Restoration of voting rights

Cal. Const. Art. II § 2(b) (Prop 17, 2020) codifies AUTOMATIC restoration: 'An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.' No application process required — automatic upon prison-term completion.

The statute codifies automatic restoration of voting rights upon release from confinement for those who were electors at conviction and reside in the same municipality. It further specifies a clear pathway (submitting proof to an admitting official) for those in different municipalities or who were not previously electors. The Commissioner of Correction must provide a certification document and inform eligible persons of their rights and procedures. Registrars must notify within thirty days, and the Commissioner must transmit monthly lists to the Secretary of State—all creating statutory deadlines and administrative triggers for restoration.

“Upon the release from confinement in a correctional institution or facility of a person who has been convicted of a felony and committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction, (A) the person shall have the right to become an elector, (B) the Commissioner of Correction shall give the person a document certifying that the person has been released from such confinement, (C) if the person was an elector at the time of such felony conviction and, after such release, is residing in the same municipality in which the person resided at the time of such felony conviction, the person's electoral privileges shall be restored, and (D) if the person was an elector at the time of such felony conviction and, after such release, is residing in a different municipality or if the person was not an elector at the time of such felony conviction, the person's electoral privileges shall be restored or granted upon submitting to an admitting official satisfactory proof of the person's qualifications to be admitted as an elector.”

Illinois Constitution Article III § 2 codifies automatic restoration upon sentence completion — no separate application or governor pardon required.

“shall lose the right to vote, which right shall be restored not later than upon completion of his sentence”

Restoration is codified — under § 5 of the Saeima Election Law a conviction-based disqualification lifts automatically once the person is exonerated or the criminal record is extinguished or set aside; no separate application is needed because restoration is automatic.

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

Restoration is codified — under § 13-1-111 a felon's right is lost only 'while ... serving a sentence in a penal institution', so it returns automatically on release; a person of unsound mind regains the vote on being restored to capacity as provided by law.

“A person adjudicated to be of unsound mind does not have the right to vote unless the person has been restored to capacity as provided by law.”

The statute codifies the restoration procedure in statute (not left to administrative discretion), enumerates the triggering condition exhaustively (completion of sentence including parole), and explicitly provides for automatic restoration without requiring any affirmative action by the individual or administrator. This meets the procedural-clarity standard: a voter knows precisely when rights return, and it happens automatically by operation of law. No cure or appeal procedure is needed because restoration is self-executing.

“The disqualification is automatically removed at such time.”

§ 16.1-02-08.1(2) explicitly codifies restoration of voting rights: 'The director of the department of corrections and rehabilitation shall provide a report to the secretary of state… of each individual previously convicted of and incarcerated for a felony whose civil rights have been restored as provided in chapter 12.1-33… The secretary of state shall change the ineligible voter status of the individual in the central voter file to the appropriate status.' Automatic restoration upon completion of incarceration.

“The director of the department of corrections and rehabilitation shall provide a report to the secretary of state, including the name, address, and date of birth, if available, of each individual previously convicted of and incarcerated for a felony whose civil rights have been restored”

The statute establishes a clear, automatic restoration procedure triggered by a specific, objective event: discharge from incarceration. The right is codified in statute, the trigger is enumerated exhaustively (discharge from incarceration), and the restoration is automatic rather than discretionary. The statute further specifies the Department of Corrections' duties to notify the person in writing and transmit registration forms to local boards, with the Secretary of State ensuring no continued barriers exist. The 15th-day reporting deadline to the Secretary of State provides administrative structure and transparency.

§ 1.020 codifies restoration of voting rights after a mental-incapacity adjudication: a person is no longer subject to a voting disability once their mental capacity is 'completely restored by a final judgment of a court' or their guardianship is modified to include the right to vote. Felony voting rights restore automatically once the sentence is fully discharged under § 11.002(a)(4). Statutory restoration procedure codified.

The statute codifies a clear, exhaustive procedure for restoration of voting rights post-felony conviction with three enumerated triggers: probation sentence, parole grant, or completion of incarceration. These are objective, legally-defined conditions that operate automatically upon occurrence, requiring no discretionary assessment or separate application process. The restoration is statutory, not administrative.

The statute codifies an automatic restoration procedure with clear, enumerated conditions: voting rights are automatically restored upon release from total confinement (Washington felonies) or upon release from incarceration (federal/other state felonies). The statute further requires monthly comparison checks by the secretary of state and mandates notice to affected persons at their last known address, establishing a defined administrative process for implementation. The automatic-restoration mechanism eliminates discretionary gaps.

