EAIElectoral Access Index

Article 19 addresses membership qualifications, duties, removal procedures, and some protections (e.g., fixed grounds for dismissal in paragraph 6), but it does not codify the appointment process itself, the composition of appointing bodies, whether appointments must involve multiple branches, the length or fixity of terms, or how balanced political representation is maintained. The section relies on external references (Article 10, Article 23, the maslikhat system) without defining independence architecture within this statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Art. 24) addresses voter registration procedures and list compilation, not the foundational eligibility criteria of minimum age and residency. While Art. 24(3) references registration 'in the place of residence' as a ground for enrolment, it does not establish or enumerate the minimum voting age or residency duration requirements themselves. The criterion asks whether age and residency are SET IN THE CONSTITUTION; this statute section is silent on that constitutional grounding and instead implements procedural rules derived from unstated constitutional provisions.

Article 52 sets disqualification criteria in constitutional text (conviction by court, loss of citizenship, incapacity recognized by court judgment). These grounds are enumerated and statutory/constitutional. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—there is no statement of how or when a disqualified person may regain eligibility. Duration of disqualification is left implicit or to be determined by law (referenced Constitutional Law).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the constitutional authority and independence of Kazakhstan's Prosecutor's Office and Human Rights Commissioner. It contains no provisions concerning voting rights, felony disqualification, restoration of voting rights, statutory deadlines for restoration, or any automatic restoration procedures. The section is entirely outside the domain of electoral access and voter eligibility.

Article 41(3) explicitly sets forth in statutory text the requirement that voters must submit an identifying document to receive ballot papers. This requirement is grounded directly in the constitutional law statute itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The identification requirement is clearly enumerated and mandatory.

“Ballot-papers shall be issued to voters (electors) on the basis of the voter (elector) registers upon submission of a document identifying the voter (elector).”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 56 addresses signature collection procedures for presidential candidates, not voter identification requirements. While § 56.4(2) mentions 'the number and series of the identification document' as required information on signature sheets, this is not a specification of acceptable ID forms for voting or candidacy—it is merely a data-collection requirement. The statute does not enumerate what forms of identification are acceptable for voters or candidates, leaving any such specification to administrative bodies or regulation. The criterion concerns enumerated acceptable IDs; this section does not address that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses election commission procedures, meetings, appeals, and observer access—but contains no provisions regarding voter identification requirements or free alternative ID issuance. The criterion ID.3 concerns voter ID policy and access to free state ID; this statute section does not address those topics at all.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 73 addresses candidate registration procedures, not voter identification or ID rejection appeals. The section covers deposit requirements, asset declarations, and candidacy documentation—none of which concern the voter-side identification verification or appeal procedures that criterion ID.5 requires. The statute contains no codified appeal procedure for voters whose identification is rejected or who receive provisional ballots due to ID issues.

Article 59, Section 4 establishes the registration deadline by constitutional law (statute), not by regulation or administrative directive. The cutoff is defined with explicit temporal precision: forty days before election day at 18:00 local time. This provides clear, enumerated procedural rules that both strict and permissive scholars would recognize as statutorily grounded and judicially reviewable.

“Registration of candidates for the Presidency shall begin two months before the elections and end at 18.00 local time forty days before the election day, unless otherwise specified when appointing the elections.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 28 addresses pre-election campaign rights and conduct, not voter registration methods. It contains no enumeration of registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, same-day, etc.). The section is about campaign funding, media access, debates, and materials distribution—procedurally distinct from the voter registration process itself. This section does not engage the criterion's subject matter.

Article 26(4) establishes a statutory cure procedure for registration issues: citizens can apply to the election commission to correct data or be added to the voter list; applications are decided same-day with reasoned written notice if rejected; rejected applicants have an automatic court appeal right with same-day examination; and corrections are made immediately upon favorable decision. This satisfies the criterion because the procedure is enumerated in statute, timelines are specified, and appeal pathways are clearly defined.

The statute explicitly grants candidates and nominating associations a defined right to challenge registration refusal or cancellation, specifying the timeframe (ten days), the forum (Supreme Court), and the appellate court's review deadline (ten days). This satisfies the criterion for a statutorily-grounded rejection challenge procedure.

“The refusal of the Central Election Commission to register the candidate to President or cancellation of the decision on registration can be appealed within ten days personally by the candidate or the public association which has nominated a candidate to the Supreme Court which shall consider the appeal within ten days from the date of its submission. The decision of the Supreme Court shall be final.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns ballot paper design, printing, delivery, and security—not voter roll maintenance. It contains no provisions defining criteria for removing voters from registration rolls due to death, change of address, or inactivity. The criterion REG.5 is inapplicable to Article 37.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses vote-counting procedures at polling stations (ballot handling, counting methodology, validation of ballots, and dispute resolution), not voter registration or roll maintenance. It contains no provisions regarding voter purges, pre-purge notice, cure periods, or removal from voting rolls. The criterion REG.6 concerns registration administration; this section is procedurally irrelevant to that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 27 addresses pre-election campaign procedures, restrictions, and conduct — it does not contain any provisions regarding voter-data security, encryption requirements, breach notification protocols, or access logs for the voter registry. The section is entirely focused on campaign speech and behavior regulation, not data governance.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section establishes a statutory obligation for local executive bodies to assist with electoral rights of citizens with disabilities, but it does not codify the right to be assisted *by a person of the voter's choosing* or enumerate the specific rules governing who may serve as an assistant. The provision delegates implementation to election commissions without specifying procedural safeguards for voter-selected assistance.

“Local executive bodies shall be obliged to assist election commissions in ensuring the electoral rights of citizens with disabilities.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute sets outer bounds (6:00 am to 22:00) for polling hours but explicitly delegates authority to territorial and precinct election commissions to establish actual opening and closing times within those bounds. This leaves the specific polling-place hours to local administrative discretion rather than statutory enumeration, failing the procedural-clarity criterion that hours be set by statute.

“Territorial election commissions, on the proposal of the relevant akim, precinct election commissions, shall have the right to establish a different time for the start and end of voting. Wherein, voting may not begin earlier than six o'clock and end later than twenty-two.”

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 12 grants the Central Election Commission authority to organize production and determine procedures for absentee voter certificates, but this delegates procedural detail to administrative discretion rather than codifying eligibility, application, return, and treatment requirements in statute. The section does not enumerate who is eligible for absentee voting, under what conditions applications are accepted, how ballots are returned, or how they are counted—these are left to CEC procedure-setting, not statutory specification.

“6-1) organize the production, determine the procedure for issuing and recording absentee voter certificates;”