Cure procedure for incomplete registration

Article 25 explicitly establishes that voter registration records (Registro Nacional de Electores and district sub-registers) are public and subject to corrections by inscribed voters. This creates a statutory cure mechanism: voters can identify and request corrections to incomplete or erroneous registrations. The statute grounds the correction right directly in law rather than administrative discretion.

Arizona statute § 16-134(B) provides a clear, enumerated cure procedure: the county recorder must notify the applicant of missing or illegible information within ten business days, specify what is missing, and allow the applicant to cure the defect up until 7:00 p.m. on election day, with the original receipt date preserved upon cure. This is statutorily grounded with defined deadlines and outcomes.

“the county recorder shall notify the applicant within ten business days of receipt of the registration form, shall specify the missing or illegible information and, if the missing or illegible information includes any of the information prescribed by section 16-121.01, subsection A or C, shall state that the registration cannot be completed until the information is supplied. If the missing or illegible information is supplied before 7:00 p.m. on election day, that person is deemed to have been registered on the date the registration was first received.”

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for signatures that fail verification: a candidate may submit a sworn statement from the elector plus identification within five days of notification. The procedure is statutory (not left to administrative discretion), enumerated (specifying exact documents required and timeline), and accompanied by notification requirements and a defined timeline for cure.

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

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

The statute establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: the Commissioner must identify deficiencies in writing, and the candidate receives a defined window (the later of the filing deadline or 7 days from notice) to remedy them. This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for cure—the process is enumerated, time-bound, and mandatory for the administrator.

§ 26 codifies self-correction (itseoikaisu) by the register authority for erroneous entries. § 24 codifies the voter's written correction request. § 23 codifies data-checking. § 28 codifies the post-finality proof procedure at the polling committee. Comprehensive cure-for-incomplete-registration framework codified.

§ 21-2-218 codifies cancellation of registration in former state/county and address-change procedures (cure for incomplete registration on move). § 21-2-221.2 codifies electronic-registration cure. § 21-2-386 codifies absentee-ballot rejection cure. Comprehensive cure framework codified.

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 14 codifies an unrestricted right of the elector to request correction of any registration data. § 17 codifies the contest procedure with timing.

“Κάθε εκλογέας μπορεί να ζητήσει αιτιολογημένα τη διόρθωση κάθε στοιχείου εγγραφής του στον εκλογικό κατάλογο”

The statute explicitly establishes a cure procedure: when a candidate registration contains an error (fejl), the election board (Valgnævnet) must grant the candidate a defined 2-business-day period to correct it. This is a statutorily enumerated, time-certain remedy for incomplete or defective registration, meeting the procedural-clarity standard regardless of policy views on strictness.

10 ILCS 5/4-15 codifies a 7-day error-correction window after the election authority sends a registration certificate to the voter.

“shall request him in case of any error to present the certificate on or before the 7th day next ensuing at the office of the election authority in order to secure correction of the error”

The statute defines a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure for incomplete registration applications. Subsection (a) specifies the mechanism (written statement under penalty of perjury), the deadline (29 days before the next election), and the mandatory processing outcome ('shall process'). Subsection (b) adds a parallel cure path for other incompleteness issues via administrative information-matching. The procedure is enumerated and leaves no discretion to reject an application if the cure requirements are met.

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for incomplete registrations: when a form is missing required information, the commissioner must advise the applicant of the deficiency and enclose a new registration form for resubmission. This is statutory (not discretionary), enumerated (advise + enclose new form), and provides a clear path for the registrant to remedy the rejection.

Article 26(4) establishes a statutory cure procedure for registration issues: citizens can apply to the election commission to correct data or be added to the voter list; applications are decided same-day with reasoned written notice if rejected; rejected applicants have an automatic court appeal right with same-day examination; and corrections are made immediately upon favorable decision. This satisfies the criterion because the procedure is enumerated in statute, timelines are specified, and appeal pathways are clearly defined.