“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.”

FTS surfaced citizenship- and Riigikogu-mandate-restoration provisions. Estonia's voter disqualification is self-terminating — § 4 and the list-of-voters provisions disqualify a person only while a custodial sentence is served, so the franchise restores automatically by operation of statute, though no separate restoration-application procedure is enacted.

§ 21-2-8(2) codifies restoration of rights mechanism — felon voting rights restored upon completion of sentence (sentence completion + payment of restitution). § 21-2-216 codifies reregistration procedure for purged electors.

KRS 119.277 codifies that a person convicted of a felony election offense may not hold elective office 'until his civil rights have been restored by executive pardon,' and KRS 117.316 references 'a convicted felon who has not had his civil rights restored.' Restoration of voting rights is recognized in statute but effected by gubernatorial executive action; no detailed statutory restoration procedure with deadlines is codified.

§ 17-206 (NY VRA) codifies prohibition against voter disenfranchisement: no voting qualification or procedure may result in denial/abridgement of the right of members of a protected class. Felon voting rights restored upon release from incarceration (NY EL §§ 5-106(2)-(5)) — codified. Restoration framework exists but is split across instruments.

ORC 3503.21 codifies cancellation triggers including felony conviction 'as provided in section 2961.01 of the Revised Code' — restoration framework is referenced (§ 2961.01) but not enumerated within this section. Statutory restoration path exists via reference but full procedure is in a section not surfaced here.

“registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon”

Law 298 Article 33 codifies that the voter register is automatically rebuilt annually based on the address-registry system, with notations for judicial decisions on restriction/restoration of suffrage rights ('seçme ehliyetini kaybetme (kısıtlanma, kamu hizmetinden yasaklanma) veya yeniden kazanma gibi yargı kararlarına'). Restoration is automatic once the underlying judicial restriction ends — codified, but no explicit deadline or cure procedure.

Art. I-72 codifies decisions on complaint consideration including remedies that may restore voting rights. Art. I-67 codifies complaint form/content. Restoration via court process (Art. I-64) is the codified mechanism — convicted-felon voting rights are not separately addressed in this Code (handled by Criminal Procedure Code).

The statute identifies who may seek restoration (post-pardon or Certificate of Eligibility holders) and specifies a submission procedure (copy of document to county registrars), satisfying partial statutory codification. However, the restoration itself depends entirely on discretionary Board action ('may be restored...when specifically expressed in the pardon'), not automatic restoration. Critically, no statutory deadline for Board action, no defined appeal process for denial, and no alternative cure procedure are provided. The criterion requires 'statutory deadlines and automatic restoration where applicable'—neither is present here.

“Any person who is disqualified by reason of conviction of any of the offenses mentioned in Article VIII of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, except treason and impeachment, whether the conviction was had in a state or federal court, and who has been pardoned, may be restored to citizenship with the right to vote by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles when specifically expressed in the pardon.”

The statute specifies a clear trigger for restoration (unconditional discharge) and references a registration statute, but does not codify the restoration procedure itself—instead delegating it to the commissioner of corrections to 'establish procedures.' Restoration is not automatic; it requires affirmative re-registration. There are no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no enumerated procedural steps.

“Upon the unconditional discharge, the person may register under AS 15.07. The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures by which a person unconditionally discharged is advised of the voter registration requirements and procedures.”

The statute provides that rehabilitation (restoration of voting rights) is decreed by the electoral judge, with some automatic elements ('de oficio') when cessation of the disqualifying cause appears in the record. However, the section lacks statutory deadlines, enumeration of which causes trigger automatic restoration, specification of the timeframe for the judge's action, or a defined appeal process if restoration is denied. The criterion requires codified procedures with statutory deadlines and clear automatic restoration triggers; this section provides only a general framework delegating substantial discretion to judicial review.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section explicitly prohibits automatic restoration of voting rights for persons convicted under this election crime statute, but it does not codify an alternative procedure, timeline, or mechanism for how such persons may petition for or obtain restoration. The statute blocks automatic restoration but provides no enumerated cure or appeal path for affected voters—leaving restoration procedures to discretion elsewhere or undefined.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 191 (Human Rights Defender) is generic-rights protection, not voting-rights restoration. AM Constitution Article 48 has restoration logic (rights restored upon ending imprisonment/incapacity) but wasn't FTS-surfaced for this datapoint.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 105 addresses alteration of electoral rolls (corrections, removal of deceased electors, reinstatement of names removed by mistake) but does not address restoration of voting rights lost due to criminal conviction, imprisonment, or other eligibility-disqualifying events. The section permits reinstatement where names were removed by administrative error, not where rights were forfeited by operation of law. The criterion requires a procedure for restoring rights lost through felony or similar disqualification; this section does not cover that scenario and thus does not satisfy ELIG.3.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the distribution of election materials to administrators and officers after writs are issued. It contains no provisions regarding restoration of voting rights, procedures for rights restoration, statutory deadlines, or automatic restoration mechanisms. The section is procedurally clear within its own scope but is entirely unrelated to the ELIG.3 criterion, which concerns restoration of lost voting rights (e.g., post-felony).

