EAIElectoral Access Index

The section establishes composition of electoral boards through enumeration of specific judicial positions (judges from appellate chambers and electoral judges), providing some structural independence by requiring judicial members. However, the statute does not codify fixed terms for these members, does not establish a multi-branch appointment process (members are drawn from judiciary only, not legislature or executive), and does not mandate balanced political composition. The provision addresses structural independence through institutional diversity but lacks key procedural safeguards (term limits, explicit appointment authority, political balance requirements).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Art. 139) enumerates criminal penalties for electoral violations but does not address voting age or residency requirements. The criterion requires that minimum age and residency requirements be set in the constitution; this penal provision discusses neither eligibility requirements nor constitutional grounding—it only criminalizes interference with voting rights. The section text does not satisfy the criterion because it contains no material relevant to establishing or locating eligibility standards.

The statute establishes that disqualified and excluded voters are tracked in a subregister (subregistro de electores inhabilitados y excluidos), grounding disqualification in statute. However, this section merely creates a registry category and does not enumerate the substantive criteria for disqualification (felony, mental incompetence, etc.), nor does it specify the duration of disqualification or provide any defined restoration procedure. The statutory framework exists but lacks the procedural completeness required for a higher score.

“De electores inhabilitados y excluidos”

The statute provides that rehabilitation (restoration of voting rights) is decreed by the electoral judge, with some automatic elements ('de oficio') when cessation of the disqualifying cause appears in the record. However, the section lacks statutory deadlines, enumeration of which causes trigger automatic restoration, specification of the timeframe for the judge's action, or a defined appeal process if restoration is denied. The criterion requires codified procedures with statutory deadlines and clear automatic restoration triggers; this section provides only a general framework delegating substantial discretion to judicial review.

The statute explicitly requires presentation of a valid identity document ('documento cívico habilitante') as a condition for voting. This requirement is set directly in the statutory text (Código Electoral Nacional, Ley 19.945, art. 86) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The requirement is unambiguous and establishes the foundational rule.

Article 86 exhaustively enumerates acceptable ID forms in statute: libreta de enrolamiento, libreta cívica, and documento nacional de identidad. The statute specifies which combinations are acceptable (e.g., DNI paired with duplicated civic documents is permitted; civic documents paired with DNI when the registry shows DNI is not), leaving no discretion to administrators on which documents satisfy the requirement.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute provides an explicit cure procedure for voters lacking complete ID documentation: they may still vote if they satisfy the presiding officer's detailed interrogation about personal data and identifying information. This is statutorily grounded and enumerated, establishing a clear alternative pathway when ID is deficient or missing.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 102 addresses the tabulation (escrutinio) and certification of election results at polling stations, including the required content of closing documents and certificates. It contains no reference to voter registration deadlines, cutoff dates, or any procedural rules governing when voters must register relative to election day. The criterion asks about registration deadline procedure; this section governs post-election counting and certification only.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 102 of the Código Electoral Nacional addresses the scrutiny (counting) process and documentation requirements at the polling place — it concerns the tabulation of votes and the creation of official records after voting has concluded. It contains no enumeration of voter registration methods, no reference to registration procedures, and does not address how voters may register (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day). This section is procedurally inapplicable to the registration-methods criterion.

Article 25 explicitly establishes that voter registration records (Registro Nacional de Electores and district sub-registers) are public and subject to corrections by inscribed voters. This creates a statutory cure mechanism: voters can identify and request corrections to incomplete or erroneous registrations. The statute grounds the correction right directly in law rather than administrative discretion.

Article 27 of the Argentine Electoral Code (Ley 19.945) statutorily codifies the voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration. The provision explicitly grants electors the right to file a claim (reclamo) before the electoral judge within a 15-day period if they are absent from or erroneously listed in provisional registration rolls. Multiple challenge methods are enumerated (in person, postal, web), and the procedure is set by statute rather than administrative discretion.

Article 28 of the Código Electoral Nacional establishes in statute the specific criteria for voter roll removal: death, multiple registrations, and persons subject to statutory disqualifications. The procedure is grounded in statute (not regulation), enumerated (deceased, duplicates, ineligible), and includes a defined cure mechanism (summary verification and a hearing for the challenged elector before judicial resolution). The section provides clear statutory procedure for roll maintenance criteria.

The statute establishes a clear, statutory-grounded procedure: provisional rolls are published and voters have a defined 15-day cure period to challenge omissions or errors before an electoral judge, with multiple accessible filing methods (in person, free mail, or web). This provides notice (via publication of provisional rolls) and a defined cure opportunity.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 88 governs the right to vote and the mechanics of accepting or rejecting voters at the poll based on registry status and presentation of civic documents. It contains no provisions addressing data security, encryption, breach notification, access logs, or any other element of voter-data security infrastructure. The criterion asks whether data security requirements are codified in statute; this section deals only with voting eligibility and poll-site procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (CEN art. 64 and related provisions) addresses ballot approval, campaign periods, media advertising restrictions, and mandatory presidential debates. It contains no language regarding language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. The statutory text does not codify triggers for language assistance.

The statute codifies the right of blind and disabled voters to receive assistance from either the poll president or a person of the voter's choosing. It enumerates the key rule: the assistant must prove their identity and no person (except the poll president) may assist more than one voter in the same election. These core procedural elements are set in statute, not left to administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion.

The statute provides a clear codified procedure for voter assistance, permitting blind voters and those with disabilities to receive help from the mesa president or a chosen assistant, with documentation requirements. However, the section explicitly delegates critical procedural details—including ballot secrecy protections—to future regulations ('en los términos de la reglamentación que se dicte'), meaning the core safeguard mechanism is not statutorily enumerated. A dual-scholar test would agree the framework exists but the secrecy protections are left to administrative discretion rather than statutory specification.

The statute directly and unambiguously sets the polling-place closing time at 18:00 (6 p.m.) by national law, leaving no room for local administrative discretion. The provision is statutory, enumerated, and mandatory.

“El acto eleccionario finalizará a las dieciocho horas”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 22 of the Código Electoral Nacional addresses only the removal of deceased voters from the electoral register and the destruction of their documents. It contains no provision whatsoever regarding absentee voting eligibility, application procedures, ballot return methods, or treatment of absentee ballots. The section is limited to administrative housekeeping for voter death and does not codify any absentee voting framework.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section enumerates criminal penalties for electoral violations (fraud, coercion, ballot tampering, etc.) but does not address ballot drop-box procedures—neither placement, security, nor chain-of-custody. The statute provides enforcement (criminal sanctions) but no procedural rules governing drop-box administration. The criterion requires statutory definition of drop-box procedures; this section contains only penal law, not procedural law for drop-box operations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 66 describes the material documents and supplies to be delivered to polling places (electoral rolls, urns, official ballots, seals, etc.) but does not address provisional ballots, provisional voting rights, or any adjudication procedure for challenged or conditional votes. The section is purely administrative and logistical, with no reference to the criterion's subject matter.