Disqualification framework

Cal. Const. Art. II § 4 constitutionally frames the disqualification regime: mental incompetence and state/federal felony imprisonment, with the Legislature directed to implement details. Restoration is constitutionally codified in § 2(b). Combined: constitutional framing with statutory restoration (Prop 17, 2020) — ordinal level 3.

“SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.”

The section grounds all disqualification of electoral rights in statute ('依照法律'—according to law), establishing constitutional framing that prohibits arbitrary administrative disqualification. It contemplates a statutory framework governing both the grounds for and restoration of political rights. This places the criterion at the highest level: constitutional mandate requiring statutory specification of disqualifications and restoration procedures.

“依 照 法 律 被 剥 夺 政 治 权 利 的 人 除 外”

The statute codifies the disqualification framework (felony conviction triggers loss of electoral privileges) in statute, defines the duration (confinement period), and establishes a clear, automatic restoration procedure triggered by release from confinement. Subsection (b) further enumerates detailed procedures for restoration, including issuance of a certificate by the Commissioner and submission of proof to admitting officials. Subsection (c) requires registrars to notify other municipalities within 30 days. Subsection (d) mandates the Commissioner to inform eligible persons of their restoration rights and procedures. This represents comprehensive statutory codification of eligibility criteria, duration, and restoration procedure.

“(a)(1) A person who has been convicted of a felony and committed to confinement in a correctional institution or facility of the federal government or of another state shall have such person's electoral privileges restored once such person has been released from confinement.”

Disqualification is framed in the Constitution (§ 58) — restriction permitted only for citizens convicted and currently serving a custodial sentence — and implemented in statute (§ 4 of the Riigikogu Election Act). Because the bar attaches only while the sentence is served, the franchise restores automatically by operation of statute once the sentence ends.

“Participation in voting may be restricted by a law for Estonian citizens who have been convicted by a court and are serving a sentence in a penal institution.”

Florida Constitution Art VI § 4 codifies the disqualification framework: felony conviction OR mental incompetence adjudication, with restoration mechanism. § 98.0751 statutorily implements restoration. Ordinal 3/3 — both constitutional and statutory grounding.

“No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability.”

Ohio Const. Art. V § 4 explicitly grants the General Assembly power to exclude felons from voting — constitutional framing. ORC 3599.39 codifies disfranchisement for repeat election-law felons. ORC 3503.21 cancels registration on felony conviction with restoration referenced via § 2961.01 (statutory restoration). Constitutional framing + statutory restoration → highest tier.

“shall have power to exclude from the privilege of voting”

This is constitutional framing (Art. I, § 45) that codifies disqualification criteria (prior criminal conviction) at the highest statutory level. Oregon's Constitution establishes the substantive eligibility rule, and Oregon statutes (ORS 10.030 and related provisions) provide statutory restoration procedures through rights restoration mechanisms. The criterion requires constitutional or statutory codification with defined restoration—this satisfies both.

“In all grand juries and in all prosecutions for crimes tried to a jury, the jury shall be composed of persons who have not been convicted”

This section satisfies the criterion at the highest level (3). The disqualification is anchored constitutionally (Article II, Section 1), the criterion for loss is statutorily enumerated (felony conviction + incarceration), the duration is clear (during incarceration only), and a detailed statutory restoration procedure is codified, including mandatory notification, voter registration assistance, transmission protocols, and affirmative duties on the Department of Corrections and Secretary of State to remove barriers and track eligible persons. Both a strict-access and permissive-access scholar would recognize this as providing clear, judicially-reviewable statutory procedure.

Constituția Art. 36 codifies the constitutional voter-qualification + disqualification framework: 18+ voting age; no vote for those mentally incapacitated under interdict or those condemned by final court judgment to loss of electoral rights. Constitutional framing with implicit statutory restoration (rights restored when judgment-imposed duration expires).

“Cetățenii au drept de vot de la vîrsta de 18 ani”

President Election Law Article 3 codifies an ordinal disqualification framework: full deprivation of legal capacity disqualifies; partial deprivation disqualifies only if the court's ruling specifically finds the person incapable of exercising electoral rights; extended parental authority disqualifies. This is a tiered, judicial-review-bound regime — same caliber as Bulgaria Constitution Art 42 and Romania Constituția Art 36.

“Право да бира председника Републике и да буде биран за председника Републике има пунолетни држављанин Републике Србије над којим није продужено родитељско право, односно који није потпуно лишен пословне способности.”

§ 11.002 codifies a complete disqualification framework with restoration: a 'qualified voter' must not have been finally convicted of a felony or, if so convicted, must have 'fully discharged the person's sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation,' or have been pardoned; and must not have been adjudged totally or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote. § 16.003 codifies felony-conviction abstracts and § 16.031 codifies cancellation. Criteria, duration, and restoration all codified.

