Rejection challenge right

This section provides a clear statutory right to challenge a rejected registration, with enumerated procedural steps: appeal filing within 30 days, venue in probate court, notice to district attorney, and appeal rights to circuit court and Alabama Supreme Court. The procedure is exhaustively defined in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Any person to whom registration is denied shall have the right of appeal, without giving security for costs, within 30 days after such denial, by filing a petition in the probate court in the county in which he or she seeks to register”

The statute explicitly codifies a two-tiered challenge right in statutory language: an applicant refused registration has a statutory right to an immediate informal appeal to the area election supervisor, and if refused there, the action is reviewable by the superior court. Both the initial appeal right and the judicial review pathway are set by statute with defined procedures (informal, verbal or written appeal; court review with expedited treatment near elections).

“The person shall have the right to an immediate appeal to the area election supervisor, which appeal may be taken informally, and either verbally or in writing. When a voter is refused registration by an area election supervisor the action shall be reviewed by the superior court of the judicial district”

Article 27 of the Argentine Electoral Code (Ley 19.945) statutorily codifies the voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration. The provision explicitly grants electors the right to file a claim (reclamo) before the electoral judge within a 15-day period if they are absent from or erroneously listed in provisional registration rolls. Multiple challenge methods are enumerated (in person, postal, web), and the procedure is set by statute rather than administrative discretion.

The statute explicitly codifies in subsection (b) the voter's right to challenge a removal or purge from the registration list, with a clear 30-day window. The right is set by statute, not left to administrative discretion, and provides enumerated timing for the challenge procedure.

Section 120 establishes a statutory right to challenge rejection or removal of voter registration through internal review. The statute enumerates which decisions are reviewable (including refusals to enrol under ss. 93A, 94A, 95, 96, 98A, 102, and removal decisions under s. 118), sets a clear 28-day deadline for challenge, requires personal review or delegation to an uninvolved reviewer, and provides a defined decision path (confirm, vary, or set aside with substitution). This establishes a complete statutory challenge procedure meeting the procedural-clarity standard.

“A person notified of a reviewable decision made in relation to the person may apply, in writing, to the Electoral Commissioner for a review of the decision.”

The section explicitly establishes that a 'Berichtigungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren' (correction and complaint procedure) applies to voter registration matters. By reference to §§ 23–26 and 28–37 of the NRWO (National Council Electoral Regulation), the statute codifies the right to challenge rejected or removed registrations through a defined statutory procedure, satisfying the criterion's requirement that the challenge right be statutorily grounded and enumerated.

“das Berichtigungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren”

Article 21 codifies the voter's right to challenge irregularities in the voter list. Article 70 codifies nomination-cancellation appeal. Article 65 codifies signature-based nomination. Article 101 codifies Council of Republic candidate registration. Article 49 codifies liability for obstructing electoral rights. Statutory challenge-right framework codified.

The statute establishes in clear, binding language that any person improperly inscribed, omitted, or struck from the electoral list—or whose listing contains inaccurate information—may file a complaint (réclamation) before the municipal college of burgomaster and aldermen within a defined temporal window (twelfth day before the election). This codifies both the right to challenge and the procedural forum and deadline. Art. 19 reinforces this by confirming that any person meeting electoral conditions may challenge inscriptions, removals, omissions, or inaccuracies. The procedure is statutory, the grounds are enumerated, and the remedy channel is designated.

Article 45, §§ 7–8 explicitly codifies in statute the voter's right to challenge a rejected registration (despacho que indeferir) through an appeal process (recurso), with defined jurisdiction (Tribunal Regional Eleitoral) and timeline (within 5 days). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for a statutory, enumerated, and reviewable rejection challenge right.

Чл. 45 codifies the appeal procedure for refusal of inclusion: notice given immediately, 2-day window to appeal to administrative court, court decides within 2 days, decision is final and non-appealable.

“Отказът за вписване в избирателния списък се съобщава на заявителя незабавно и може да се обжалва пред съответния административен съд”

Article 29 of the PRC Election Law establishes a clear statutory challenge right for voters disputing their registration status. The section enumerates: (1) a complaint window (5 days after publication), (2) an administrative cure process (election committee decision within 3 days), (3) a defined appeal path (judicial review before election day), and (4) a final arbiter (people's court). All procedural steps are grounded in statute with specific timelines and decision authorities.

