Statutory grounding

Alabama Code § 17-9-30 explicitly sets the photo ID requirement in statute and enumerates the acceptable forms in subsections (a)(1)–(7). The requirement is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; it is codified directly in the statute with specific, listed alternatives. The statute also provides cure mechanisms (provisional ballot under subsection (e), identification by two election officials under subsection (f), and exemptions for federal voters under subsection (d)), all grounded in statute.

“Each elector shall provide valid photo identification to an appropriate election official prior to voting. A voter required to show valid photo identification when voting in person shall present to the appropriate election official one of the following forms of valid photo identification”

The statute explicitly and clearly sets the voter identification requirement in statutory text (AS 15.15.225), enumerates the acceptable forms of identification exhaustively, and provides a defined fallback procedure (questioned ballot) for voters who cannot exhibit required identification. The requirement is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; it is stated as a mandatory statutory obligation.

The statute explicitly requires presentation of a valid identity document ('documento cívico habilitante') as a condition for voting. This requirement is set directly in the statutory text (Código Electoral Nacional, Ley 19.945, art. 86) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The requirement is unambiguous and establishes the foundational rule.

The statute explicitly requires presentation of identification before receiving a ballot, sets out acceptable forms in exhaustive detail (photo ID or two supporting documents), and provides clear statutory language for the requirement and enumeration. The requirement is grounded directly in statute (A.R.S. § 16-579) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion.

The section explicitly establishes a statutory requirement for identification verification of absentee voters by mandating comparison of name, residential voting address, date of birth, and signature against the absentee application and voter statement. This identification requirement is set directly in statute (Ark. Code § 7-5-416(b)(1)(F)) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's demand for statutory grounding.

Section 229(1) establishes statutory requirement for identity verification at polling places through specified questions about name, address, and prior voting. This requirement is grounded directly in statute (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's demand for statutory grounding of any ID requirement.

Article 142 explicitly establishes in statute that voters must present a 'document d'identité' (identity document) when voting. The requirement is set directly in statutory law rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute also provides an exception: 'L'électeur qui n'est pas muni de sa lettre de convocation peut être admis au vote si son identité et sa qualité sont reconnues par le bureau,' allowing alternative verification by the polling board.

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

Чл. 263 codifies the statutory voter-ID requirement: identification by personal ID card or green passport before commission chair/designated member. Statutory grounding.

“Избирателят удостоверява самоличността си пред председателя или член на комисията”

The section establishes a statutory requirement that electors prove identity and residence before receiving a ballot, grounding the ID requirement in statute (the Canada Elections Act itself) rather than regulation or administrative discretion. The requirement is set forth in legislative text with mandatory language ('shall prove'), and the applicable standards are cross-referenced to another statutory section (143), maintaining statutory rather than regulatory control over the procedure.

“If an elector goes to the office of a returning officer to receive his or her ballot or special ballot, then before receiving it the elector shall prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143.”

The statute explicitly establishes that voters must present either an identity card (身份证) or voter certificate (选民证) to obtain a ballot during direct elections to people's congresses. The ID requirement is set in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion alone. The two acceptable forms are enumerated: identity card or voter certificate.

The statute explicitly mandates that voter identity be verified using an identification document ('identifikacijskom ispravom') in accordance with special laws. This requirement is set directly in statute (Article 82 of the Election Law), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The duty is assigned to the polling station chair or authorized member, providing clear statutory grounding for the ID requirement.

“Identitet birača utvrđuje se identifikacijskom ispravom, sukladno posebnim zakonima.”

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.”

The statute explicitly requires proof of identity and address and enumerates acceptable forms in statute, meeting the statutory-grounding criterion. The requirement is set by statute (not left to regulation or administrative discretion), and both acceptable photo and non-photo options are listed, along with a fallback personal-recognition provision (subsection e). This satisfies the procedural-clarity standard.

§ 47 codifies that 'voting rights are exercised by PERSONAL APPEARANCE at the polling place. The voter shall hand over their voter card (valgkort) to the polling officer.' § 12b codifies Ministerial rule-making on digital identity solutions. Statutory grounding for voter identification codified.

The identity-document requirement for in-person voting is set in statute (§ 42 of the Riigikogu Election Act and the parallel voting sections), and § 48⁵ sets the digital-identification requirement for electronic voting — the requirement is statutory, not administrative.

