Mail-in voting procedure

The statute comprehensively codifies mail-in voting procedure: application methods and requirements are enumerated; application deadlines are specified (10 days before election); ballot return procedures are detailed; signature verification and witnessing requirements are statutorily prescribed; and counting deadlines and postmark rules are set forth. The procedure is not left to administrative discretion.

Cal. Elec. Code § 15101 codifies the vote-by-mail processing timeline (mail-out no later than 29 days before election; processing begin date). § 15104 mandates open public processing. § 15106 incorporates election laws by reference. Combined with Div 3 of Elec Code (not ingested) which codifies all-vote-by-mail under the Voter's Choice Act, CA has the most comprehensive mail-in framework in the corpus.

§ 56 codifies brevstemme (postal-vote) framework: 'postal voting within the country can take place from the calling of the election until and including the third-to-last weekday before election day.' § 60 codifies postal-vote material (ballot paper, envelope, follow-letter, outer envelope). § 65 codifies pre-election processing. § 100 codifies parallel for referendums. § 64 codifies receipt protocol. Comprehensive postal-voting framework codified.

Estonia codifies postal voting for voters abroad — § 49 (preparation), the application provisions and § 52 (voting by post) set out the full procedure: double-envelope return, voter data on the outer envelope, and a receipt deadline at the foreign mission.

“The voter places the completed ballot paper in one of the envelopes sent by the foreign mission.”

§ 47 codifies the advance-voting (ennakkoäänestys) period — beginning the 11th day before election day. § 4 codifies that elections comprise advance voting + election-day voting. § 46 codifies advance voting at home and at care institutions for those unable to attend a polling station. Finland's advance/postal-equivalent voting framework codified (postal voting from abroad available since 2019).

§ 101.6951 + Ch. 101 Part V (vote-by-mail) codify comprehensive mail-in voting procedure for any voter (no excuse required) including overseas voters via UOCAVA.

“An overseas voter may request, not earlier than 180 days before a general election, a state write-in vote-by-mail ballot”

10 ILCS 5/19-3 codifies the vote-by-mail application form, eligibility, deadlines, and the permanent vote-by-mail option (§ 19-3(b)). Article 19 of the Election Code is dedicated to vote-by-mail procedure.

“Application for a vote by mail ballot”

K.S.A. 25-433 provides comprehensive statutory codification of the mail-in voting procedure, including enumerated deadlines for mailing ballots (20-10 days before election), return deadlines (by election day via mail or noon on election day in person), signature verification requirements comparing envelope signatures to registration records, and a defined cure procedure requiring county election officers to contact electors with signature deficiencies and allow correction before canvass. The statute also covers replacement ballot procedures for destroyed, spoiled, or lost ballots. All procedural elements are set forth in the statute itself rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

KRS 117.085 codifies the mail-in absentee voting procedure: all requests are made through a secure online portal established by the State Board of Elections, with defined application, cancellation, and administrative-regulation provisions. KRS 117.086 codifies ballot return (by mail, hand delivery, or secure drop box), KRS 117.087 codifies challenge, processing, review, and counting, and KRS 117.0863 codifies assisted absentee voting. Comprehensive mail-in voting procedure codified.

Latvia codifies postal voting for voters abroad — § 45 of the Saeima Election Law sets the full procedure: application to a diplomatic/consular mission, a statutory application window (70 days to three weeks before election day), and return via a registration envelope with a signed in-person statement.

“A voter who wishes to vote by post shall submit a submission for postal voting to the relevant diplomatic or consular mission of the Republic of Latvia”

Lithuania codifies postal voting — § 67 sets eligibility, application and the post-office collection window (5 days before the election), § 57/§ 59 govern ballot delivery, and § 72 the accounting and counting of postal envelopes and ballots.

“Accounting of envelopes for voting by post and ballot papers shall be kept by the head of the post office”

§ 204B.45 codifies mail balloting for designated jurisdictions. § 204B.46 codifies mail elections for ballot questions. § 203B series codifies no-excuse absentee voting (Minnesota allows any registered voter to vote absentee by mail). Comprehensive mail-voting framework codified.

§ 13-19-106 codifies the full mail-ballot-election procedure — ballot mailed to every qualified elector, secrecy envelope, signature envelope, qualification by signature-envelope examination, an 8 p.m. election-day return deadline — with § 13-13-602 providing the fail-safe cure.