The statute explicitly grants voters a statutory right to challenge a registration removal by appealing to district court within three days, with defined procedures for filing, notice, and hearing. The criterion asks whether the voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration is codified in statute—not the challenger's right to initiate challenges, but the registrant's right to contest removal. This section provides exactly that: a clear statutory appeal mechanism with enumerated steps (verified petition, notice to other party, hearing within 3–5 days) and a defined review standard (competent legal evidence only; residence at registered address must be proven).

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-31l(a)(1) codifies in statute an explicit right for a person denied admission as an elector to appeal that rejection decision. The statute enumerates the appeal pathway (to registrars or board depending on who made the initial decision), specifies timelines for notice and hearing (within 7–21 days), and provides further appeal to the State Elections Enforcement Commission with defined procedures and deadlines. This satisfies the criterion because the challenge right is statutorily grounded, not left to administrative discretion.

“A person who is denied admission as an elector may appeal a decision of an admitting official of a town concerning the right of such person to be or remain an elector. Any such appeal shall be made to the registrars of voters of such town, except that if the admitting official who made such decision is a registrar of voters, the appeal shall be made to the board for admission of electors of such town.”

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to challenge errors or omissions in voter registration lists by petitioning the competent court for correction or supplementation. § 200j(1) provides a clear statutory path for affected citizens to challenge registration problems, and § 200j(4) designates the district court as the competent authority, establishing both the right and the procedural venue in binding statutory language.

“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 explicitly grants any interested person (including a voter whose registration is refused or removed) a statutory right to appeal such decisions to the court. The appeal right is codified in statute, enumerated to cover both refusal of registration and removal from records, and includes a defined appeal path (to the Resident Judge or Supreme Court judge). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion.

“From the decision of the Department or the registration officers granting or refusing registration or removing or refusing to remove names from the registration records, any person interested or any member of such Department or any registration officer may appeal to the court.”

§ 88 codifies that any voter may complain about Folketing elections to the Folketing via the Minister. § 103 codifies parallel for referendums. § 35 codifies Ankestyrelsen review of candidates. § 22 codifies error correction in voter lists. § 42 codifies candidate-list preparation. Rejection-challenge right codified.

§ 25 of the Riigikogu Election Act codifies the voter's right to challenge a rejected list-of-voters correction — a complaint to the administrative court of the voter's residence, decided within three working days, with the court empowered to order the entry or amendment.

“Where a rural municipality or city secretary dismisses an application specified in subsection 2 of this section, the applicant may file a complaint with an administrative court of their residence against the act of the rural municipality or city secretary.”

§ 24 codifies the correction-request (oikaisuvaatimus) right: anyone who considers they have been wrongly excluded from the voter register or that an entry concerning them is erroneous may submit a written request to the register office. § 25 codifies the decision. § 27 codifies appeal to the regional administrative court. § 23 codifies data-checking. Rejection-challenge right codified.

§ 98.0755 grants explicit circuit-court appeal right for ineligibility determinations. § 102.168 provides broader election-contest pathway.

“Appeal of the supervisor’s determination of ineligibility pursuant to s. 98.075 (7) may be taken to the circuit court in and for the county where the person was registered.”

Article R18 of the French Electoral Code establishes a clear statutory right to challenge registration decisions before a tribunal (court), with defined procedural rules: notice requirement (3 days' advance warning), temporal limit (decision within 8 days), and parties' right to present observations. The tribunal must verify the validity of documents supporting the voter's registration request, confirming substantive review of the challenge. This constitutes a statutorily codified, enumerated appeal mechanism for rejected or disputed registrations.

“Le tribunal statue, sans forme et sur simple avertissement donné trois jours à l'avance à toutes les parties intéressées, dans les huit jours du recours.”

Article 74 codifies the complaints procedure: 'A DEC secretary shall, upon the receipt of an application/complaint... register the application/complaint.' Article 41 (rights of observers) reinforces standing. Article 31 codifies voter-register challenge mechanisms.

§ 21-2-230 codifies challenge of persons on list of electors by other electors, procedure, hearing, and right of appeal. § 21-2-229 codifies challenge of applicant for registration with hearing and appeal. § 21-2-522.1 codifies rebuttable presumption of legal vote in contested election. Comprehensive rejection-challenge framework.