The statute clearly establishes a cure procedure for incomplete registrations in § 18:101.1(B)(2). When an applicant fails to provide required information, the registrar must notify them in writing and grant a ten-day window to cure the deficiency. The procedure is exhaustively enumerated: written notice, specified timeline, and conditional approval upon cure. This satisfies both the statutory grounding and enumeration requirements for cure procedure.

The statute explicitly mandates that registrars notify a person when their registration is rejected and provide a reasonable opportunity to cure defects. This is a statutory cure procedure — not left to administrative discretion but required by law. The statute also specifies a secondary review step (re-examination after cure attempt) and notice requirement if the defects are not remedied.

“The registrars shall notify any person whose name is not so entered and give him a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in his affidavit.”

The statute establishes a clear cure procedure: when a registration application is cancelled due to failure to obtain the voting credential within the prescribed deadline, the citizen is notified via public posting (May 1-31) and is explicitly granted the right to reapply for inscription during the intensive campaign period (Article 138) or to file an impugnation remedy (Article 143). Paragraph 5 further confirms citizens may request reinscription under Articles 135, 138, and 139, providing statutory-grounded, enumerated pathways to remedy the rejection.

§ 201.121 codifies entry of names and mailed notice — including procedures for incomplete-application correction. § 201.061 codifies that incomplete applications are effective when corrected. § 203B.065 codifies registration-system use. § 201.171 codifies list maintenance. Cure procedure for incomplete registration codified.

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for incomplete or illegible applications in § 23-15-47(2)(e): the registrar must attempt to contact the applicant by mail or telephone to obtain missing information, and if successful, shall register the applicant. If unsuccessful, the statute requires written notice of rejection with stated reasons and informs the applicant of the right to re-apply in person or by mail. This provides both statutory grounding and enumerated cure pathway.

Montana does not reject incomplete registrations outright — under § 13-2-110 insufficient information results in provisional registration, and § 13-2-513 codifies the procedure for the election administrator to correct or update the registration once the elector supplies the corrected form.

“the election administrator shall make the necessary corrections or updates in the registration records”

The statute clearly defines a cure procedure in § 32-321(4): when a registration is incomplete, the election official must notify the applicant of the specific deficiency and provide an explicit opportunity to submit missing identification or a corrected application before the registration deadline. The procedure is statutorily grounded, enumerated (identifies the specific remedy: submission of identification or corrected application), and sets a clear deadline.

The statute clearly defines a cure procedure for incomplete registration applications. When an application is found incomplete, the county clerk must notify the applicant of the missing information, and the applicant has a statutory 15-day window to provide that information, after which they are deemed registered as of the original submission date. This enumerated, time-bound cure mechanism satisfies the procedural criterion.

The statute establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: when registration is rejected (for any reason, including incompleteness), supervisors must notify the applicant in writing within 7 days and state the reason. This explicit notification requirement with a defined timeline allows the applicant to understand what was deficient and take corrective action. The procedure is enumerated in the statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“If the supervisors decide not to add the name of the applicant to the checklist, they shall send notification to the applicant in writing within 7 days stating the reason for that denial.”

The statute defines a clear cure procedure for incomplete registrations. When required information (including social security number) is missing, the county clerk must attempt to obtain it from specified sources (prior records, motor vehicle division, or secretary of state). If unsuccessful, the applicant may vote provisionally, and that ballot is counted once the information is provided or ascertained. This provides both an enumerated remedial action path and a concrete outcome mechanism—both statutory, not discretionary.

§ 9-209 codifies the cure procedure for ballots cast in affidavit envelopes and absentee/early-mail/military/special-federal ballots — board of elections must notify voter of curable defects and provide 7-day cure window. § 5-902 codifies signature-deficiency cure procedure.

§ 2-8 codifies correction of voter-roll errors: 'persons who consider that they themselves or others have wrongly been included in or excluded from the voter roll in the municipality may demand that the error be corrected' (Personer som mener at de selv eller andre uriktig er blitt innført i eller utelatt fra manntallet i kommunen, kan kreve at feilen skal rettes). § 2-9 codifies notification. Cure procedure for incomplete registration codified.

ORC 3503.30 codifies a cure procedure for registration errors made by mistake: 'The board may correct all errors occurring in the registration of electors when it finds that the errors subject to correction were not of fraudulent intent.'