“An official ballot must be mailed to every qualified elector of the political subdivision conducting the election.”

§ 8-708 codifies early-mail ballot marking procedure. § 8-700 codifies early-mail application. § 8-702 codifies board determination of applications. § 8-712 codifies electronic early-mail tracking. NY codified universal no-excuse mail voting in 2023 (NY Voter Empowerment Act).

§ 16.1-11.1-01 codifies that counties may conduct mail-ballot elections with statutory polling-place + records requirements. § 16.1-11.1-02 codifies mail-ballot applications. § 16.1-11.1-03 codifies mail-ballot distribution. § 16.1-11.1-06 codifies canvass procedure. § 16.1-11.1-07 codifies counting. Comprehensive mail-ballot election framework codified.

§ 1305 codifies the absentee/mail-in ballot delivery procedure: county BOE delivers/mails absentee ballots not later than 50 days prior to primary or 70/45 days prior to election depending on elector type, with 48-hour delivery rule for late applications.

The statute codifies key procedural elements: statutory eligibility criteria (legally qualified elector on official voting list), application requirements (including certificate of circumstances), a specific filing deadline (4:00 p.m. the day before election), prescribed ballot delivery methods (mail, in-person pickup, or in-person at board), and signature verification requirements (notary or two witnesses with addresses). The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion even though cure procedures for signature defects are not explicitly addressed in this section.

7 kap. 12 § codifies that 'postal ballots may be prepared at the earliest 45 days before election day.' 7 kap. 13 § codifies the postal-ballot preparation procedure with two witnesses. 7 kap. 14 § codifies envelope-sealing. 6 kap. 5 § codifies the envelope types (window envelope, outer envelope for messenger, outer envelope for postal, etc.). 9 kap. 9 § codifies receipt processing. Comprehensive postal-voting framework codified.

“Brevröster får göras i ordning tidigast 45 dagar före valdagen.”

§ 86.005 codifies the procedure for marking and sealing a ballot voted by mail (mark per the envelope instructions, seal the ballot envelope inside the carrier envelope, sign the carrier-envelope certificate in ink). The full vote-by-mail procedure is codified across Ch. 84 (application), Ch. 86 (provision, marking, return), and Ch. 87 (signature verification and the § 87.0271 / § 87.0411 defect-cure procedures). Comprehensive mail-voting procedure codified.

Vermont codifies a comprehensive mail-voting procedure in Chapter 51, Subchapter 6: application (§ 2531-2532), delivery by mail (§ 2539), return (§ 2543), receipt and processing by the town clerk (§ 2546), and treatment of defective ballots (§ 2547). For general elections Vermont mails an early-voter absentee ballot to every active registered voter.

Wis. Stat. § 5.81 codifies absentee-ballot information requirements and arrangement. § 7.52 codifies absentee-ballot canvassing procedure. The full mail-in/absentee framework lives in Ch. 6 (§§ 6.85-6.89, not ingested) but the canvass + ballot-design portions are codified in the ingested corpus.

The statute establishes mail-in voting eligibility and application deadlines in statute (subsections a–e provide enumerated grounds and deadlines; subsection b sets mail/hand deadlines). However, the procedure explicitly delegates critical elements to Secretary of State rules ('as determined by rule by the Secretary of State'), including the mechanics of mail return and signature verification. Cure procedures are not addressed in this section. The statute codifies some procedural elements but leaves key operational details to administrative rule, not full statutory codification.

“Any qualified elector of this state may apply for and vote an absentee ballot by mail, by hand delivery, or by commercial carrier, as determined by rule by the Secretary of State, as provided in Sections 17-11-5 and 17-11-9”

The statute codifies application submission procedures, deadline framework, and acceptance/rejection notice requirements with detailed timelines. However, it does not address signature verification procedures or any cure mechanism for rejected applications—critical elements of a complete mail-in voting procedure.

“Forthwith upon receipt of a registration application in the office of the registrars of voters, the registrar shall mark such date on the application and review the application to determine whether the applicant has properly completed it and is legally qualified to register. Forthwith upon completing his review, the registrar shall (1) indicate on the application whether the application has been accepted or rejected, (2) mail a notice to the applicant, (3) indicate on the application the date on which such notice is mailed, and (4) provide a copy of such notice to the other registrar.”