“fully discharged the person's sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court”

This section provides statutory disqualification criteria (felony conviction + active incarceration), an enumerated restoration trigger (completion of sentence/release from incarceration), and an automatic restoration mechanism that requires no discretionary action. The criteria are clear and the duration is codified—voting rights are restored upon release. Subsection (2) adds a defined administrative procedure (monthly comparison, notice, opportunity to challenge through reregistration) that gives voters a documented path to restoration.

“For a felony conviction in a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is not serving a sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. For a felony conviction in a federal court or any state court other than a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is no longer incarcerated.”

The section provides clear statutory codification of disqualification criteria through an exhaustive enumeration of specific felonies involving moral turpitude (items 1-48 and beyond), grounded in constitutional requirement but implemented comprehensively in statute. However, the provided text does not include any defined statutory restoration procedure, cure mechanism, or appeal path for disqualified voters, addressing only the disqualification framework itself.

“(c) For purposes of Section 177 of the Constitution of Alabama of 2022, an individual is disqualified to vote by reason of conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude only when convicted of any of the following offenses in a degree constituting a felony:”

The statute clearly codifies the disqualification criterion (felony involving moral turpitude), sets a definite duration (through unconditional discharge), and specifies a statutory restoration mechanism (registration under AS 15.07 upon discharge). All key procedural elements are grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion, satisfying the procedural-clarity standard.

“A person convicted of a crime that constitutes a felony involving moral turpitude under state or federal law may not vote in a state, federal, or municipal election from the date of the conviction through the date of the unconditional discharge of the person. Upon the unconditional discharge, the person may register under AS 15.07.”

The statute codifies the disqualification criterion (felony conviction) in § 7-6-102(b), makes falsification a Class D felony (§ 7-6-102(c)), and explicitly provides a statutory restoration procedure via expungement under §§ 16-93-301–16-93-303 (§ 7-6-102(d)). The disqualification framework is entirely statutory and enumerated, with a defined cure path.

The statute exhaustively enumerates three categories of disqualifying sentences (unconditional sentences exceeding 6 months; conditional sentences exceeding 1 year; sentences exceeding 6 months for specific offences under §§ 304–307b StGB), all grounded in judicial conviction. Critically, § 41(1) establishes a statutory restoration procedure: disqualification automatically ends after six months, with a clear triggering mechanism for when the period begins. § 41(2) adds additional statutory pathways for restoration (legal waiver of consequences, cessation of consequences, or full remission). The framework meets the ordinal level 2 criterion (statute + statutory restoration).

“Nicht wählbar ist, wer durch ein inländisches Gericht wegen einer oder mehrerer mit Vorsatz begangener und von Amts wegen zu verfolgender gerichtlich strafbarer Handlungen rechtskräftig 1. zu einer nicht bedingt nachgesehenen sechs Monate übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde, 2. zu einer bedingt nachgesehenen ein Jahr übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde oder 3. zu einer sechs Monate übersteigenden Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurde, sofern diese Verurteilung auch oder ausschließlich wegen §§ 304 bis 307b StGB erfolgt ist. Der Ausschluss von der Wählbarkeit endet nach sechs Monaten. Die Frist beginnt, sobald die Strafe vollstreckt ist und mit Freiheitsentziehung verbundene vorbeugende Maßnahmen vollzogen oder weggefallen sind; ist die Strafe nur durch Anrechnung einer Vorhaft verbüßt worden oder zur Gänze bedingt nachgesehen worden, so beginnt die Frist mit Rechtskraft des Urteils.”

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.

The statute codifies specific disqualification criteria: conviction by final court decision for unconditional prison sentences exceeding six months (with temporal condition tied to election announcement) and specific crimes (crimes against humanity, war crimes, homicide) subject to rehabilitation periods under separate law. The disqualification duration is statutorily grounded (tied to rehabilitation periods per statute). However, the restoration procedure itself is delegated to "posebnom zakonu" (a separate law), not fully enumerated in this section, placing it at level 2 rather than 3.

“Birači i političke stranke ne smiju kandidirati osobe koje su pravomoćnom sudskom odlukom osuđene na bezuvjetnu kaznu zatvora u trajanju duljem od šest mjeseci i to ako se u trenutku stupanja na snagu odluke o raspisivanju izbora izrečena kazna izvršava ili tek predstoji njezino izvršenje. Birači i političke stranke ne smiju kandidirati osobe za koje u trenutku stupanja na snagu odluke o raspisivanju izbora nisu protekli rokovi rehabilitacije prema posebnom zakonu, a koje su pravomoćnom sudskom odlukom osuđene za: 1. kaznena djela iz Glave IX. Kaznenog zakona”

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”

The section establishes statutory disqualification criteria (felony convictions with undischarged sentences) and provides a restoration procedure (permit registration once sentences are fully discharged). However, the statute does not enumerat which specific felonies ARE disqualifying or define the duration of disqualification; it only references "constitutional requirements" without full codification. The cure/restoration pathway is statutory but delegated to the Department of Correction's factual determination.

“Where it has been determined that the applicant was convicted of a felony which is not disqualifying, has fully discharged all imposed sentences, and otherwise meets all constitutional requirements, the applicant shall be permitted to register as a qualified voter.”

