EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 275 addresses scrutiny timing procedures for ballot papers, not election administration independence. It does not codify the appointment mechanisms, term lengths, or political composition requirements for electoral bodies. The criterion requires statutory or constitutional grounding of independence structures; this section concerns only operational scrutiny discretion and does not address administrative independence at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The criterion asks whether age and residency requirements are set in the *constitution* rather than statute. Section 93 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is statutory law, not constitutional law. Although subsection (1) and (2) clearly establish the minimum age requirement (18 years) and eligibility rules in statutory form, they do not satisfy the criterion because the criterion specifically requires constitutional grounding. The text provides no evidence that these requirements are embedded in the Australian Constitution itself.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (cognitive impairment, treason/treachery) and mentions pardon as a pathway for treason convictions, satisfying the statutory grounding requirement. However, the statute provides no explicit procedure for restoring eligibility following cognitive impairment, and the pardon mechanism references external processes (not defined in this section). The section also establishes a temporal disqualification for sentences of 3+ years without specifying a restoration procedure or sentence completion mechanism within the electoral code itself.

“A person who: (a) by reason of cognitive impairment, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting; or (b) has been convicted of treason or treachery and has not been pardoned; is not entitled to have his or her name placed or retained on any Roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 105 addresses alteration of electoral rolls (corrections, removal of deceased electors, reinstatement of names removed by mistake) but does not address restoration of voting rights lost due to criminal conviction, imprisonment, or other eligibility-disqualifying events. The section permits reinstatement where names were removed by administrative error, not where rights were forfeited by operation of law. The criterion requires a procedure for restoring rights lost through felony or similar disqualification; this section does not cover that scenario and thus does not satisfy ELIG.3.

Section 229(1) establishes statutory requirement for identity verification at polling places through specified questions about name, address, and prior voting. This requirement is grounded directly in statute (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's demand for statutory grounding of any ID requirement.

The statute enumerates three specific ID forms (driver's licence, passport, and enrolled-person attestation) with clear statutory grounding. However, subsection (d) explicitly delegates to regulations the authority to prescribe additional acceptable evidence of identity, which leaves enumeration incomplete and partially subject to administrator discretion rather than exhaustive statutory specification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 321C concerns transparency, accountability, and traceability of electoral communications and authorisation requirements for electoral matter — not voter identification at polling places or voter registration. It does not address government-issued ID requirements for voting, free alternative ID provision, or any procedure related to voter identification. This section is inapplicable to criterion ID.3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 228 addresses the administrative forwarding and handling of declaration vote envelopes by electoral officers—a purely procedural-logistical matter concerning chain of custody and reconciliation of voting materials. It contains no provisions addressing voter identification requirements, acceptance or rejection of voters, provisional ballots, affidavits, return-with-ID procedures, or any cure mechanism for a voter arriving without ID at the poll. The criterion concerns at-polls cure procedures for identification defects; this section is entirely silent on that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 298C addresses the Electoral Commission's determination of election funding claims, not voter identification or rejection procedures. This section establishes timelines and criteria for accepting/refusing campaign funding claims—a wholly separate procedural domain from voter ID verification and rejection appeal mechanisms. No statutory codification of an appeal procedure for rejected ID or provisional ballots appears in this text.

Section 102(4) statutorily defines the suspension period during which claims cannot be considered, anchored to 'the close of the Rolls for an election' and 'the close of the poll.' While the exact calendar dates depend on election-specific declarations, the statutory framework fixes the registration deadline relative to election day (the close of polls) rather than delegating it to regulation or administrative discretion. The procedure for handling late claims received during suspension is also enumerated in subsections (4)–(5).

“starting at 8 pm on the day of the close of the Rolls for an election to be held in a Division; and (ii) ending on the close of the poll for the election”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 85 delegates the specification of registration methods to proclamation and regulations rather than enumerating them exhaustively in statute. The text explicitly allows the proclamation to 'specify the manner' and requires compliance 'in accordance with the regulations,' meaning the actual enumerated methods are left to subordinate instruments and administrative discretion, not statutory enumeration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 113 is a definitional section that establishes terminology for Part IX (Objections) but contains no procedural substance. It defines terms like 'challenged elector' and 'official objection' but does not address registration incompleteness, rejection procedures, or cure mechanisms. To evaluate REG.3, one would need to examine sections that actually establish objection procedures and remedies (such as §114 and subsequent sections), not this interpretive preamble.

Section 120 establishes a statutory right to challenge rejection or removal of voter registration through internal review. The statute enumerates which decisions are reviewable (including refusals to enrol under ss. 93A, 94A, 95, 96, 98A, 102, and removal decisions under s. 118), sets a clear 28-day deadline for challenge, requires personal review or delegation to an uninvolved reviewer, and provides a defined decision path (confirm, vary, or set aside with substitution). This establishes a complete statutory challenge procedure meeting the procedural-clarity standard.

“A person notified of a reviewable decision made in relation to the person may apply, in writing, to the Electoral Commissioner for a review of the decision.”

