Rejection appeal procedure

The statute codifies a defined appeal/review procedure for rejected questioned ballots (which include ID-related rejections). The director must provide a summary of rejection reasons within specified statutory timeframes, and voters have access to a free system to check ballot status and rejection reasons. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement: the appeal path is statutory, enumerated, and includes notification deadlines.

“The director shall prepare and mail to each questioned voter whose questioned ballot was rejected under this section a summary of the reason that the challenge to the questioned ballot was upheld and the questioned ballot was rejected. The director shall mail the materials described in (h) of this section to the voter not later than 10 days after completion of the review of ballots by the state review board for a primary election or a special primary election under AS 15.40.140 ; 60 days after certification of the results of a general or special election, other than a special primary election described in (1) of this subsection.”

Article 21 codifies the appeal right: 'Lists of citizens... irregularities in the list' provides for challenging voter-list entries. Article 65 (candidate-nomination procedure). Article 134 (initiative-group registration). Comprehensive appeal mechanisms codified.

This statutory provision codifies a clear appeal procedure for voting challenges, including those related to identification or ballot validity issues. It establishes that appeals (recursos) against voting irregularities must be raised before the polling table (mesa receptora) during the voting act itself, with documented objections (impugnação) against alleged nullities. This creates a defined, statutorily-grounded review pathway accessible at the point of rejection.

Чл. 39 codifies the appeal procedure for exclusion from voter list before election day: refusal-to-include appealed to administrative court within 24 hours, court decides within 24 hours, decision is final and non-appealable.

“Списъкът на заличените лица се публикува на интернет страницата на съответната община не по-късно от 10 дни преди изборния ден”

The statute explicitly provides an appeal procedure for an elector who disputes the identity/residence requirement: the elector may appeal to the returning officer, who shall consult with the election officer and issue a decision with binding effect (directing the elector be allowed to vote if entitled). The appeal path and decision-maker are statutorily enumerated, not left to administrative discretion.

“If an elector refuses to make a solemn declaration on the ground that he or she is not required to do so under this Act, the elector may appeal to the returning officer. If, after consultation with the election officer in whose opinion the elector is required to make the solemn declaration, the returning officer decides that the elector is not required to make it, and if the elector is entitled to vote in the polling division, the returning officer shall direct that he or she be allowed to do so.”

§ 88 codifies that 'every voter can complain about Folketing elections. Complaints shall be addressed to the Folketing and sent to the Minister of the Interior and Health.' § 103 codifies parallel for referendums. § 35 codifies Ankestyrelsen review of candidate filings. § 34 codifies candidate-withdrawal procedure. Rejection-appeal right codified.

§ 27 codifies appeal to the regional administrative court (lääninoikeus) against a register-office decision rejecting a correction request. § 24 codifies the correction request itself. § 25 codifies the register-office decision deadline. § 102 / § 101 codify the broader election-appeal framework. Comprehensive rejection-appeal framework codified.

§ 101.048 ensures voters disputed at the polls cast a provisional ballot subject to later eligibility determination. § 98.0755 provides circuit court appeal of supervisor ineligibility determinations.

“shall be entitled to vote a provisional ballot”

The section provides a clear statutory appeal procedure: when a registration authority refuses an application (including when eligibility or application compliance requirements are not met), the applicant may appeal to the county registrar in accordance with a specified Rule. The appeal right is enumerated in statute with a defined appellate body and referenced procedural rule, satisfying the criterion for a codified appeal mechanism.

“Where an application under this section is refused by the registration authority under subsection (4), the applicant may appeal the decision to the county registrar in accordance with Rule 39 of Part VIII of the Second Schedule.”

Md. Election Law § 9-306(d)(2)(ii) provides a statutorily codified appeal procedure for rejected absentee ballot applications. When a local board's staff rejects an application, the applicant is explicitly granted the right to appeal to the board members, who must decide the appeal expeditiously. This establishes a clear, enumerated appeal path in statute for applicants whose absentee ballot requests are rejected.

“If the determination has been delegated, the applicant may appeal the rejection to the members of the local board, who shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as practicable.”

Article 143(6) establishes a statutory appeal procedure before the Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Electoral) for rejection decisions or administrative silence regarding credential issuance or voter registry corrections. The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to discretionary administrative action, specifying both the appealable decisions (rejection or lack of timely response) and the appellate forum.

