EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 83 describes the procedural duties of a special presiding officer in handling ballot materials and envelopes—it sets out what documents must be sealed, packaged, and delivered to the returning officer. It contains no provisions regarding the appointment, terms, composition, political balance, or independence of any election administration body. The section is purely operational and does not address the structural independence of election administration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The criterion asks whether minimum age and residency requirements are set in the CONSTITUTION, not statute. This section is from the Electoral Act 1992 (statute), which establishes these requirements at the statutory level only. The section does not reference constitutional grounding or indicate that these requirements derive from the constitution. To satisfy this criterion, the requirements would need to be established in Ireland's constitutional document (Bunreacht na hÉireann), not merely in electoral legislation.

Section 41 codifies disqualification criteria exhaustively in statute, meeting the first procedural requirement. However, the section provides no statutory restoration procedure for those who regain eligibility after disqualifying events (e.g., completion of sentence, discharge of bankruptcy, restoration of mental capacity). The reference to 'section 42(3)' suggests related provisions exist but does not establish a clear statutory cure pathway within this section itself.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section establishes in statute that identification (a 'specified document') may be required when personation is alleged. The requirement is grounded directly in the Electoral Act 1992 and cross-references section 111 for the procedural details of when and how such documents must be produced. This satisfies the statutory grounding criterion because the authority to require ID is enacted by statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“a ballot paper has been issued to a person representing himself to be a particular Dáil elector named on the register of Dáil electors and another person representing himself to be that Dáil elector applies for a ballot paper and duly produces a specified document having been so required by the presiding officer under section 111”

Section 106 amends Rule 5 to enumerate specific acceptable forms of identification for voter registration in statute: a certificate of naturalisation, a valid passport issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a valid passport or national identity card issued by an EU Member State, or statutory declarations as alternatives when documents are unavailable. The enumeration is exhaustive and binding on the registration authority, leaving no discretion to accept alternative forms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 32 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 concerns the allocation of broadcasting time and advertisements for referendum campaigns by the Electoral Commission. It does not address voter identification, alternative ID procedures, or any element of the identification criterion. This section is entirely outside the scope of ID requirements and procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 65 governs postal voting procedures for electors on the postal voters list, specifically the process for completing and sealing ballot papers with an authorised person. It does not address in-person polling place voting or any cure procedure for voters arriving without ID at polling stations. The section prescribes statutory procedure for postal voters' identity declaration and witnessing, but contains no cure mechanism for at-polls voters lacking ID.

The section provides a clear statutory appeal procedure: when a registration authority refuses an application (including when eligibility or application compliance requirements are not met), the applicant may appeal to the county registrar in accordance with a specified Rule. The appeal right is enumerated in statute with a defined appellate body and referenced procedural rule, satisfying the criterion for a codified appeal mechanism.

“Where an application under this section is refused by the registration authority under subsection (4), the applicant may appeal the decision to the county registrar in accordance with Rule 39 of Part VIII of the Second Schedule.”

Section 15(5) sets the registration deadline in statute: applications received on or after the twelfth day before polling day have no effect. The cutoff is defined explicitly and numerically (12 days) relative to election day, not left to administrative discretion or regulation. This satisfies the statutory grounding and enumeration requirements of procedural clarity.

“An application by a person to have his name entered in the supplement to the register, received by the registration authority on or after the twelfth day (disregarding any excluded day) before polling day at an election or referendum shall not have effect in relation to that election or referendum.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 89 addresses data-sharing procedures between registration authorities and government bodies to maintain electoral register accuracy. It does not enumerate or describe the available registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, same-day) at all. The section is procedural infrastructure for data management, not substantive electoral access rules.

This section addresses appeal of a refused postal voter registration application to a county registrar under Rule 39, establishing an appellate review path. However, it does not define a cure procedure—i.e., a process by which an applicant whose registration is rejected for incompleteness can correct deficiencies and resubmit. An appeal mechanism is distinct from a cure mechanism; the statute permits challenge of a rejection decision but does not specify how an applicant can remedy incomplete application materials. For the criterion to be satisfied, the statute must enumerate what cure steps are available (e.g., deadline to correct, resubmission process, notice requirements).

Section 15(2) expressly provides that Part II of the Second Schedule governs 'the ruling on an appeal against the decision of the registration authority,' establishing a statutorily-grounded appeal mechanism for rejected registration applications. This meets the procedural-clarity standard by codifying in statute (not delegating to discretion) the right to challenge a registration decision through a defined appeal process.

“The provisions of Part II of the Second Schedule shall apply to— ( a ) consideration of applications under subsection (1) by the registration authority and the ruling on such applications by the registration authority, ( b ) the ruling on an appeal against the decision of the registration authority”

This statutory section explicitly defines roll-maintenance procedures in statute, including the authority's duty to make inquiries, the methods by which they may do so, and the specific information (address, date of birth, personal public service number) that can be required. The text also references section 20 and section 15E, indicating statutory integration of removal criteria. However, the actual substantive grounds for removal (death, inactivity thresholds) are not fully enumerated in this excerpt; the criterion addresses removal criteria, not just maintenance procedures.

