EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article A 15 addresses data-sharing obligations between municipal and national electoral bodies and the Kiesraad (Electoral Council), but contains no provisions regarding the Kiesraad's independence, appointment procedures, term lengths, or political composition. The section is purely procedural regarding information provision, not structural governance of electoral administration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is from the Kieswet (Election Act), which is statutory law, not constitutional law. The criterion explicitly requires that age and residency requirements be set in the constitution. While the section clearly enumerates the requirements (Dutch nationality, age 18 on voting day, residency rules), it does so via statute alone, not constitutional grounding.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (judicial conviction resulting in disqualification) and establishes a defined procedural framework: the Justice Minister must notify the mayor, who must inform the disqualified person of both the disqualification and its duration. The statute specifies that duration is recorded in the notice. However, the statute does not explicitly codify a restoration procedure—it references duration of exclusion but does not define the mechanism by which voting rights are automatically restored or the process for requesting restoration.

“Van het kiesrecht zijn uitgesloten zij die bij onherroepelijke rechterlijke uitspraak van het kiesrecht zijn ontzet.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly requires verification of an identity document (identiteitsdocument) copy as a condition for processing mail ballots. This ID requirement is grounded directly in statutory text (Kieswet art. N 18, subsection 1(d)), setting forth the requirement in law rather than delegating it to administrative discretion. The procedure and verification criteria are enumerated in the statute itself.

“aan de hand van de kopie van het identiteitsdocument, of dit document geldig was op de dag van de kandidaatstelling”

The statute requires identity verification via 'a document as meant in Article 1 of the Identification Act' (Wet op de identificatieplicht), which delegates the enumeration of acceptable documents to an external statute rather than enumerating them exhaustively within this section itself. While enumeration exists somewhere in statute, the procedural clarity is weakened by this cross-reference and indirection. Subsection 2 does provide an alternative pathway (police report + photo ID), but the primary route relies on incorporation by reference, not direct enumeration.

“de voorzitter van het stembureau de identiteit van de kiezer heeft vastgesteld aan de hand van een document als bedoeld in artikel 1 van de Wet op de identificatieplicht”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article J 25 establishes a clear statutory requirement for valid identification and specifies that voters without valid ID are denied access to the poll ('wordt de kiezer niet toegelaten tot de stemming'). However, the statute provides no cure procedure—no provisional ballot option, no affidavit mechanism, no opportunity to return with ID, no signature-match alternative, or any other remedial pathway. The voter is simply denied voting rights without recourse.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article J 25 establishes the statutory procedure for voter identification and rejection at the polling place: voters without valid ID are simply not admitted to voting (§2, §4, §6). However, the statute contains no codified appeal or review procedure for voters rejected on identification grounds. The text describes what happens upon rejection (denial of access) but provides no mechanism, timeline, or tribunal for challenging that rejection. The procedural clarity criterion requires not just enumeration of rejection grounds but a defined cure or appeal pathway; this section lacks that second component entirely.

The statute sets the registration deadline in statutory text, defining it as the day of candidate nomination (kandidaatstelling). This is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; the temporal boundary is enumerated directly in the law. The provision also specifies the consequence (requests received after that day are excluded from the next election), establishing a clear, judicially reviewable standard.

“Verzoeken die worden ontvangen na de dag van de kandidaatstelling blijven voor de daaropvolgende verkiezing buiten beschouwing.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes that mayors and aldermen register voter eligibility but does not enumerate the methods by which registration occurs (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, etc.). The statute delegates the *fact* of registration to officials without specifying the procedural pathways or modes available to citizens.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article G6 addresses only the procedural modalities for deposit payments and form templates (general administrative rules and ministerial regulations). It contains no language defining a cure procedure for incomplete registration submissions—no mechanism for notice of deficiency, opportunity to correct, or timeline for resubmission. The article delegates detail to subordinate regulation (AMvB and ministerial decree) rather than establishing statutory cure rights.

Article Q 6(5) explicitly codifies the statutory right to file a written appeal (beroepschrift) against a registration decision, with a defined deadline (sixth day after publication in the Staatscourant). This provides clear, enumerated appeal procedure in statute for challenging rejection or removal of a political grouping's registration.

“In afwijking van de artikelen 6:7 en 6:8, eerste lid, van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht wordt een beroepschrift tegen een beschikking als bedoeld in dit artikel ingediend uiterlijk op de zesde dag na de dagtekening van de Staatscourant waarin de beschikking is medegedeeld.”

This statutory provision explicitly defines removal criteria in the Kieswet itself: removal occurs on the voter's request or when municipal authorities become aware of circumstances disqualifying the person from voter registration. The criteria are statutorily enumerated rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, though the provision does grant some interpretive discretion to 'Burgemeester en wethouders' in determining what circumstances trigger removal.

