EAIElectoral Access Index

The section establishes statutory composition of the election administration body, including two retired judges among 18 members. However, the chair is held by the Interior Minister (executive branch), and the statute does not specify appointment procedures, fixed terms, or balanced political composition requirements. The provision lacks the multi-branch appointment safeguards and structural protections needed for genuine independence.

“Sie besteht aus dem Bundesminister für Inneres als Vorsitzendem und Bundeswahlleiter und siebzehn Beisitzern, darunter zwei Richter des Dienst- oder Ruhestandes.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section sets the age and citizenship requirements in statute (NRWO § 21), not in the Austrian constitution. The criterion requires constitutional grounding, and this text provides only statutory-level procedural detail.

The statute exhaustively enumerates three categories of disqualifying sentences (unconditional sentences exceeding 6 months; conditional sentences exceeding 1 year; sentences exceeding 6 months for specific offences under §§ 304–307b StGB), all grounded in judicial conviction. Critically, § 41(1) establishes a statutory restoration procedure: disqualification automatically ends after six months, with a clear triggering mechanism for when the period begins. § 41(2) adds additional statutory pathways for restoration (legal waiver of consequences, cessation of consequences, or full remission). The framework meets the ordinal level 2 criterion (statute + statutory restoration).

“Nicht wählbar ist, wer durch ein inländisches Gericht wegen einer oder mehrerer mit Vorsatz begangener und von Amts wegen zu verfolgender gerichtlich strafbarer Handlungen rechtskräftig 1. zu einer nicht bedingt nachgesehenen sechs Monate übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde, 2. zu einer bedingt nachgesehenen ein Jahr übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde oder 3. zu einer sechs Monate übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde, sofern diese Verurteilung auch oder ausschließlich wegen §§ 304 bis 307b StGB erfolgt ist. Der Ausschluss von der Wählbarkeit endet nach sechs Monaten. Die Frist beginnt, sobald die Strafe vollstreckt ist und mit Freiheitsentziehung verbundene vorbeugende Maßnahmen vollzogen oder weggefallen sind; ist die Strafe nur durch Anrechnung einer Vorhaft verbüßt worden oder zur Gänze bedingt nachgesehen worden, so beginnt die Frist mit Rechtskraft des Urteils.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 113 addresses the issuance of election certificates (Wahlschein) to elected deputies after their election or appointment, not voter identification requirements at the point of voting. The section does not establish, enumerate, or ground any statutory requirement for voter ID during the voting process, nor does it explicitly state that no ID is required. The criterion requires either a statutory ID requirement with procedural clarity or an explicit statutory statement that no ID is required; this section addresses post-election credentialing, not voter identification during ballot access.

The statute exhaustively enumerates acceptable forms of photo identification (passport, national ID card, driver's license) by reference to statutory categories, not administrator discretion. The phrase 'zum Beispiel' (for example) indicates these are illustrative categories of documents explicitly defined in statute, leaving no room for administrative determination of what constitutes acceptable identification.

“ihre Identität durch ein mit Lichtbild ausgestattetes Identitätsdokument (zum Beispiel Reisepass, Personalausweis, Führerschein) nachgewiesen hat”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes a clear, enumerated cure procedure for voters without ID: they may cast a ballot if known personally to a majority of the polling board members and no objection is raised per § 71 Abs. 1. The procedure is set in statute (not left to administrative discretion), the conditions are specifically defined, and documentation in the poll record is mandated. This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion regardless of policy perspectives.

“Besitzt der Wähler eine Urkunde oder Bescheinigung der in Abs. 2 bezeichneten Art nicht, so ist er dennoch zur Abstimmung zuzulassen, wenn er der Mehrheit der Mitglieder der Wahlbehörde persönlich bekannt ist und kein Einspruch gemäß § 71 Abs. 1 erhoben wird.”

The statute provides a statutory fallback procedure for voters lacking prescribed ID (recognition by a majority of poll board members), which is a cure mechanism. However, the section explicitly references § 71 Abs. 1 for an 'objection' (Einspruch) process but does not define the appeal or review procedure itself within this section or quote the operative language of § 71—leaving the actual appeal path ambiguous and incompletely codified in the provided text. The cure procedure is clear; the appeal procedure is not.