“qualified elector has caused himself to be registered in a precinct which was not”

ORS § 247.012(4)(b) provides a clear statutory cure procedure for incomplete registrations. The statute enumerates mandatory steps: the county clerk must attempt to obtain missing information from available sources, then use reasonable efforts to contact the registrant by phone, mail, and email if information cannot be obtained from existing sources. This is concrete, statutorily-grounded, and leaves no discretion about whether a cure attempt must be made.

§ 1508 codifies pre-election 'comparison and correction of registers' (starting 30 days before election) — the cure path for register errors.

Article 216 § 1 establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: when the number of valid voter signatures supporting a candidate list is insufficient, the district electoral commission must summon the registrant to complete the list of signatures before the deadline specified in Article 211 § 1, and supplementation is permitted up to that deadline. This provides an explicit cure pathway with enumerated conditions and a defined timeframe.

MP Election Law Article 19 codifies the cure procedure: every citizen may petition the list-keeping authority for entry, deletion, correction, or supplementation. The authority must decide within 48 hours, with judicial review available within another 48 hours.

“Сваки грађанин може органу надлежном за вођење бирачког списка поднети захтев за упис, брисање, исправку или допуну бирачког списка”

The statute provides a clear, enumerated cure procedure in § 7-5-155(a)(4): rejected applicants must be notified of the reason for rejection and explicitly informed of two pathways to cure—either by appearing in person or by submitting corrected information by mail. This is statutorily grounded and leaves no cure mechanism to administrative discretion.

“Any person whose application is rejected must be notified of the rejection together with the reason for rejection. The applicant must further be informed that he still has a right to register by appearing in person before the county board of voter registration and elections or by submitting the information by mail necessary to correct his rejected application.”

§ 12-4-6.1 codifies cure procedure: 'If a card does not contain all of the information required by the form prescribed pursuant to § 12-4-6 or if the card contains information which is not correct, it shall be considered to be effective on the date all of the correct, required information is supplied to the county auditor.' Explicit cure-for-incomplete-registration codified.

13 kap. 3 § codifies that 'if the documents from the municipal commission are incomplete or otherwise deficient, the county administrative board shall request that they be completed.' 5 kap. 6 § codifies voter-roll correction procedure. 5 kap. 7 § codifies correction transmission. Comprehensive cure framework codified.

§ 13.073 codifies a cure procedure for an incomplete registration application: the registrar must give written notice of the reason for rejection, and 'if the rejection is for incompleteness, the registrar shall return the application to the applicant for completion and resubmission'; if a completed application is received within 10 days, the original submission date is preserved for determining the effective registration date.

“the registrar shall return the application to the applicant for completion and resubmission”

Law 298 Article 39 codifies the correction-and-completion procedure for voter register errors via 'Muhtarlık Bölgesi Askı Listesi' (muhtarlık-area suspension list) posted each March for public inspection — voters may file corrections during the posting period.

Art. I-44 codifies amendment of updated voter lists. Art. I-42 codifies familiarization and correction procedure (voter may apply for amendments). Art. I-45 codifies special-precinct list compilation. Art. I-46 codifies out-of-country list verification. Comprehensive cure framework codified.

Section 20A-2-304(2)(c) establishes a statutory cure procedure for incomplete registrations: it requires the county clerk to notify the applicant that the form is incomplete and provide instructions on how to complete it properly. This is statutorily mandated, enumerated, and provides a defined path for the voter to correct deficiencies.

The statute explicitly provides a cure procedure for incomplete registrations: applicants have four business days after the close of registration to correct deficiencies by providing the required information. This is a statutorily-defined, enumerated remedy with a clear timeline and condition.

“Incomplete applications for registration containing information which are submitted within the required time may be corrected within four business days after the close of registration if the applicant provides the required information”

The section provides statutory notice of rejection and grounds (satisfying transparency), but does not define an affirmative cure procedure—i.e., a mechanism or deadline by which a voter whose questioned ballot was rejected can cure the defect and have the ballot counted. The section does require notification and, for primary elections, registration determination under AS 15.07.070(h), but these occur post-election and do not cure the originally-rejected ballot. A true cure procedure would allow the voter to correct identified defects before ballots are finalized.