The statute codifies an appeal procedure for rejected provisional ballots (which include ID-related rejections) by specifying both the forum (county clerk) and the deadline (Friday prior to state canvassing board meeting). This provides clear statutory grounding and a defined appeal path, meeting the procedural-clarity standard even though the statute does not enumerate specific ID requirements in this section.

§ 16-7 codifies requirements of complaint (form + content). § 16-5 codifies who may complain about election validity. § 16-2 / § 16-3 codify standing to complain about Storting / county-election irregularities. § 16-8 codifies complaint-handling procedure. Comprehensive rejection-appeal framework codified.

Art. 59 codifies the candidacy contestation framework with 48-hour court appeal and 24-hour further appeal — broadly applicable contestation framework.

15 kap. 5 § codifies that 'an appeal of a decision establishing the outcome of an election under 3 § 4 shall be submitted to the Valprövningsnämnden (Election Review Board).' 15 kap. 6 § codifies submission procedure. 15 kap. 7 § codifies acceptance even if misdirected within appeal period. 15 kap. 4 § codifies standing for appeals. Comprehensive rejection-appeal framework codified.

Law 298 Article 127 codifies the rejection-appeal procedure: rejected challenges to ballot-box committee acts (including ID rejections) can be IMMEDIATELY appealed to the district election board chair, who must decide promptly. Reinforced by Article 119 (challenge to district-board acts), Article 129 (challenge to district-board decisions), Articles 165-166 (criminal sanctions and fines for bad-faith refusal to record challenges).

The statute explicitly codifies a rejection appeal procedure with clear jurisdictional venue (circuit or district court), a defined timeline (5 days to appeal, 5 days for court decision), and a provision removing barriers to appeal (no legal counsel requirement). The procedure is set in statute, enumerated, and provides a clear path for judicial review.

“Any person who is denied registration has the right to appeal to a circuit court within the county or to the district court within five (5) days of the date of the notification. The appellant shall not be required to obtain legal counsel for any such appeal. The court shall hear and decide any such appeal within five (5) days from the date the appeal is received.”

Electoral Code Article 47 codifies administrative proceedings in the CEC and district commissions per the RA Law on Administrative Proceedings — generic appeal mechanism applies to ID-rejection refusals. Not a dedicated ID-rejection-appeal procedure but generally applicable.

§ 21-2-386 codifies safekeeping, certification, and validation of absentee ballots, with rejection-notice and cure procedure. § 21-2-230 codifies challenge procedure including right of appeal. Rejection appeal procedure codified through challenge framework.

ORC 3505.181 establishes the provisional-ballot right but the surfaced text does not codify a clear appeal path for rejected ID/provisional ballots. § 3505.183 (in other candidate set) codifies post-poll testing/rejection but appeal mechanism is limited.

§ 1210 codifies provisional-ballot cure for ID-rejected electors but does not enumerate a separate appeal procedure for the ID rejection itself.

52 USC § 10101(a)(2)(B) codifies that no person acting under color of law shall 'deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper... if such error or omission is not material' — anti-disqualification rule that supports ID-rejection challenges, but not a specific appeal procedure.

§ 2546 codifies an opportunity to cure: on receiving a defective returned ballot the town clerk directs two election officials to process it, and the voter is given a chance to correct curable defects. § 2556 lets a voter who disputes a rejected registration cast a provisional ballot. A cure/dispute route is codified, though not a dedicated ID-rejection appeal.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes a cure procedure (allowing voters to correct or confirm signatures by the fifth business day after federal elections or third business day after others, and allowing missing signatures to be added by 7 p.m. on election day), which is codified and enumerated. However, the section contains no appeal or review procedure for ballots that are rejected after the cure period expires. The statute states ballots 'shall be rejected' but provides no mechanism for a voter to challenge that rejection or appeal to any body for reconsideration—only a cure opportunity before rejection becomes final.

“Signatures that cannot be verified pursuant to section 16-550.01 or cured pursuant to this section shall be rejected.”

The statute provides a cure mechanism (notification and contact attempt) and a secondary review path (county board of election commissioners determination), but this addresses absentee ballot application rejection generally, not specifically ID rejection or provisional ballot challenges. The section does not enumerate what happens after the board's determination, whether the voter may seek judicial review, or what procedural rights attach to the board's decision. The appeal procedure is thus partially codified but incomplete.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 298C addresses the Electoral Commission's determination of election funding claims, not voter identification or rejection procedures. This section establishes timelines and criteria for accepting/refusing campaign funding claims—a wholly separate procedural domain from voter ID verification and rejection appeal mechanisms. No statutory codification of an appeal procedure for rejected ID or provisional ballots appears in this text.

