EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 4 of the LGPP contains only definitional provisions (disposiciones preliminares), establishing the meaning of terms used throughout the law (such as 'affiliated member,' 'general council,' 'institute,' etc.). It does not address election administration independence, the appointment mechanism for electoral bodies, fixed terms, or balanced political composition. The section merely defines 'Instituto' (the National Electoral Institute) and 'Tribunal' (the Electoral Court) as institutional references without establishing any procedural or structural safeguards for their independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedures for remote and diplomatic voting modalities for Mexican citizens abroad, including electronic voting security measures. It does not contain or reference minimum age or residency requirements for voting eligibility. The criterion asks whether such requirements are set in the constitution; this section is silent on the question entirely and therefore does not satisfy the criterion.

The statute enumerates that disqualification data (inhabilitaciones) and restoration (rehabilitaciones) of political rights are incorporated into the electoral registry, establishing statutory recognition of both disqualification and restoration mechanisms. However, the section does not codify the substantive criteria for disqualification, duration thereof, or detailed procedures for restoration—those would require reference to other statutory sections or are left to 'autoridades competentes' (competent authorities) to apply.

Section 154(3) requires judges to notify the electoral registry of rights restoration ('rehabilitación de los derechos políticos') within 10 days, establishing statutory grounding and a procedural deadline. However, the section only mandates notification *after* judicial restoration—it does not codify the substantive procedure for how rights are restored, by whom, under what conditions, or establish automatic restoration. The criterion requires codification of the restoration procedure itself, including deadlines and automatic triggers; this section addresses only notification of judicially-ordered restoration, not the restoration mechanism or eligibility criteria.

Article 278(1) statutorily grounds the ID requirement directly in the LGIPE (Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales), specifying that voters must present their voting credential (credencial para votar) or, alternatively, a judicial resolution from the Electoral Tribunal granting the right to vote without appearing on the nominal list or without a credential. The requirement and its enumerated exceptions are set by statute, not delegated to administrative discretion.

The statute enumerates one required document (birth certificate/acta de nacimiento) but then explicitly delegates to an administrative body ('además de los documentos que determine') to determine additional acceptable documents. This hybrid approach does not satisfy the criterion because key acceptable ID forms are left to administrative discretion rather than exhaustively enumerated in statute. The dual-scholar test would identify this delegation as a procedural gap.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute permits voting without ID only via a prior Tribunal Electoral resolution—a pre-election judicial authorization, not an at-polls cure procedure. No cure mechanism (provisional ballot, affidavit, signature-match, return-with-ID) is defined for a voter who arrives at the polling place without ID and without such a judicial resolution. The section addresses ID errors and alterations post-hoc (collection and incident reporting) but does not establish a statutory cure path for credential-less voters encountered on election day.

Article 143(6) establishes a statutory appeal procedure before the Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Electoral) for rejection decisions or administrative silence regarding credential issuance or voter registry corrections. The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to discretionary administrative action, specifying both the appealable decisions (rejection or lack of timely response) and the appellate forum.

The statute explicitly sets a specific registration cutoff date (February 15 of the election year) in the text of the law itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The date is enumerated with precision and binding on the electoral institute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section defines electoral lists and territorial divisions for electoral sections, but does not enumerate or describe registration methods at all. It does not address how citizens register to vote (in-person, mail, online, automatic, etc.), making it inapplicable to REG.2's focus on enumerated registration procedures.

The statute establishes a clear cure procedure: when a registration application is cancelled due to failure to obtain the voting credential within the prescribed deadline, the citizen is notified via public posting (May 1-31) and is explicitly granted the right to reapply for inscription during the intensive campaign period (Article 138) or to file an impugnation remedy (Article 143). Paragraph 5 further confirms citizens may request reinscription under Articles 135, 138, and 139, providing statutory-grounded, enumerated pathways to remedy the rejection.

Article 143(6) provides a clear statutory right to challenge (impugnar) a rejected registration decision before the Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Electoral). The statute enumerates both the trigger (rejection or lack of timely response) and the forum for appeal, establishing a defined review pathway in law rather than administrative discretion.