“Besitzt der Wähler eine Urkunde oder Bescheinigung der in Abs. 2 bezeichneten Art nicht, so ist er dennoch zur Abstimmung zuzulassen, wenn er der Mehrheit der Mitglieder der Wahlbehörde persönlich bekannt ist und kein Einspruch gemäß § 71 Abs. 1 erhoben wird.”

The statute explicitly defines two distinct registration (ballot card application) deadlines relative to election day: four days before for written applications and two days before at noon for oral applications. These temporal cutoffs are set directly in the statutory text with no delegation to administrative discretion.

“Der Antrag muss spätestens am vierten Tag vor dem Wahltag bei der zuständigen Behörde einlangen. Mündlich kann der Antrag bis spätestens am zweiten Tag vor dem Wahltag, 12.00 Uhr, gestellt werden.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section heading lists administrative topics related to voter rolls (location of entries, posting, notification, corrections, complaints, closure) but does not enumerate any registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day). The text is a table of contents or organizational outline of § 37 without substantive procedural content on how voters may register.

The section lists headings including 'Berichtigungsanträge' (correction requests), notification of affected persons, decision-making on corrections, and complaints procedures—indicating statutory framework for registration challenges. However, the section provided is only a table of contents or heading outline with no substantive text defining the actual cure procedure, timelines, requirements, or appeal paths. Procedural clarity cannot be assessed without the detailed statutory language.

“Berichtigungsanträge Verständigung der zur Streichung beantragten Personen Entscheidung über Berichtigungsanträge Richtigstellung des Wählerverzeichnisses Beschwerden”

The section explicitly establishes that a 'Berichtigungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren' (correction and complaint procedure) applies to voter registration matters. By reference to §§ 23–26 and 28–37 of the NRWO (National Council Electoral Regulation), the statute codifies the right to challenge rejected or removed registrations through a defined statutory procedure, satisfying the criterion's requirement that the challenge right be statutorily grounded and enumerated.

“das Berichtigungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren”

§ NRWO § 28 establishes a statutory remedy process (Berichtigungsanträge) allowing citizens to challenge the voter roll, but does not explicitly enumerate the substantive criteria for voter removal (death, change of address, inactivity). The statute grants authority to designated agencies (Amtsstellen) to receive and process corrections without specifying the underlying grounds. The section defines procedure (timing, submission, form requirements) rather than the removal criteria themselves; those grounds appear to be defined elsewhere in the statute or left to administrative practice.

§ 29(1) NRWO establishes a statutory procedure requiring that the municipality notify affected persons of a correction petition against their voter-roll entry within 24 hours, stating the grounds. It then grants affected persons a four-day window to file written or oral objections with the authority deciding the petition. This satisfies the criterion: notice is statutorily mandated, timing is enumerated, grounds must be disclosed, and a defined cure mechanism (right to object) is provided by statute.

“Die Gemeinde hat die Personen, gegen deren Aufnahme in das Wählerverzeichnis ein Berichtigungsantrag gestellt wurde, hiervon unter gleichzeitiger Bekanntgabe der Gründe innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Einlangen des Berichtigungsantrages zu verständigen. Den Betroffenen steht es frei, binnen vier Tagen nach Zustellung der Verständigung schriftlich oder mündlich Einwendungen bei der zur Entscheidung über den Berichtigungsantrag berufenen Behörde vorzubringen.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 25 NRWO establishes procedural rules for voter-registry inspection, publication, and access (including online access via qualified electronic signature), but contains no statutory codification of data security, encryption requirements, breach notification obligations, or access-logging regimes. The section addresses transparency and public inspection mechanisms, not the underlying security architecture that would satisfy the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

§ 66 explicitly codifies in statute the right of voters with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities to be assisted by a person of their own choosing, with clear confirmation requirements to the election official. The statute also enumerates the categories of eligible disability, defines the procedural confirmation mechanism, specifies documentation requirements (Abs. 3), and establishes penalties for fraudulent claims (Abs. 4), creating a complete statutory framework for disability assistance that does not rely on administrative discretion.