“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 section lists headings including 'Berichtigungsanträge' (correction requests), notification of affected persons, decision-making on corrections, and complaints procedures—indicating statutory framework for registration challenges. However, the section provided is only a table of contents or heading outline with no substantive text defining the actual cure procedure, timelines, requirements, or appeal paths. Procedural clarity cannot be assessed without the detailed statutory language.

“Berichtigungsanträge Verständigung der zur Streichung beantragten Personen Entscheidung über Berichtigungsanträge Richtigstellung des Wählerverzeichnisses Beschwerden”

Article 21 codifies the cure procedure: 'right to appeal irregularities in the list' with correction mechanism through commission. Article 66 (candidate documents). Article 114 (referendum initiative). Article 116 (consideration of initiative). Article 68 (candidate registration). Comprehensive cure framework codified.

§ 101.68 + § 102.168 contest of election partially codify cure: signature mismatch on vote-by-mail triggers cure-affidavit procedure; election contest provides judicial cure for systemic registration issues. Not a dedicated registration-cure procedure though.

“the supervisor shall compare the signature of the elector on the voter’s certificate with the signature of the elector”

Article 38 codifies CEC/DEC verification of supporter lists with correction opportunities. Article 70 covers summary protocols. Article 117 codifies party-list registration verification + correction. Cure procedures for candidate registration exist; voter-registration cure lives in Article 31 (partial).

The section delegates to the Federal Electoral Regulation the authority to establish cure procedures (Einspruch/Beschwerde — objection and appeal processes) for voter registration matters, but the actual cure procedure itself is not defined in the statute. The statute only mandates that regulations cover these procedures; it does not enumerate the procedures, timelines, or specific remedies. Statutory authority to create a cure procedure exists, but the concrete procedure remains administrative.

“über den Einspruch und die Beschwerde gegen das Wählerverzeichnis sowie über die Benachrichtigung der Wahlberechtigten”

Art. 22 codifies voter-list cure procedure for omissions/errors with 3-day mayor decision and 24-hour court appeal.

Article 74 codifies 'Use of State Automated Information System Vybory' for voter-list management — implies systematic correction procedures. Article 17 codifies list-preparation procedures with correction opportunities. Cure procedure for incomplete registration partially codified.

52 USC § 20507(a)(2) codifies that states must 'require the appropriate State election official to send notice to each applicant of the disposition of the application' — disposition-notice path implies cure opportunity, but the specific cure procedure is left to states.

§ 2147 codifies correction of the checklist — the board of civil authority or town clerk adds the names of voters omitted by mistake and strikes those not entitled to vote, including additions directed by a Superior judge on appeal. § 2556 lets a voter whose registration was rejected vote provisionally. A correction/cure route is codified, though not a dedicated incomplete-application cure-and-resubmit procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the preparation and certification of voter registration lists after the registration deadline has closed and the composition of poll lists delivered to precincts. It does not address registration rejection, incompleteness of registration applications, or any cure procedure for deficient registrations. The statute is silent on what happens when a registration is rejected as incomplete and contains no enumerated cure steps, notice requirements, or appeal pathways for applicants whose registrations are rejected.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the form and sufficiency of referendum petitions, not voter registration. It addresses what signatures on a petition must contain and how they are verified for petition purposes. It contains no cure procedure for rejected voter registrations—it is not a registration statute at all and therefore does not address the criterion topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 132 + Articles 86, 110 codify CANDIDATE-registration rejection procedures, NOT VOTER-registration cure. Wrong target.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 113 is a definitional section that establishes terminology for Part IX (Objections) but contains no procedural substance. It defines terms like 'challenged elector' and 'official objection' but does not address registration incompleteness, rejection procedures, or cure mechanisms. To evaluate REG.3, one would need to examine sections that actually establish objection procedures and remedies (such as §114 and subsequent sections), not this interpretive preamble.

