EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses party communication of leadership organ composition to electoral authorities and civil registry procedures. It does not codify election administration body independence, appointment mechanisms, fixed terms, or balanced political composition. The statute requires parties to notify the Electoral Justice (Justiça Eleitoral) but does not establish how electoral authorities themselves are appointed, their tenure, or their independence from political branches.

Article 143 of the Electoral Code addresses voting procedures and timing at polling stations, not eligibility requirements. The section contains no reference to minimum age, residency requirements, or constitutional provisions. The criterion asks whether age and residency requirements are set in the constitution; this statute section does not address that question and cannot be evaluated against this criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 334 is a criminal sanction provision addressing electoral misconduct (using commercial organizations for voter enticement), not a disqualification framework governing voter eligibility criteria or restoration procedures. It prescribes penalties for candidates' illegal campaign conduct, not the statutory codification of voter disqualification grounds, duration, or restoration mechanisms required by ELIG.2.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute enumerates specific forms of identification required for voting: identity cards, military service certificates, civil registry age certificates, and public documents proving age and qualification. The requirement and acceptable forms are set directly in statutory law rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 83 and its subsections address ballot design, printing, and format specifications for electoral materials—specifically the physical characteristics of ballots, candidate identification on ballots, and the ballot model approval process. This section contains no language addressing voter identification requirements, acceptable ID forms, or any procedure for verifying voter identity. The criterion concerns enumeration of acceptable identification documents for voters; this section is entirely inapplicable to that topic.

This section addresses internal party organization, employment status of party officials, and expense reimbursement procedures. It contains no content relating to voter identification requirements, government-issued ID, or any free ID alternative. The criterion (ID.3) concerns electoral access via identification procedures; this section falls entirely outside that domain and appears to be mislabeled or mismatched to the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 49 addresses procedures for blind voters using Braille to register and vote, not cure procedures for voters arriving without identification at polls. The section specifies the mechanism for signature/mark authentication for blind voters (Braille letters, witness requirements from blind-service officials) but contains no language establishing a cure procedure, provisional ballot mechanism, affidavit option, return-with-ID pathway, or signature-match fallback for voters lacking ID at the polling place. The criterion's topic (at-polls cure for missing ID) is entirely absent from this section.

This statutory provision codifies a clear appeal procedure for voting challenges, including those related to identification or ballot validity issues. It establishes that appeals (recursos) against voting irregularities must be raised before the polling table (mesa receptora) during the voting act itself, with documented objections (impugnação) against alleged nullities. This creates a defined, statutorily-grounded review pathway accessible at the point of rejection.

The statute explicitly establishes a fixed registration deadline—submission of membership rolls to electoral judges in the second week of April and October each year—for partisan affiliation to be valid for candidacy purposes. This deadline is defined by statute (Lei nº 9.096/1995 as amended), not left to regulation or administrative discretion. The procedure is enumerated and binding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electoral propaganda (campaign advertising) on the internet, not voter registration methods. It enumerates permitted channels for political advertising (candidate websites, party sites, emails, social media) but contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voter registration procedures, methods, or enumeration. The criterion REG.2 evaluates registration access; this section is categorically outside the scope of registration law.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 45, §§ 7–8 explicitly codifies in statute the voter's right to challenge a rejected registration (despacho que indeferir) through an appeal process (recurso), with defined jurisdiction (Tribunal Regional Eleitoral) and timeline (within 5 days). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for a statutory, enumerated, and reviewable rejection challenge right.

The statute explicitly enumerates multiple voter roll-removal criteria: failure to vote in three consecutive elections (Art. 71, V), provisional detention (Art. 71, VI), and by reference in § 3, death reported by civil registry officials. These grounds are codified directly in the Electoral Code statute (Lei nº 4.737/1965 and amendments), not delegated to regulation. § 1 establishes that removal occurs automatically upon occurrence of enumerated causes and can be initiated ex officio or by party delegate. The procedure is statutorily grounded with enumerated criteria.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section regulates electoral propaganda on the internet (candidate websites, party sites, social media, etc.) and does not address voter registration, voter roll purges, or any notice-and-cure procedures related to voter removal. The criterion concerns pre-purge notice and cure periods for voters — an entirely different subject matter from internet campaign advertising.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 107 is a repealing clause that revokes specific provisions from prior electoral laws. It contains no substantive provisions regarding voter-data security, encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logs. The section does not establish or codify any data security regime.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses mineral resource exploitation and energy rights under the Brazilian Constitution. It contains no reference whatsoever to voter assistance, language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population thresholds—the subject matter of the criterion. The criterion is inapplicable to this constitutional article on natural resource policy.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses social benefits (minimum income guarantee) for people with disabilities and the elderly, not electoral procedures or voter assistance rights. It contains no statutory codification of the right to be assisted in voting, rules for who may assist voters, or any electoral procedure whatsoever.

The statute permits assistance instruments for illiterate voters but does not codify a defined procedure, does not enumerate what instruments are acceptable, does not specify how ballot secrecy is protected during assistance, and leaves implementation to electoral justice discretion. The permission is stated but lacks the procedural specificity, exhaustive enumeration, and safeguards required by the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 228 establishes an absentee voting framework for Brazilian voters residing abroad in statute. The section enumerates eligibility (Brazilian voters resident abroad), the method of application (written communication to diplomatic mission or consulate), the timing requirement (30 days before election), and the procedural consequence (organization of voting rolls and notification of voters). The framework is codified in law rather than left to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Articles 171 and 172 address appeal procedures for ballot counting disputes and vote recount protocols, but neither provisions establishes a statutory right to cast a provisional ballot nor defines a procedure for adjudicating provisional ballots. The sections concern post-election challenges to official tallies, not the right of a voter to cast a ballot provisionally at the point of voting. No procedural codification for provisional balloting exists in this text.