Section 105 defines roll-maintenance criteria—removal of deceased electors, correction of errors, removal of duplicates, and address changes—directly in statute rather than delegating to regulation. The criteria for removal are enumerated, particularly death (§105(1)(c)) and address changes (§105(1)(h) and §105(2)). However, the section does not establish a defined cure procedure or formal appeal path for voters removed under these provisions, which limits the procedural completeness.

“the Electoral Commissioner may alter any Roll by: (a) correcting any mistake or omission in the particulars of the enrolment of an elector; (c) removing the name of any deceased elector; (d) striking out the superfluous entry where the name of the same elector appears more than once on the same Subdivision Roll; (e) reinstating any name removed by mistake as the name of a deceased elector; (f) where the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that an objection against the enrolment of an elector whose name has been deleted from the Roll as a result of the objection was based on a mistake of fact and that the person objected to still retains and has continuously retained his or her right to the enrolment in respect of which the objection was made—reinstating on the Roll the name of the elector; (g) reinstating any other name removed by mistake; and (h) where the name of a street or any other part of an address that appears on the Roll is changed—substituting the new name or other part of the address for the name or other part of the address so appearing”

Section 118 provides a clear statutory framework requiring notice to the challenged elector and a defined cure period: the elector has up to 20 days after notice of objection to submit an answer before the Electoral Commissioner determines whether to remove them from the roll. The statute also requires written notice of the decision (subsection 6) and establishes enumerated grounds for removal. This satisfies the procedural requirements of statutory grounding, enumeration of grounds, notice, and a defined response opportunity.

“(1) The Electoral Commissioner shall determine an objection as soon as practicable after: (a) the receipt by the Electoral Commissioner of the answer of the challenged elector; or (b) the end of 20 days after the giving of the notice of the objection; whichever is the earlier.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 90 addresses only the manner and form in which Electoral Commission may provide access to electoral rolls (electronic vs. paper, public inspection vs. distribution). It contains no statutory codification of data security requirements, encryption standards, breach notification procedures, or access logging. The section grants discretion to the Commission regarding presentation format but is silent on the security regime itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 26 concerns the appointment of an acting Electoral Commissioner and does not address language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds. This section establishes administrative succession procedures and is procedurally unrelated to the criterion.

Section 234(1) provides clear statutory codification of the right to assistance from a person of the voter's choosing. It sets forth the eligibility condition (sight impairment, physical incapacity, or illiteracy preventing independent voting), the mechanism (appointment by the voter), the permitted assistant's role (entering the booth and marking/depositing the ballot), and a fallback procedure if no assistant is appointed (presiding officer or polling official performs the task under s.234(2)). The rule is enumerated exhaustively in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

The section establishes a clear statutory procedure for voters who cannot read, codified directly in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It enumerates the conditions (inability to read or disability preventing voting without assistance), the mechanism (person chosen by voter), the location of assistance (unoccupied compartment), and the specific permitted acts (marking and depositing the ballot). Ballot secrecy is protected by requiring use of an unoccupied compartment and limiting the assistant's role to following voter directions. The procedure is exhaustive and administratively bounded, not left to discretion.

Section 220(b) sets polling-place opening and closing hours directly in statute: polls must open at 8 a.m. and remain open until 6 p.m. (with a provision allowing voters present at 6 p.m. to complete their votes). The hours are enumerated exhaustively in the legislative text, leaving no discretion to local administrators to vary them.

Section 186 addresses only the dispatch of postal voting papers to *registered* general postal voters—it presupposes registration but does not codify the full mail-in procedure. The section covers delivery but omits application procedures, deadlines, return methods, signature verification protocols, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. These elements are scattered across other sections of the Act (registration in Part VIII, return and scrutiny procedures elsewhere) rather than being enumerated exhaustively in a single statute section.

“As soon as ballot papers for an election for a Division are available, the Electoral Commissioner must send or arrange for the delivery of postal voting papers to each registered general postal voter for the Division.”

This section codifies the absentee (pre-poll declaration) voting framework in statute with specific enumerated procedures: the application and issuance process (subsection 1), the procedural steps for ballot preparation and signing (subsections 2-4), the voting process (subsection 5), and the treatment and storage of completed ballots (subsection 6). Accommodation for voters unable to read or vote independently is also statutorily specified (subsection 7). The framework is comprehensive, mandatory (using 'shall'), and leaves minimal administrative discretion.

Section 200DB(3) establishes that the days and hours for pre-poll voting are 'declared under paragraph 200BA(1)(b)', which is a direct reference to a statutory provision that sets these parameters. The section grounds the early voting period in statute rather than administrative discretion, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion for statutory enumeration.

The statute establishes a clear, mandatory procedure for ballot-box security and chain-of-custody: a voting officer must examine and prepare the box before reuse, in the presence of scrutineers. This provides statutorily-grounded, enumerated procedure for secure handling. While this section addresses reuse rather than initial placement, it defines the security protocol that satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion—the requirement is set in statute, the responsible actor is named, and the supervisory mechanism (scrutineer presence) is specified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 200F specifies only the formal requirements for the pre-poll vote certificate (form and envelope addressing). It does not address the right to cast a provisional ballot, nor does it enumerate any procedure for adjudicating provisional ballots—such as grounds for rejection, cure mechanisms, or appeal paths. The section is about certificate form, not provisional ballot rights or adjudication procedure.