The statute provides a clear appeal/review path (30-day challenge to the Foreign Minister, then appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days), but this is a general appeal mechanism for eligibility denials, not a cure procedure specific to incomplete registration. A true cure procedure would allow the applicant to cure defects (e.g., submit missing documents) before final rejection. The statute does not explicitly provide a defined opportunity to cure incomplete submissions.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

§ 18102 criminalizes knowing registration of nonexistent/false-name/ineligible persons; § 18101 same for false registration. These are CRIMINAL protections of the registration process — not a cure procedure. Cure provisions are in Div 2 (not ingested).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18 addresses public education and information programs and accessibility of electoral information to persons with disabilities. It does not define any cure procedure for incomplete voter registration. The section is entirely concerned with the Chief Electoral Officer's authority to disseminate information about electoral processes, not with procedures for correcting or curing deficient registration applications.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns ballot ordering and certification procedures between municipal officials and the Secretary of State. It does not address voter registration or cure procedures for incomplete registrations. The criterion REG.3 requires a defined cure procedure when a voter's registration is rejected as incomplete; this statute contains no such provision.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced candidate-registration document-cure provisions (§ 31), not voter registration. Estonia registers voters automatically from the population register, so there is no incomplete voter registration to cure; a voter wrongly omitted uses the list-correction route instead (see REG.4).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute establishes a registration deadline (sixth Friday before an election) and indicates electoral lists are permanent, but contains no provision defining what happens when a registration application is rejected as incomplete, nor any cure procedure allowing a voter to remedy deficiencies. The section addresses timing and list status only, not rejection remedies.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section provides that incomplete nomination papers are void, but establishes no cure procedure allowing a candidate to correct deficiencies and resubmit. The statute is clear in stating the consequence (rejection) but does not enumerate any opportunity to cure the defect, distinguish between curable and fatal flaws, or define a timeline or process for remediation.

The statute provides an appeal mechanism for registration denials but does not define a cure procedure allowing rejected applicants to correct deficiencies and resubmit. The section specifies required application elements but is silent on what happens when an application is incomplete—whether the applicant is notified of defects, given an opportunity to remedy them before denial, or allowed to cure after denial.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses technical specifications for voting machines and vote tally systems (ballot casting and counting equipment), not voter registration procedures. It contains no language concerning registration rejection, incomplete registrations, or any cure mechanism for registration defects. The criterion requires a defined cure procedure for incomplete registration; this section is entirely outside the domain of registration administration.

This section addresses appeal of a refused postal voter registration application to a county registrar under Rule 39, establishing an appellate review path. However, it does not define a cure procedure—i.e., a process by which an applicant whose registration is rejected for incompleteness can correct deficiencies and resubmit. An appeal mechanism is distinct from a cure mechanism; the statute permits challenge of a rejection decision but does not specify how an applicant can remedy incomplete application materials. For the criterion to be satisfied, the statute must enumerate what cure steps are available (e.g., deadline to correct, resubmission process, notice requirements).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses petition signature withdrawal and signature legibility standards, not voter registration or incomplete registration rejection. The statute specifies when signatures may be withdrawn and what makes signatures rejectable (illegibility without printed name), but it provides no cure procedure for a rejected registration—because this statute governs petition circulation for recall elections, not voter registration. There is no registration rejection or cure mechanism described.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: KRS 116.0452 codifies standards for the timely receipt of a voter-registration application, but no cure procedure for an application rejected as incomplete was surfaced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced candidate-list and initiative-group registration provisions; Latvia registers voters automatically in the electoral register, so there is no incomplete-voter-registration cure procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced political-party registration provisions; Lithuania registers voters automatically from the Population Register (§ 34), so there is no incomplete-voter-registration cure procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 2 enumerates eligibility conditions for voting in municipal elections (age, civil rights, residency, duration of residence for non-Luxembourgers, and documentation requirements for other foreigners). However, it contains no procedure for what happens when a registration application is rejected as incomplete—no cure period, notice requirement, opportunity to supplement documents, or remedial process. The statute sets substantive eligibility criteria but does not address the procedural remedy when registration fails.