The statute explicitly grants voters a statutory right to challenge (Beschwerde) a municipal authority's decision regarding voter registration. The challenge right is codified in § 22(5), specifies a clear two-day deadline, identifies the responsible appellate body (Kreiswahlleiter), and mandates a decision deadline (fourth day before the election). The procedure is fully enumerated in statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“Gegen die Entscheidung der Gemeindebehörde kann binnen zwei Tagen nach Zustellung Beschwerde an den Kreiswahlleiter eingelegt werden.”

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 17 codifies the right of every elector or recognized-party agent to challenge registration or non-registration via formal objection to the mayor, with 5-day public posting of pending challenges.

“Μέσα στις προθεσμίες αυτές κάθε εκλογέας ή αντιπρόσωπος Κόμματος αναγνωρισμένου κατά τον κανονισμό της Βουλής, έχει το δικαίωμα να υποβάλει στον δήμαρχο ένσταση κατά της εγγραφής ή της μη εγγραφής ενός προσώπου στις καταστάσεις αυτές”

The statute explicitly codifies the right to challenge rejection (being excluded from the voter list) or improper inclusion, specifying a deadline (2 weeks before election day), the procedural requirement (written complaint with brief justification), and the entity responsible for handling it (valgbestyrelsen). The statute further provides an appeal path to Valgnævnet within 2 business days, with defined procedures at both levels.

The statute explicitly codifies in statutory text (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-26) the voter's right to challenge a rejection or adverse ruling on registration. It enumerates two pathways: (1) immediate appeal before leaving the voter service center on election day, and (2) appeal within ten days of service for pre-election day challenges. Both the right to challenge and the appeal mechanism are statutorily grounded, not left to administrative discretion.

“In cases where the clerk, or voter service center officials, rules on a challenge on election day, the person ruled against may appeal from the ruling to the board of registration of the person's county for review under part III.”

The statute expressly codifies a right to challenge rejections of registration applications by establishing an appeal mechanism to the Election Appeal Committee. This provides a clear, statutorily-grounded appeal path for voters whose registration is denied, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement for rejection challenge rights.

The statute codifies a clear right for a voter to challenge a registration removal by responding within 20 days, presenting evidence at a hearing, and having the county clerk make a determination. The procedure is enumerated in statute with defined timelines, notice requirements, a cure opportunity, and a formal appeal hearing—all procedural elements essential to satisfying the criterion.

“Within twenty (20) days from the date of mailing of the written inquiry, the elector may, in person or in writing, state that the information on his registration card is correct. Upon receipt of such a statement or request, the county clerk shall determine whether the information satisfies the challenge. If the county clerk determines that the challenge has not been satisfied, the county clerk shall schedule a hearing on the challenge and shall notify the elector of the place and time of the hearing. The hearing shall be held no later than twenty (20) days after notice is given. At the hearing, the challenged elector may present evidence of qualification.”

Section 15(2) expressly provides that Part II of the Second Schedule governs 'the ruling on an appeal against the decision of the registration authority,' establishing a statutorily-grounded appeal mechanism for rejected registration applications. This meets the procedural-clarity standard by codifying in statute (not delegating to discretion) the right to challenge a registration decision through a defined appeal process.

“The provisions of Part II of the Second Schedule shall apply to— ( a ) consideration of applications under subsection (1) by the registration authority and the ruling on such applications by the registration authority, ( b ) the ruling on an appeal against the decision of the registration authority”

The statute explicitly grants candidates and nominating associations a defined right to challenge registration refusal or cancellation, specifying the timeframe (ten days), the forum (Supreme Court), and the appellate court's review deadline (ten days). This satisfies the criterion for a statutorily-grounded rejection challenge procedure.

“The refusal of the Central Election Commission to register the candidate to President or cancellation of the decision on registration can be appealed within ten days personally by the candidate or the public association which has nominated a candidate to the Supreme Court which shall consider the appeal within ten days from the date of its submission. The decision of the Supreme Court shall be final.”

The statute explicitly grants citizens a statutory right to challenge (lodge complaints/reclamations) against electoral lists, specifying the administrative body to address, the deadline (by May 10), and the mechanism (written reclamations). The text further establishes that reclamations must be submitted to the municipal administrative body before judicial review, creating a defined statutory challenge procedure.