The statute explicitly enumerates multiple roll-maintenance removal criteria: death (with documentation from competent authorities), change of address (via signed request with biometric data), failure to obtain voting credential within prescribed deadline, and judicial suspension of political rights. All criteria are set forth in this statutory section rather than delegated to regulation, and the constitutional basis is implied through the formal legislative instrument (LGIPE). The three core criteria (death, address change, and inactivity via credential failure) are all statutorily grounded.

The statute mandates statutory notice (display of cancellation lists May 1–31 in Instituto offices) and a defined cure period (opportunity to request re-inscription during the period for 'campaña intensa' under art. 138), as well as a defined appeal path (challenge procedure under art. 143, paragraph 6). The requirement is enumerated in the statute itself, not left to administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 279 addresses voting procedures at the polling place (ballot marking, ballot casting, credential marking, and indelible ink application), but contains no provisions regarding voter registry data security, encryption requirements, breach notification, or access logs. The criterion concerns the data security regime for the voter registry itself, which is distinct from the mechanics of the voting transaction described in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 26 of LGIPE addresses electoral organization, municipal governance, gender parity requirements, and indigenous/afromexicano representation rights, but contains no provision establishing triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance or bilingual ballots. The section does not codify any language-assistance rules, enumerated population thresholds, or cure/appeal procedures related to language access.

Article 279(2) of the LGIPE explicitly grants voters who cannot read or are physically unable to mark ballots the right to be assisted by a person of their choosing ('una persona de su confianza'). This right is codified directly in statute with clear enumeration of the categories (illiteracy or physical impediment) and the qualifying person (someone of the voter's trust/confidence). The procedure is straightforward and leaves no room for administrative discretion.

The statute codifies that illiterate and physically impaired voters may receive assistance from a trusted person of their choosing, which is a core procedural safeguard. However, the statute provides no explicit mechanism to protect ballot secrecy during or after assistance—it does not specify how the assisting person must handle the ballot, whether they may observe the voter's choices, or what restrictions apply to prevent coercion or vote-buying. The procedure is partial: the right to assistance is clear and statutory, but critical ballot-secrecy protections are absent.

The statute explicitly sets the opening hour for voting at 8:00 AM on the first Sunday of June in election years, with no discretion left to local administrators. The opening procedure (casilla setup) must occur at 7:30 AM, and votes cannot be received before 8:00 AM. This is a clear, enumerated, statutorily-grounded time requirement.

“En ningún caso se podrán recibir votos antes de las 8:00 horas.”

Article 344 establishes post-election handling of postal votes (receipt, registration, and secrecy safeguards) but does not codify the full mail-in procedure. Critical elements required by the criterion—application procedures, application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots—are entirely absent from this section. The statute delegates implementation details to administrative discretion ('dispondrán lo necesario'). A dual-scholar test would recognize that the procedural clarity bar is not met, as the complete pathway from voter initiation through dispute resolution is not statutorily enumerated.

Article 329 establishes absentee voting eligibility (Mexican citizens residing abroad) and enumerates three methods (mail, in-person at embassy/consulate, electronic). However, the statute repeatedly delegates core procedural details to the Instituto (eligibility application processes, return procedures, ballot treatment, security standards for electronic voting) rather than codifying them exhaustively. The repeated phrase 'en los términos que determine el Instituto' ('in the terms determined by the Institute') indicates administrative discretion over implementation. The criterion requires the framework be codified in statute; delegation to administrative guidelines does not satisfy this procedural-clarity standard.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses broadcast media access rights for political parties during non-campaign periods, not early in-person voting procedures. It contains no statutory specification of early voting periods, locations, or procedures. The section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedures for counting and tabulating ballots at polling places (escrutinio y cómputo en la casilla), not ballot drop-boxes. The criterion evaluates whether drop-box procedures are statutorily defined; this section contains no mention of drop-boxes, their placement, security, or chain-of-custody. The section is not applicable to the criterion.

Article 85 of LGSMIME codifies a statutory right to cast a ballot (provisional in effect) when a court order in the voter's favor cannot be executed in time due to legal deadlines or technical/material impossibility. The statute enumerates the precise procedure: presentation of certified copy of judgment and identification to electoral officials at the polling place corresponding to the voter's domicile (or special polling place as applicable). The cure pathway is explicit—the court decision itself becomes the authorization mechanism.