EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Brazilian Electoral Code (Art. 193) addresses internal ballot-counting procedures at polling stations—specifically the mixing and counting of ballots when the number of ballots matches the number of voters, and the preparation of summary records. It contains no provisions related to voter pamphlets, candidate information dissemination, ballot-question information, or any communication framework for providing voters with election information prior to voting. The section is purely procedural regarding post-voting ballot handling and does not establish requirements for publishing candidate or ballot-question materials to voters.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This constitutional provision (Art. 22) allocates exclusive legislative competence to the federal Union over electoral law (direito eleitoral) in Item I. It establishes *which level of government* may legislate on elections, but does not itself codify substantive election procedures, including triggers for multilingual ballots or voter materials. The section is a competence-allocation clause, not a substantive codification of multilingual ballot requirements, population thresholds, or language-minority criteria. To satisfy criterion INFO.2, the statute or constitution would need to enumerate specific triggers (e.g., language-minority population percentages, census thresholds, or procedural rules mandating multilingual materials). This provision merely grants the Union the authority to legislate such matters; it does not set the triggers themselves.

Art. 11, § 6º establishes that the Electoral Justice shall enable interested parties access to documents submitted for candidate registration purposes. This satisfies part of the criterion by requiring public accessibility of filing documents. However, the statute does NOT specify a defined time frame within which such access must be provided. The criterion requires both (1) public accessibility AND (2) a defined time limit. The statute codifies accessibility but lacks the temporal specificity necessary for full procedural clarity. The phrase 'possibilitará aos interessados acesso' (shall enable access to interested parties) is vague regarding timing and does not establish when access must be granted relative to filing, publication, or election dates. Under the dual-scholar test, one scholar would find this satisfies the accessibility component but falls short on temporal definition; another would find the absence of timing rules insufficient for procedural clarity.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 213 of the Brazilian Electoral Code addresses congressional procedures for resolving disputed presidential elections when no absolute majority is achieved—specifically the mechanics of runoff elections and succession procedures. The section contains no provisions regarding candidate disqualification, candidate withdrawal procedures, or public-notice requirements for communicating such events to voters. The criterion CAND.2 requires statutory codification of public-notice procedures when candidates are disqualified or withdraw after ballots are printed. This article does not address those procedural requirements. While the Electoral Code may contain such provisions elsewhere, this specific section does not satisfy the criterion.

Article 68 establishes statutory notification requirements with specific timing (69 days before election, 18 hours on the day before) and mandates public notice through edital and press publication. However, this provision focuses on closing voter registration and announcing enrollment numbers rather than notifying voters of the election date, polling place, or registration deadlines themselves. The statute codifies notice of registration closure and procedures, but does not address comprehensive pre-election voter notification regarding the election itself. The dual-scholar test suggests that while procedural notice timing is established in statute, the criterion requires notification about the upcoming election's date and polling place location, which is not explicitly detailed here. The provision satisfies procedural clarity for registration closure announcements but only partially addresses the broader notification requirement.