§ 21-2-231 codifies lists of persons convicted of felonies, noncitizens, mentally incompetent, and deceased — comprehensive disqualification-tracking framework. § 21-2-216(b) codifies disqualifications: felony conviction, mental incompetence determination. § 21-2-8 codifies eligibility for office. § 21-2-600 / § 21-2-603 codify election-fraud penalties.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (felony per § 831-2, adjudication as incapacitated per ch. 560, loss of citizenship) and provides a statutory restoration procedure (reregistration or appeal per §§ 11-26 and 11-51). However, the section does not specify the duration of disqualification for each ground; it references external statutes for that definition, and the restoration mechanism is not fully enumerated here. Score 2 reflects statutory grounding of criteria + statutory restoration path without full procedural detail.

“Whenever the clerk receives from the department of health or any informing agency, information of the death, loss of voting rights of a person sentenced for a felony as provided in section 831-2, adjudication as an incapacitated person under the provisions of chapter 560, loss of citizenship, or any other disqualification to vote, the clerk may accept the reported information as prima facie evidence to maintain and update the general register. Any person whose name is removed from the register of voters under this section may reregister to vote or appeal in the manner provided by sections 11-26 and 11-51”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (felony conviction, incompetence) with specific cross-references (§701.7) and establishes a defined restoration procedure via gubernatorial or presidential rights restoration. The competency disqualification also includes a statutory restoration path (court certification of restoration). This satisfies the statutory grounding and restoration procedure elements, though the criteria themselves are not fully enumerated in this section (they reference external definitions).

KRS 116.113 codifies the disqualification framework: the State Board of Elections must remove a voter's name on notice of death, a declaration of mental incompetency, excusal from jury duty for non-citizenship, conviction of a felony, or out-of-state registration. KRS 116.025 grounds eligibility (and its felony/incompetency exclusions) in Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution, and KRS 119.165 criminalizes voting by a convicted felon. Criteria codified; restoration of felon voting rights is by gubernatorial executive action rather than a detailed statutory procedure (2/3).

§ 5 of the Saeima Election Law enumerates the disqualification grounds (trusteeship, serving a custodial sentence, conviction of an intentional offence, mental incapacity) in statute, with restoration built in — the bar lifts when the person is exonerated or the criminal record is extinguished or set aside. Statutory criteria with statutory restoration.

“except for the persons who have been exonerated or whose criminal record has been extinguished or set aside”

Louisiana R.S. 18:102 codifies disqualification criteria (felony conviction under order of imprisonment, full mental interdiction, non-citizenship) and durations (5-year incarceration look-back; full vs. limited interdiction distinctions) entirely in statute with no delegation to administrative discretion. Statutory restoration is provided: after 5 years without incarceration, felony disqualification is lifted; limited interdiction allows voting unless the court specifically suspends that right; pre-1974 felons with completed sentences are eligible. This satisfies score 2 (statute + statutory restoration) rather than 3 because restoration is statutory but not constitutionally framed—it operates through statutory conditions rather than a constitutional right to restoration.

The statute sets forth felony disqualification criteria in enumerated, statutory form with specific dates and exceptions (manslaughter, tax code violations unless involving misuse of office). Critically, it references pardon as a restoration mechanism ('not pardoned'), which is codified elsewhere in Mississippi law. However, the statute does not independently detail the pardon procedure itself—it relies on constitutional/separate statutory framework for restoration. This satisfies level 2: statutory criteria with restoration reference, even though the restoration procedure is not fully elaborated within this section.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in statutory text with enumerated grounds (felony conviction or guilty plea). However, the section provides no statutory restoration procedure—it does not specify when or how a disqualified person regains candidacy eligibility (e.g., post-sentence, post-pardon, or post-rights restoration). This satisfies the first procedural requirement (statutory grounding and enumeration) but lacks the second (defined restoration pathway), placing it at level 2.

“No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the federal laws of the United States of America or to a felony under the laws of this state or an offense committed in another state that would be considered a felony in this state.”

§ 13-1-111 codifies the disqualification criteria — a felon loses the vote only while serving a sentence in a penal institution, and a person of unsound mind loses it until restored to capacity — with statutory restoration built in. Statute plus statutory restoration; level 2.

“A person convicted of a felony does not have the right to vote while the person is serving a sentence in a penal institution.”

The statute sets disqualification criteria (felony conviction) and duration (until sentence completion including parole) in clear statutory language, with an explicitly defined restoration procedure ('The disqualification is automatically removed at such time'). Disqualifications for treason and non compos mentis are also codified. The procedures for notification and removal from voter rolls are detailed in subsections (2) and (3), grounding administrative actions in statute.

“No person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state or any other state is qualified to vote or to register to vote until the sentence is completed, including any parole term. The disqualification is automatically removed at such time.”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (judicial conviction resulting in disqualification) and establishes a defined procedural framework: the Justice Minister must notify the mayor, who must inform the disqualified person of both the disqualification and its duration. The statute specifies that duration is recorded in the notice. However, the statute does not explicitly codify a restoration procedure—it references duration of exclusion but does not define the mechanism by which voting rights are automatically restored or the process for requesting restoration.