“L'avis précise que tout citoyen peut adresser au collège des bourgmestre et échevins, jusqu'au 10 mai au plus tard et séparément pour chaque électeur, toutes réclamations auxquelles les listes électorales pourraient donner lieu.”

The statute explicitly codifies the right to challenge a rejected registration in clear, enumerated terms: a citizen whose registration claim is rejected may submit a challenge within 15 days to the tribunal of first instance. The procedure is further detailed with specific timelines (10 days for the tribunal president to rule, 7 days for notification), meeting the statutory-grounding and enumeration requirements.

The statute explicitly establishes a codified right for voters to challenge both cancellations and rejections of registration. The appeal mechanism is set forth in statute with specified procedures: written appeal within 30 days, appointment of a multi-member appeals board with defined composition, notice requirements (20 days in advance), de novo hearing rights, and further appeal to Superior Court. All elements—statutory grounding, enumeration of appeal paths, and defined procedures—are clearly present.

“if a person is aggrieved by the decision of the registrar of voters to cancel that person's registration in the central voter registration system or to reject that person's voter registration application, that person may appeal in writing to the registration appeals board”

The section codifies in statute an explicit right to appeal rejection or cancellation of voter registration to a designated officer (Revising Officer), with a defined timeframe (up to fifteen days before election) and clear grounds for relief (possession of qualifications on appeal date). Both procedural clarity and statutory grounding are present.

“Any person whose registration as a voter is cancelled from the Electoral Register by virtue of the power vested in the Commission in terms of article 24 shall have the right to appeal to a Revising Officer.”

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to file an administrative complaint when aggrieved by a local board's action regarding voter registration, which encompasses challenges to rejection or removal. The statute further establishes a defined appeal path to Circuit Court for eligibility determinations and then to the Appellate Court of Maryland, providing a complete statutory procedure for challenging registration decisions.

“(a) Under the procedures established by the State Board, an administrative complaint may be filed by: (1) a person who feels aggrieved by an action of a local board regarding voter registration”

Article 143(6) provides a clear statutory right to challenge (impugnar) a rejected registration decision before the Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Electoral). The statute enumerates both the trigger (rejection or lack of timely response) and the forum for appeal, establishing a defined review pathway in law rather than administrative discretion.

The statute provides notice by registered/certified mail upon removal, an immediate cure (showing wrongful removal to the clerk for reinstatement), and a statutorily-grounded appeal via mandamus with supreme court review.

§ 201.195 codifies the rejection-challenge right: a registered voter may challenge eligibility via petition, with timing and hearing rules. § 201.12 codifies verification by mail + challenges. § 203B.20 codifies absentee-application challenges. § 204C.12 codifies polling-place challenges. Comprehensive rejection-challenge framework codified.

The statute codifies a voter's right to challenge a rejected registration by establishing a clear statutory appeal mechanism: denial may be appealed to the board of election commissioners within a defined timeframe (same day or within 5 days) via written application. The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

Article 62(3) explicitly grants voters a statutory right to challenge rejections of correction or listing requests through court review following an established procedure. The right to challenge is codified in the statute with a defined timeframe (24-hour examination) and appeal path (stakeholders may challenge decisions in court).

§ 13-13-301 codifies the voter's right to contest a challenge to their registration — the challenged elector may refute the challenge by sworn affidavit, must be notified of the challenge and grounds, and may cast a provisional ballot.

“the challenged elector may fill out and sign an affidavit to refute the challenge and swear that the elector is eligible to vote.”

Article Q 6(5) explicitly codifies the statutory right to file a written appeal (beroepschrift) against a registration decision, with a defined deadline (sixth day after publication in the Staatscourant). This provides clear, enumerated appeal procedure in statute for challenging rejection or removal of a political grouping's registration.

“In afwijking van de artikelen 6:7 en 6:8, eerste lid, van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht wordt een beroepschrift tegen een beschikking als bedoeld in dit artikel ingediend uiterlijk op de zesde dag na de dagtekening van de Staatscourant waarin de beschikking is medegedeeld.”

