EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

Article 525 establishes a statutory requirement for an information distribution mechanism (micrositio on the official Institute website) with enumerated content requirements for candidate information (personal profile, photograph, public contact means, academic and professional history, judicial philosophy and improvement proposals). Distribution timing is also specified—information must be available from campaign period start through election day. However, this section addresses a digital-only platform rather than a traditional voter pamphlet or its statutory analog. The criterion asks whether there is a requirement for a 'voter pamphlet (or analog)' with defined content and distribution. While the micrositio functions as an information vehicle with content requirements codified, the statute does not explicitly mandate distribution of a physical or comprehensive pamphlet document containing all candidate information in consolidated form. The requirement is partial: content enumeration and timing are clear, but the distribution mechanism is platform-specific (electronic) rather than a comprehensive pamphlet-style document traditionally contemplated by election codes. Dual-scholar test: one scholar would credit this as meeting the spirit of INFO.1 (codified content requirements, timing, accessibility); another would distinguish between a mandated pamphlet format and a website micrositio, viewing it as falling short of the full criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 26 of LGIPE addresses the structural composition of electoral bodies, gender parity in candidacies, and indigenous/afromexican representation rights. It does not contain statutory triggers, population thresholds, or language-minority criteria for multilingual ballot or voter material requirements. The section focuses on organizational structure and candidate registration principles rather than procedural rules governing multilingual communication. No codified multilingual notice triggers are present in this text.

Article 389 of the LGIPE requires that the Secretary of the General Council and presidents of local or district councils make public the conclusion of independent candidate registration, disclosing the names of registered candidates/formulas and those who did not meet requirements. This satisfies the procedural framework for public accessibility of candidate-filing outcomes. However, the criterion asks specifically whether candidate-filing documents themselves (nominating petitions, eligibility certifications) are required to be publicly accessible, and whether a defined time is specified. While the statute mandates public disclosure of registration results, it does not explicitly require the underlying filing documents to be publicly accessible, nor does it specify a defined time frame for when this public disclosure must occur ('las medidas necesarias' is vague regarding timing). The section addresses public notification of filing status but not document accessibility with temporal specificity.

LGIPE art. 240(2) explicitly codifies a statutory procedure requiring publication and dissemination of candidate registration cancellations and substitutions in the same manner as the original candidate list publication (in the Diario Oficial de la Federación). This directly satisfies the criterion by establishing a codified public-notice procedure for candidate disqualifications/withdrawals. The statute specifies both the mechanism (publication and dissemination) and the forum (same as candidate registration publication). The dual-scholar test is satisfied: two independent statutory scholars would confirm that the statute establishes a mandatory, enumerated procedure for public notice of candidate cancellations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: LGPP article 95 addresses the loss of political party registration (pérdida del registro) and publication of such declarations in official gazettes. It does not contain provisions regarding voter notification of upcoming elections, polling places, registration deadlines, or any timing requirements for election-related voter communications. The section is focused on party deregistration procedures and remedies, not on the procedural framework for notifying voters about electoral events. This instrument fails to codify notification rules, timing, or content requirements for election-related voter notices as required by NOTIF.1.

The statute requires that notice of a new polling-place location be left at the exterior of the original location ("aviso de la nueva ubicación en el exterior del lugar original"). However, this satisfies only half of the criterion's dual requirements: (1) it establishes a notice requirement, but (2) it does not codify individual voter notification—only a notice posted at the original site—and (3) it does not specify a timeframe for when such notice must be provided. The criterion asks for "individual notice within a defined timeframe," which implies direct notification to voters and temporal specificity. The provision addresses contingent, same-day polling-place relocations due to facility problems, not advance notice of changes between elections. The requirement is procedurally codified but incomplete against the criterion's full standard.