EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 171 addresses the definition and treatment of null ballots during the counting process. It specifies which ballots are considered void (multiple choices, unclear voter choice, torn ballots, etc.) and procedural requirements for contesting and annexing them to the electoral report. This provision contains no requirement for publishing a voter pamphlet, defining candidate information content, specifying ballot-question information, or establishing distribution mechanisms. The criterion requires statutory codification of pamphlet publication, content enumeration, and distribution—procedural clarity elements entirely absent from this nullification rule.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section addresses public accessibility of campaign-treasurer declarations through mandatory publication in the official journal within one month, which satisfies the transparency and timing requirement for defined candidate-related filings. However, the statute addresses only treasurer-designation documents, not the full range of candidate-filing documents typically covered under nomination petitions or eligibility certifications. The criterion asks whether candidate-filing documents broadly (nominating petitions, eligibility certifications) are made publicly accessible; this provision covers only a narrow subset of campaign finance officer declarations. The temporal requirement is clear and codified (one month), meeting the procedural clarity standard, but the scope is limited to financial officers rather than comprehensive candidacy documentation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 140 addresses the written requisition powers of the electoral bureau president and expressly prohibits using such requisitions to obstruct candidates, delegates, and accredited observers from exercising their observation mission during electoral operations. This provision concerns observer access and procedural fairness during voting, not candidate disqualification or withdrawal procedures, nor public-notice requirements following such disqualification or withdrawal. The criterion requires codification of public-notice procedures when candidates are disqualified or withdraw after ballot printing. This section contains no language addressing disqualification, withdrawal, ballot reprinting, or any public notification procedure related to changes in candidate status. The section is substantively unrelated to CAND.2.

Article 125 codifies in statute a requirement to notify voters of polling place locations with specific timing (60 days before election) and mandates publication in the Official Journal and posting at local administrative offices. However, the statute does NOT address notification of the election date itself or voter registration deadlines—only polling place information. The notification method for polling places is somewhat vague ('by all appropriate means'), lacking prescriptive content requirements. The criterion asks whether notification requirements for 'an upcoming election (date, polling place, registration deadline)' are 'set in statute with timing and content defined.' The section satisfies timing and partial content for polling places but omits election date and registration deadline notification requirements. Under the dual-scholar test, reasonable interpreters would agree this addresses one element (polling place) with timing, but incompletely addresses the full scope of pre-election voter notification.

Article 125 requires that any modification to polling-place list or location must be made by deliberation at least 48 hours before election day and communicated to the public 'by all means.' However, the statute satisfies only one prong of the criterion: it establishes a defined timeframe (48 hours before voting). It does not satisfy the other prong: it does not require individual voter notification. The requirement is limited to 'general' public notification through unspecified means ('tous les moyens'), not targeted notice to affected voters whose polling places have changed. The statute also addresses only changes between elections due to force majeure, not whether baseline polling-place changes trigger notification duties. The criterion requires both individual notice AND defined timeframe; this provides only the latter.