§ 21-2-389 codifies postage for mailing absentee ballots. § 21-2-381 codifies absentee-ballot application procedure. § 21-2-385 codifies voting by absentee ballot. Mail-in voting framework codified though Georgia's 2021 SB 202 introduced absentee-ballot ID requirements and limited drop boxes.

Σύνταγμα Άρθρο 51 § 4 authorizes postal voting (επιστολική ψήφος) for diaspora electors. Codified in constitution but implementing law (Law 4648/2019) not ingested.

“η αρχή της ταυτόχρονης διενέργειας των εκλογών δεν κωλύει την άσκηση του εκλογικού τους δικαιώματος με επιστολική ψήφο ή άλλο πρόσφορο μέσο”

This section statutorily grounds application requirements and deadline for mail-in voting, and specifies acceptable submission methods. However, it does not address signature verification procedure, ballot return procedures, or cure mechanisms for rejected applications—those elements appear to be codified elsewhere or left to administrative discretion. The section covers only partial procedural components.

Section 84A statutorily establishes postal voting for special voters unable to access polling locations and explicitly cross-references Part XIII, indicating statutory grounding. However, the section itself does not enumerate the full procedure (application deadlines, return methods, signature verification, or cure procedures); instead it delegates these procedural details to Part XIII, which is not provided in this excerpt. The criterion requires the full procedure to be codified in statute—reliance on cross-reference to an unexamined other Part leaves the codification incomplete as presented.

“the returning officer for the constituency in which the special voter is ordinarily resident shall, as circumstances may require— (a) issue a postal vote to that special voter as if that voter was a postal voter entered on the postal voters list under section 14(d) and in that case Part XIII shall apply”

§ 7-2 codifies where voters can advance-vote domestically. § 7-1 codifies the advance-voting period. § 10-8 codifies first count of advance-vote ballots. Norway codifies in-person advance voting at polling places but does not codify postal mail-in voting as a domestic procedure (only foreign advance voting per § 8-1 et seq.).

ORC 3511.05 codifies the identification-envelope format and return procedure for uniformed-services/overseas absentee ballots — UOCAVA mail-in framework only. The general mail-in/absentee framework (§ 3509.*) was not surfaced for this datapoint.

52 USC § 21081 codifies voting systems standards applicable to 'paper ballot voting system, a punch card voting system, or a central count voting system (including mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in ballots)'.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section establishes one restrictive rule (ineligibility for mail-in early ballots for certain voters) but does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure itself—application deadlines, return methods, signature verification standards, or cure procedures are not enumerated here. The statute references section 16-166 for citizenship evidence standards but does not provide the procedural detail required by the criterion. To satisfy VM.2, the statute would need to exhaustively enumerate application procedures, deadlines, return methods, verification steps, and cure paths; this section addresses only an eligibility gate, not the procedure.

“A person who has not provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship pursuant to section 16-166 and who is eligible to vote only for federal offices is not eligible to receive an early ballot by mail.”

The statute sets enumerated delivery methods and deadlines for mail-in ballots (receipt by 7:30 p.m. election day for domestic voters; 5:00 p.m. ten days post-election for overseas/military). However, the section does not codify the full mail-in procedure: it omits application requirements, ballot request deadlines, signature verification standards, and critically, any cure or challenge procedure when a ballot is rejected. Without statutory definition of how rejected ballots are handled and voters' rights to correct errors, the procedural clarity is incomplete.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Section 186 addresses only the dispatch of postal voting papers to *registered* general postal voters—it presupposes registration but does not codify the full mail-in procedure. The section covers delivery but omits application procedures, deadlines, return methods, signature verification protocols, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. These elements are scattered across other sections of the Act (registration in Part VIII, return and scrutiny procedures elsewhere) rather than being enumerated exhaustively in a single statute section.

“As soon as ballot papers for an election for a Division are available, the Electoral Commissioner must send or arrange for the delivery of postal voting papers to each registered general postal voter for the Division.”

This section addresses only the post-election ballot-card (mail-in ballot) verification and rejection procedure—specifically nullity grounds and the mechanics of opening and counting. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure: application process, application deadlines, how ballots are returned, what signature verification entails, or any cure procedure for voters whose ballots are rejected. The statute delegates application and other upstream procedural elements to § 10 and other sections, making this excerpt insufficient to satisfy the criterion's requirement for a full procedure codified in one place.