“A voter who wishes to vote at a polling place outside the electoral district of their residence presents an identity document to a member of the voting district committee.”

§ 97.0535 statutorily grounds the voter-ID regime with explicit acceptable-ID enumeration triggered by HAVA matching requirements.

“Each applicant who registers by mail and who has never previously voted in the state and who the department has verified has not been issued a current and valid Florida driver license, Florida identification card, or social security number”

The section explicitly requires identity verification ('l'identité est vérifiée') as a statutory condition for mail-in voting by incarcerated persons, and this requirement is set directly in the Electoral Code's regulatory part (Part réglementaire), which has statutory force in the French system. The requirement is grounded in codified law rather than left to administrative discretion.

“L'électeur admis à voter par correspondance, dont l'identité est vérifiée par tous moyens par le chef de l'établissement pénitentiaire”

§ 21-2-417.1 codifies the voter identification card (free state-issued ID for voting). § 21-2-417 codifies presentation of identification to poll workers with enumerated forms of proper ID. Statutory grounding for ID requirement.

The statute explicitly requires voters to present either a Personalausweis (ID card) or Reisepass (passport) at the polling place. This identification requirement is grounded directly in statute (BWO § 19), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The acceptable forms of ID are enumerated (personal ID or passport), satisfying the statutory clarity criterion.

“die Aufforderung, die Wahlbenachrichtigung zur Wahl mitzubringen und den Personalausweis oder Reisepass bereitzuhalten”

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 82 codifies voter identification at polling station: police ID card primary; if absent, passport or other official identifying document accepted. Strong statutory grounding.

“Η αναγνώριση των εκλογέων, σύμφωνα με την προηγούμενη παράγραφο, γίνεται με βάση την αστυνομική τους ταυτότητα”

The statute explicitly sets forth the identification requirement in § 44, stk. 4, establishing that election officials must demand the voter's name and birth date, request information about residence, and require documentation if there is doubt about identity. This is a statutorily grounded procedure, not left to administrative discretion, and forms the core requirement for verification.

The statute explicitly requires voter identification at the polling place and sets the requirement directly in statute (Elections Act No. 112/2021, § Art. 83). The requirement is grounded in law, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The acceptable forms (passport, driving licence, identity card) are enumerated, with a fallback to "other means deemed satisfactory by the electoral commission." This satisfies the statutory grounding element of the criterion.

The requirement for voter identification at registration is explicitly set in statute (Ind. Code § 3-7-13-13), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute enumerates the specific identification elements required: driver's license number, or last four digits of Social Security number, or an assigned identification number if neither is available. The legal grounding is clear and statutorily established.

Iowa Code § 49.78 explicitly grounds the voter ID requirement in statute, not regulation or administrative discretion. The statute enumerates five primary acceptable forms of ID (driver's license, nonoperator ID, passport, military ID, tribal ID) and provides alternative pathways (registered voter card, other forms under § 48A.7A, oath procedure) all within the statutory text itself. The requirement is clear, comprehensive, and leaves minimal room for administrative interpretation.

The section establishes in statute that identification (a 'specified document') may be required when personation is alleged. The requirement is grounded directly in the Electoral Act 1992 and cross-references section 111 for the procedural details of when and how such documents must be produced. This satisfies the statutory grounding criterion because the authority to require ID is enacted by statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“a ballot paper has been issued to a person representing himself to be a particular Dáil elector named on the register of Dáil electors and another person representing himself to be that Dáil elector applies for a ballot paper and duly produces a specified document having been so required by the presiding officer under section 111”

K.S.A. 25-1122 explicitly establishes ID requirements in statute for advance voting by mail, specifying enumerated acceptable forms (Kansas driver's license, nondriver identification card, or identification per K.S.A. 25-2908). The requirement is set in this statutory text, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, and includes cure procedures when identification cannot be verified (subsection (e) provides opportunity to resubmit identification).

“If the registered voter is applying for an advance voting ballot to be transmitted by mail, the voter shall provide with the application for an advance voting ballot the voter's current and valid Kansas driver's license number, nondriver's identification card number or a photocopy of any other identification provided by K.S.A. 25-2908 , and amendments thereto.”