“Van het kiesrecht zijn uitgesloten zij die bij onherroepelijke rechterlijke uitspraak van het kiesrecht zijn ontzet.”

The section establishes a statutory disqualification criterion (mental incompetence) with a high evidentiary standard (clear and convincing evidence) and requires a specific judicial finding in a court order, satisfying the enumeration and judicial procedure elements. However, the section does not address restoration of voting rights or the duration of disqualification—how or when a person can regain eligibility if circumstances change. This omission of a defined restoration procedure prevents a full score.

The section provides statutory codification of the disqualification criterion (conviction for election-related bribery or intimidation under RSA 659:40) and duration (permanent/forever). It establishes a defined restoration procedure via supreme court petition with notice to the attorney general. However, the restoration mechanism is judicial discretion rather than statutory enumeration of restoration criteria, yielding a score of 2 rather than 3.

“Any person convicted of bribery or intimidation relating to elections under RSA 659:40 shall thereafter be forever disqualified from exercising the right to vote, except that the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privileges of a voter to any person who may have forfeited them by conviction of such offenses.”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in statute (adjudication for lack of voting capacity, conviction of indictable offenses, and incarceration status) and provides a restoration pathway ('unless pardoned or restored by law'). However, the restoration mechanism is referenced generically without detail; the statute points to unspecified restoration 'by law' but does not enumerate the statutory procedures, timelines, or administrative processes for how voters seek and obtain restoration. This satisfies the 'statute + statutory restoration' framework at a basic level but lacks the detailed procedural enumeration expected for a 3.

The section codifies disqualification (felony conviction triggers registration cancellation) in statute, enumerates three explicit restoration pathways (unconditional discharge, completion of parole/probation, or overturned conviction), and assigns the Secretary of State a clear monthly maintenance duty. However, the statute does not provide a cure/appeal mechanism for voters wrongly disqualified or denied restoration—it supplies the eligibility conditions but not the procedural remedy if those conditions are disputed or incorrectly assessed.

The statute codifies the disqualification criterion (felony conviction) with notice and challenge procedures (30-day objection right, preliminary hearing under G.S. 163-85(c)(5)), satisfying the statutory procedural grounding and cure pathway. However, the section provides no explicit statutory restoration procedure—no mention of sentence completion, rights restoration timelines, or mechanisms to regain voting eligibility after disqualification period ends. This constitutes a partial satisfaction: disqualification is statutory with procedural safeguards, but restoration pathway is not enumerated in this section.

§ 16.1-02-08.1 codifies that the Department of Corrections reports felony-convicted incarcerated individuals to the Secretary of State who marks them as 'ineligible voter status' in the central voter file. § 16.1-13-08.2 codifies death/disqualification of candidates. § 16.1-15-16 codifies canvassing-board disqualifications. § 16.1-15-34 codifies state-canvassing-board disqualifications (relatives of candidates barred). Comprehensive disqualification framework codified.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in statute (felony conviction, mental incapacity) and provides enumerated restoration procedures: completion of sentence, commutation, or pardon for felons; restoration of capacity for the mentally adjudged incapacitated. The statutory restoration pathways are clearly defined with no administrative discretion, satisfying the core procedural requirement of score 2 (statute + statutory restoration).

§ 1852 codifies statutory disfranchisement for 4 years upon conviction of willful Act violation, with immediate cancellation of registration card. Defined duration (4 years) implies automatic restoration after expiry — statute + statutory restoration.

The section codifies disqualification criteria in the Constitution itself (highest legal rank): legal incapacity (ubezwłasnowolnienie), deprivation of public rights, and deprivation of electoral rights, each requiring a final court judgment (prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym). However, the text provides no statutory restoration procedure or duration limits for these disqualifications—those mechanics are left to separate legislation. This achieves constitutional framing with statutory grounding of criteria, but lacks the defined restoration pathway required for a full score of 3.

“Prawo udziału w referendum oraz prawo wybierania nie przysługuje osobom, które prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym są ubezwłasnowolnione lub pozbawione praw publicznych albo wyborczych.”

Article 6 establishes disqualification criteria in statutory form with enumerated grounds (criminal conviction, terrorism, crimes against the state) and temporal limits (duration defined by the underlying criminal sentence or penalty). The statute explicitly ties disqualification duration to sentence duration ('en el período que dure la pena'). However, the text does not articulate a formal statutory restoration procedure; restoration occurs implicitly upon sentence completion. This satisfies score level 2: statute with statutory-defined duration, but lacking explicit restoration mechanism.

The statute codifies both the disqualification criterion (conviction of this offense or bribery under § 39-16-102) and the duration ('forever afterwards') in statutory language. However, the disqualification is permanent with no statutory restoration procedure specified, which prevents a score of 3. The procedural clarity is high: the basis for disqualification and its permanence are explicitly enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Any person convicted of such offense shall forever afterwards be disqualified from holding any office under the laws or constitution of this state.”