“In order to maintain and update the register, in accordance with section 20, each registration authority shall make sufficient inquiries in their registration area in accordance with this Rule. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), each registration authority may do any one or more of the following: (a) conduct house to house inquiries; (b) by means of public notice or public meeting, invite persons to check, submit or update their details, as the case may be; (c) undertake any other activity the authority considers appropriate to gather such information or invite individuals to participate in the gathering of such information. (3) A registration authority may, for the purposes of its duties in relation to the maintenance and updating of the register require a person— (a) to provide any information in his or her possession which the registration authority may require, (b) without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (a), to provide in respect of his or her own registration— (i) a personal public service number, if a person has one, (ii) address and Eircode, in respect of his or her address, and (iii) his or her date of birth”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses removal of the chief executive of an electoral commission from office—an internal administrative personnel matter—not removal of voters from electoral rolls. It concerns governance of the commission itself, not voter registration procedures. The criterion REG.6 evaluates whether voters receive statutory notice and cure opportunities before purge from voter rolls; this section has no relevance to that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 95 addresses the establishment and maintenance of a pending elector list for 16–17-year-olds, specifying content, confidentiality, and transfer procedures. It contains no provisions regarding data security, encryption, breach notification, or access logs for the voter registry. The section is procedurally focused on age-based registration mechanics, not on the security regime required by ROLL.1.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 100 addresses relocation of polling stations for voters with physical illness or disability, but does not establish any right to voter assistance or codify rules governing who may assist a voter. The criterion specifically requires statutory codification of the right to be assisted by a person of the voter's choosing and enumeration of permissible assistants. This section contains no such provision.

The statute codifies assistance for illiterate voters in explicit statutory language, not administrative discretion. It enumerates the eligibility criteria (subsection 1), defines the authentication mechanism (oath/affirmation in subsection 2), specifies the procedure for marking ballots (subsection 5), and establishes ballot secrecy protections by limiting who may be present and requiring the presiding officer to mark the ballot in private with only the elector and agents present. The cure and appeal paths are implicit in the personation agent oversight and the formalized oath requirement.

“Where this section applies and— ( a ) the Dáil elector is unable to read or write, or ( b ) the Dáil elector does not request that his ballot paper shall be marked for him by a companion, or ( c ) the Dáil elector having so requested, the marking of his ballot paper by the companion would be in contravention of subsection (4) , the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the elector and the personation agents and no other person, mark a ballot paper as instructed by such elector and shall then fold it and place it in the ballot box.”

The statute establishes that polling hours are set by the Minister (a statutory actor), but the criterion asks whether opening and closing hours are set BY STATUTE, not by ministerial discretion. Section 86 delegates the actual hour-fixing to the Minister and permits discretionary deviation ('as soon as possible') based on weather/transport. The closing hour is similarly subject to the presiding officer's discretion ('is of opinion that... he may then close'). There is no enumerated, fixed statutory hour; the procedure relies on ministerial and administrative judgment.

“where, owing to stress of weather or transport difficulties, the poll cannot begin at the hour fixed by the Minister for the commencement of the poll, it shall begin as soon as possible after that hour”

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”

The section codifies in statute the framework for providing postal votes to special voters who cannot access the polling place. It specifies the eligibility trigger (special voter on list whose residence is inaccessible), the responsible official (returning officer), the mechanism (issuing postal vote under the same Part XIII rules as standard postal voters), and procedural cross-references to existing statutory provisions. The framework is enumerated with defined conditions and clear implementation pathways rather than left to administrative discretion.

“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”

The section sets a statutory minimum period (12 hours, 7 a.m.–10:30 p.m.) for advance polling, satisfying the period element. However, the locations rule is absent—there is no statutory specification of where advance polls shall be held, only a requirement that the returning officer give public notice. The discretionary trigger (Minister's order in cases of pandemic/public health emergency) further weakens the enumeration requirement, as the power to declare an advance poll itself depends on ministerial discretion rather than automatic statutory activation.

“an advance poll may be taken on the day before the day appointed by the Minister under section 96(1), and (b) a poll referred to in paragraph (a) shall continue for such period, not being less than twelve hours, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10.30 p.m.”

The section provides statutory grounding for ballot box security and chain-of-custody elements (sealing, agent oversight, safe custody), but does not address placement procedures. More critically, 'safe custody' is a directive to the returning officer without specific enumerated security protocols or chain-of-custody detail, leaving implementation to administrative discretion. The criterion requires all three procedural elements (placement, security, chain-of-custody) defined in statute; this section covers only partial ground on two of them.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 40 addresses the referendum returning officer's duty to prepare and publish a provisional referendum certificate — a summary document of referendum results that becomes final after a specified court review period. It does not establish or codify any right for voters to cast provisional ballots, nor does it describe a procedure for adjudicating individual provisional votes. The section concerns post-election result certification, not voter ballot-casting rights or cure mechanisms.