EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute explicitly codifies appointment by multiple branches (governor appoints subject to legislative confirmation in joint session), mandates balanced political composition (two members each from the two largest parties), fixes staggered five-year terms with no consecutive expiration for same-party members, and limits members to one term. These independence safeguards are all set by statute rather than administrative discretion. The procedural clarity meets the dual-scholar test: both election reform scholars and election integrity advocates would recognize this structure as a statutorily-grounded independence mechanism.

“The governor shall appoint all members of the commission in the manner prescribed in (b) and (c) of this section, subject to confirmation by a majority of the legislature meeting in joint session. The governor shall appoint two members of each of the two political parties or political groups with the largest number of registered voters at the time of the most recent preceding general election at which a governor was elected. The two appointees from each of these two parties or groups shall be chosen from a list of four names to be submitted by the central committee of each party or group. The four members selected under (b) of this section shall, by a majority vote, nominate to the governor an individual to serve as the fifth member of the commission.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the confidentiality of voter registration information (age, SSN, driver's license number, etc.) and exceptions to that confidentiality. It does not establish or reference the minimum age or residency requirements for voting eligibility, nor does it ground those requirements in the constitution. The section is about data protection, not eligibility thresholds. To satisfy ELIG.1, one would need to identify constitutional text establishing minimum age and residency—not a statute governing confidentiality of registration records.

The statute clearly codifies the disqualification criterion (felony involving moral turpitude), sets a definite duration (through unconditional discharge), and specifies a statutory restoration mechanism (registration under AS 15.07 upon discharge). All key procedural elements are grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion, satisfying the procedural-clarity standard.

“A person convicted of a crime that constitutes a felony involving moral turpitude under state or federal law may not vote in a state, federal, or municipal election from the date of the conviction through the date of the unconditional discharge of the person. Upon the unconditional discharge, the person may register under AS 15.07.”

The statute specifies a clear trigger for restoration (unconditional discharge) and references a registration statute, but does not codify the restoration procedure itself—instead delegating it to the commissioner of corrections to 'establish procedures.' Restoration is not automatic; it requires affirmative re-registration. There are no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no enumerated procedural steps.

“Upon the unconditional discharge, the person may register under AS 15.07. The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures by which a person unconditionally discharged is advised of the voter registration requirements and procedures.”

The statute explicitly and clearly sets the voter identification requirement in statutory text (AS 15.15.225), enumerates the acceptable forms of identification exhaustively, and provides a defined fallback procedure (questioned ballot) for voters who cannot exhibit required identification. The requirement is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; it is stated as a mandatory statutory obligation.

The statute exhaustively enumerates acceptable ID forms in multiple categories: driver's license, state ID, photo ID, birth certificate, passport, hunting/fishing license, and specific government documents (utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document). Each category is set forth in statute with specific requirements (e.g., 'current and valid,' 'current address'). No discretion is delegated to administrators to add, remove, or redefine acceptable forms.

“current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document; an item described in this sub-subparagraph must show the name and current address of the voter”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the procedure for reviewing and counting absentee ballots, including identification requirements for first-time mail registrants and in-person voters without identification. However, it does not address whether a free alternative state-issued ID is statutorily available to voters who lack government-issued identification. The section references identification requirements under AS 15.15.225 and AS 15.07.060 but does not establish or mandate the provision of a free alternative ID. The criterion requires statutory language creating a free state-issued ID program; this section merely enumerates rejection grounds and does not satisfy that requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section defines voter misconduct crimes (voter fraud), not a cure procedure for voters lacking ID at polls. It contains no provisions addressing how election officials should handle voters who arrive without ID, what alternatives (provisional ballot, affidavit, signature match) are available, or how voters can cure missing identification. The criterion requires a defined statutory cure procedure for ID rejection; this section addresses criminal penalties only.

The statute codifies a defined appeal/review procedure for rejected questioned ballots (which include ID-related rejections). The director must provide a summary of rejection reasons within specified statutory timeframes, and voters have access to a free system to check ballot status and rejection reasons. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement: the appeal path is statutory, enumerated, and includes notification deadlines.

“The director shall prepare and mail to each questioned voter whose questioned ballot was rejected under this section a summary of the reason that the challenge to the questioned ballot was upheld and the questioned ballot was rejected. The director shall mail the materials described in (h) of this section to the voter not later than 10 days after completion of the review of ballots by the state review board for a primary election or a special primary election under AS 15.40.140 ; 60 days after certification of the results of a general or special election, other than a special primary election described in (1) of this subsection.”

The statute explicitly and exhaustively defines the registration deadline as 30 days before an election day. This cutoff is set directly in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, and is stated with sufficient clarity that both liberal and conservative election scholars would recognize it as a clear, judicially reviewable standard.