The strongest candidate available via FTS is Law 298 Article 145 (criminal penalty for hindering voter registration). The full constitutional disqualification framework (Anayasa Article 67 paragraph 5: military conscripts, cadets, and convicts excepting negligent-crime convicts cannot vote; Law 298 Article 8 enumerating who cannot be registered) was not surfaced by FTS for this datapoint but does exist. Scoring 2 (statute + statutory restoration via Law 298 Article 33's annual rebuild based on civil registry which automatically restores rights when restriction ends) rather than 3 because the constitutional framing was not in the FTS candidates.

This section establishes disqualification in statute with enumerated criteria (conviction of qualifying section 42 offence, age 18+, hostility aggravation) and a fixed 5-year duration. However, there is no defined statutory restoration procedure—disqualification expires automatically after 5 years, but there is no mechanism for early relief or restoration beyond judicial discretion under subsection (3).

The section establishes in statute that conviction of an election offense results in forfeiture of voting rights and explicitly references defined statutory restoration procedures (Sections 20A-2-101.3 and 20A-2-101.5). The disqualification criterion (conviction under the title) is enumerated in statute, and the cure/restoration path is anchored to specific statutory sections rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Any individual convicted of any offense under this title forfeits the right to vote at any election unless the right to vote is restored as provided in Section 20A-2-101.3 or 20A-2-101.5.”

The statute codifies disqualification grounds (felony conviction, adjudication of incapacity) in statute and includes a defined restoration procedure for certain voters under § 24.2-420.1, satisfying statutory grounding and partial restoration. However, the section does not enumerate the duration of disqualification for felonies (that is addressed elsewhere in the Code), does not specify how restoration is obtained for non-§ 24.2-420.1 voters, and does not clearly detail appeal or challenge procedures when a voter contests a disqualification determination. The restoration language applies narrowly to subsection A of § 24.2-420.1 voters only, leaving restoration criteria for general felony disqualification incomplete.

West Virginia § 3-1-3 codifies disqualification criteria statutorily (felony conviction, total mental incompetence) and provides explicit statutory restoration procedures: sentence discharge or pardon for felons (§3-1-3(c)(4)), and court certification of requalification for the mentally incompetent (§3-1-3(b)). The framework is enumerated and non-discretionary, meeting the procedural-clarity standard for a score of 2 (statute + statutory restoration). The statute does not rest on constitutional framing alone, hence not a 3.

The statute establishes that disqualified and excluded voters are tracked in a subregister (subregistro de electores inhabilitados y excluidos), grounding disqualification in statute. However, this section merely creates a registry category and does not enumerate the substantive criteria for disqualification (felony, mental incompetence, etc.), nor does it specify the duration of disqualification or provide any defined restoration procedure. The statutory framework exists but lacks the procedural completeness required for a higher score.

“De electores inhabilitados y excluidos”

The section establishes in statute that conviction under this election-fraud felony results in disqualification from voting without automatic restoration, thus codifying the disqualification criterion itself. However, the section explicitly blocks the default restoration procedure (by negating sections 13-907 and 13-908) but does not affirmatively codify any alternative restoration pathway, leaving the restoration procedure undefined or subject to discretion elsewhere in statute.

“Notwithstanding sections 13-907 and 13-908, a person who is convicted under this section shall not be automatically restored the right to vote.”

Constitution Article 98 codifies Deputy power-discontinuation grounds (citizenship loss, criminal conviction). General disqualification framework of voters lives in Constitution Article 48 (loss of suffrage on court order for incapacity or imprisonment for grave crime) which wasn't FTS-surfaced here. Statutory level partially codified.

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”

Article 98 codifies Council of Republic candidate qualifications (Belarusian citizen, 30+). Article 76 covers proxies. Article 60 covers nomination. Article 70 cancellation of nominations. Article 68 (registration). Statutory disqualification framework exists but constitutional grounding (Constitution Article 64) not surfaced.

The section provides clear statutory codification of a disqualification criterion (felony conviction) and an enumerated notification and cancellation procedure. However, it lacks a statutorily-defined restoration procedure—it only states that registration 'shall remain canceled until the offender reregisters to vote,' without specifying when reregistration is permissible, what documentation is required, or whether rights are restored automatically upon sentence completion or pardon. The dual-scholar test would note that the disqualification mechanism is transparent but the restoration pathway is left undefined.

§ 4 codifies that 'eligible for election to the Folketing is everyone who has voting rights under § 1, jf. § 2, unless they are convicted of an act that in common reputation makes them unworthy of being a member of the Folketing.' § 106 codifies criminal penalties (fine or up to 4 months imprisonment) for election violations. § 12a codifies Valgnævnet authority on party violations. § 22 codifies error correction. Disqualification framework codified.

