EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 95ter addresses the administrative designation of a coordination officer within municipal government for election organization, but it does not establish or codify the independence of the election administration body itself. The section does not address multi-branch appointment, fixed terms, balanced political composition, or any structural safeguards for election administration independence. It merely designates a municipal staff member as a contact point, which is a logistical procedure rather than an independence framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The criterion asks whether minimum age and residency requirements are set in the CONSTITUTION. This section is from the Electoral Code (statute), not the constitution. While the statute clearly enumerates age (18 years) and residency requirements (registration in Belgian communes), it does not establish whether these requirements originate in or are grounded by constitutional text. The section satisfies procedural clarity as statutory law, but fails the specific criterion demand that the requirements be constitutional.

The statute establishes statutory disqualification criteria (express court declarations under Civil Code and internment law; criminal convictions), codifies the duration (expressly tied to legal incapacity or criminal sentence term via 'pendant la durée' and 'temporairement'), and provides a defined statutory restoration mechanism ('prend fin en même temps que' the termination of incapacity or release). This satisfies the ordinal level 2 threshold: statute + statutory restoration procedure.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 142 explicitly establishes in statute that voters must present a 'document d'identité' (identity document) when voting. The requirement is set directly in statutory law rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute also provides an exception: 'L'électeur qui n'est pas muni de sa lettre de convocation peut être admis au vote si son identité et sa qualité sont reconnues par le bureau,' allowing alternative verification by the polling board.

The statute exhaustively enumerates the single acceptable form of identification for voters in Fourons and Comines-Warneton: a special model summons letter (lettre de convocation). This form is statutorily defined and mandatory, leaving no discretion to administrators regarding which documents may be accepted.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly defines the registration challenge/correction deadline as twelve days before election day, establishing a clear, statutorily-grounded temporal anchor relative to election day. This is a defined procedural deadline set by statute (not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion).

“jusqu'au douzième jour précédant celui de l'élection”

The statute specifies that Belgian citizens abroad must indicate their chosen voting method on a form, but does not exhaustively enumerate what those methods actually are (in-person, mail, online, etc.). The actual registration methods available are referenced elsewhere in the code (articles 180quater, 180sexies, etc.) rather than enumerated in this section. The procedural requirement is set in statute, but the available methods themselves are not enumerated here.

“Le Belge indique sur le formulaire visé au § 1er le mode selon lequel il entend exercer son droit de vote.”

The statute provides a clear appeal/review path (30-day challenge to the Foreign Minister, then appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days), but this is a general appeal mechanism for eligibility denials, not a cure procedure specific to incomplete registration. A true cure procedure would allow the applicant to cure defects (e.g., submit missing documents) before final rejection. The statute does not explicitly provide a defined opportunity to cure incomplete submissions.

The statute establishes in clear, binding language that any person improperly inscribed, omitted, or struck from the electoral list—or whose listing contains inaccurate information—may file a complaint (réclamation) before the municipal college of burgomaster and aldermen within a defined temporal window (twelfth day before the election). This codifies both the right to challenge and the procedural forum and deadline. Art. 19 reinforces this by confirming that any person meeting electoral conditions may challenge inscriptions, removals, omissions, or inaccuracies. The procedure is statutory, the grounds are enumerated, and the remedy channel is designated.

Article 92 of the Electoral Code expressly enumerates the statutory criteria for voter roll removal: loss of Belgian nationality, removal from population registers (administrative erasure or departure abroad), and death. These grounds are set in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The section lacks constitutional-level grounding, warranting a score of 1 rather than 2.

The statute requires written notice of refusal to recognize voter status and provides a 30-day cure/appeal window to challenge the decision before the Foreign Affairs Minister. However, the text does not explicitly address the procedure for removal from rolls or purge of enrolled voters; it covers only refusal at initial registration. The cure mechanism applies to rejection of new registration rather than a pre-purge notice before removal of already-registered voters, leaving the latter procedure undefined.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedural mechanics of electoral-dispute resolution (decision-making, appeal declaration, and finality of rulings), but contains no data-security provisions, encryption requirements, breach-notification duties, or access-control specifications. The section does not codify any voter-registry security regime.

Article 116 addresses candidate list presentation, ballot sigle language options, and administrative procedures, but does not establish triggers or thresholds for voter language assistance (such as bilingual ballots or language-minority population thresholds). The section permits sigle formulation in one or multiple national languages and references cross-language translation, but these are administrative presentation rules for parties, not voter assistance procedures. No statutory codification of language assistance eligibility or triggers appears in this section.

The statute grants voters with disabilities the statutory right to be accompanied by a person of their own choosing ('la personne de son choix') with authorization from the electoral board president. The rule is codified in the Electoral Code itself, enumerated clearly, and includes a procedural requirement that both names be recorded in the official record. Dispute resolution is also provided: if an assessor or witness contests the reality or importance of the disability claim, the bureau decides and records its reasoned decision in the record.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Article 131) governs the designation and rights of candidate witnesses at polling stations and counting operations. It does not address assistance procedures for illiterate or disabled voters, nor does it establish any mechanism to protect ballot secrecy during assisted voting. The criterion requires codified procedures for voter assistance with secrecy protections; this section is silent on that topic entirely.

The statute sets a mandatory base polling-hour window (8:00 AM to 1:00 PM) through statutory text. While the King retains limited discretion to extend closing hours in specific circumstances (concurrent elections), the opening hour and baseline closing hour are statutorily enumerated and not left to local administrative discretion. The statute also provides a cure mechanism—voters present before the statutory/modified closing hour retain the right to vote.

The statute permits mail-in voting ('par correspondance') as one voting method option for Belgian citizens abroad, establishing it is available. However, the section provides no codified procedural details regarding application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for rejected ballots—it merely states the option exists and defers to general Electoral Code rules (§3). The specific mechanics of mail-in voting administration are not enumerated in this section.

Article 180bis provides statutorily-codified absentee voting procedures for Belgian citizens abroad, including: eligibility criteria (inscription in consular registers per § 1), application mechanism (submission of completed, dated, signed forms per § 3), and enumerated return methods (in-person deposit, postal, or electronic submission per § 3). The framework is set forth exhaustively in statute, with defined timeframes (registration periods in § 1, 30-day complaint period in § 4), specified treatment rules (validity of applications per § 3), and an appellate cure path (complaint to Foreign Minister within 30 days, then appeal to Brussels Court of Appeal per § 4).

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electronic voting system malfunctions and expert oversight protocols, not ballot drop-box procedures. It contains no provisions regarding drop-box placement, security, or chain-of-custody. The section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 180quater establishes a proxy voting procedure for Belgians residing abroad, not a provisional ballot procedure. The statute sets forth clear statutory requirements for proxy designation, timing, and presentation at polls, but contains no provision addressing provisional ballots or their adjudication. Provisional ballot procedures are an entirely distinct electoral mechanism, absent from this section.