EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 11 addresses procedural election administration tasks (publication of voting times, polling places, ballot procedures, and election record-keeping), but contains no provisions regarding the independence, appointment, composition, or tenure of the election administration body itself. The section delegates certain rule-making authority to Naalakkersuisut (the government) with Valgnævnet approval (subsection 3), but does not establish or codify the structural independence of any electoral body.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 43 concerns polling hours on election day (opening at 09:00 and closing at 20:00), not eligibility requirements. It contains no information about minimum age, residency requirements, or their constitutional grounding. The criterion requires constitutional placement of eligibility rules; this section addresses procedural timing only.

The section establishes statutory grounds for disqualification, including loss of mental capacity ('bliver umyndiggjort'), and references a valgbarheds-check ('ikke valgbar'), which appears tied to criminal sanctions under § 4. However, the statute codifies disqualification criteria and their effect (seat vacancy) but provides no statutory restoration procedure—it only specifies that a replacement (stedfortræder) assumes the seat. No mechanism for regaining eligibility or appealing the disqualification determination is enumerated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes who is eligible to run (those with voting rights except those subject to certain criminal sanctions), but it does not address restoration of voting rights. There is no codified procedure for how rights can be regained, no statutory deadlines, and no automatic restoration mechanism. The section identifies disqualification grounds but provides no pathway back to eligibility.

The statute explicitly sets forth the identification requirement in § 44, stk. 4, establishing that election officials must demand the voter's name and birth date, request information about residence, and require documentation if there is doubt about identity. This is a statutorily grounded procedure, not left to administrative discretion, and forms the core requirement for verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 48 concerns the mechanics of vote counting and how votes are credited to parties versus individual candidates based on ballot markings. It does not address voter identification procedures, acceptable ID forms, or any related documentation requirements. This section is entirely outside the scope of the ID.2 criterion, which evaluates enumeration of acceptable identification methods.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 20 addresses the administrative procedures for candidate nomination and registration (party list submissions, candidate announcements, and validation by the election board), not voter identification or at-polls procedures for voters lacking ID. The section contains no provisions regarding cure procedures for voters arriving without identification documents, provisional ballots, affidavits, signature matching, or any at-polls remedy mechanism.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 27 addresses appeals of voter registration list inclusion/exclusion, not ID rejection or provisional ballot procedures. The criterion specifically concerns appeal processes for rejected identification or provisional ballots due to ID issues. This section does not address identification verification, ID rejection, or provisional ballot cure procedures—it only covers voter list challenges before the election authority (Valgbestyrelsen) and an appeal to an election board (Valgnævnet). Since the statute text contains no procedure for appealing an ID rejection, the criterion is not satisfied.

The statute explicitly sets registration deadlines relative to election day: persons must satisfy eligibility requirements by election day; those moving within 6 weeks prior must register the move; those moving after the 6-week cutoff remain on the original list; and temporary residents abroad must have a decision by 3 weeks before election day. All deadlines are defined by statute, not left to administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes that only those on the voter roll may vote, but it does not enumerate or describe any registration methods at all (in-person, mail, online, automatic, or otherwise). The procedural mechanisms by which a person becomes 'optaget på valglisten' (registered on the voter list) are not specified in this section and no exhaustive enumeration of available registration methods is provided.

The statute explicitly establishes a cure procedure: when a candidate registration contains an error (fejl), the election board (Valgnævnet) must grant the candidate a defined 2-business-day period to correct it. This is a statutorily enumerated, time-certain remedy for incomplete or defective registration, meeting the procedural-clarity standard regardless of policy views on strictness.

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 establishes that voter registration status is tied to residence in the Central Population Register and sets a 2-year validity period for registration decisions (§ 24, stk. 2), creating a statutory framework for roll maintenance. However, the statute does not explicitly enumerate the specific grounds for removal (death, address change, inactivity) — it delegates detailed implementation to Naalakkersuisut (the executive) through regulations (stk. 5). The criterion is partially satisfied: the core mechanism and time-based maintenance are statutory, but the specific removal criteria rely on regulatory elaboration.

The statute provides a clear, defined cure procedure: voters may lodge a written complaint with the electoral board up to 2 weeks before election day, with written notice required from the board of any removal and right to appeal to the Electoral Commission within 2 working days. However, the text does not establish a requirement that the electoral board provide advance notice to a voter BEFORE removing them from the rolls; it only requires notice after removal has occurred and provides a post-removal appeal mechanism. True pre-purge notice (proactive notification that a voter is at risk of removal, with opportunity to cure before removal) is not explicitly required by this language.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section addresses voter-list publication requirements and includes a minimal data-protection constraint (prohibition on including personal ID numbers in published lists), but it does not codify any statutory data-security regime for the voter registry itself—no encryption requirements, breach-notification procedures, access-log mandates, or security standards are enumerated.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies in § 44, stk. 10 the right of voters (specifically those who are blind or visually impaired) to be assisted by a person of their own choosing during voting. This is a clear statutory rule, not left to administrative discretion. The statute also specifies who may assist (a person designated by the voter from those present), which provides enumerated procedure.

§44, Stk. 10 establishes a clear statutory procedure for assistance to voters unable to complete the ballot independently, including explicit protections for ballot secrecy: blind or visually impaired voters may designate a trusted person to assist them. The duty to provide assistance is mandatory ("skal yde"), the procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, and ballot secrecy is protected by allowing voters to choose their own assistant.

The statute explicitly sets polling-place opening and closing hours in statutory text (09:00 and 20:00), leaving no discretion to local administrators. The hours are enumerated directly in the law, not delegated to administrative decision-making.

“Valghandlingen åbnes kl. 09:00 og sluttes kl. 20:00”

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.

This section delegates rule-making authority to Naalakkersuisut (the executive cabinet) to set detailed procedures for digital mail voting and centralized counting of advance votes. While the statute establishes that digital mail voting exists (§ 28, stk. 1) and authorizes procedural regulations, the actual eligibility, application, return, and treatment requirements are left to executive regulation rather than being enumerated in the statute itself. The statutory text provides only the framework and delegation, not the substantive codification of the absentee voting scheme that the criterion requires.

The statute explicitly establishes that early in-person voting is permitted and specifies both the locations (folkeregistret—the civil registry—in any municipality in Greenland) and implicitly anchors the rule in statute. The procedure is set by law rather than administrative discretion, and the locations are enumerated (all municipalities). While the statute does not specify precise dates for the early voting period in this particular section, the authorization itself is statutory and the venue rule meets the criterion's requirement for statutory grounding.

“Enhver vælger kan afgive fysisk forhåndsstemme på folkeregistret i enhver kommune i Grønland.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses eligibility criteria for voting rights for Greenlanders temporarily residing outside Greenland — specifically who qualifies to vote (education, medical reasons, parliamentary duty, etc.). It does not address provisional ballots, their availability, or any procedure for adjudicating provisional ballot eligibility or acceptance. The criterion requires statutory codification of provisional ballot rights and adjudication procedures, which are entirely absent from this section.