The statute provides a statutory fallback procedure for voters lacking prescribed ID (recognition by a majority of poll board members), which is a cure mechanism. However, the section explicitly references § 71 Abs. 1 for an 'objection' (Einspruch) process but does not define the appeal or review procedure itself within this section or quote the operative language of § 71—leaving the actual appeal path ambiguous and incompletely codified in the provided text. The cure procedure is clear; the appeal procedure is not.

“Besitzt der Wähler eine Urkunde oder Bescheinigung der in Abs. 2 bezeichneten Art nicht, so ist er dennoch zur Abstimmung zuzulassen, wenn er der Mehrheit der Mitglieder der Wahlbehörde persönlich bekannt ist und kein Einspruch gemäß § 71 Abs. 1 erhoben wird.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11 of the PRC Electoral Law addresses the Electoral Committee's duties regarding voter registration, eligibility review, complaint procedures for voter list disputes, and general election administration. However, it does not establish any procedure for rejection of identification documents or appeal of ID-based ballot rejection. The section delegates voter qualification verification and complaint resolution (clause 2) to the Electoral Committee but does not specify statutory grounds for ID rejection, acceptable ID forms, cure procedures, or appeal paths for rejected identification. The criterion requires codified statutory procedure for ID rejection appeals; this section provides administrative framework only, not the specific procedural safeguards needed.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mandates that registrars provide written notice of rejection with stated reasons, which is a procedural safeguard. However, the section does not codify an appeal or review procedure for a rejected application—it requires notification of rejection but does not specify how an applicant may challenge or cure the rejection. The criterion requires both rejection notice and a defined appeal path; this section provides only the former.

“If the registrar determines that the applicant has not properly completed the application or is not legally qualified to register, the notice shall indicate that the application has been rejected and shall state any reason for rejection.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 99 addresses the State Electoral Commission's authority to overturn election results or procedures due to irregularities that materially affected electoral outcomes. It does not establish any procedure for appealing a rejected identification or provisional ballot due to ID issues. The statute governs post-election irregularity review at the systemic level, not voter-level rejection cure or appeal procedures.

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 matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 31 (unified list of voters) is voter-register, not ID-rejection appeal. Article 74 (in REG.4 cands) covers complaints procedure — partially applicable but not specifically ID-appeal.

The statute codifies grounds for ID-related rejection (§56(6) no. 1a: failure to produce ID or cooperate with identity verification) and provides a limited cure mechanism for non-registration cases (municipality ballot request by 15:00). However, it establishes no formal appeal or review procedure for voters rejected on ID grounds. The only recourse mentioned is the administrative option under §56(7) for the polling board itself to deliberate rejections, with no independent appeal path or external review mechanism codified in this section.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 27 addresses appeals of voter registration list inclusion/exclusion, not ID rejection or provisional ballot procedures. The criterion specifically concerns appeal processes for rejected identification or provisional ballots due to ID issues. This section does not address identification verification, ID rejection, or provisional ballot cure procedures—it only covers voter list challenges before the election authority (Valgbestyrelsen) and an appeal to an election board (Valgnævnet). Since the statute text contains no procedure for appealing an ID rejection, the criterion is not satisfied.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-1 is a definitions section that enumerates terms used throughout Hawaii's election code. It does not address rejection procedures, appeal mechanisms, or any process for challenging an ID rejection or provisional ballot rejection. While the section defines 'provisional ballot' and references various voting procedures, it contains no statutory procedure for appealing or curing a rejection. A definitions section is not the appropriate vehicle for procedural rules.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

Iowa Code § 50.22(3) mandates notification of rejection within ten days with stated reasons—a clear cure-notice procedure. However, the statute does not establish a defined appeal or review path for the voter to contest the rejection decision; notification alone does not constitute an appealable procedure. The criterion requires a codified appeal mechanism, which is absent from this section.

The statute provides a statutory appeal path (review by county canvassers with final determination), but it does not enumerate what grounds justify acceptance or rejection, does not specify the voter's right to be heard or present evidence, and does not establish cure procedures that would allow a rejected voter to remedy ID defects. The procedure is skeletal, lacking the procedural specificity needed for the dual-scholar test to confirm navigability.

