EAIElectoral Access Index

Section 3 establishes statutory appointment procedures for Electoral Commissioners that embed multiple procedural safeguards for independence: appointment requires Speaker agreement, consultation with leaders of all parties with two or more MPs, and selection by a procedure overseen by the Speaker's Committee. The section also statutorily enumerates disqualifications (subsection 4) that ensure balanced political composition by excluding party members, party officers/employees, and recent donors. Fixed terms are specified in subsection 3 (up to 10 years). These elements—multi-stage approval, cross-party consultation, and political neutrality requirements—are all codified in statute, meeting the criterion for independence.

“A motion for such an Address may be made only if— a the Speaker of the House of Commons agrees that the motion may be made; b the motion has been the subject of consultation with the registered leader of each registered party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons then belong; and c each person whose appointment is proposed in the motion has been selected in accordance with a procedure put in place and overseen by the Speaker's Committee.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 15 of the RPA 1983 addresses service declarations and voter registration procedures for persons with service qualifications, but does not establish minimum age or residency requirements for voting. The section assumes age and residency eligibility as prerequisites (e.g., 'by reason of his age he is not yet entitled to vote') but does not set those requirements itself. The criterion asks whether such requirements are in the constitution rather than statute alone; this section is statutory but does not contain the substantive eligibility criteria being evaluated.

This section establishes disqualification in statute with enumerated criteria (conviction of qualifying section 42 offence, age 18+, hostility aggravation) and a fixed 5-year duration. However, there is no defined statutory restoration procedure—disqualification expires automatically after 5 years, but there is no mechanism for early relief or restoration beyond judicial discretion under subsection (3).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (PPERA 2000 Sch. 12 ¶ 2) addresses free use of public meeting rooms for referendum campaign purposes and contains no language concerning voting rights restoration, eligibility recovery post-felony, statutory deadlines for rights restoration, or automatic restoration procedures. The criterion is entirely absent from the section.

The section provides statutory grounding for the existence of electoral identity documents and establishes eligibility criteria in statute. However, the actual ID requirement at voting is not statutorily mandated here—this section merely creates an optional document scheme. Whether ID is actually required to vote is left to regulations ('Regulations may make provision') and is not explicitly set in this statute. The criterion asks whether a requirement (if it exists) is statutory; this section establishes the document framework statutorily but delegates the voting requirement itself to subordinate regulation.

“An application for an electoral identity document may be made by a person who— a is or has applied to be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain or a register of local government electors in England, or b is or has applied to be registered in a register of local government electors in Wales”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 200A addresses postal service provider reimbursement under the Postal Services Act framework and contains no reference to identification requirements, voter ID policy, free alternative ID issuance, or any procedure governing ID access for voters. The section is wholly administrative/financial in nature and does not engage the criterion.

The statute explicitly references rule 40ZB as the defined procedure when a ballot paper is refused due to failure to answer identification questions satisfactorily. This provides a statutory cure mechanism (not left to administrator discretion) for voters who cannot satisfy the name/address verification questions at poll. The reference makes the remedy procedure statutory rather than discretionary.

“In the case of an election held in England and Wales or Scotland, see rule 40ZB (procedure where ballot paper is refused under this paragraph).”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter identification and ballot-paper delivery procedures at the polling station, not registration methods. It does not enumerate how voters may register (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day), and therefore does not satisfy the criterion for enumerated registration methods. The criterion requires statutory enumeration of registration pathways; this section provides none.

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

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”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs polling-station conduct and removal of disruptive persons during voting, not voter-roll maintenance or removal criteria. It contains no statutory definition of criteria for removing voters from electoral rolls (death, change of address, inactivity). The criterion asks whether roll-maintenance removal criteria are set in statute; this section is procedurally unrelated to that topic.

Sub-paragraph 5(c) requires the registration officer to give notice before removal in the proxy-voting context when there is a material change of circumstances, satisfying the notice element. However, the statute does not provide an enumerated cure period or defined opportunity for the voter to respond and correct the record before removal occurs in most removal scenarios (5(a), 5(b), 5(ca), 5(d)). The notice requirement in 5(c) is narrow and does not extend systematically to all removal categories, leaving significant gaps in pre-purge procedural protection.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 13 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 addresses service voter registration, declaration procedures, and arrangements for military personnel to exercise voting rights. It does not establish or codify any data security regime for the voter registry, including encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logs. The section is procedurally focused on eligibility and voting access, not data protection.

The statute requires language assistance materials be made available, but leaves the trigger for when such assistance is mandatory entirely to the returning officer's discretion ('such information as he thinks appropriate'). No statutory threshold, population-percentage trigger, or enumerated conditions are specified that would require language assistance; the decision is delegated to administrative judgment rather than being codified in statute.

“The returning officer must also issue to those entitled to vote by post such information as he thinks appropriate about how to obtain— a translations into languages other than English of any directions to or guidance for voters sent with the ballot paper; b a translation into Braille of such directions or guidance; c graphical representations of such directions or guidance; d the directions or guidance in any other form (including any audible form).”

The statute expressly grants voters with disabilities the right to vote with assistance from an accompanying person of their choosing, and exhaustively enumerates who may serve as a qualified assistant: any eligible elector, or a close family member aged 18+. The conditions for granting assistance are clearly set forth in statutory language with specific procedural requirements (written declaration, presiding officer certification).

The statute codifies assistance for voters unable to read through a clear, enumerated procedure: the presiding officer marks the ballot in the voter's presence and as directed by the voter, with polling agents present. The requirement that the ballot be marked 'in the presence of the polling agents' provides procedural safeguards protecting ballot secrecy. The rule is grounded in statute, not administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

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.