Article 41(3) explicitly sets forth in statutory text the requirement that voters must submit an identifying document to receive ballot papers. This requirement is grounded directly in the constitutional law statute itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The identification requirement is clearly enumerated and mandatory.

“Ballot-papers shall be issued to voters (electors) on the basis of the voter (elector) registers upon submission of a document identifying the voter (elector).”

§ 20 of the Saeima Election Law requires a voter to present a personal identification document valid in the Republic of Latvia — the ID requirement is set in statute, not administrative regulation.

“A voter shall present a personal identification document valid in the Republic of Latvia”

§ 52 of the Referendum Law (and parallel § 63, § 65 of the Seimas/EP Election Laws) codifies the voter-identification requirement in statute.

“a voter shall present his voter certificate, passport or other document certifying his identity and citizenship”

The statute explicitly sets an ID requirement for early voting in statutorily grounded language ('shall require'). Acceptable forms are enumerated (Louisiana driver's license, special ID card, other picture ID with name and signature, or U.S. military ID). A cure mechanism is provided via a signed voter identification affidavit for those without photo ID.

Article 7 explicitly sets in statute that foreign nationals registering to vote in municipal or European elections must produce a valid identity document (un document d'identité en cours de validité). The requirement is enumerated in the statute itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute provides the statutory grounding for the ID requirement.

“un document d'identité en cours de validité”

The section explicitly sets the voter ID requirement in statutory text (Loi organique), specifying that voters must present a national identity card and voter card upon entering the polling place. The requirement is grounded directly in the statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion.

Massachusetts M.G.L. c. 54, § 76B establishes the ID requirement directly in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. Subsection (b)(1) sets the triggering conditions for ID requirement (mail registration after 2003 and no prior federal election vote), and subsection (b)(2) enumerates acceptable forms of identification in statute. The requirement is clearly statutory.

Article 278(1) statutorily grounds the ID requirement directly in the LGIPE (Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales), specifying that voters must present their voting credential (credencial para votar) or, alternatively, a judicial resolution from the Electoral Tribunal granting the right to vote without appearing on the nominal list or without a credential. The requirement and its enumerated exceptions are set by statute, not delegated to administrative discretion.

The section explicitly establishes in statute that ID is required for voting and enumerates three acceptable forms (identity card, provisional identity card, or passport). The requirement is grounded directly in this Electoral Code provision rather than delegated to administrative discretion, satisfying the statutory-grounding criterion.

§ 13-13-114 sets the voter-ID requirement in statute — an elector must present identification before receiving a ballot.

“Before an elector is permitted to receive a ballot or vote, the elector shall present to an election judge one of the following forms of identification”

The statute explicitly grounds the ID requirement in section 32-318.01 and establishes a clear statutory procedure: voters who fail to present required identification may vote a provisional ballot. The requirement is set in statute (cross-referenced to 32-318.01), enumerated by reference to that section, and accompanied by a defined procedure (provisional ballot mechanism with certification).

“A voter whose name appears on the precinct list of registered voters for the polling place with a notation that the voter is required to present identification pursuant to section 32-318.01 but fails to present identification may vote a provisional ballot”

The statute explicitly requires verification of an identity document (identiteitsdocument) copy as a condition for processing mail ballots. This ID requirement is grounded directly in statutory text (Kieswet art. N 18, subsection 1(d)), setting forth the requirement in law rather than delegating it to administrative discretion. The procedure and verification criteria are enumerated in the statute itself.

“aan de hand van de kopie van het identiteitsdocument, of dit document geldig was op de dag van de kandidaatstelling”

The statute explicitly requires presentation of identity proof before admission to the voting enclosure, and paragraph II exhaustively enumerates the acceptable forms of valid photo identification (driver's licenses, state ID cards, military IDs, passports, and qualified student IDs) with specific requirements (name conformity, photograph, expiration date limits with exceptions for voters 65+). The requirement, forms, and exemptions are all set in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“The voter, unless challenged as provided for in RSA 659:27 through 659:33, shall then be asked to present proof of his or her identity meeting the requirements of paragraph II.”

The statute explicitly sets the requirement for signature verification (a form of identification/authentication) in the mail-in ballot issuance process. The procedure is grounded in statute, not left to administrative discretion. The comparison method, standards for approval/disapproval, and notification requirements are all enumerated in statutory language.

