EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute establishes a multi-branch appointment structure: three magistrates are appointed by the Judicial Power Council via random selection (insaculación), and two specialists are appointed by the Central Electoral Board from enumerated professional categories (law professors, political scientists, recognized jurists). This creates institutional independence through cross-branch involvement, enumerated professional qualifications, and insulation from direct political party control. The composition mechanism is explicitly codified in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“La Junta Electoral Provincial está compuesta por: a) Tres Vocales, Magistrados de la Audiencia Provincial correspondiente, designados mediante insaculación por el Consejo General del Poder Judicial. Cuando no hubiere en la Audiencia de que se trate el número de Magistrados suficiente se designará a titulares de órganos jurisdiccionales unipersonales de la capital de la Provincia. b) Dos Vocales nombrados por la Junta Electoral Central entre Catedráticos y Profesores Titulares de Derecho o de Ciencias Políticas y de Sociología o juristas de reconocido prestigio residentes en la provincia.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 195 addresses the procedural constitution of municipal corporations after elections, including credential verification and seating requirements. It does not address voting eligibility criteria such as minimum age or residency requirements. The criterion asks whether such requirements are set in the constitution; this section provides no information about constitutional grounding of eligibility rules.

Article 6 establishes disqualification criteria in statutory form with enumerated grounds (criminal conviction, terrorism, crimes against the state) and temporal limits (duration defined by the underlying criminal sentence or penalty). The statute explicitly ties disqualification duration to sentence duration ('en el período que dure la pena'). However, the text does not articulate a formal statutory restoration procedure; restoration occurs implicitly upon sentence completion. This satisfies score level 2: statute with statutory-defined duration, but lacking explicit restoration mechanism.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 158 of LOREG addresses incompatibilities and remuneration rules for elected officials (Deputies and Senators), not voting rights restoration procedures. The section contains no provisions regarding the restoration of voting rights following loss or suspension thereof, no statutory deadlines for restoration, and no automatic restoration mechanisms tied to voting eligibility. This section is substantively unrelated to the criterion's topic.

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

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

The statute exhaustively enumerates the acceptable forms of identification: national identity document, passport, driver's license with photograph, and (for foreigners) residency card. The list is closed and specific, set directly in statutory text with no delegation to administrative discretion. The acceptable ID forms are not left to any administrator's judgment.

“la identificación del elector, que se realiza mediante documento nacional de identidad, pasaporte o permiso de conducir en que aparezca la fotografía del titular o, además, tratándose de extranjeros, con la tarjeta de residencia”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 118 of LOREG addresses only the cost-exemption and procedural formalities of electoral documents (census applications, certifications, and electoral procedures). It contains no provision regarding voter identification requirements, free state-issued ID availability, or alternatives to government-issued ID. The criterion requires a statutory rule about free alternative identification; this section is silent on identification policy entirely.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 85(4) addresses identity disputes when documents are presented, but establishes no cure procedure for voters who arrive without ID at all. The statute specifies acceptable ID forms (DNI, passport, driver's license with photo, or residency card for foreigners) in section 1, but provides no statutory remedy—such as provisional balloting, affidavit signing, return-with-ID procedures, or signature-matching alternatives—for voters lacking these documents. The doubt-resolution mechanism operates only post-presentation of documents, not for those arriving without ID.

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

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

The statute explicitly defines the registration cutoff in statutory text (Artículo 39, Apartado 1): the valid electoral roll for each election is the one closed on the first day of the second month prior to election call. This is a fixed, enumerated deadline set by law, not delegated to administrative discretion or regulation. The registration cutoff relative to election call is therefore statutorily grounded and clear.

“Para cada elección el Censo Electoral vigente será el cerrado el día primero del segundo mes anterior a la convocatoria.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 30 of LOREG establishes the competencies of the Electoral Census Office (administering the census, resolving disputes, and publishing electoral lists), but it does not enumerate the available registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, same-day, etc.). The section addresses administrative oversight and cure/appeal procedures for census disputes, not the substantive statutory enumeration of how voters register in the first place.

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

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.”