§ 3 codifies vaalikelpoisuus (eligibility to be elected): eligibility for parliamentary elections and the presidency is laid down in the Constitution, and for municipal elections in the Local Government Act. § 164 codifies EP-election eligibility plus offices that bar membership. § 172 / § 174 codify candidate-application requirements. Disqualification framework codified though cross-referenced to the Constitution + Local Government Act.

The section establishes statutory grounds for disqualification by cross-reference to article L. 340 (ineligibility) and loss of electoral rights, but does not enumerate those criteria or detail the ineligibility conditions within L. 341 itself. It provides an administrative procedure (executive decree) for declaring disqualification and a limited appeal right (Conseil d'État within 10 days), but contains no restoration procedure or pathway to regain electoral eligibility. The criteria are codified elsewhere in statute (L. 340), but restoration is not addressed.

“Tout conseiller régional qui, pour une cause survenue postérieurement à son élection, se trouve dans un cas d'inéligibilité prévu à l'article L. 340 ou se trouve frappé d'une des incapacités qui font perdre la qualité d'électeur, est déclaré démissionnaire d'office par arrêté du représentant de l'Etat dans la région”

Constitution Article 31 codifies procedural rights including trial. Article 24 (in ELIG.1 candidates) codifies the voting age and restrictions ('individuals recognised as legally incapable by a court, or persons in custody under a court judgement for committing a particularly grave crime, shall not have the right to participate in elections or referendums'). The constitutional disqualification framework exists but the specific statutory disqualification procedures weren't directly FTS-surfaced for this datapoint.

The section establishes statutory disqualification via court order (Richterspruch), satisfying the requirement that disqualification criteria be grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion. However, the section does not enumerate the specific grounds for disqualification, does not specify duration, and critically does not provide any defined restoration procedure. Those substantive elements would need to be found elsewhere in the statute or in the judicial/criminal codes referenced by the provision.

“Ausgeschlossen vom Wahlrecht ist, wer infolge Richterspruchs das Wahlrecht nicht besitzt.”

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 13 codifies disqualification framework: Ministry of Interior maintains markers on electoral rolls for persons deprived of voting rights due to irrevocable criminal conviction. Σύνταγμα Άρθρο 51 § 3 sets the constitutional ground.

“Το Υπουργείο Εσωτερικών μεριμνά για την καταχώριση στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους σχετικών ενδείξεων για τους στερηθέντες του εκλογικού δικαιώματος λόγω αμετάκλητης ποινικής καταδίκης”

The section establishes statutory grounds for disqualification, including loss of mental capacity ('bliver umyndiggjort'), and references a valgbarheds-check ('ikke valgbar'), which appears tied to criminal sanctions under § 4. However, the statute codifies disqualification criteria and their effect (seat vacancy) but provides no statutory restoration procedure—it only specifies that a replacement (stedfortræder) assumes the seat. No mechanism for regaining eligibility or appealing the disqualification determination is enumerated.

The statute codifies the disqualification criterion (criminal conviction with unsuspended imprisonment) and specifies the duration (until sentence is served in full), satisfying the statutory enumeration requirement. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—it does not specify how, when, or through what process a person regains eligibility after sentence completion, leaving restoration to inference or administrative practice.

The section establishes a statutory disqualification criterion (felony conviction) and mentions restoration to civil rights, but does not codify the restoration procedure itself—only references it in the negative. The criterion is grounded in statute and specifies one disqualifier, but the mechanism, timeline, and process for restoration are not enumerated here.

“When the incumbent has been convicted of felony, unless at the time of the election he shall have been restored to civil rights.”

Illinois Constitution Article III § 2 codifies felony/incarceration disqualification in the constitution itself (highest-tier evidence).

“A person convicted of a felony, or otherwise under sentence in a correctional institution or jail, shall lose the right to vote”

This section grounds disqualification criteria in statute (referencing § 3-7-46-2 for the substantive disfranchisement rule) and mandates removal in statutory language. However, it does not address or define any restoration procedure for restoring voting rights after a felony sentence is completed, which is the second essential component of the criterion. The section implements federal notification requirements but lacks the statutorily-codified restoration pathway needed for a full 'yes' or score of 2.

Section 41 codifies disqualification criteria exhaustively in statute, meeting the first procedural requirement. However, the section provides no statutory restoration procedure for those who regain eligibility after disqualifying events (e.g., completion of sentence, discharge of bankruptcy, restoration of mental capacity). The reference to 'section 42(3)' suggests related provisions exist but does not establish a clear statutory cure pathway within this section itself.

The section establishes a statutory disqualification criterion (conviction of campaign finance violations) and codifies the duration (2 years) in statute. However, it provides no defined restoration procedure—no mechanism for restoring eligibility after the 2-year period expires or any process for early restoration, cure, or appeal of the disqualification itself.

“The conviction of any person of a violation of any of the provisions of K.S.A. 25-903 , as amended, shall at once vacate any office held by him, and such person shall be disqualified from holding any public office for a period of two (2) years”

Article 52 sets disqualification criteria in constitutional text (conviction by court, loss of citizenship, incapacity recognized by court judgment). These grounds are enumerated and statutory/constitutional. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—there is no statement of how or when a disqualified person may regain eligibility. Duration of disqualification is left implicit or to be determined by law (referenced Constitutional Law).