“Upon receipt of a request for a mail-in ballot, the county clerk shall, with the cooperation of the commissioner of registration, cause the signature of the applicant to be compared with the signature of the person appearing on the permanent registration form, or the digitalized image of the voter's signature stored in the Statewide voter registration system”

NMSA 1978, § 1-12-8 explicitly sets in statute the requirement for voter identification at the point of in-person voting. Section B(4) and C establish that a voter must present 'physical form of the required voter identification' to the election judge or vote provisionally. The statute grounds this requirement directly in law rather than delegating it to regulatory or administrative discretion.

“does not present to the election judge a physical form of the required voter identification”

§ 8-303 codifies the statutory ID/identification framework — uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements applied to voters under specific enumerated conditions (HAVA first-time-voter verification + new-registrant identification).

§ 6-11(1) codifies that 'voters shall show identification' (Velgere skal vise legitimasjon). § 6-11(2) codifies the known-voter exception (vote-receiver may instead confirm the voter's identity if known). § 6-11(3) codifies special procedure for institutional residents/prisoners. Statutory ID grounding codified.

“Velgere skal vise legitimasjon.”

The statute explicitly sets the requirement for certain voters to complete an address confirmation form before ballot issuance. The requirement is grounded directly in statute (26 O.S. § 26-7-115.1), specifies three categories of voters to whom it applies, and does not delegate the substantive requirement to regulation or administrative discretion. The form itself is prescribed by administrative rule, but the mandate to complete it is clearly statutory.

§ 206 codifies the ID-requirements framework in statute: SoS disseminates ID-requirement information; PennDOT issues a free identification card to electors who lack ID. Codified ID framework with free-ID provision.

“the Department of Transportation shall issue an identification card described in 75 Pa.C.S. § 1510(b) at no cost”

Article 35 § 1 of the electoral code sets the ID requirement in statute, explicitly requiring Polish citizens abroad to possess valid Polish passports or, for EU citizens, valid passports or identity documents that verify identity. The requirement is enumerated and directly grounded in legislative law rather than delegated to administrative discretion. § 5 further clarifies that national identity cards are treated as equivalent to passports in EU countries, providing additional specificity within statute.

Article 87 explicitly establishes in statute the identification requirement and enumerates acceptable forms: identity card (bilhete de identidade), alternative official documents with current photo, attestation by two electors under oath, or unanimous recognition by polling-station members. The requirement is grounded in law rather than delegated to administrative discretion, satisfying the statutory-grounding criterion.

“Cada eleitor, apresentando-se perante a mesa, indica o número de inscrição no recenseamento e o nome e entrega ao presidente o bilhete de identidade, se o tiver. 2 — Na falta de bilhete de identidade, a identificação do eleitor faz-se por meio de qualquer outro documento oficial que contenha fotografia actualizada, ou através de dois cidadãos eleitores que atestem, sob compromisso de honra, a sua identidade, ou ainda por reconhecimento unânime dos membros da mesa.”

The statute explicitly mandates photo ID (or approved non-photo ID) beginning on a fixed date for all elections. The requirement is grounded directly in statute, not left to administrative discretion, and applies uniformly across primary, special, and general elections. The acceptable ID forms are enumerated in statutory text.

“Beginning on January 1, 2012, any person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter who desires to vote at a primary election, special election, or general election shall provide proof of identity.”

Art. 2 codifies extensive definitions including 'act de identitate' enumerating ID-card, provisional ID-card, ID booklet, diplomatic/service/simple/temporary passports, travel document, military service booklet.

Section 38(2)(a) explicitly requires production of an identity document as a condition of voting entitlement, and this requirement is set directly in statute rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The identity verification procedure is detailed in subsections (3)–(5), establishing a clear statutory framework.

The statute explicitly grounds the identification requirement in organic law (LOREG, a statutory instrument of the highest rank in Spain). It clearly establishes that name and surnames are the only data strictly necessary for voter identification at the polling place, while separately requiring inclusion of the DNI (national ID number) in census records. This satisfies the criterion's demand for statutory grounding rather than regulatory or administrative discretion.

“Además del nombre y los apellidos, único dato necesario para la identificación del elector en el acto de la votación, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el artículo 85, se incluirá entre los restantes datos censales el número del Documento Nacional de Identidad.”

