EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the procedural content of election result protocols (recording voting times, voter counts, ballot counts, complaints, and preference votes). It contains no provisions regarding election administration body independence, appointment procedures, term lengths, or political composition. The criterion requires statutory codification of structural independence safeguards; this section is purely operational and does not touch that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes age and residency requirements in ordinary statute (Law No. 275/2012), not in the constitution. The criterion specifically asks whether these requirements are set in the CONSTITUTION rather than statute alone. The text provides no evidence that these rules are constitutionally grounded; they appear as statutory law only.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in § 6(1) by requiring that a candidate's legal capacity ('svéprávnost') not be limited ('omezena'), grounding the disqualification framework in statute rather than administrative discretion. Czech civil law provides statutory restoration procedures (through court proceedings to restore legal capacity), satisfying both the statutory codification and restoration elements, though the statute does not itself detail the restoration mechanism in this section.

“není omezena jeho svéprávnost k výkonu práva být volen”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly requires ID documentation (passport or national ID card number) as a condition for signing a petition supporting a presidential candidate. The requirement is set directly in this law (Zákon č. 275/2012 Sb.), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The acceptable forms of ID are enumerated (občanský průkaz or cestovní pas).

“Každý občan, podporující kandidaturu kandidáta, uvede na podpisový arch své jméno, příjmení, datum narození a číslo občanského průkazu nebo cestovního pasu s údajem, o jaký druh dokladu se jedná, a připojí vlastnoruční podpis.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs electronic petitions supporting presidential candidacy and addresses candidate consent procedures. It does not address voter identification or acceptable ID forms at all. The section discusses electronic identification systems and document types (national ID or passport) only in the context of verifying candidate identity for petition consent, not voter eligibility or acceptable voter ID. This is not within the scope of the identification criterion being evaluated.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the State Electoral Commission's duties to record and publish election results after voting concludes. It contains no provisions establishing or defining a voter registration cutoff, deadline relative to election day, or any registration procedure whatsoever. The criterion concerns statutory definition of registration deadlines; this section is entirely outside that subject matter.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voting location procedures for registered voters presenting a voter card or notification of voting in another district, not registration methods themselves. It does not enumerate or establish any registration procedures (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day). The statute addresses how registered voters cast ballots, not how they become registered.

The statute provides a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: when a registration has errors or incompleteness in the voter list and the administrative body does not correct them, an affected citizen may apply to the court (specified by electoral district) for a decision to repair or complete the list. This defines both the remedy (court order for correction) and the pathway (court application), satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion.

“Jestliže příslušný orgán státní správy sám neodstraní chyby nebo nedostatky ve stálém seznamu voličů nebo ve zvláštním seznamu voličů, může se občan tím dotčený obrátit na soud příslušný podle volebního okrsku s návrhem na vydání rozhodnutí o provedení opravy nebo doplnění tohoto seznamu.”

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to challenge errors or omissions in voter registration lists by petitioning the competent court for correction or supplementation. § 200j(1) provides a clear statutory path for affected citizens to challenge registration problems, and § 200j(4) designates the district court as the competent authority, establishing both the right and the procedural venue in binding statutory language.

“Jestliže příslušný orgán státní správy sám neodstraní chyby nebo nedostatky ve stálém seznamu voličů nebo ve zvláštním seznamu voličů, může se občan tím dotčený obrátit na soud příslušný podle volebního okrsku s návrhem na vydání rozhodnutí o provedení opravy nebo doplnění tohoto seznamu.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 59c addresses voting location procedures for voters with valid documentation or notification of voting elsewhere—it does not concern voter registration purges, removal procedures, notice requirements, or cure periods. The criterion requires statutory provisions governing pre-purge notice and cure rights; this section contains no such provisions.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 28 addresses the procedural steps for EU citizens to request inclusion in the Czech voter registry for European Parliament elections. It specifies submission deadlines, required documentation, acceptable submission methods, and notification timelines, but contains no provisions governing data security, encryption, breach notification protocols, or access logging for the voter registry. The section is entirely procedural with respect to voter registration requests, not data protection or security infrastructure.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the procedural requirements for recording voting results and ballot counting in polling districts, including documentation of votes and ballot tallies. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voter assistance for persons with disabilities, who may assist voters, or the rules governing such assistance. The criterion requires statutory codification of disability assistance rights and procedures; this section addresses only election administration and result recording.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 76 of Law 247/1995 concerns the second round of elections and candidate advancement rules; it does not address polling-place hours at all. The section specifies timing for when the second round must begin (day 6 or day 13 after first-round voting) but does not set statutory hours for when polling places must open or close.

The section addresses mail-in voting (korespondenční hlasování) only in the context of vote tabulation procedures—specifically what must be recorded about opened delivery envelopes and deferred envelopes. It does not codify the full mail-in procedure including application deadlines, return requirements, signature verification, or cure mechanisms. Those procedural elements are either absent from this section or relegated to other statutory provisions not provided here.

“e) počet otevřených doručovacích obálek pro korespondenční hlasování, z toho počet odložených doručovacích obálek,”

This section addresses the voter certificate (voličský průkaz) and permits voting in any polling district when the voter reports intention to vote elsewhere, but it does not systematically codify an absentee voting framework encompassing eligibility criteria, application procedures, return methods, or treatment rules. The statute enables alternative-location voting but lacks the comprehensive procedural enumeration (deadlines, application forms, verification, cure procedures) required to score 'satisfies' on a full absentee framework.

“Voličský průkaz Na základě voličského průkazu nebo na základě zápisu údaje o oznámení voliče o hlasování v jiném volebním okrsku v seznamu voličů může volič ve volbě prezidenta hlasovat v kterémkoli volebním okrsku nebo zvláštním volebním okrsku.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the State Electoral Commission's recording and publication of election results after scrutiny is complete. It specifies what data must be included in the official record (total voters, votes by party, elected candidates, etc.) but contains no language establishing a right to cast a provisional ballot or any procedure for adjudicating provisional ballots. The section is entirely focused on post-election result tabulation and certification, not on provisional ballot mechanisms.