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to challenge a rejection or denial of the right to vote, providing a clear appellate remedy via Superior Court application. The procedure is detailed, including the substantive findings required (residency, citizenship, non-disenfranchisement, proper registration or good-faith registration attempt), the evidence standard (preponderance where credibility is disputed), and the remedy (written authorization to vote). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for registration challenge rights.

“Any person whose name does not appear on a challenge list prepared by the superintendent of elections of the county but who is challenged and denied the right to vote on the day of a municipal, primary, general, or special election by a duly authorized challenger or by a member of a district board of elections, may apply to a Superior Court judge sitting at the county seat for permission to vote.”

This section explicitly codifies in statute the right of a qualified elector (or party chair) to challenge a refused registration through an appeal mechanism. The right is enumerated directly in the statute and references a defined appeal procedure (§ 39-3-1.1), establishing both the substantive right and the procedural path.

§ 8-510 codifies challenge-report completion with administrative procedure. § 5-702 codifies bipartisan investigation of voter qualifications before purge. § 17-108 codifies penalty for destruction of registration records. § 9-209 codifies the canvass procedure for challenged ballots — rejection challenge right is codified.

§ 16-7 codifies complaint requirements. § 16-5 codifies who may complain about election validity. § 16-2 codifies standing for Storting election complaints. § 16-3 codifies standing for county election complaints. § 16-8 codifies complaint-handling procedure. Rejection-challenge right codified.

ORC 3503.24 codifies the right of any qualified elector to challenge a registration with a hearing requirement before the BOE (≤10 days, written notice to challenged elector). Provides the elector a notice-and-opportunity-to-respond.

“challenge of the right to vote of any registered elector may be made by any qualified elector”

§ 1329 codifies challenge procedure: any individual may be challenged by a commissioner/registrar/clerk or by another qualified elector via a sworn affidavit. The challenged individual must respond in writing with evidence — defined procedure to contest registration. Note: this codifies CHALLENGE PROCESS (others challenging the voter), which when combined with § 1233 right of appeal codifies the elector's contestation framework.

“An individual claiming the right to be registered may be challenged by a commissioner”

Article 22 provides a comprehensive statutory framework for challenging voter registration rejections or removals. The right to challenge is enumerated in statute (§5), the procedure is defined (written or oral complaint to the wójt within 3 days of decision delivery, followed by appeal to the district court), and both cure (initial complaint process in §1-3) and appeal mechanisms (judicial review in §5) are codified. A voter can challenge omission, wrongful inclusion, incorrect data, or improper residence designation.

Art. 22 (EU complementary list) codifies the voter's right to challenge omissions/errors: written objection to mayor, 3-day decision, 24-hour appeal to district court (final).

“Întâmpinările împotriva omisiunilor, înscrierilor greşite sau oricăror erori”

Article 75 codifies the right to appeal decisions and actions violating electoral rights, including registration removal. Article 78 codifies appeal-submission terms. Article 76 codifies registration-annulment procedures. Comprehensive appeal framework codified.

Section 15(1) explicitly codifies in statute the right of any person to object to exclusion from, inclusion in, or correction of details on the voters' roll. Section 15(3) mandates that the Commission must decide the objection and notify relevant parties within 14 days, establishing a defined procedural framework. While section 15(5) restricts appeal rights to those under the Electoral Commission Act, the core statutory right to challenge rejection or removal is clearly enumerated and grounded in the Electoral Act itself.

Section 7-5-230(C) explicitly codifies in statute the right of any person denied registration to appeal that decision to the court of common pleas and subsequently to the Supreme Court. This establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded appeal path for rejected applicants, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement.

“Any person denied registration or restoration of his name on the registration books shall have the right of appeal from the decision of the county board of voter registration and elections denying him registration or such restoration to the court of common pleas of the county or any judge thereof and subsequently to the Supreme Court.”

§ 12-4-59 codifies voter-registration challenge procedure: applicants for correction of precinct registration list may be challenged by SoS, county auditor, or any registered voter in the county, with grounds limited to non-residency or registration in another state. § 12-18-10 codifies grounds for challenge of applicant to vote. § 12-18-6.3 codifies identity-challenge + provisional ballot. Rejection-challenge right codified.

