EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute specifies that the National Electoral Commission is composed of judges from three separate judicial bodies (Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court), each designated by their respective heads. This provides structural multi-branch grounding and enumerated composition. However, the statute does not codify fixed terms for these members, does not explicitly mandate balanced political composition, and does not establish independence safeguards (such as protection from removal or conflict-of-interest rules). The section establishes institutional diversity but lacks explicit procedural safeguards for independence.

The constitutional text explicitly sets the minimum age requirement (18 years old by election day) for voting rights in referenda and all major elections. The criterion asks whether minimum age requirements are established in the constitution rather than statute alone, and this passage directly answers that question affirmatively at the constitutional level.

“Obywatel polski ma prawo udziału w referendum oraz prawo wybierania Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej, posłów, senatorów i przedstawicieli do organów samorządu terytorialnego, jeżeli najpóźniej w dniu głosowania kończy 18 lat.”

The section codifies disqualification criteria in the Constitution itself (highest legal rank): legal incapacity (ubezwłasnowolnienie), deprivation of public rights, and deprivation of electoral rights, each requiring a final court judgment (prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym). However, the text provides no statutory restoration procedure or duration limits for these disqualifications—those mechanics are left to separate legislation. This achieves constitutional framing with statutory grounding of criteria, but lacks the defined restoration pathway required for a full score of 3.

“Prawo udziału w referendum oraz prawo wybierania nie przysługuje osobom, które prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym są ubezwłasnowolnione lub pozbawione praw publicznych albo wyborczych.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 228 of the Polish Constitution addresses states of emergency and restrictions on rights during those periods, but does not codify any procedure for restoration of voting rights lost due to felony convictions or other disqualifying events. The article protects electoral ordnances from suspension during emergencies but does not establish statutory deadlines, automatic restoration mechanisms, or any procedural framework for restoring voting rights post-conviction. This section falls entirely outside the scope of eligibility restoration criteria.

Article 35 § 1 of the electoral code sets the ID requirement in statute, explicitly requiring Polish citizens abroad to possess valid Polish passports or, for EU citizens, valid passports or identity documents that verify identity. The requirement is enumerated and directly grounded in legislative law rather than delegated to administrative discretion. § 5 further clarifies that national identity cards are treated as equivalent to passports in EU countries, providing additional specificity within statute.

Article 35 § 1 and § 5 exhaustively enumerate the acceptable forms of identification in statute: valid Polish passports for Polish citizens abroad, valid passports or other identity documents for EU citizens, and valid Polish ID cards for certain EU/Schengen territories. The statute specifies which documents are acceptable and does not delegate enumeration to administrative discretion. § 4 addresses implementation procedures, but the core acceptable ID forms are statutorily fixed.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 299 governs the registration and notification procedures for electoral committees and candidate nomination, not voter identification or cure procedures at polling places. It contains no provisions addressing what happens when a voter arrives without ID, provisional ballots, affidavits, return-with-ID procedures, or signature matching. This section is entirely unrelated to the criterion topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 243 addresses procedural dismissal of electoral protests before the Supreme Court (rejecting protests filed by unauthorized persons or those failing procedural requirements). It contains no statutory procedure for appealing ID rejections or provisional ballot rejections due to identification issues. The section regulates appellate review of electoral disputes generally, not voter identification appeals specifically.

Article 436 § 2 establishes a statutory registration deadline for candidate list amendments: no later than 10 days before election day. This cutoff is enumerated directly in the statute, not delegated to administrative discretion or regulation, and is tied explicitly to 'dniem wyborów' (election day), making it a clear statutory deadline.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the voter register structure and categories of eligible voters, but does not enumerate registration methods. The statute states that Polish citizens with permanent residence are registered ex officio (§8), and EU citizens must submit a written request (§10), but no section provides an exhaustive statutory enumeration of how voters initiate registration, what methods are available (in-person, mail, online, etc.), or procedural steps. The registration mechanism is implicit rather than explicitly enumerated.