Article 38 provides a cure procedure for voters omitted due to material error (20-day window to request correction, 7-day response deadline, and judicial review path). However, this procedure applies specifically to omissions from a provisional electoral list, not to registrations rejected as incomplete. The statute defines cure for a narrow circumstance (material omission) rather than the broader criterion of incomplete registration applications. No procedure is specified for voters whose registration applications are rejected for being incomplete or lacking required information.

The statute requires notification of rejection reasons, which is a procedural safeguard, but does not define a cure procedure — i.e., it does not specify timeframes, methods, or steps by which an applicant may correct deficiencies and reapply or have their application reconsidered. Notification alone is insufficient for a true cure procedure.

“If the applicant is not qualified, the registrar or the Secretary of State shall notify the applicant of the reason for rejection of the application.”

The statute provides a clear appeal mechanism (to a Revising Officer) and a defined timeline (21 days after publication), satisfying the appeal-path element. However, the section does not address what happens when a registration application is initially rejected as incomplete—it addresses only post-publication disputes about omission or error. There is no cure procedure enabling a voter to fix incomplete information before or after rejection. The statute establishes appeal rights but not the prerequisite cure pathway.

“Any person whose name has not been included in the Electoral Register and who claims that he has the necessary qualifications to vote, and, every voter who claims that his designation, address or other particulars have not been correctly shown in the Electoral Register may appeal to a Revising Officer to have his name included in the Electoral Register or to have his designation, address or other particulars corrected”

The section provides a procedure for correcting clerical errors in voter registration records (§3-601.1(c)-(d)) and an administrative complaint process with judicial review rights (§3-602), but does not define a cure procedure specifically for incomplete registrations that are rejected. The statute addresses errors already in the system and provides correction mechanisms, but does not enumerate what happens when an initial registration application is deemed incomplete—no procedure is specified for the applicant to cure or resubmit incomplete information. The section satisfies elements of appeal and correction for some registration disputes, but fails the specific criterion of a cure procedure for incomplete registration applications.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs cure procedures for absent voter ballot signature deficiencies, not registration. It does not address cure procedures for incomplete voter registrations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses election result contests and challenges by candidates and voters, not voter registration procedures or cure mechanisms for incomplete registrations. It contains no statutory procedure for curing rejected or incomplete registrations. The criterion requires a defined cure procedure when registration is rejected; this section does not address registration rejection at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 62 addresses verification and correction of electoral rolls (voter eligibility lists), not candidate registration or nomination. The criterion (REG.3) concerns a cure procedure for incomplete candidate REGISTRATION, which is an entirely different procedural stage. This section provides no procedures for candidates whose registration applications are rejected as incomplete. The section's mention of requests for inclusion/exclusion from electoral rolls is a voter-facing mechanism, not a candidate registration cure procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article G6 addresses only the procedural modalities for deposit payments and form templates (general administrative rules and ministerial regulations). It contains no language defining a cure procedure for incomplete registration submissions—no mechanism for notice of deficiency, opportunity to correct, or timeline for resubmission. The article delegates detail to subordinate regulation (AMvB and ministerial decree) rather than establishing statutory cure rights.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While the statute acknowledges that cure procedures may exist and delegates authority to the Secretary of State to create rules about curing defects in registration forms, it does not itself define or enumerate any cure procedure in statutory text. The actual cure procedure is left entirely to administrative discretion and regulation rather than being established by statute. For the procedural-clarity standard, a defined cure procedure must be set forth in the statute itself, not merely authorized to be created by administrative agency.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses ballot counting procedures and standards, not voter registration or cure procedures for incomplete registrations. The statute contains no language regarding registration rejection, incomplete registration forms, or any cure mechanism for registration defects. It is outside the scope of the criterion entirely.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16.1-06-14 (voting-system requirements) is unrelated. ND's no-registration regime means the cure analogue is § 16.1-01-04.1 set-aside ballot procedure (incomplete ID) — voter has up to 6 days after election to provide complete ID. Cure exists, but is not for incomplete-registration.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section enumerates eligibility conditions for voter registration (felony convictions, incapacity) but does not address what happens when a registration is rejected as incomplete. It contains no cure procedure, no notice requirements, no opportunity to correct deficiencies, and no defined timeline for remedying registration rejections. The statute sets substantive eligibility gates but is silent on the procedural mechanisms for responding to incomplete registrations.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute requires notification of incomplete applications and directs the applicant to contact the local board, establishing minimal procedural clarity. However, the statute does not define what cure steps must be taken, what timeframe the applicant has to cure, whether the local board must assist in completing the application, or what happens if the application is not cured—these are left to administrative discretion. A clear cure procedure requires statutory enumeration of cure deadlines, acceptable methods of cure submission, and consequences of failure to cure.