The statute provides that citizens whose political rights have been restored after the deprivation period expires shall be registered as voters. However, the section lacks critical procedural clarity: it does not specify statutory deadlines for restoration, does not define what constitutes "period expiration" (何时期满), does not establish automatic restoration mechanisms, and does not provide a remedy or appeal process if an individual claims their rights should be restored. The language is permissive ("shall register") but leaves the determination of eligibility and timing to administrative discretion rather than enumerated statutory rules.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This statute section addresses campaign finance procedures—specifically the opening, operation, and closing of special accounts for collecting donations to finance electoral campaigns. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voting rights restoration, felony disenfranchisement, or any mechanism for restoring lost electoral eligibility. The criterion requires codified restoration procedures with statutory deadlines; this text is entirely outside that domain.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 2014 addresses voter registration application rejection notification, address verification for returned mail, and inactive status procedures—not restoration of voting rights after loss due to felony conviction or other disqualifying events. The section does not codify any procedure for restoring voting rights post-felony, establish statutory deadlines for restoration, or provide for automatic restoration. A different statute (likely § 2011 or related eligibility provisions) would govern felony disenfranchisement and restoration procedures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Article L30(5) acknowledges that voting rights can be restored after loss by judicial decision, and establishes a late-registration window for such persons. However, the statute does not codify the *procedure* for restoration itself—it does not specify deadlines for when rights are restored, automatic vs. manual restoration mechanisms, cure procedures, or appeal paths for disputed restorations. The section addresses *registration* of already-restored voters, not the restoration process itself.

“Les Français et les Françaises ayant recouvré l'exercice du droit de vote dont ils avaient été privés par l'effet d'une décision de justice.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 37 (parliamentary elections) — not restoration. Restoration of voting rights upon completion of sentence/incapacity-decree is implicit in the Constitution Article 24(2) but no codified restoration procedure surfaced.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes who is eligible to run (those with voting rights except those subject to certain criminal sanctions), but it does not address restoration of voting rights. There is no codified procedure for how rights can be regained, no statutory deadlines, and no automatic restoration mechanism. The section identifies disqualification grounds but provides no pathway back to eligibility.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses removal and reregistration of voters due to outdated/undeliverable addresses and administrative removal requests—not restoration of voting rights lost due to felony conviction or other disqualifying events. The statute does not address the procedure for restoring voting rights where those rights have been lost as a contemplated by the criterion. While subsection (e) describes reregistration after removal from the register, that is a distinct procedural matter unrelated to the restoration of voting eligibility itself.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses grounds for contesting elections based on incumbent ineligibility (including felony convictions), but it does not establish any procedure for restoration of voting rights. The statute merely sets a condition for contest (§34-2001(3) references whether rights were restored 'at the time of the election') without codifying restoration deadlines, processes, or automatic restoration triggers. The procedural framework for restoring rights post-felony is not present in this text.

The statute establishes a statutory threshold for restoration eligibility (release from imprisonment or detention) rather than leaving it to administrative discretion, which is procedurally positive. However, it lacks the procedural elements required by the criterion: no statutory deadline for when the person can actually re-register, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no reference to how or when someone learns they are eligible. The section describes a condition for eligibility but not a codified restoration procedure with defined timelines or automatic triggers.