8 kap. 6 § codifies that 'voters who are not known to the vote-receivers shall identify themselves or in another way prove their identity.' 8 kap. 8 § codifies parallel for messengers. 7 kap. 9 § codifies parallel for messenger-ballot voters. 8 kap. 9 § codifies grounds for refusing acceptance of envelope. Comprehensive ID-grounding framework.

“Väljare som inte är kända för röstmottagarna skall legitimera sig eller på annat sätt styrka sin identitet.”

The identification requirement is explicitly set in statute, not left to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute clearly mandates presentation of photo identification bearing the voter's name and photograph, with enumerated exceptions for specific voting methods (absentee and mail voting). This satisfies the statutory grounding criterion.

“In addition, the voter shall present to the precinct registrar one (1) form of identification that bears the name and photograph of the voter.”

§ 62.016 codifies the statutory voter-ID regime by requiring the presiding judge to post outside each polling location 'a list of the acceptable forms of identification' in at least 24-point font. The substantive requirement is set by statute in § 63.001 (a voter must present photo ID listed in § 63.0101(a)) and § 63.0101. The ID requirement is grounded in statute, not regulation.

Law 298 Article 87 codifies the ID requirement in statute: 'voter identity is determined by the nüfus hüviyet cüzdanı or other official documents prepared for identification purposes that bear the Turkish Republic ID number.' Reinforced by Article 91 (ID presented to ballot-box committee chair before voting).

The statute explicitly requires identification in the signature-gathering process for initiatives, referenda, and candidate qualification. The requirement is set directly in statute (UCA § 20A-21-201(6)(a)) and specifies acceptable ID forms (driver license or state identification card). A fallback provision for other valid voter identification is also statutorily enumerated in subsection (6)(b), providing clear statutory grounding rather than leaving the requirement to administrative discretion.

Virginia Code § 24.2-643 explicitly sets the voter identification requirement in statute, enumerates six specific forms of acceptable identification with precise definitions, and provides a statutory fallback (affidavit under felony penalties) for voters who lack ID. The requirement is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; it is fully grounded in this statutory section.

The statute explicitly sets an in-person voter identification requirement in statutory text (not delegated to regulation). The requirement is clearly grounded in W.S. § 22-2-119, a statutory section, and is enumerated as 'acceptable identification' with reference to a defined cure procedure (provisional ballots under W.S. § 22-15-105). Both a strict-access and permissive-access scholar would recognize this as clear statutory procedure.

“if voting in person, only if the person presents acceptable identification immediately before voting at the polling place or absentee polling place”

This section addresses registration procedure and the voter identification card mailed after registration, which is statutorily grounded. However, it does not directly address ID requirements at the point of voting; that is governed elsewhere. To the extent it sets a statutory rule (the voter ID card process), it is in statute.

The section provides statutory grounding for the existence of electoral identity documents and establishes eligibility criteria in statute. However, the actual ID requirement at voting is not statutorily mandated here—this section merely creates an optional document scheme. Whether ID is actually required to vote is left to regulations ('Regulations may make provision') and is not explicitly set in this statute. The criterion asks whether a requirement (if it exists) is statutory; this section establishes the document framework statutorily but delegates the voting requirement itself to subordinate regulation.

“An application for an electoral identity document may be made by a person who— a is or has applied to be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain or a register of local government electors in England, or b is or has applied to be registered in a register of local government electors in Wales”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 113 addresses the issuance of election certificates (Wahlschein) to elected deputies after their election or appointment, not voter identification requirements at the point of voting. The section does not establish, enumerate, or ground any statutory requirement for voter ID during the voting process, nor does it explicitly state that no ID is required. The criterion requires either a statutory ID requirement with procedural clarity or an explicit statutory statement that no ID is required; this section addresses post-election credentialing, not voter identification during ballot access.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs watcher eligibility and procedures at polling places and central count facilities — it does not address voter identification requirements at any point in the voting process. The criterion asks whether ID requirements (or their absence) are set in statute; this section contains no such provisions.