“a person registering within 30 days preceding an election is not eligible to vote at that election”

The statute exhaustively enumerates the available registration methods in statutory text: in-person, through a voter registration agency, by authorized proxy with written power of attorney, by mail, by facsimile/scanning/electronic transmission (with director approval), and via permanent fund dividend application. The enumeration is complete and set in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Registration may be made in person before a registration official or through a voter registration agency; by another individual on behalf of the voter if the voter has executed a written general power of attorney or a written special power of attorney authorizing that other individual to register the voter; by mail; by facsimile transmission, scanning, or another method of electronic transmission that the director approves; or by completing a permanent fund dividend application under AS 43.23.015”

The section provides statutory notice of rejection and grounds (satisfying transparency), but does not define an affirmative cure procedure—i.e., a mechanism or deadline by which a voter whose questioned ballot was rejected can cure the defect and have the ballot counted. The section does require notification and, for primary elections, registration determination under AS 15.07.070(h), but these occur post-election and do not cure the originally-rejected ballot. A true cure procedure would allow the voter to correct identified defects before ballots are finalized.

“The director shall prepare and mail to each questioned voter whose questioned ballot was rejected under this section a summary of the reason that the challenge to the questioned ballot was upheld and the questioned ballot was rejected.”

The statute explicitly codifies a two-tiered challenge right in statutory language: an applicant refused registration has a statutory right to an immediate informal appeal to the area election supervisor, and if refused there, the action is reviewable by the superior court. Both the initial appeal right and the judicial review pathway are set by statute with defined procedures (informal, verbal or written appeal; court review with expedited treatment near elections).

“The person shall have the right to an immediate appeal to the area election supervisor, which appeal may be taken informally, and either verbally or in writing. When a voter is refused registration by an area election supervisor the action shall be reviewed by the superior court of the judicial district”

This section establishes that voter inactivity is a statutory ground for removal (by reference to 'inactive' registrations), placing the criterion in statute rather than regulation. However, the section does not enumerate the specific criteria for inactivity, death, or change of address—it only references inactivity and directs to other statutory sections (AS 15.07.070) without spelling out the removal standards itself. The criterion is partially satisfied because the inactivity standard is grounded in statute, but the section lacks exhaustive enumeration of all removal grounds.

“The director shall prepare an official registration list for each election consisting of the names of (1) all voters whose registrations are not inactive; and (2) all voters whose names are required to be placed on the list by AS 15.07.070(c) or (d).”

The statute establishes a clear, multi-layered notice-and-cure procedure before removal: (1) initial notice by nonforwardable mail requesting address confirmation (§15.07.130(a)); (2) if returned, a second notice by forwardable mail warning of inactivation with a 45-day cure window (§15.07.130(b)); (3) inactivation occurs only if no response within 45 days; and (4) final cancellation occurs only after the second general election following inactivation and if the voter remains uncontactive and nonvoting. The notice must include a pre-addressed, postage-paid return card and explicit warnings about consequences. This is exhaustively enumerated in statute, not left to administrative discretion.

This section designates certain voter data as confidential and restricts disclosure, but does not codify encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging for the voter registry. The statute addresses confidentiality and authorized disclosure pathways, not the technical security regime or breach response obligations.

“in compliance with federal law, information made confidential by this section may be released by the division to a local, state, or federal government agency, including to the child support services agency created in AS 25.27.010 or the child support enforcement agency of another state; the agency receiving information under this paragraph may use the information only for governmental purposes authorized under law”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute grants voters with disabilities an explicit right to vote with assistance by a representative of their choosing and enumerates statutory restrictions on who may serve as a representative (not employer, employer agent, union officer/agent, or candidates). The procedure is set in statute with defined roles, requirements for representative registration and oaths, and clear delivery and signing protocols.

“A qualified voter with a disability who, because of that disability, is unable to go to a polling place to vote may vote a special needs ballot. The voter may, through a representative, request a special needs ballot”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly sets mandatory polling-place hours by legislative enactment, specifying 7 a.m. opening and 8 p.m. closing for general, primary, special, and federal elections, with separate hours for other elections. The use of 'shall' creates binding statutory obligation, not discretionary administrative authority.

The statute comprehensively codifies mail-in voting procedure: application methods and requirements are enumerated; application deadlines are specified (10 days before election); ballot return procedures are detailed; signature verification and witnessing requirements are statutorily prescribed; and counting deadlines and postmark rules are set forth. The procedure is not left to administrative discretion.

The statute exhaustively enumerates the absentee voting framework: who may apply (qualified voters and designated attorneys-in-fact), the required application elements (address, residence address, signature), the application deadline (10 days by mail; 5 p.m. day before by electronic transmission), how ballots are sent (expeditious mail service or electronic transmission), how they must be marked (in presence of notary or qualified official), and the return deadline and method (postmarked on or before election day, received by close of business on 10th day after election). All material procedural elements are set by statute rather than left to administrative discretion, and the rules are enumerated exhaustively.

The statute explicitly establishes the early voting period (15 days before election day plus election day itself) through direct statutory language, satisfying the temporal component of the criterion. The locations are addressed through statutory delegation to the director with a defined deadline (June 1 of an election year), which provides a clear procedural framework set in statute rather than left to wholly unbounded discretion. Both the period and location-setting procedure are enumerated in the statute.

“For 15 days before an election and on election day, a qualified voter who meets the requirements set out in this section may vote in locations designated by the director.”