“Wahlkarten, bei denen ein Nichtigkeitsgrund gemäß § 10 Abs. 5 Z 7 bis 12 vorliegt, dürfen in die Ergebnisermittlung ebenfalls nicht miteinbezogen werden.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

The statute permits mail-in voting ('par correspondance') as one voting method option for Belgian citizens abroad, establishing it is available. However, the section provides no codified procedural details regarding application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for rejected ballots—it merely states the option exists and defers to general Electoral Code rules (§3). The specific mechanics of mail-in voting administration are not enumerated in this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 108 codifies overseas commission powers; not mail-in voting.

Section 213 establishes statutory procedures for the mechanics of voting on a special ballot (writing the name, sealing envelopes) and provides a cure mechanism for spoiled ballots (subsection 4). However, the section addresses only the in-person exercise of the special ballot; it does not codify the full mail-in procedure, including application requirements, application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification protocols, or comprehensive cure procedures for rejected ballots. The statute delegates essential procedural elements to regulation or administrative discretion rather than enumerating them exhaustively.

“If the special ballot is incapable of being used, the elector shall return it to the unit election officer, who shall mark it as a spoiled ballot and give the elector another special ballot.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies a registration deadline for mail-in ballot receipt (eighth day before election) but does not address the full mail-in voting procedure. Critical elements are missing from this section: application procedures for mail-in ballots themselves, return methods (mail, drop box, in-person), signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. Section 1-7.5-107 is referenced but not included here. A complete procedural evaluation would require review of the entire mail-in voting framework across multiple statutes.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section addresses mail-in voting (korespondenční hlasování) only in the context of vote tabulation procedures—specifically what must be recorded about opened delivery envelopes and deferred envelopes. It does not codify the full mail-in procedure including application deadlines, return requirements, signature verification, or cure mechanisms. Those procedural elements are either absent from this section or relegated to other statutory provisions not provided here.

“e) počet otevřených doručovacích obálek pro korespondenční hlasování, z toho počet odložených doručovacích obálek,”

This section codifies the mailing distribution timeline and eligibility confirmation in statute, which is a procedural element. However, the criterion requires the 'full procedure' including application, deadline, return, signature verification, and cure. This section addresses only the ballot distribution phase. The application requirement and deadline are referenced cross-sectionally to § 5604A, signature verification and cure procedures are referenced to other sections (§ 5607A and § 5606A), but are not enumerated here. A voter consulting this section alone cannot navigate the complete mail-in voting pathway.

“Upon receipt of the application for a mail ballot from an elector under § 5604A of this title, the Department shall process the same and confirm that the elector qualifies to vote under this title.”

The statute establishes an application procedure (request to ambassador/consular chief) and a deadline rule (set by foreign minister, no more than 10 weeks before election). However, critical procedural elements are missing: no enumeration of required documentation or signature verification standards, no cure procedure if materials are rejected or signatures do not match, and no appeal/review mechanism for denied applications. The procedural framework is skeletal and delegates key implementation details to ministerial discretion.

“Sa demande, formulée auprès de l'ambassadeur ou du chef de poste consulaire, doit être reçue au plus tard à une date fixée par le ministre des affaires étrangères qui ne peut précéder de plus de dix semaines celle du premier tour de l'élection.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

§ 14 establishes that mail-in voting (Briefwahl) is permitted as an alternative for holders of a Wahlschein (postal ballot certificate), but it does not codify the full procedural elements required by the criterion. The statute does not enumerate: application procedures for obtaining a Wahlschein, application deadlines, return methods and deadlines, signature verification procedures, or cure mechanisms for rejected ballots. These critical procedural details are left to other sections of the BWahlG and implementing regulations, making this section incomplete for the comprehensive mail-in procedure criterion.

“Wer einen Wahlschein hat, kann an der Wahl des Wahlkreises, in dem der Wahlschein ausgestellt ist, a) durch Stimmabgabe in einem beliebigen Wahlbezirk dieses Wahlkreises oder b) durch Briefwahl teilnehmen.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 29 delegates the entire mail-in voting procedure—including arrangement, execution, and evaluation—to the executive (Naalakkersuisut) by regulation, not statute. No procedural steps (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure) are enumerated in the statute itself. The section explicitly grants discretionary authority rather than codifying mandatory procedure, violating the core EAI requirement that procedure be set by statute with exhaustive enumeration, not administrative discretion.