Article 39(3) explicitly grants any person the statutory right to lodge a claim (reclamación) with the Provincial Census Office regarding census data, including omission from the census despite being entitled to be included. Article 39(6) prescribes a defined resolution procedure (3-day deadline) with notification to claimants. The right, scope, and appeal mechanism are all codified in statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“Dentro del plazo anterior, cualquier persona podrá formular reclamación dirigida a la Delegación Provincial de la Oficina del Censo Electoral sobre sus datos censales, si bien solo podrán ser tenidas en cuenta las que se refieran a la rectificación de errores en los datos personales, a los cambios de domicilio dentro de una misma circunscripción o a la no inclusión del reclamante en ninguna Sección del Censo de la circunscripción pese a tener derecho a ello.”

15 kap. 5 § codifies appeal to Valprövningsnämnden. 15 kap. 4 § codifies standing for appeals by voters and parties. 15 kap. 6 § codifies submission procedure. 15 kap. 7 § codifies misdirected-appeal acceptance. Rejection-challenge right codified.

The statute explicitly grants the registrant a statutorily-codified right to appeal a rejection decision to the commission within a defined 10-day window, with a mandatory appeal form offer and final administrative review by the commission. The procedure is enumerated in statute with clear timeline and reviewing body.

“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. The action of the commission on the registrant's application for registration on appeal shall be a final administrative action.”

§ 13.075 requires the registrar to notify a registration applicant of any challenge with 'a brief explanation of the applicant's right to a hearing on the challenge and the right to appeal the registrar's decision.' § 16.066 codifies the registrar's written determination of a challenge, § 16.094 the hearing notice, and § 16.036 the right to challenge a cancellation. The voter's challenge/appeal right is codified.

“the applicant's right to a hearing on the challenge and the right to appeal the registrar's decision”

Law 298 Article 122 codifies the right to challenge voter-list entries: party district officials, party HQ officials, AND individual voters with proper standing may file challenges and objections to district election boards (for local voters), to YSK (for HQ officials/entire register), and personal challenges to district boards.

Art. I-64 codifies filing complaints to court. Art. I-63 codifies principles of complaints against decisions/actions/inactions related to the election process — including voter-registration rejection. Comprehensive rejection-challenge right codified.

Section 56(1) explicitly establishes a statutory right of appeal to the county court for multiple registration rejection and removal scenarios, including decisions not to register (s. 10ZC), not to alter a register (s. 10ZD), and decisions terminating registration entitlement (s. 10ZE). This is statutorily codified procedure with defined judicial review path. The section further specifies prescribed notice and hearing rights as conditions to appeal, establishing clear statutory guardrails.

“An appeal lies to the county court— a from any decision of a registration officer not to register a person following an application under section 10ZC, aza from any decision of a registration officer to register a person following an application under section 10ZC in a case where an objection has been made under that section, azb from any decision of a registration officer not to alter a register following an application under section 10ZD, azc from any decision of a registration officer to alter a register following an application under section 10ZD in a case where an objection has been made under that section, azd from any decision of a registration officer under section 10ZE, or any other provision of this Act, as a result of which a person's entitlement to remain registered terminates”

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to challenge a registration removal due to non-citizenship determination. The procedure is fully enumerated in statute: the election officer must notify the individual in writing (with specified methods in Subsection 7), provide the reason, grant a 30-day opportunity to dispute, and only remove after the dispute period closes without refutation. The cure path (providing documentary proof of citizenship) and appeal mechanism (the dispute period itself) are both statutorily defined.

§ 2147 codifies the voter's challenge route: the checklist is corrected to add names 'as directed by any Superior judge on appeal,' providing judicial review of a registration decision. § 2556 lets a voter who disputes a rejected registration cast a provisional ballot, and § 2146 codifies the board's eligibility determination. The right to challenge a rejected or removed registration is codified.

The section explicitly codifies in statute the right of a person whose registration has been cancelled to appeal that decision to circuit court. The appeal mechanism is set forth by reference to § 24.2-422, establishing a clear statutory remedy for registration rejection/removal.

“Any person whose registration was cancelled in accordance with the decision of the general registrar pursuant to § 24.2-429 , shall have the right of appeal, as provided in § 24.2-422 , to the circuit court of the county or city in which he offers to register.”