Article 216 § 1 establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: when the number of valid voter signatures supporting a candidate list is insufficient, the district electoral commission must summon the registrant to complete the list of signatures before the deadline specified in Article 211 § 1, and supplementation is permitted up to that deadline. This provides an explicit cure pathway with enumerated conditions and a defined timeframe.

Article 22 provides a comprehensive statutory framework for challenging voter registration rejections or removals. The right to challenge is enumerated in statute (§5), the procedure is defined (written or oral complaint to the wójt within 3 days of decision delivery, followed by appeal to the district court), and both cure (initial complaint process in §1-3) and appeal mechanisms (judicial review in §5) are codified. A voter can challenge omission, wrongful inclusion, incorrect data, or improper residence designation.

The statute establishes ONE removal criterion (deprivation of voting rights by court or Constitutional Tribunal order) and the reinstatement mechanism. However, the statute does not enumerate removal criteria for death, change of address, or inactivity—those procedural details are explicitly delegated to ministerial regulation (§3). The criterion is partially satisfied because statutory grounds exist for one category of removal, but the full scope of roll-maintenance removal criteria are left to regulatory determination.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 95 addresses electoral committee registration (specifically naming disputes and cure procedures for committee names), not voter roll maintenance or pre-purge notice and cure procedures for individual voters. The statute provides cure mechanisms for electoral committees but contains no procedural requirements for notice and opportunity to cure before voter removal from rolls.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 35 of the Polish Constitution protects the cultural and linguistic rights of national and ethnic minorities in general terms, but it does not codify specific triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance in voting (such as bilingual ballots or population thresholds). The article is a rights declaration rather than an operational electoral procedure. The actual statutory requirements for voter language assistance in Polish elections would be found in electoral codes (e.g., the Electoral Code—Kodeks Wyborczy) or implementing regulations, not in this constitutional provision.

The statute explicitly grants disabled voters the right to request assistance from another person of their choosing and exhaustively enumerates who may NOT assist (election commission members and party observers/proxies). The rule is statutorily codified with clear, enumerated boundaries on permissible assistants.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 39 sets mandatory polling-place hours in statute (7:00 to 21:00 for single-day and two-day voting). The hours are enumerated exhaustively and apply uniformly, leaving no room for local administrative discretion. Limited exceptions (healthcare facilities, ships, overseas locations) are also statutorily defined, preserving the procedural clarity principle.

The statute permits mail-in voting and references another article (art. 14 § 1) for its scope, but does not itself codify the full procedure (application, deadline, return, signature verification, cure). This section merely states that mail-in voting exists and is treated as personal voting; the actual procedural requirements are delegated elsewhere or left unspecified in this excerpt. Without the enumerated details within this section or a clear statutory grounding of all procedural steps, the criterion is not satisfied.

“Głosowaniem osobistym jest również głosowanie korespondencyjne w obwodach głosowania, o których mowa w art. 14 § 1.”

Article 63 establishes absentee (correspondence) voting in statute with enumerated eligibility rules (foreign residence status, EU citizenship provisions), a fixed application deadline (15 days before election), specified submission methods (oral, written, telegraph, fax, electronic), and comprehensive required information fields for both Polish citizens and EU nationals. The framework is statutorily grounded and procedurally explicit, leaving minimal discretion to administrators.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 44 addresses auxiliary urns (secondary ballot boxes) in healthcare and care facilities, but does not statutorily define placement, security, or chain-of-custody procedures. The section permits their use after coordination with a higher electoral commission (§1) and specifies they are for specific facility types (§2) and require two-person supervision from different electoral committees during ballot insertion (§3), but contains no enumerated procedures for physical placement, security standards, sealing protocols, transport, or custody documentation. These procedural details are left to administrative implementation by the electoral commissions.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 52 describes the standard voting procedure (voter identification, ballot receipt, voting mechanics) but contains no provision for provisional ballots or any procedure to adjudicate a ballot cast by a voter whose eligibility is questioned. The statute allows voters with a 'zaświadczenie o prawie do głosowania' (certificate of voting right) to be added to the voter roll and vote, but this is pre-voting resolution, not a provisional ballot mechanism.