The statute authorizes mail-in voting for disaster-affected precincts but does not codify the full procedure itself. Instead, it delegates to 'part VIIA of chapter 11' (the general mail-in voting statute) and explicitly authorizes the chief election officer to 'adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91'—meaning critical procedural elements (application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification, cure mechanisms) are left to administrative rulemaking rather than statutory enumeration. While the statute sets the triggering condition (natural disaster determination) in writing, the actual mail-in voting procedure is not codified in this section and depends on separate regulations.

“the chief election officer and county clerk, by written order, may require the registered voters of any precinct to vote by mail as provided in part VIIA of chapter 11”

Article 103 specifies only the grounds for *invalidating* an early ballot after it is cast; it does not address the broader mail-in procedure including application, deadlines, return methods, signature verification, or cure procedures for rejected ballots. The statute provides enumerated invalidity criteria (satisfying the enumeration element) but omits critical procedural steps required by the criterion: how voters apply for early voting, return deadlines, verification processes, and remediation paths for defective ballots.

While § 3-11-10-24 sets out statutory eligibility criteria for mail-in voting (who may vote absentee by mail), it does not codify the full procedure for mail-in voting. The section enumerates qualifications but does not address application procedures, deadlines for requesting or returning ballots, signature verification rules, or cure procedures for rejected ballots. These critical procedural elements—the 'how' and 'when' of the mail-in process—are absent from this statute and would need to be found in other sections or regulations to assess whether the full procedure is statutorily codified. A dual-scholar test would agree that eligibility criteria alone do not satisfy a criterion requiring the entire procedural pipeline.

§48A.8 addresses mail-in voter registration and first-time voter identification requirements for mail-in absentee voting, but it does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure. The section specifies identification and residence documentation requirements (subsections 2–3) and provisional ballot procedures (subsection 4), but omits critical procedural elements: no application deadline is specified, no ballot return deadline is given, no signature verification procedure is described, and no cure procedure for rejected ballots is enumerated. The statute delegates essential mail-in voting mechanics to other statutory sections (49.81, 53.31) and implicitly to administrative regulation, failing the exhaustive-enumeration requirement.

No matching sections in corpus.

La. R.S. 18:1311 addresses mail-in ballot receipt, list preparation, and post-election procedures (segregation, verification, rejection logic), but does NOT codify the full mail-in voting procedure as required by the criterion. The statute is silent on application procedures, application deadlines, ballot return deadlines, signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. These foundational elements are either located in other sections of the Louisiana Election Code or left to administrative determination. A complete statutory procedure codification would require all five elements (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure) in accessible form.

Article 328 establishes WHO may vote by mail (eligibility categories) but does not codify the operational procedure: no application deadline, no return/submission mechanism, no signature verification protocol, and no cure procedure for deficient ballots are specified in this section. The statute identifies eligibility criteria but delegates procedural implementation to regulation or administrative discretion, failing the statutory-enumeration requirement for the full procedure.

“Sont admis au vote par correspondance lors des élections européennes les électeurs âgés de plus de 75 ans. (2) Peuvent être admis au vote par correspondance lors des élections européennes les électeurs qui, pour des raisons professionnelles ou personnelles dûment justifiées, se trouvent dans l'impossibilité de se présenter en personne devant le bureau de vote auquel ils sont affectés.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section explicitly prohibits mail-in voting ('ni par correspondance'), rendering the criterion of procedural codification for mail-in voting inapplicable. The statute provides no mail-in voting procedure to evaluate because mail-in voting is not permitted.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section permits mail-in voting for certain categories (uniformed services and overseas voters in special elections) but delegates the full procedure—including application, deadlines, return process, signature verification, and cure mechanisms—to regulatory adoption by the State Board rather than codifying it in statute. The statute provides only a 45-day minimum gap and general process direction, leaving the substantive procedural details to administrative discretion.

“The State Board shall adopt regulations to establish requirements concerning: (1) notice to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters concerning a special election; and (2) the process for absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to: (i) request an absentee ballot for a special election; and (ii) return an absentee ballot by mail in a timely manner.”

The section addresses only a subset of mail-in voting procedure—specifically ID requirements and provisional ballot procedures for mail-in voters who fail to present identification. It does not codify the full mail-in procedure (application deadlines, return methods, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for signature mismatches). The section references section 76C for provisional ballots but does not itself enumerate the complete statutory framework for mail-in voting.