W. Va. Code § 3-2-17 establishes a comprehensive, statutorily-grounded challenge procedure for rejected registrations. The section specifies multiple appeal pathways: reconsideration before the county clerk (subsection c, with a 14-day decision deadline), a hearing before the county commission (subsection d, with 30-day hearing and 15-day decision timelines), and further appeal to circuit court (subsection e) and the Supreme Court of Appeals (subsection f). All procedural steps and deadlines are enumerated in statute, not left to administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion.

“An applicant whose application for registration is denied by the clerk of the county commission because of ineligibility or for failure to submit proof of residence may make a written request for a reconsideration by the clerk, and may present information relating to his or her eligibility. The clerk shall review the request for consideration and shall issue a decision in writing within fourteen days of the receipt of the request.”

The statute explicitly grants a statutory right to challenge a denial of registration through appeal to circuit court or district court within a defined timeframe (5 days), with notice requirements and court deadlines specified. The procedure is enumerated in the statute rather than left to administrative discretion, and includes a defined appeal path.

“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.”

10 ILCS 5/4-8 covers registration record card maintenance and challenge process — partial coverage of the rejection-challenge right.

Latvia codifies a general right to challenge election-commission registration decisions — § 22¹ of the Local Government Council Election Law allows a commission registration decision to be contested to the Central Election Commission and appealed to court; the surfaced provisions concern candidate-list registration, with voter-roll corrections handled by the electoral-register administrator.

Voter lists are publicly accessible for inspection (§ 29) with inquiry telephones, and § 32 codifies corrections to voter lists; a discrete voter right to challenge a rejected voter registration isn't separately codified because registration is automatic.

The statute provides a general right to compel the registrar through mandamus and establishes an expedited appellate review process, which supports challenge rights. However, the section does not specifically address rejection or removal of registration, does not enumerate what constitutes a valid challenge to a registration decision, and does not establish a dedicated cure procedure for rejected registrations. The remedy is general administrative law (mandamus) rather than a statutory procedure specific to registration challenges.

The section addresses a narrow challenge right for denials of sealing requests under this specific confidentiality procedure, but does not establish a general right for voters to challenge rejection or removal of their voter registration itself. The statute codifies a procedural right to contest a sealing denial, but REG.4 concerns the broader right to challenge any rejection or removal from the voter roll—a distinct and more fundamental procedural safeguard that this section does not address.

“If the court denies an affiant's requested sealing of the voter registration record, the affiant may request a court hearing. The hearing shall be conducted by the court where the petition was filed.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 112 codifies CANDIDATE-registration appeal procedure (not voter-registration). Article 91 covers candidate status. The voter-registration challenge mechanism lives in Article 12 of the Electoral Code which wasn't FTS-surfaced here.

Div 16 contest provisions (§§ 16442, 16462, 16521) provide a judicial contest mechanism for election outcomes, not specifically for rejected registrations. CA's registration-challenge procedure lives in Div 2 (Elec Code § 2222-2229, not ingested).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section defines 'litigation expense' for leadership contestants in the context of campaign finance under Part 18. It does not address voter registration, rejection, or any challenge procedure for voters whose registration is rejected or removed. The criterion asks whether a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration is codified in statute; this section is entirely outside that domain and provides no relevant procedural framework.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs challenged candidacy filings and the procedure for questioning a candidate's eligibility—it is not about voter registration rejection or removal. The criterion asks whether a voter has a statutory right to challenge their own rejected or removed registration; this statute addresses only the right of registered voters or party chairs to challenge candidate eligibility. There is no procedural guidance here on registration rejection, removal, or cure.

The statute provides clear notice and appeal rights for a registrant whose registration is canceled (subsection 2 requires notification by mail; subsection 1 provides for appeal to district court). However, the criterion asks specifically whether the voter's right to *challenge* a rejected or removed registration is codified. This section addresses the *hearing and appeal process* after a challenge has been filed by another party (challenger), not the voter's affirmative right to challenge their own removal or rejection. The statute does not enumerate what triggers a challenge, who may file one, or what procedural rights exist for a voter to affirmatively contest their own removal before the hearing stage. Cure procedures and initial challenge-filing rights are not addressed here.