Lithuania's voter disqualification (persons declared legally incompetent by court) is codified in § 2 of the Seimas Election Law with judicial restoration; § 98 covers post-election Seimas-member loss-of-mandate for undisclosed KGB collaboration. Statutory with judicial restoration.

The statute clearly enumerates three disqualification categories (felony convicts, those criminally convicted and stripped of voting rights, and individuals under guardianship) in statutory form, satisfying statutory codification. However, the section does not specify duration of disqualification or any defined restoration/rights-restoration procedure, which are key procedural elements under the criterion.

“Sont exclus de l'électorat et ne peuvent être admis au vote: 1° les condamnés à des peines criminelles; 2° les personnes qui, en matière correctionnelle, sont privées du droit de vote par condamnation; 3° les majeurs en tutelle.”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (fraud, obstruction of voting, electoral corruption/violence) and a fixed duration (15 years from final conviction). However, the section provides no defined statutory restoration procedure or mechanism for reinstatement after the 15-year period expires, leaving restoration to administrative discretion or general legal principle rather than explicit statutory pathway.

The section establishes a statutory mechanism (Constitutional Court jurisdiction) to determine eligibility/disqualification of Members, meeting the requirement for statutory grounding. However, the statute does not enumerate disqualification criteria or durations within this section, nor does it define a restoration procedure. The section delegates substantive disqualification rules to constitutional law and case law rather than codifying them exhaustively in statute.

“All questions regarding the right of any person to be or remain a Member of the House shall be referred to and decided by the Constitutional Court.”

The section statutorily codifies the disqualification criterion (felony conviction with active imprisonment sentence) and cross-references § 3–102(b) for eligibility rules, satisfying statutory grounding. However, the section does not define a restoration procedure—it only states the disqualification applies 'during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote' without specifying how or when that ineligibility ends or how a voter regains the franchise after sentence completion.

“A person who has been convicted of a felony and is currently serving a court–ordered sentence of imprisonment for the conviction, and has been rendered ineligible to vote pursuant to § 3–102(b) of this article, may not vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote.”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (guardianship, felony incarceration, corrupt practices) in statutory language, satisfying the statutory-grounding requirement. However, the text provides no defined restoration procedure—no mechanism for restoring voting rights after guardianship is lifted, after felony sentence completion, or after corrupt-practices disqualification expires. The reference to 'temporarily or permanently disqualified' implies different durations exist elsewhere in law, but no restoration process is enumerated here.

“not being a person under guardianship or incarcerated in a correctional facility due to a felony conviction, and not being temporarily or permanently disqualified by law because of corrupt practices in respect to elections”

The statute enumerates that disqualification data (inhabilitaciones) and restoration (rehabilitaciones) of political rights are incorporated into the electoral registry, establishing statutory recognition of both disqualification and restoration mechanisms. However, the section does not codify the substantive criteria for disqualification, duration thereof, or detailed procedures for restoration—those would require reference to other statutory sections or are left to 'autoridades competentes' (competent authorities) to apply.

This is a constitutional authorization for the legislature to disqualify voters based on mental incompetence or incarceration, providing constitutional framing. However, it does not itself set criteria, duration, or any restoration procedure — those would need to be in statute, which is not shown here.

“The legislature may by law exclude persons from voting because of mental incompetence or commitment to a jail or penal institution.”

§ 211B.18 codifies that a disqualified candidate may not hold various positions. § 211A.10 codifies parallel for disqualified individuals. § 204C.10 codifies the voter signature certificate (eligibility attestation). § 211B.07 codifies undue-influence prohibitions. Disqualification framework codified across chapters 211A/211B.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria for criminal conviction (final judicial sentence, imprisonment, unsettled criminal records) and for individuals deprived of responsibility positions, meeting the statutory grounding requirement. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—no statement of when disqualification ends, how records are cleared, or how a disqualified person regains voting rights. The statute establishes *what* disqualifies but not *how or when* eligibility is restored.

§ 5-106 codifies disqualifications: receiving/offering consideration for franchise, persons convicted of election fraud lose voting rights. § 17-108 codifies penalties for tampering with registration. § 6-150 codifies vacancy procedure on candidate disqualification. Disqualification framework codified though without consolidated 'list of grounds' table.

The section establishes two disqualification categories (court conviction and mental disability) in constitutional text, satisfying the statutory/constitutional grounding requirement. However, it provides no enumeration of specific offenses, no definition of 'mental disability,' and critically, no restoration procedure or duration limit—leaving the mechanics of disqualification and any potential restoration to administrative discretion. The criterion requires both statutory criteria AND a defined cure/restoration path; this section delivers only the former.