“A person who desires to vote by absentee ballot but who does not meet the requirements of subclause (ii) of said clause (a) of said subparagraph (A) may return the absentee ballot by mail, and the ballot shall be treated as a provisional ballot under section 76C.”

Article 344 establishes post-election handling of postal votes (receipt, registration, and secrecy safeguards) but does not codify the full mail-in procedure. Critical elements required by the criterion—application procedures, application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots—are entirely absent from this section. The statute delegates implementation details to administrative discretion ('dispondrán lo necesario'). A dual-scholar test would recognize that the procedural clarity bar is not met, as the complete pathway from voter initiation through dispute resolution is not statutorily enumerated.

This section only addresses the presidential primary party ballot selection form for permanent mail voters; it does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure). Those elements would be in other sections.

“The secretary of state shall prescribe the presidential primary ballot selection form. The presidential primary ballot selection form must be available in person, by mail, and online”

The statute codifies eligibility categories, application deadline (45 days), and mailing procedures. However, it does not statutorily enumerate what constitutes acceptable signature verification, does not establish a defined cure procedure for rejected ballots, and does not provide a defined appeal or review path for voters whose mail-in ballots are challenged or rejected. These omissions prevent satisfaction of the full procedural-clarity standard.

The statute establishes mail-in voting eligibility and a provisional ballot pathway, but does not codify the full procedure. It requires identification verification before absentee ballots are delivered but does not specify application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or a meaningful cure process. The provisional ballot provision explicitly states ballots 'shall not be counted' with only notification of rejection—no cure mechanism is provided. Critical procedural elements are missing.

“An individual who has registered to vote by mail but who does not meet the requirements of this subsection may cast a provisional ballot by mail. Such ballot shall not be counted pursuant to this chapter, and the individual shall be notified of the reason for not counting the ballot.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses mandate allocation through the d'Hondt method for parliamentary elections; it contains no mail-in voting procedure whatsoever. The criterion is not applicable to this section because it does not regulate or reference mail-in voting, application deadlines, return mechanisms, signature verification, or cure procedures. No scoring is warranted for an inapplicable section.

This section prescribes the forms for mail-in voter registration and directs the Secretary of State to distribute them, satisfying statutory grounding and enumeration of acceptable forms. However, it does not address the full procedure criterion: it omits statutory codification of application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for deficient applications. The section is incomplete as a comprehensive procedural statute for mail-in voting.

“The only mail-in forms which may be used to register to vote shall be the official registration application prescribed by the Secretary of State or the national mail voter registration application prescribed by the federal Election Assistance Commission.”

Article M1 establishes the right to mail-in voting (briefstemmen) and references a registration requirement and certificate system, but does not codify the full procedural elements. The section delegates critical details—application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification rules, and cure mechanisms—to other articles or subsidiary regulation ('bij of krachtens dit hoofdstuk'), leaving them outside this statute's explicit enumeration. A procedurally complete criterion requires all steps codified in statute, not deferred.

This section addresses only the narrow circumstance when mail-in ballots are treated as provisional (first-time voters who register by mail and fail to provide ID), and references other statutory sections for identity verification requirements. It does not provide a complete, self-contained codification of the full mail-in voting procedure (application deadline, return methods, signature verification standards, and cure procedures). The section fragments the procedure across multiple NRS provisions rather than enumerating it exhaustively in statute.

This section addresses only the rejection and documentation procedure when a moderator determines an absentee voter is ineligible—it specifies reasons for rejection and recording requirements. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure: application requirements, application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, or any cure process for rejected ballots. The section tells election officials what to do with a rejected ballot but does not provide voters a defined pathway to cure defects or appeal rejection decisions. Critical procedural elements remain absent.

“if the moderator finds that the absentee voter is not entitled to vote, the moderator shall not open the envelope containing the ballot and shall mark across the face of the envelope the reason the ballot is rejected, such as "rejected as not a voter" "voted in person," "affidavit improperly executed," "not signed by proper person," or whatever the reason is and shall record next to the name of the absentee voter on the clerk's list of absentee voter applicants prepared pursuant to RSA 657:15 the word "rejected" and the reason for the rejection.”