“Void, provisional and objected to advance voting ballots shall be reviewed by the board of county canvassers, and the board shall finally determine the acceptance or rejection of each void, provisional or objected to ballot.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 73 addresses candidate registration procedures, not voter identification or ID rejection appeals. The section covers deposit requirements, asset declarations, and candidacy documentation—none of which concern the voter-side identification verification or appeal procedures that criterion ID.5 requires. The statute contains no codified appeal procedure for voters whose identification is rejected or who receive provisional ballots due to ID issues.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 117.086 governs return of absentee ballots and a report on rejected absentee ballots, but no appeal procedure for a rejected identification (or an ID-based ballot rejection) was surfaced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced signature-collection provisions; Latvia codifies no ID-rejection appeal procedure — there is no provisional ballot, so a voter without a valid identification document cannot vote.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced campaign-participant registration provisions; Lithuania's polling-station voter-ID requirement (§ 52) does not codify an appeal path for a rejected ID — a voter without valid identification cannot vote at that station.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the tabulation and counting of absentee by mail and early voting ballots, including procedures for access to counting locations, security, and observer rights. It does not address voter identification requirements, rejected ballots, provisional ballot procedures, or any appeal mechanism for ballot rejection. The statute contains no provisions regarding ID validation, rejection procedures, or remedies available to voters whose ballots are rejected for identification reasons.

This section addresses appeals against voter registration errors (omissions, erasures, incorrect inscriptions), but does not address rejection of identification documents or provisional ballots cast due to ID rejection. The statute provides a statutory appeal mechanism for registration disputes, but does not establish procedure for ID rejection appeals specifically, which is the focus of criterion ID.5.

“Toute personne jouissant des droits civils et politiques peut, quant aux listes de sa commune, exercer, sous les conditions indiquées à l'article précédent, un recours contre les inscriptions, radiations ou omissions de noms d'électeurs.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section establishes a statutory appeal path to a Revising Officer within 21 days for rejected voter registration applications. However, the criterion asks specifically about rejection of ID or provisional ballots due to ID issues on election day, not voter registration rejection. The statute addresses registration rejection, not ID verification rejection at polling. For the narrow ID.5 criterion, this section is not on point.

“Any person whose application to be registered as a voter or for the correction of his designation or other particulars appearing in the Register or for the transfer of his name to another address or division is rejected by the Commission shall have the right to appeal to a Revising Officer not later than twenty-one days from the day when he is officially informed of the decision of the Commission.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute provides a notice and free-access verification system so voters can learn whether their provisional ballot was tabulated and why, but it does not codify an actual appeal or review procedure to challenge a rejection of an ID or provisional ballot. Without a defined appeal path, the criterion is not satisfied.

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 campaign contribution and expenditure restrictions, disclosure requirements, and anonymous contribution handling — topics entirely unrelated to voter identification, ID rejection, or provisional ballot procedures. It contains no statutory procedure for appealing a rejected voter ID or provisional ballot.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 95 establishes general deadlines and procedures for lodging appeals during electoral periods (3 calendar days, with some variations), but it does not address or codify any specific appeal procedure for rejected voter identification or rejected provisional ballots due to ID issues. The section is about appeal timeframes and administrative jurisdiction, not about ID verification, rejection, cure procedures, or ID-specific appeal mechanisms. To satisfy ID.5, the statute would need to explicitly establish a procedure allowing voters whose ID was rejected to challenge that rejection, obtain a cure opportunity, or appeal to a specific body—none of which appears in this text.

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: The section enumerates detailed statutory procedures for ballot acceptance and rejection based on identification and registration verification (subsections 3–4), but contains no codified appeal or review procedure for voters whose ballots are rejected. The statute specifies what the counting board must determine and when ballots shall be accepted or rejected, but does not establish a cure process, notice requirement, appeal right, or review mechanism for rejected voters.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article J 25 establishes the statutory procedure for voter identification and rejection at the polling place: voters without valid ID are simply not admitted to voting (§2, §4, §6). However, the statute contains no codified appeal or review procedure for voters rejected on identification grounds. The text describes what happens upon rejection (denial of access) but provides no mechanism, timeline, or tribunal for challenging that rejection. The procedural clarity criterion requires not just enumeration of rejection grounds but a defined cure or appeal pathway; this section lacks that second component entirely.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