“Wähler mit Körperbehinderungen, Sinnesbehinderungen oder kognitiven Behinderungen dürfen sich von einer Person, die sie selbst auswählen können und gegenüber dem Wahlleiter bestätigen müssen, führen und sich bei der Wahlhandlung helfen lassen.”

The section provides statutory grounding for assistance to visually impaired voters (ballot templates) and establishes a procedure for assisted voting with a companion selected by the voter and confirmed to the election official, with documentation required. However, the section does not address illiteracy assistance specifically; it covers visual impairment and general disability. The ballot-secrecy protection is implicit (voter selects companion, must confirm) but not explicitly codified as a distinct cure or appeal mechanism if assistance is denied or mishandled.

“blinden oder schwer sehbehinderten Wählern sind seitens der Wahlbehörde als Hilfsmittel zur Ermöglichung der Wahlausübung Stimmzettel-Schablonen zur Verfügung zu stellen”

The statute sets a maximum closing time (17:00), which provides a statutory upper bound. However, the statute does not set actual opening and closing hours directly—it delegates to local municipal authorities (Gemeindewahlbehörden) the power to 'determine' (setzen) polling hours within that constraint. The opening time is not specified at all. This is administrative discretion bounded by statute, not full statutory specification of hours.

“Das Ende der Wahlzeit darf nicht später als auf 17.00 Uhr festgelegt werden.”

This section addresses only the post-election ballot-card (mail-in ballot) verification and rejection procedure—specifically nullity grounds and the mechanics of opening and counting. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure: application process, application deadlines, how ballots are returned, what signature verification entails, or any cure procedure for voters whose ballots are rejected. The statute delegates application and other upstream procedural elements to § 10 and other sections, making this excerpt insufficient to satisfy the criterion's requirement for a full procedure codified in one place.

“Wahlkarten, bei denen ein Nichtigkeitsgrund gemäß § 10 Abs. 5 Z 7 bis 12 vorliegt, dürfen in die Ergebnisermittlung ebenfalls nicht miteinbezogen werden.”

§ 40 NRWO codifies the absentee voting (Wahlkarte) framework comprehensively in statute, including issuance procedures (subsections 1, 2, 5), ballot return and custody requirements (subsections 5, 6), public accountability and information rights (subsection 1, 3), and voter status verification (subsection 7). Eligibility is defined by reference to other statutory provisions (§ 38 Abs. 2), and procedural details are enumerated exhaustively rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Die Gemeinde hat die Ausstellung einer Wahlkarte in der Datenverarbeitung ZeWaeR unter Speicherung des auf der Wahlkarte im Barcode oder QR-Code enthaltenen Zahlencodes zu vermerken. Bis zum neunundzwanzigsten Tag nach dem Wahltag haben die Gemeinden gegenüber jedem im Wählerverzeichnis eingetragenen Wahlberechtigten auf mündliche oder schriftliche Anfrage Auskunft zu erteilen, ob für ihn eine Wahlkarte ausgestellt worden ist. Bei einer Anfrage hat der Wahlberechtigte seine Identität glaubhaft zu machen.”

The statute sets the early voting (Wahlkarte) framework in statute and establishes a clear, enumerated deadline rule: municipal authorities must set voting times for early voters no later than five days before election day. The locations rule is also statutorily grounded (Abs. 2-3), with specific reference to municipal and district polling stations. The procedure is clearly defined without delegation to administrative discretion.

“Die Gemeindewahlbehörden, in Wien der Magistrat, haben rechtzeitig, spätestens jedoch am fünften Tag vor dem Wahltag, die Wahlzeit für die Stimmabgabe der Wahlkartenwähler festzusetzen.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 87 NRWO addresses contingency procedures for election day disruptions (postponement, extension, document security) and data processing failures. It contains no provisions regarding ballot drop-boxes, their placement, security, chain-of-custody procedures, or any related administrative framework. The section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 88 governs the procedural mechanics of vote tallying and reporting by electoral authorities (Landeswahlbehörde and Bundeswahlbehörde), including timelines for provisional reporting and the handling of mail-in ballots (Wahlkuverts). It does not address provisional ballot rights, eligibility challenges, or adjudication procedures for voters whose right to vote is disputed. The section provides no statutory grounding for a voter's right to cast a provisional ballot or any cure/appeal mechanism if a voter is challenged at the polls.