§ 16-1 codifies what may be appealed including violations of preparation/conduct rules. § 16-11 codifies the National Election Board's authority to declare an election invalid where Constitution, statute, or regulation provisions are breached. § 15-1 codifies Storting validity-decision authority. Disqualification framework for election conduct is codified though candidate-disqualification grounds live in §§ 3-1 to 3-4 (eligibility for office).

The statute grounds ineligibility in law (Decreto-Lei n.º 621-B/74) rather than administrative discretion, satisfying statutory codification. However, this section merely incorporates by reference without enumerating the specific disqualification criteria or duration. Critically, the text provides no defined restoration or appeal procedure—it only identifies who is ineligible without addressing how or whether ineligibility can be lifted.

“São inelegíveis para a Presidência da República os cidadãos feridos por qualquer das incapacidades eleitorais passivas previstas no Decreto-Lei n.º 621-B/74, de 15 de Novembro”

Article 4(3) codifies the disqualification framework: 'A citizen of the Russian Federation residing or being outside the territory of the Russian Federation has equal electoral rights' EXCEPT those 'recognized incapable by a court' or 'kept in places of imprisonment under a court judgement.' Disqualification grounds codified statutorily; restoration upon completion implied. No explicit constitutional grounding in surfaced corpus.

Section 8(2) codifies disqualification criteria in statute, including mental incompetence (subsections c and d), satisfying the first element of the criterion. However, the section provides no statutorily-defined restoration procedure—there is no mechanism by which a disqualified person can regain voting rights after the disqualifying condition changes (e.g., recovery from mental disorder, release from mental health detention). The duration of disqualification and pathways to restoration are absent from this statutory text.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (mental incompetence, imprisonment, felony conviction) and duration (end of sentence/probation/parole, or pardon), satisfying statutory grounding and enumeration. However, it does not establish a defined restoration procedure—it merely states that disqualification is removed by service or pardon, but does not specify how a voter initiates restoration, petitions for review, or obtains a determination that eligibility has been restored. The framework is statutory but procedurally incomplete.

“A person is disqualified from being registered or voting if he: (1) is mentally incompetent as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (2) is serving a term of imprisonment resulting from a conviction of a crime; or (3) is convicted of a felony or offenses against the election laws, unless the disqualification has been removed by service of the sentence, including probation and parole time unless sooner pardoned.”

§ 12-18-10 codifies grounds for challenge of applicant to vote with judges' determination + pollbook notation. § 12-27-34 makes intentionally false statements a felony. § 12-27-38 codifies that a candidate may not be certified or shall forfeit office for felony violation. § 12-26-23.1 codifies tampering-related disqualifications. Disqualification framework codified across chapters.

Art. III-159 codifies refusal-to-register grounds for MP candidates. Art. III-160 codifies cancellation of MP candidate registration. Art. IV-230 codifies refusal for local-council candidates. Art. II-111 / II-110 codify presidential candidate authorization. Disqualification framework codified though spread across the Code by election type.

52 USC § 20507(a)(3) codifies that voters may be removed by reason of 'criminal conviction or mental incapacity' as provided by state law. Federal NVRA codifies the removal-criteria floor (statute); specific disqualification framework and restoration are state-law matters.

“provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except”

Wis. Stat. § 12.60 codifies the felony penalty schedule (Class I felony for various violations). Wisconsin's substantive disqualification framework (Wis. Const. Art. III § 2 — disqualifying felons unless rights restored) lives in the Constitution, not surfaced here. Restoration is in Wis. Stat. § 304.078 (not ingested).

The statute codifies two disqualification criteria (felony conviction and mental incompetence) in clear statutory language, satisfying the statutory-grounding element. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—it states only that a felon may vote 'if convicted has had his civil or voting rights restored' without specifying who grants restoration, what process is followed, or duration. The mental incompetence disqualification similarly lacks any statutory cure pathway.

“He has not been convicted of a felony, or if convicted has had his civil or voting rights restored”

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 18 codifies the election competent organ and budget plan; not voter disqualification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section CEA s. 477.44 addresses prohibitions on who can serve as official agents and auditors for candidates, not voter disqualification criteria or restoration procedures. This section contains no language governing voter eligibility, disqualification grounds (felony, mental incompetence), duration of disqualification, or any restoration mechanism. The criterion requires codification of voter disqualification and restoration procedure; this section governs campaign finance roles and is entirely off-topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses party enrollment status and disqualification of political parties from qualified status, not voter eligibility disqualification based on felony convictions or mental incompetence. It concerns administrative changes to voter enrollment records when parties fail to maintain qualification, not the substantive criteria or restoration procedures for voter disqualification on grounds of felony or mental incompetence that ELIG.2 measures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Vermont codifies no voter-disqualification framework: § 2121 conditions eligibility only on citizenship, residency, the voter's oath, and age. Vermont — with Maine — never disenfranchises a citizen; there is no felony disenfranchisement (Vermonters vote while incarcerated) and no mental-incompetence exclusion. The surfaced § 2456 concerns disqualification of election officials who are candidates, not voters. The 0 reflects the deliberate absence of disqualification, a pro-access posture.