“Burgemeester en wethouders schrappen de registratie van de kiesgerechtigdheid van de als kiezer geregistreerde niet-Nederlander die onderdaan is van een andere lidstaat: a. op verzoek van betrokkene; b. indien aan hen omstandigheden bekend worden op grond waarvan de desbetreffende persoon niet als kiezer behoort te zijn geregistreerd.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Kieswet art. V 3) governs the documentation and verification requirements that candidates must submit when accepting nomination for elected office—specifically regarding public positions held, residency, birth records, citizenship, and EU membership status. It does not address voter registration management, voter removal from rolls, pre-purge notice procedures, or cure periods for voters. The criterion concerns procedural protections for voters facing removal from the electoral roll; this section concerns candidate eligibility verification during the nomination process. These are distinct regulatory domains.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the handling of candidate lists and supporting declarations by the central electoral bureau and local administrators—specifically their transmission, public inspection, and destruction. It contains no provisions concerning voter-data security, encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging for the voter registry. The section is about electoral materials management, not voter-data protection.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes a right to assistance for voters with physical disabilities, satisfying statutory grounding. However, the text provides no enumeration of who may serve as an assistant (e.g., whether the voter chooses freely, whether certain persons are prohibited, whether poll workers themselves may assist), leaving the critical procedural details to administrative discretion. The criterion requires both codification and specification of rules governing permissible assistants.

“Wanneer aan het stembureau blijkt dat een kiezer wegens zijn lichamelijke gesteldheid hulp behoeft, staat het toe dat deze zich laat bijstaan.”

The statute grants authority to provide assistance when a voter's physical condition requires it, establishing statutory grounding for voter assistance. However, the text addresses only physical disability (lichamelijke gesteldheid), not illiteracy specifically. More critically, the statute contains no enumerated procedure for how assistance must be delivered, no protective measures defining how ballot secrecy is maintained during assistance, and no cure or appeal mechanism if assistance is wrongly denied. The criterion requires codified procedure protecting ballot secrecy; this provision grants discretionary permission without procedural safeguards.

“Wanneer aan het stembureau blijkt dat een kiezer wegens zijn lichamelijke gesteldheid hulp behoeft, staat het toe dat deze zich laat bijstaan.”

The statute provides a default baseline (7:30 a.m. opening, 9:00 p.m. closing) and requires 14 days' public notice, satisfying the statutory-grounding requirement. However, the default hours can be altered by burgemeester en wethouders (mayor and aldermen) using discretionary language ('kunnen bepalen...waar dat wenselijk is'), which delegates the actual polling-place hours to local administrative discretion within broad parameters rather than fixing them in statute itself.

“Burgemeester en wethouders kunnen voor stembureaus waar dat wenselijk is met het oog op de plaats waar de bureaus zitting houden bepalen dat de stemming bij deze stembureaus aanvangt op een eerder of een later tijdstip dan zeven uur dertig en eindigt op een eerder tijdstip dan eenentwintig uur.”

Article M1 establishes the right to mail-in voting (briefstemmen) and references a registration requirement and certificate system, but does not codify the full procedural elements. The section delegates critical details—application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification rules, and cure mechanisms—to other articles or subsidiary regulation ('bij of krachtens dit hoofdstuk'), leaving them outside this statute's explicit enumeration. A procedurally complete criterion requires all steps codified in statute, not deferred.

The statute sets out the absentee (mail) voting framework in statutory language: it defines who is eligible (registered voters under article D 2), what document they receive (briefstembewijs/mail voting certificate), and the conditions under which they may vote by mail. The framework is codified directly in this article rather than delegated to administrative discretion, meeting the procedural-clarity standard.

“Degene die als kiezer is geregistreerd als bedoeld in artikel D 2 , ontvangt als bewijs dat hij per brief mag stemmen voor de stemming een briefstembewijs.”

This section addresses the deadline for receiving a petition (verzoekschrift) related to candidacy nomination (artikel L 8), not early voting procedures or locations. The text specifies a five-day deadline before voting day and a publication requirement in the municipal gazette, but does not establish an early voting period or rules for early voting locations. The criterion asks about early in-person voting periods and location rules; this section does not address those topics.

This section addresses the inapplicability of proxy voting and voter pass mechanisms in a specific chapter context, but contains no substantive content regarding ballot drop-boxes, their placement, security, or chain-of-custody procedures. The section is not responsive to the criterion question.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section explicitly states that the possibility of voting by proxy or with a voter pass (the mechanisms referenced in Chapters K and L) does NOT apply in this chapter. The provision is exclusionary—it removes or suspends provisional/alternative voting methods rather than establishing a right to provisional ballots or a procedure for adjudicating them. No cure procedure or appeal path for rejected voters is articulated.