§ 8-402 codifies board-of-elections determination of absentee-ballot applications, with notice procedure for rejection. § 16-108 (not in FTS top-5) codifies judicial review. Rejection-appeal framework exists but is split across instruments.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only definitional provisions for terms used throughout ORS Chapter 254. It does not address identification requirements, rejection procedures, or appeal mechanisms for rejected IDs or provisional ballots. The criterion requires a statutorily codified appeal procedure for rejected identification, which is not present in this definitional section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 243 addresses procedural dismissal of electoral protests before the Supreme Court (rejecting protests filed by unauthorized persons or those failing procedural requirements). It contains no statutory procedure for appealing ID rejections or provisional ballot rejections due to identification issues. The section regulates appellate review of electoral disputes generally, not voter identification appeals specifically.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 114.º addresses appeals for procedural irregularities during voting and tabulation (reclamation/protest procedures), but does not address rejection of voter identification or the appeal procedure for voters rejected due to inadequate ID. The statute does not enumerate what forms of ID are acceptable, does not establish a cure procedure for rejected ID, and does not create a specific appeal pathway for ID-based rejection. This section concerns post-voting disputes about voting irregularities, not pre-voting or day-of ID validation and rejection.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the mechanics of voting at the polling place—providing ID, marking ballots, handling overvotes and marking errors—but contains no appeal or review procedure for voters whose identification is rejected or who are directed to vote provisionally due to ID issues. The statute describes what happens when a voter cannot be found on the list (referral to the clerk for verification), but does not establish a statutory cure procedure, appeal path, or post-election review mechanism for rejected voters. The procedural-clarity criterion requires an enumerated appeal or review path in statute, which is absent here.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 48–50 of the Electoral Act establish procedures for objecting to irregularities in ballot sorting and vote counting, with appeals to the Commission. However, these provisions address ballot disputes and counting accuracy, not voter identification rejection or provisional ballot procedures due to ID issues. The criterion specifically requires a codified appeal procedure for rejected ID or ID-related provisional ballot rejection. This section contains no reference to identification requirements, ID rejection, or the cure/appeal mechanism for voters whose ballots are rejected on ID grounds. The statutory procedure for ID appeal is not present in this extract.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute codifies a dispute resolution mechanism at the polling place (majority decision by the polling board after documentary review and witness testimony), providing some procedural clarity when ID identity is questioned. However, the statute does not establish a post-election appeal or review path for a rejected voter; it addresses only the in-the-moment polling-station decision and a subsequent referral to courts for criminal liability of imposters. A complete appeal procedure for rejected ballots is not enumerated in this section.

“Cuando la Mesa, a pesar de la exhibición de alguno de los documentos previstos en el apartado 1, tenga duda, por si o a consecuencia de la reclamación que en el acto haga públicamente un interventor, apoderado u otro elector, sobre la identidad del individuo que se presenta a votar, la Mesa a la vista de los documentos acreditativos y del testimonio que puedan presentar los electores presentes, decide por mayoría.”

No matching sections in corpus.

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

Art. IV-239 / II-112 / III-167 codify observer-registration procedures including rejection notice. Art. I-60 codifies NGO observer permission. Voter-application rejection appeal lives in court complaint (Art. I-64). Limited codification of voter-level rejection-appeal specifically.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: UCA § 20A-4-304 addresses canvassers' declarations of results and reporting requirements but does not establish any appeal procedure for rejected identification or rejected provisional ballots due to ID issues. The statute focuses on the administrative canvassing process and vote tabulation; it does not provide statutory language governing how voters can appeal ID rejections or provisional ballot rejections related to identification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-706 addresses the general registrar's duty upon receipt of an absentee ballot application and the materials to be sent, including that first-time federal voters must submit ID or it becomes a provisional ballot under § 24.2-653.01. However, the statute does not codify an appeal procedure for voters whose ID is rejected or whose provisional ballots are rejected due to ID defects. The section explicitly defers to § 24.2-653.01 for handling of provisional ballots but does not itself establish a cure or appeal path. The criterion requires statutory codification of an appeal procedure; administrative deferral to another section without explicit appeal language in either section does not satisfy the procedural-clarity requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting and public inspection of political committee accounts. It contains no provisions related to voter identification, rejected IDs, provisional ballots, or any appeal procedure for election administration at the voting stage. The criterion requires statutory codification of an appeal procedure for rejected voter ID or provisional ballots; this section does not address that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes technical requirements for electronic voting systems themselves (security, accuracy, accessibility, paper audit trails, etc.), not procedures for voter identification, rejection of ballots due to ID issues, or appeals of such rejections. The criterion asks whether an appeal procedure for rejected ID is codified in statute; this section contains no such procedure or even any reference to identification requirements or ballot rejection based on ID deficiency.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 7.52 absentee canvass; full ID-rejection appeal procedure lives in § 5.06 (compliance review) and § 6.79 (Ch. 6).