums Maintenance Corp. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 880 is the caution case for condo boards going hybrid or online. A 368-unit San Diego condominium declared no quorum at its annual meeting by counting only returned ballots (166 of the 188 needed) while ignoring members attending virtually who represented 37 more units — several deliberately withholding their ballots to hold quorum open. The board then cancelled the adjourned meeting and the 166 ballots were never counted. The court ordered relief: a quorum existed, and the association had failed to conduct the meeting it noticed, including the noticed item of counting the ballots.

The lesson is specific: count every participation method that your applicable law and governing documents permit. Virtual attendance is not a universal substitute for a ballot or a quorum requirement. Follow the procedures your meeting notice promises. Florida condo disputes do not go to the Attorney General: election challenges route to mandatory arbitration under F.S. 718.1255, which is why the procedural record — resolutions, consents, device checks, receipts — is the whole defense.

Before Your Condo Goes Online: The Short Checklist

In order:

• ✓Cite your actual statute — 718.128 in Florida, 5105/5115 in California, 82.110(d) in Texas, 33-1250 in Arizona, 116.31034(15) in Nevada — not the HOA section your search engine surfaced.
• ✓Texas condos: confirm your bylaws do not prohibit electronic voting, and follow TBOC 6.002 mechanics with counsel.
• ✓Check your state's electronic-ballot consent or opt-out rules. Permission to send electronic notices does not automatically authorize electronic ballots.
• ✓Run the device/eligibility check on the statutory clock: 14 days before the voting deadline in Florida; 30-day ballot delivery in California; 15-day return window in Nevada.
• ✓Keep authentication data permanently separated from board-election ballots, and retain ballots — one year minimum in Arizona; Florida adds the challenge window on top.
• ✓Count every participation channel toward quorum before declaring one short — Takiguchi is what happens when you do not.

The most common failure is the first one — a condo board adopting procedures under the wrong statute, which is invisible until an owner’s attorney reads two sections of code side by side.

FAQ