EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 88 addresses observer accreditation procedures, not the structural independence, appointment, term limits, or political composition of election administration bodies. The section mentions the Central Electoral Commission and electoral bodies as the entities handling accreditation, but provides no statutory codification of how these bodies are appointed, their tenure, their multi-branch composition, or any balance mechanism. This section is about observer rights and procedural rules, not administrative independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidacy eligibility (right to be elected), not voting eligibility. It sets statutory candidacy age requirements (18 for council, 23 for mayor) but does not address voting age or residency requirements, nor does it establish whether voting requirements are grounded in the constitution. The criterion asks whether voting age and residency are set in the constitution, not in statute, and this section provides only statutory candidacy rules.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria for criminal conviction (final judicial sentence, imprisonment, unsettled criminal records) and for individuals deprived of responsibility positions, meeting the statutory grounding requirement. However, the section provides no defined restoration procedure—no statement of when disqualification ends, how records are cleared, or how a disqualified person regains voting rights. The statute establishes *what* disqualifies but not *how or when* eligibility is restored.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses electoral agitation, campaign conduct, and advertising rules—not voter eligibility or restoration of voting rights post-felony. It contains no provisions governing loss or restoration of suffrage, statutory deadlines for rights restoration, or automatic restoration procedures. The criterion is not applicable to this section.

The section explicitly establishes in statute that ID is required for voting and enumerates three acceptable forms (identity card, provisional identity card, or passport). The requirement is grounded directly in this Electoral Code provision rather than delegated to administrative discretion, satisfying the statutory-grounding criterion.

Article 78(6) exhaustively enumerates the three acceptable identity documents in statute: citizen identity card, provisional identity card, and passport. The list is closed ("one of the following") and does not delegate further specification to the Central Electoral Commission beyond procedural implementation details. The acceptable forms are statutorily grounded and enumerated, satisfying the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns campaign finance reporting requirements and donor disclosure, not voter identification or alternative ID procedures. It does not address whether government-issued ID is required for voting or whether free alternative ID is available to voters. The criterion is inapplicable to this statutory text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 60 establishes the State Registry of Voters and its administration but contains no cure procedure for voters arriving without identification at polling stations. The section addresses voter registration data, data sources, and registry maintenance, not remedial mechanisms when identification is missing or deficient. A cure procedure (provisional ballot, affidavit, signature verification, or return-with-ID option) would require separate statutory language addressing what happens when a voter cannot produce required ID.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 95 establishes general deadlines and procedures for lodging appeals during electoral periods (3 calendar days, with some variations), but it does not address or codify any specific appeal procedure for rejected voter identification or rejected provisional ballots due to ID issues. The section is about appeal timeframes and administrative jurisdiction, not about ID verification, rejection, cure procedures, or ID-specific appeal mechanisms. To satisfy ID.5, the statute would need to explicitly establish a procedure allowing voters whose ID was rejected to challenge that rejection, obtain a cure opportunity, or appeal to a specific body—none of which appears in this text.

The statute explicitly sets a statutory registration deadline of 30 days before election day, leaving no discretion to administrators. This is a clear, enumerated procedural rule grounded directly in the Electoral Code text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the composition, format, and administration of electoral rolls—the voter register itself—but does not enumerate the methods by which voters may register or be added to those rolls. The statute delegates rule-making authority to the Central Electoral Commission ('The rules on the establishment, administration, dissemination and updating of electoral rolls shall be approved by the Central Electoral Commission'), leaving the registration method procedures to administrative regulation rather than statutory enumeration. No specific registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day) are identified or exhaustively listed in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 62 addresses verification and correction of electoral rolls (voter eligibility lists), not candidate registration or nomination. The criterion (REG.3) concerns a cure procedure for incomplete candidate REGISTRATION, which is an entirely different procedural stage. This section provides no procedures for candidates whose registration applications are rejected as incomplete. The section's mention of requests for inclusion/exclusion from electoral rolls is a voter-facing mechanism, not a candidate registration cure procedure.

Article 62(3) explicitly grants voters a statutory right to challenge rejections of correction or listing requests through court review following an established procedure. The right to challenge is codified in the statute with a defined timeframe (24-hour examination) and appeal path (stakeholders may challenge decisions in court).

The statute defines change-of-address criteria in Article 61(8) with a specific procedural requirement (30-day advance notice). However, the section provides no statutory criteria for removal due to death or inactivity; these appear to be delegated to the Central Electoral Commission's regulation on State Registry of Voters. The statute addresses one removal ground (address change) but leaves death and inactivity management to administrative regulation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedural requirements for electoral competitors, referendum participants, and initiative groups to establish and manage designated bank accounts for campaign financing. It contains no provisions regarding voter registration, voter roll purges, notice requirements, or cure periods for voters facing removal from the electoral rolls. The criterion concerns voter roll management procedures; this section concerns campaign finance account administration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 61 establishes the composition, content, distribution, and procedural timeline for electoral rolls, but contains no statutory provisions regarding data security, encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging for the voter registry. The section delegates rule-making on 'establishment, administration, dissemination and updating' to the Central Electoral Commission (subsection 1), but does not codify security standards in statute itself. Data protection is left to administrative regulation rather than statutory enumeration.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section codifies in statute both the right to assistance (voter's choice of assistant) and the enumerated exclusions (electoral officials, competitor representatives, authorized observers). The rule is clear, non-discretionary, and directly addresses the disability assistance question.

The statute codifies assistance for voters unable to self-mark ballots and excludes certain categories of assistants, with a recording requirement. However, the provision does not address literacy specifically, does not enumerate the procedures protecting ballot secrecy during assistance (e.g., how the assistant marks the ballot, what happens if the assistant tampers), and contains no cure or appeal mechanism if assistance is wrongly denied or mishandled.

The statute explicitly sets fixed polling-place hours (07:00 to 21:00) in statutory text, removing local administrative discretion over when polls open and close. This is clear statutory grounding with no delegation to administrators to vary the times.

“Voting shall take place on the election day between 07.00 and 21.00.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses mandate allocation through the d'Hondt method for parliamentary elections; it contains no mail-in voting procedure whatsoever. The criterion is not applicable to this section because it does not regulate or reference mail-in voting, application deadlines, return mechanisms, signature verification, or cure procedures. No scoring is warranted for an inapplicable section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 2 establishes general principles of electoral participation (universal, equal, direct, secret, voluntary suffrage) but does not codify any absentee voting framework. It contains no enumeration of eligibility criteria, application procedures, return methods, or treatment rules for absentee ballots—only aspirational language that government entities must 'create conditions' for overseas citizens to exercise rights. Statutory procedures for absentee voting are absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting requirements and does not contain any provisions regarding early voting periods or locations. It is entirely devoted to the procedural and substantive rules for reporting donations, expenditures, and financial disclosures by political parties, candidates, and initiative groups. No early voting procedure is enumerated or referenced in this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 80 addresses security of the voting process at polling stations on election day, including ballot box sealing, identity badges, mobile ballot boxes for voters unable to attend, and observer presence. It contains no mention of drop-boxes, their placement, security protocols, or chain-of-custody procedures. The section does not engage with the drop-box criterion at all.

Article 78 establishes a statutory procedure for voters not on the basic roll to vote via an 'additional electoral roll' with specific documentary requirements. However, the section does not define what constitutes a 'provisional ballot' in the common law sense (a ballot cast subject to later verification of voter eligibility), nor does it enumerate a cure procedure or appeal path for adjudicating challenged ballots. The statute specifies inclusion criteria and signature requirements but omits the procedural remedy when a voter's eligibility is contested or later questioned.