The statute confirms that voting rights *may* be restored by executive action (gubernatorial or presidential), but it does not codify the restoration *procedure* itself—no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration triggers, and no enumerated grounds or process. The criterion requires procedural codification; this section merely acknowledges the possibility of restoration without establishing statutory requirements for how, when, or under what conditions it occurs. The cross-reference to chapter 914 (restoration of rights) may contain additional procedure, but this section alone does not satisfy the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a disqualification rule for petition circulators but does not codify any procedure for restoration of rights. It references restoration as a condition that must have occurred ('has been pardoned or restored'), but does not define how that restoration happens, who administers it, what deadlines apply, or whether restoration is automatic. The criterion requires a codified restoration procedure with statutory deadlines and automatic restoration mechanisms; this section merely identifies restoration as a prerequisite without addressing the procedural mechanics.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the constitutional authority and independence of Kazakhstan's Prosecutor's Office and Human Rights Commissioner. It contains no provisions concerning voting rights, felony disqualification, restoration of voting rights, statutory deadlines for restoration, or any automatic restoration procedures. The section is entirely outside the domain of electoral access and voter eligibility.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mentions restoration of voting rights when a person 'recovers electoral capacity that was removed by a court decision,' but provides no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no defined procedure or cure pathway for asserting restoration eligibility. The section is purely descriptive of what the local commission must do if a person has already recovered capacity, leaving the actual restoration process to judicial discretion and administrative judgment rather than statutory codification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 306 addresses party enrollment status changes for voters in disqualified or failed-to-qualify parties, not restoration of voting rights post-felony or other disenfranchisement. This section concerns administrative management of party affiliation in the voter registration system, not the statutory procedure for restoring voting eligibility to persons who have lost it. The criterion requires codification of restoration procedures for rights loss (e.g., felony disenfranchisement); this section does not address that topic.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses restoration of inactive voter registration status, not restoration of voting rights after loss due to felony conviction or other disqualifying event. The criterion asks about procedures for restoring rights that have been lost (e.g., post-felony); this statute only governs the administrative list-maintenance process for voters who failed to respond to a confirmation notice. There is no statutory procedure here for restoring fundamental voting eligibility after a rights-disqualifying event.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses an informational portal for checking voter registration status, not the substantive procedure for restoring voting rights post-felony or other rights loss. While the portal may inform users 'how the user may obtain a voter registration form or restore the user's registration to active status,' it describes only an informational resource, not the statutory codification of restoration procedures, deadlines, or automatic restoration mechanisms that the criterion requires.

Section 154(3) requires judges to notify the electoral registry of rights restoration ('rehabilitación de los derechos políticos') within 10 days, establishing statutory grounding and a procedural deadline. However, the section only mandates notification *after* judicial restoration—it does not codify the substantive procedure for how rights are restored, by whom, under what conditions, or establish automatic restoration. The criterion requires codification of the restoration procedure itself, including deadlines and automatic triggers; this section addresses only notification of judicially-ordered restoration, not the restoration mechanism or eligibility criteria.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a campaign finance definitions provision (defining 'domestic dependent sovereign,' 'election,' 'election cycle,' and 'elective office'). It contains nothing about felon voting rights or restoration procedures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the data-sharing mechanism by which election authorities are notified of ineligible persons (deceased, felony-convicted, or incapacitated). It does not codify any procedure for restoration of voting rights, establish statutory deadlines for restoration, or provide automatic restoration mechanisms. The section is about removing ineligible voters from rolls, not restoring eligible ones.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electoral agitation, campaign conduct, and advertising rules—not voter eligibility or restoration of voting rights post-felony. It contains no provisions governing loss or restoration of suffrage, statutory deadlines for rights restoration, or automatic restoration procedures. The criterion is not applicable to this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section requires candidates to affirm that their civil rights have been restored if they have a felony conviction, but it does not codify any procedure for restoration itself—no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no cure pathway. The statute only establishes a candidacy eligibility rule that presupposes restoration has occurred elsewhere; it does not govern the restoration process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While the section does provide that voting rights *may* be restored via supreme court petition, it lacks the procedural codification required by the criterion: there are no statutory deadlines, no eligibility standards for restoration, no definition of what constitutes adequate grounds, and no automatic restoration mechanism. The restoration authority is entirely discretionary (permissive 'may'), leaving the procedure to judicial discretion rather than statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute identifies that voting rights may be lost due to incarceration or felony conviction and states that restoration occurs 'unless pardoned or restored by law,' but it provides no codified procedure, statutory deadlines, automatic restoration trigger, or defined cure path for voters seeking restoration. The statute merely references restoration 'by law' without enumerating how, when, or by what process that restoration occurs, leaving the substance to other laws or administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses provisional ballot handling and disposition after polls close, not the restoration of voting rights lost due to felony conviction or other disqualifying events. The section deals with correcting registration errors (subsections D–E) and ballot eligibility issues (subsections F–G), but contains no statutory procedures, deadlines, or automatic restoration mechanisms for voters whose rights were previously lost. The criterion requires codified restoration procedure with statutory deadlines; this section does not address that topic.