The statute establishes a mandatory procedural mechanism—monthly communication from civil registers to electoral census authorities—for maintaining the electoral roll based on circumstances affecting eligibility. However, the section does not enumerate the specific criteria (death, change of address, inactivity) for removal; it delegates the definition of which 'circunstancias' trigger removal to administrative judgment or other statutory provisions not quoted here. The statutory procedural requirement is clear, but the substantive removal criteria are not exhaustively defined in this section.

“Los encargados del Registro Civil comunicarán mensualmente a las Delegaciones Provinciales de la Oficina del Censo Electoral cualquier circunstancia que pueda afectar a las inscripciones en el censo electoral.”

The statute provides statutory notice and a 10-day cure period, but only for the narrow scenario of duplicate registrations with identical dates. For other removal scenarios (e.g., death, loss of eligibility), subsection 4 permits roll alterations whenever 'circumstances or conditions' change, without specifying advance notice, cure rights, or appeal mechanisms—leaving those critical procedural elements to administrative discretion. The criterion requires pre-purge notice and cure as a general rule; this section provides it only for duplicates.

“Si las inscripciones tienen la misma fecha, se notificará al afectado esta circunstancia para que opte por una de ellas en el plazo de diez días.”

Article 41 establishes statutory restrictions on voter-data access (prohibition on particularized disclosure except by judicial order) and delegates detailed data-security specifications to royal decree (real decreto). While the statute sets a clear policy boundary, it does not itself codify specific encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access-logging protocols—these are delegated to subordinate regulation. The criterion requires security specifications to be codified in statute, not deferred to administrative instruments.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute grants the right to assistance by a person of the voter's choosing ('persona de su confianza') and identifies eligible voters (those unable to read or disabled). However, the statute does not enumerate the rules governing who may assist—no eligibility criteria, restrictions, or procedures for the assistant are codified. The second paragraph delegates detailed procedure-making to the Government for blind/visually impaired voters specifically, confirming reliance on administrative regulation rather than exhaustive statutory enumeration of assistance rules.

“Los electores que no sepan leer o que, por discapacidad, estén impedidos para elegir la papeleta o colocarla dentro del sobre y para entregarla al Presidente de la Mesa, pueden servirse para estas operaciones de una persona de su confianza.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 35 of LOREG concerns only the administrative procedure for updating the electoral census—the collection and transmission of padrón modifications by municipalities to provincial census offices. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voter assistance for illiterate or disabled voters, ballot secrecy protections, or any related procedural safeguards. The criterion requires codified assistance procedures for voters unable to read; this section is entirely outside that domain.

The statute sets an improrrogable window (8th to 3rd day before election, both inclusive) for in-person ballot deposit at consular locations, specified in Article 75.4. However, this applies only to Spanish nationals voting abroad via consular channels, not to general domestic polling places. For the broader polling-place hours criterion, the section does not address standard domestic polling-place opening/closing times—it addresses only the consular voting period. The statutory specificity exists for the consular context but the criterion asks about polling-place hours generally.

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.

Article 75 of LOREG comprehensively codifies the absentee voting framework for Spanish citizens residing abroad in statutory law. It explicitly defines eligibility (Spanish nationals inscribed in the absentee-resident voter census), application procedures (automatic/de oficio registration by Provincial Delegation), material requirements (voting envelopes, ballots, certificates), timing requirements (specific days for mail dispatch and in-person ballot deposit), identity verification requirements (passport, DNI, or consular registration certificate), and return procedures (personal delivery to consulates with consular authentication). All substantive procedural elements are set forth in the statute with defined deadlines and concrete requirements, rather than left to administrative discretion.

“En las elecciones a Diputados, Senadores, miembros de las Asambleas Legislativas de las Comunidades Autónomas, miembros de las Asambleas de las Ciudades Autónomas de Ceuta y Melilla y Diputados al Parlamento Europeo, cuando en este último caso se opte por la elección en España, las Delegaciones Provinciales de la Oficina del Censo Electoral remitirán de oficio a la dirección de la inscripción de cada persona de nacionalidad española inscrita en el censo de los electores residentes-ausentes que viven en el extranjero la siguiente documentación”