“Your application to register to vote has been received incomplete. Please contact our office at the telephone number or address listed below.”

Section 12 requires notification and reasons for refusal, which is a procedural safeguard. However, the section does not define a cure procedure—it mandates only that the applicant be told why their registration was rejected. There is no mention of an opportunity to correct deficiencies, reapply, or appeal the rejection. The procedural clarity criterion requires both enumeration of requirements AND a defined cure path when a voter fails to meet them; notification alone does not constitute a cure procedure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 41 of LOREG addresses electoral roll data management, access to census copies, and restrictions on personal data disclosure. It contains no cure procedure for incomplete or rejected registrations. The statute regulates what data are collected (subsection 1), who may access census copies (subsections 4–5), and exceptional exclusions for safety reasons (subsection 6), but it does not specify any administrative remedy, notification requirement, or opportunity to cure when a voter's registration application is rejected or found incomplete.

The statute provides a clear appeal procedure (notice to registrant, 10-day appeal right to the commission, appeal form offered) and defines the commission's review process with written reasons. However, it does not define a cure procedure — that is, it does not specify whether or how a registrant may correct or cure deficiencies in an incomplete registration before rejection becomes final. The statute only provides post-rejection appeal, not pre-rejection remediation. For the criterion to be fully satisfied, the statute must enumerate a defined opportunity to cure the incomplete registration (e.g., notice of deficiency, time to cure, specific submission requirements), which is absent here.

“the administrator shall tell the registrant the reason, write the reason on the back of the original permanent registration record, and file the original and the duplicate alphabetically in a binder of rejected registrations. The administrator shall tell the registrant that the registrant has a right to appeal the decision to the commission within ten (10) days and offer the registrant an appeal form.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is an amendment that omits (deletes) sections 11 and 12 from prior legislation. It does not define, establish, or describe any cure procedure for incomplete registration. The section is purely legislative mechanics—removing provisions—and contains no substantive procedural rule about how a voter whose registration is rejected may correct or cure deficiencies.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the Department of Elections' duties related to redistricting and district boundary verification. It contains no language concerning voter registration incompleteness, rejection procedures, or cure mechanisms. The section is entirely procedural regarding map review and district assignment verification, not registration acceptance or rejection.

The statute requires forms for completing incomplete ballot declarations and updating signatures, which is a foundational procedural element. However, the section does not define when a registration is deemed incomplete, what triggers the cure process, what timeline applies, how voters are notified of rejection, or what happens if a cure attempt fails. The statute delegates form design to the secretary of state but leaves the substantive cure procedure to regulation or administrative practice.

“The secretary of state shall design forms for voters to use in completing incomplete ballot declarations and forms to be used by voters in updating a voter's signature in the county's registration files”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute provides a cure procedure only for election-day registrations: applicants lacking required proof may cast a provisional ballot and have until the close of business the following day to present documentation. However, the statute provides no cure procedure for pre-election-day registrations rejected as incomplete—it only states that registration information must be 'verified' and, on failure, the registration 'shall be revoked in accordance with W.S. 22-3-105.' The cure pathway is therefore incomplete and limited in scope, satisfying the criterion only partially.

“On election day, applicants attempting to register who lack the proof required under this section shall be offered provisional ballots in accordance with W.S. 22-15-105 and permitted until the close of business on the day following the election to present documentation to the county clerk establishing their eligibility to register and to vote in the precinct.”