The statute requires educational programs and registration procedures once citizenship is restored, satisfying the codification of a restoration pathway. However, the section does not establish a statutory deadline for restoration itself, does not define 'restoration of citizenship' with precision, does not provide automatic restoration mechanisms, and does not specify consequences or review procedures if the educational program fails to reach an eligible person. The section addresses voter registration opportunity post-restoration but not the restoration procedure itself.

“The State Board of Elections, the Division of Prisons of the Department of Adult Correction, and the Administrative Office of the Courts shall jointly develop and implement educational programs and procedures for persons to apply to register to vote at the time they are restored to citizenship”

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses water development fund financing and eligibility for loans—a fiscal and property matter wholly unrelated to voting rights, voter eligibility, or restoration of voting rights post-felony or otherwise. There is no voting-rights procedure in this text to evaluate.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 228 of the Polish Constitution addresses states of emergency and restrictions on rights during those periods, but does not codify any procedure for restoration of voting rights lost due to felony convictions or other disqualifying events. The article protects electoral ordnances from suspension during emergencies but does not establish statutory deadlines, automatic restoration mechanisms, or any procedural framework for restoring voting rights post-conviction. This section falls entirely outside the scope of eligibility restoration criteria.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Finance Law Article 47 concerns RESTORATION of party financing rights after compliance — not restoration of individual voting rights after disqualification.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute provides a statutory appeal procedure with a defined 20-day deadline and a restoration pathway when the board determines deletion was improper. However, the criterion asks for restoration of rights post-felony with automatic restoration where applicable. This section addresses only the appeal procedure for contesting a deletion decision—it does not codify an automatic restoration mechanism upon completion of sentence, expungement, or other triggering events independent of appeal. The cure path exists for contesting wrongful deletion, but not for the substantive question of when felony disqualification ends.

“Each elector whose name has been deleted has twenty days from the date the notice is mailed to appeal. The appeal must be to the county board of voter registration and elections from whose master file the deletion has been made. If the board determines that the elector's name should not have been deleted, it shall instruct the executive director to restore his name to the registration books; however, if the deletion is for conviction, the appeal must be to the Executive Director of the State Election Commission.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 158 of LOREG addresses incompatibilities and remuneration rules for elected officials (Deputies and Senators), not voting rights restoration procedures. The section contains no provisions regarding the restoration of voting rights following loss or suspension thereof, no statutory deadlines for restoration, and no automatic restoration mechanisms tied to voting eligibility. This section is substantively unrelated to the criterion's topic.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute enumerates what triggers restoration (pardon, full citizenship restoration) but provides no codified deadlines, automatic restoration mechanisms, or administrative procedures. Restoration is discretionary with the governor and depends on executive clemency, not statutory right. No cure or appeal pathway is specified if restoration is denied.

“However, the governor may attach to any such pardon a special condition that such person shall not have the right of suffrage until a date certain in the future, or until the expiration of the pardoned sentence, whichever period of time is less.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (PPERA 2000 Sch. 12 ¶ 2) addresses free use of public meeting rooms for referendum campaign purposes and contains no language concerning voting rights restoration, eligibility recovery post-felony, statutory deadlines for rights restoration, or automatic restoration procedures. The criterion is entirely absent from the section.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

The statute sets a clear, statutorily-grounded procedure for *canceling* registration due to felony conviction, with defined timelines (21-14 days before election). However, it does not codify a procedure for *restoration* of voting rights post-felony. The section only requires voters to "provide evidence that his right to vote has been restored" but does not define what that evidence is, who determines restoration, or what deadlines apply to the restoration decision itself. The reinstatement language in subsection A of § 24.2-420.1 is referenced but not reproduced here. The criterion requires restoration procedure to be codified with statutory deadlines and automatic restoration where applicable—this section addresses only the cancellation side with procedural clarity.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The section codifies verification procedures for restoration of voting rights but does not establish the substantive procedure for how or when rights are restored, establish statutory deadlines for restoration, or provide for automatic restoration. It only requires data-matching to verify eligibility post-restoration; the actual restoration mechanism and timeline are delegated to the parole board and department of corrections without statutory codification.