This section requires a display of identification requirements and references section 9-261, but does not itself set forth the actual ID requirement in statute. The criterion requires either an explicit statutory ID requirement or explicit statutory statement that no ID is required. Section 9-236b only mandates that existing requirements (wherever they are stated) be displayed at polling places. To satisfy the criterion, one would need to examine section 9-261 itself.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 governs petition signature removal for initiative and referendum processes, not voter identification requirements at the point of voting. The criterion asks whether voter ID requirements are statutorily grounded; this statute does not address voter ID for voting itself. It is not responsive to the EAI criterion.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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: Section 1012 provides definitions for terms used in campaign finance law (contribution, expenditure, clearly identified candidate, etc.). It does not address voter identification requirements, procedures, or standards for voting access. The section is entirely divorced from the criterion's subject matter—whether voter ID requirements are statutorily grounded. No evaluation of voting procedure is possible from this text.

The section defines 'an identification document' by reference to another statute (the Identity Card and other Identity Documents Act) but does not explicitly state whether ID is required for voting, under what circumstances it is required, or what the consequences are for voters without ID. The definition alone is insufficient to establish statutory grounding of an ID requirement—it merely clarifies terminology without enumerating the requirement itself or its procedural safeguards.

“"an identification document" means a document which is a legally valid identification document for the purposes of the Identity Card and other Identity Documents Act”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (§ 6-207) governs signature verification procedures for nominating petitions, not voter identification requirements at the ballot. It does not address ID requirements for voting, and therefore does not satisfy criterion ID.1, which asks whether voting ID requirements (if any) are set in statute. The section is procedurally clear within its domain (petition signature verification) but is simply outside the scope of the criterion being evaluated.

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 governs the computerized voter registration system, data fields, record maintenance, and public access to voter information. It does not address voter identification requirements at any point in the voting process—neither requiring ID nor explicitly prohibiting ID requirements. The criterion requires statutory grounding of ID requirements (or explicit statutory prohibition). This section is silent on identification requirements and therefore does not satisfy the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses technical procedure for verifying signatures via computer-generated facsimiles but does not establish, define, or set the voter ID requirement itself. It assumes a signature verification requirement exists elsewhere in statute but does not ground or enumerate what identification is required at any voting stage. The criterion asks whether ID requirements are set in statute; this section merely facilitates one verification method without addressing statutory grounding of the underlying ID mandate.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 163-166.7A addresses voter education and information posting requirements, not the establishment or grounding of identification requirements themselves. It requires counties to post instructions on ID compliance for first-time voters and mail-in registrants, but does not set, define, or ground any ID requirement in statute. To evaluate whether ID requirements are statutorily grounded, one would need to examine other sections of N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 163 that actually impose or authorize ID requirements (e.g., sections on registration or poll procedures). This section merely directs communication about ID rules; it does not establish or ground them.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORC 3517.1013 governs Levin-account gifts for voter ID activities; not the ID-at-polls requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the procedural mechanics of withdrawing initiative and referendum petitions—a ballot measure process unrelated to voter identification requirements at the point of voting. The statute does not address whether ID is required for voting, whether such a requirement is statutory versus regulatory, or whether no-ID voting is explicitly mandated. This section falls entirely outside the scope of the ID.1 criterion, which evaluates voter identification policy.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 19 (Local Elections) lists candidate-list filing documentation — not voter ID at polls.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter registration agency procedures, forms distribution, and agency conduct—not voting identification requirements. It contains no language establishing, requiring, or exempting voters from identification requirements at the point of voting. The criterion asks whether ID requirements at voting are set in statute; this section does not address voting ID at all, only registration procedures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30101 (FECA definitions); not voter ID grounding. Federal voter-ID rules under HAVA § 21083(b) apply to first-time mail-in registrants — not surfaced for this datapoint.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The surfaced candidates concern the early-voter list and campaign-finance definitions. Vermont does not require voter ID for established voters — § 2563 admits a voter who announces their name and appears on the checklist — but no explicit statutory voter-ID provision was surfaced for this datapoint.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While RCW 29A.40.110(3) is statutory and requires signature verification, it does not address or establish requirements for voter ID in the traditional sense (photo ID, government-issued documentation, etc.). The section mandates signature matching against registration files but does not enumerate what constitutes acceptable identification documents or set an explicit ID requirement policy. The criterion asks whether ID requirements (if any exist) are statutorily grounded with enumeration, or whether 'no ID is required' is explicit in statute. This section addresses signature verification procedure but does not satisfy either prong of the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.