This section codifies the statutory requirement for delivery timing and method (first-class mail or hand delivery), but does not address the full mail-in procedure. Missing from this section are statutory specifications for: application procedures and deadlines, ballot return methods and deadlines, signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. To fully satisfy VM.2, the criterion requires exhaustive statutory codification of the entire mail-in pipeline, not just one step (delivery).

“Starting on or before the 45th day before the day an election is held, each county clerk shall forward mail-in ballots by first-class postage or hand delivery to each mail-in voter whose request therefor has been approved.”

This section codifies a cure procedure (replacement ballot or provisional ballot after affidavit) and voids the original mailed ballot, satisfying the cure element. However, the section does NOT address the full mail-in voting procedure: it lacks statutory codification of application procedures, application deadlines, return deadlines, or signature verification procedures. The statute delegates affidavit form and voiding procedures to the Secretary of State, introducing discretion. Only the replacement/provisional ballot remedy pathway is fully enumerated in statute.

This section codifies identification requirements for mail-in voters and establishes a provisional ballot cure mechanism when identification is not provided. However, it does not address critical procedural elements of the mail-in process itself: application procedures, application deadlines, ballot return methods, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for signature mismatches or ballot rejection. The section focuses narrowly on identification verification for first-time mail registrants, leaving the broader mail-in workflow to regulations or other statutory sections.

“An individual who has registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, and has not previously voted in an election that includes a ballot item for federal office in North Carolina, in order to cast a mail-in absentee vote, shall submit with the mailed-in absentee ballot one of the following: A copy of a current and valid photo identification. A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.”

No matching sections in corpus.

This section codifies the return and processing procedure for mail-in ballots (marking, sealing, affidavit signing, return method), but does not address the full procedure: there is no statutory enumeration of application deadlines, eligibility criteria, signature verification standards, or cure procedures for rejected ballots. The rule delegates marking standards to administrative prescription ('as prescribed by the Secretary'), and leaves signature verification and cure undefined, rendering the complete mail-in procedure incomplete at the statutory level.

This section addresses only the state's cost obligation for return postage on mail ballots. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure—there is no coverage of application requirements, deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure mechanisms for rejected ballots. While it confirms mail-in voting exists and is funded, the statute leaves the procedural details (enumeration of acceptable methods, verification standards, cure rights) to be found elsewhere in Oregon law or to administrative discretion. A complete procedural criterion requires all elements in one statutory section or explicit cross-reference; this section covers only financing.

The statute permits mail-in voting and references another article (art. 14 § 1) for its scope, but does not itself codify the full procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure). This section merely states that mail-in voting exists and is treated as personal voting; the actual procedural requirements are delegated elsewhere or left unspecified in this excerpt. Without the enumerated details within this section or a clear statutory grounding of all procedural steps, the criterion is not satisfied.

“Głosowaniem osobistym jest również głosowanie korespondencyjne w obwodach głosowania, o których mowa w art. 14 § 1.”

Article 98.4 confirms mail-in (voto postal) voting exists and references external articles (79.º-B through 79.º-G) that ostensibly contain procedural requirements. However, this section itself only addresses ballot invalidation conditions for mail-in votes, not the full procedure (application, deadlines, return mechanics, signature verification, cure pathways). The criterion requires the full procedure to be codified; this section provides only one component (invalidation standards) and relies on citations to other articles that are not provided for evaluation. Without the referenced articles in view, procedural completeness cannot be confirmed.

“Considera-se ainda nulo o voto antecipado e o voto postal quando o boletim de voto não chega ao seu destino nas condições previstas nos artigos 79.º-B, 79.º-C, 79.º-D, 79.º-E e 79.º-G ou seja recebido em sobrescrito que não esteja devidamente fechado.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Art. 152 codifies constitutional transitional provisions for Curtea Constituţională and Curtea de Conturi creation; not mail-in voting.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 64 covers voting procedure in general — no mail-in voting framework. Russia does not permit mail-in voting domestically (overseas embassy voting only via Article 62 absentee certificates).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Art 127 governs government formation, irrelevant.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies mail-in registration application deadlines, legibility/completeness requirements, and rejection notification with a cure right (resubmission by mail or in-person registration). However, this section addresses mail-in REGISTRATION, not mail-in VOTING. The criterion asks about the full mail-in voting procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure). This section does not establish or reference a mail-in voting procedure itself—only mail-in voter registration. Signature verification and return procedures for actual mail-in ballots are not addressed. The cure procedure is limited to correcting incomplete registration applications, not to ballots rejected during signature verification.

