EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section regulates the timing of election result publication and contains no provisions regarding the independence, appointment, terms, or political composition of any election administration body. It does not codify any structural safeguards for election administration independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section describes administrative procedures for establishing special electoral lists and references eligibility conditions located in articles 188–189 of an organic law (loi organique n° 99-209), not the constitution. The section itself does not set or enumerate age and residency requirements in constitutional text; it delegates to an organic statute. Constitutional grounding is not established by this regulatory provision.

The section establishes statutory grounds for disqualification by cross-reference to article L. 340 (ineligibility) and loss of electoral rights, but does not enumerate those criteria or detail the ineligibility conditions within L. 341 itself. It provides an administrative procedure (executive decree) for declaring disqualification and a limited appeal right (Conseil d'État within 10 days), but contains no restoration procedure or pathway to regain electoral eligibility. The criteria are codified elsewhere in statute (L. 340), but restoration is not addressed.

“Tout conseiller régional qui, pour une cause survenue postérieurement à son élection, se trouve dans un cas d'inéligibilité prévu à l'article L. 340 ou se trouve frappé d'une des incapacités qui font perdre la qualité d'électeur, est déclaré démissionnaire d'office par arrêté du représentant de l'Etat dans la région”

Article L30(5) acknowledges that voting rights can be restored after loss by judicial decision, and establishes a late-registration window for such persons. However, the statute does not codify the *procedure* for restoration itself—it does not specify deadlines for when rights are restored, automatic vs. manual restoration mechanisms, cure procedures, or appeal paths for disputed restorations. The section addresses *registration* of already-restored voters, not the restoration process itself.

“Les Français et les Françaises ayant recouvré l'exercice du droit de vote dont ils avaient été privés par l'effet d'une décision de justice.”

The section explicitly requires identity verification ('l'identité est vérifiée') as a statutory condition for mail-in voting by incarcerated persons, and this requirement is set directly in the Electoral Code's regulatory part (Part réglementaire), which has statutory force in the French system. The requirement is grounded in codified law rather than left to administrative discretion.

“L'électeur admis à voter par correspondance, dont l'identité est vérifiée par tous moyens par le chef de l'établissement pénitentiaire”

The statute exhaustively enumerates the three acceptable forms of identity documentation for candidates (residence permit, passport, or national identity card) in article R128-1(3). The acceptable documents are set out in the statutory text itself, not delegated to administrative discretion.

“une copie de la carte de séjour, du passeport ou de la carte nationale d'identité du candidat”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly defines the registration deadline window as a fixed temporal interval relative to election day (sixth Friday before and tenth day before the election), set directly in the legislative code rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for a statutorily-grounded, enumerated deadline.

“entre le sixième vendredi précédant le scrutin et le dixième jour précédant ce scrutin”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section does not address registration methods at all. It concerns supplementary electoral lists, the mention of nationality by mayors, and restrictions on dual registration across communes. There is no enumeration of how voters may register (in-person, mail, online, etc.), making this section inapplicable to the criterion.

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

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.”

The section is drawn from the Code électoral and references inscriptions (registrations) and radiations (removals) as statutory procedures under the special electoral roll. However, the text does not explicitly enumerate the substantive criteria triggering removal (death, change of address, inactivity). It delegates the mechanics of removal to an administrative commission but does not specify in this section what factual grounds justify removal, leaving those criteria potentially to be found elsewhere in statute or regulation.

“L'autorité municipale transmet les demandes et la liste mentionnées au premier alinéa à la commission administrative spéciale, qui procède aux inscriptions et aux radiations du 1er mars au 30 avril au plus tard.”

The statute explicitly requires notice (inform by any means) and a cure period (48-hour opportunity to present observations) before removal from the rolls. Both elements are set in statute, not left to administrative discretion, and the procedure is enumerated with specific timing.

“La commission de contrôle informe par tout moyen l'électeur concerné de sa volonté de le radier des listes électorales. Ce dernier dispose d'un délai de quarante-huit heures pour présenter ses observations.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article L560 addresses only eligibility criteria for participation in a territorial consultation — specifically that registered voters on the territorial electoral list may participate. It contains no language whatsoever regarding data security, encryption, breach notification, access logs, or any cyber-protection regime for voter registries. The section is purely substantive about who may vote, not procedural about how voter data is protected.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute grants an explicit right to voters with permanent disabilities that prevent them from physically casting a ballot: they may be assisted by an elector of their choosing, and it enumerated a clear exclusion (persons listed in L. 72-1 articles 1–3 for adults under guardianship). The rule is codified in statute, not left to administrative discretion. The second paragraph further codifies the signature-alternative procedure. Both elements—the right and the constraints on who may assist—are set forth in enacted law.

“Tout électeur atteint d'infirmité certaine et le mettant dans l'impossibilité d'introduire son bulletin dans l'enveloppe et de glisser celle-ci dans l'urne ou de faire fonctionner la machine à voter est autorisé à se faire assister par un électeur de son choix, autre que l'une des personnes mentionnées aux 1° à 3° de l'article L. 72-1, s'agissant des majeurs en tutelle.”

The statute codifies assistance for voters with physical infirmities preventing ballot insertion or machine operation, but the criterion addresses illiteracy assistance specifically. The provision grants assistance only for physical inability, not reading inability. There is no enumerated procedure protecting ballot secrecy during assistance (e.g., no privacy safeguards, no neutral assistant requirement, no confidentiality specification). The second paragraph addresses signature inability with a procedural notation but does not address illiteracy assistance or reading-based assistance needs.

“Tout électeur atteint d'infirmité certaine et le mettant dans l'impossibilité d'introduire son bulletin dans l'enveloppe et de glisser celle-ci dans l'urne ou de faire fonctionner la machine à voter est autorisé à se faire assister par un électeur de son choix”

The statute (Code électoral, art. R168) exhaustively sets polling-place opening and closing hours by specific time: 8:30 AM to 11:00 AM for first round and 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM for second round in two-round systems, and 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM for proportional representation systems. No discretion is left to local administrators; the hours are fixed and enumerated.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses polling place hours of operation and the minister's discretionary power to adjust opening/closing times via ministerial decree (arrêté), not the absentee voting framework. The criterion asks whether eligibility, application procedures, return methods, and treatment of absentee ballots are codified in statute. This text contains none of those elements—it deals only with in-person voting logistics. No absentee voting procedure is described, enumerated, or governed here.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the physical specifications of ballot papers themselves (color, weight, dimensions, typography)—not ballot drop-boxes, their placement, security, or chain-of-custody procedures. The criterion requires statutory definition of drop-box procedures, which this section does not address at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the composition of control commissions in Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia but contains no reference to provisional ballots, provisional ballot rights, or any procedures for adjudicating provisional votes. The criterion requires statutory codification of a provisional ballot right and its adjudication procedure; this section does not address that topic.