The statute establishes a provisional ballot procedure and requires notice of disposition to be sent to the voter following rejection, but does not codify a statutory right for the voter to challenge or appeal a rejection decision. The section mandates notice but does not specify a cure mechanism, appeal process, or formal challenge procedure available to the voter whose registration has been rejected or removed. Procedural appeal/review rights are absent.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The surfaced candidates concern challenges to voters and ballots (KRS 117.315, 117.087) and registration transfers (KRS 116.085), not a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses objections to nomination papers (candidates' filings), not voter registration challenges. It specifies which bodies consider nomination-paper disputes but does not codify any voter right to challenge a rejected or removed voter registration. The statute does not establish a procedure for voters to contest removal or rejection from the voter roll.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses post-election challenges to election returns and results by candidates and voters, not the registration rejection or removal challenge procedures that criterion REG.4 requires. The statute provides no procedure for a voter to challenge a rejected or removed registration—it covers only contestation of completed election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 32-307 establishes procedural rules governing the conduct and environment of voter registration sites (neutrality, prohibited materials, no alcohol), but does not address rejection of registrations, challenge rights, or any procedure for contesting a registration denial or removal. The statute contains no language codifying a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration.

The section provides a statutory procedure for challenging a county clerk's objection to a defective application (subsection 8-9), involving notification and district attorney review within 5 business days. However, this addresses only applications with handwritten additions, erasures, or interlineations. The section does not establish a general right for voters to challenge rejection of complete applications or to challenge removal from the voter rolls. The cure/appeal mechanism is narrowly limited to one type of defect and does not comprehensively address rejection challenges as contemplated by REG.4.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the preservation and retention of absentee ballot affidavits, rejected ballots, and voter registration materials after an election, but it does not codify a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration. The statute addresses record-keeping timelines and procedures for destruction of election materials, not the substantive right or procedure for a voter to contest rejection or removal from the registration rolls.

This section describes appellate review of challenge decisions but does not establish a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration in the first instance. The statute presupposes that challenges exist (referencing G.S. 163-85) but does not codify the procedural right to challenge rejection or removal here. The appeal right is statutory and clear, but the underlying right to mount a challenge must be found elsewhere in the statute.

“A decision by a county board of elections on any challenge made under the provisions of this Article shall be appealable to the Superior Court of the county in which the offices of that board are located within 10 days.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16.1-08.1-01 (Campaign-finance Definitions) is unrelated. ND has no voter registration, so 'rejection-challenge' analogue is the § 16.1-05-06 challenge framework with affidavit-alternative.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's internal procedures for reviewing complaints and conducting investigations into alleged campaign finance violations. It does not address voter registration rejection, removal, or any mechanism for voters to challenge rejected or removed registrations. The criterion concerns electoral access (voter registration challenges), while this section concerns ethics enforcement and campaign finance compliance.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 254.535 addresses only the preservation and destruction of election materials (tally sheets, ballots, challenge statements) following an election. It contains no provisions regarding voter registration rejection, removal, or the right to challenge such administrative actions. The statute is silent on registration disputes and appeal procedures, which are the subject of REG.4.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 50.º addresses the powers of party delegates during voting and vote-counting operations, focusing on observer rights and document-signing authority. It contains no provision addressing voter registration rejection, removal, or any challenge/appeal mechanism for such administrative decisions. The statute deals with procedural oversight at the polling place, not with registration disputes or rejection procedures.

The statute provides a clear hearing procedure for voters whose registration is challenged (§ 17-9.1-28 establishes the right to appear and answer questions), but the criterion asks about a voter's right to *challenge a rejection or removal* of their registration — a distinct procedural protection. The section describes how voters may defend against a challenge to their existing registration, but does not establish a statutory right or procedure for a voter to appeal or challenge an adverse removal decision by the local board. The statute lacks an enumerated appeal or review mechanism above the local board level.

“The challenged voter shall appear before the local board at a time and place to be determined by the local board. The objector shall also be notified of the hearing.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: President Election Law Article 19 governs municipal commission's results-reporting timeline, not rejection challenge against voter-list entry.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 20985 (electronic voting study); not registration-rejection challenge.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.68.020 addresses election contests and challenges to candidate eligibility and election results, not voter registration rejection or removal. The statute does not establish a procedure for voters to challenge their own registration rejection or removal. For the registration challenge criterion, this section is simply off-topic and provides no relevant procedure.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.