“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.”

§ 12-21-32 (recount certification) is unrelated to mail-in voting. SD's mail-in voting framework is absentee voting under SDCL ch. 12-19. SD has no general mail-in election (other than allowed mail-ballot precincts under SDCL § 12-15-14). Limited codification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 74 delegates the regulation of mail-in voting procedures to the Government (executive branch) subject only to a report from the Central Electoral Board. The statute does not enumerate the full procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure); instead, it explicitly authorizes the Government to regulate these details through subordinate means. This is administrative discretion, not statutory codification of procedure.

This section addresses only one narrow procedural element—permitting assistance in filling out the application—but does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure. The statute does not enumerate application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure mechanisms for rejected ballots. Material procedural steps remain unstated or potentially left to administrative discretion.

“The voter may have anyone the voter chooses write the voter's request for an absentee ballot or for an absentee voting by mail application or write out the voter's absentee voting by mail application except for the voter's signature or mark.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Turkey does not permit mail-in voting. The candidates (Madde 94/B sealed-overseas-ballot transmission, Madde 55/B internet campaign propaganda, Madde 52 broadcast campaigning) do not constitute a mail-ballot procedure.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

This section of Schedule 3 to the Elections Act 2022 establishes statutory parameters for the duration of mail-in voting grants and modifies application requirements, but it does not codify the full mail-in procedure. The text specifies time periods for which mail-in voting permission is valid and requires applications to specify periods in certain jurisdictions, but it is silent on critical procedural elements: application submission methods, application deadlines, ballot return methods and deadlines, signature verification procedures, and cure mechanisms for rejected ballots. The statute addresses only one component (duration/period specification) of a comprehensive mail-in voting procedure.

The statute sets forth mail-in voting procedure with statutory grounding and enumeration: ballot mailing deadlines, signature verification, and notification of disqualification are codified. However, there is no cure procedure allowing voters to correct signature mismatches or other defects before ballots are disqualified. Section 20A-7-609(2) (which typically contains cure procedures for mail ballots in Utah) is explicitly exempted by Subsection (5)(h), and no alternative cure mechanism is provided in this section. The notification requirement alone does not constitute a curative remedy.

The section provides extensive statutory codification of mail-in (absentee) voting procedure, including application receipt, eligibility verification, ballot delivery deadlines, return methods, and identification requirements. However, it lacks a defined cure procedure for voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected (e.g., for signature mismatch or missing identification). The error/omission language protects against immaterial defects but does not establish how voters can cure defects discovered during ballot processing or counting. Without a statutory cure mechanism, the full procedure is incomplete.

“In reviewing the application for an absentee ballot, the general registrar shall not reject the application of any individual because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to the application, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified to vote absentee.”

The section statutorily establishes automatic mail-ballot issuance for all active registered voters, satisfying the core authorization and basic procedure. However, the section does not codify critical procedural elements required by the criterion: application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification procedures, or cure processes for rejected ballots. These procedural details must be found elsewhere in the statute (other sections of RCW ch. 29A.40 or related chapters), meaning this single section does not provide the 'full procedure' as the criterion requires.

“Each active registered voter of the state, overseas voter, and service voter shall automatically be issued a mail ballot for each general election, special election, or primary.”

Section 3-3A-2 authorizes a mail-in voting pilot program but does not codify the full procedure. It identifies who may participate (Class IV municipalities in phase one, five municipalities in phase two) and what elections are covered, but does not enumerate the application process, deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure mechanisms—all essential procedural elements. The statute delegates these critical details elsewhere or to administrative discretion, failing the requirement that procedure be 'codified in statute' exhaustively.

“This article establishes a two phase pilot project that will allow certain municipalities to vote by mail.”

The statute delegates the detailed procedural framework for mail-in voting to the Secretary of State rather than enumerating it in statute. While mail-in voting is authorized and some basic definitions are provided, the critical elements of application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification, and cure processes are left to administrative rulemaking rather than statutory codification. This fails the core EAI requirement that procedure be set by statute with enumerated detail.

“The secretary of state, after consultation with the county clerks, shall establish procedures for conducting mail ballot elections.”