EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute establishes a citizens clean elections commission with independence codified through multiple mechanisms: (1) fixed composition of five members with no more than two from the same political party, ensuring balanced political composition; (2) appointment distributed across multiple officials (governor, highest/second-highest ranking statewide officials from different parties per subsection C-D), establishing multi-branch involvement; (3) fixed terms of 5 years with staggered succession and explicit prohibition on reappointment (subsection I), protecting tenure independence; (4) removal only by governor with senate concurrence for specified grounds after written notice and opportunity for response (subsection E), adding procedural safeguards. All these structural independence requirements are set in statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“A. The citizens clean elections commission is established consisting of five members. No more than two members of the commission shall be members of the same political party. No more than two members of the commission shall be residents of the same county. No one shall be appointed as a member who does not have a registration pursuant to chapter 1 of this title that has been continuously recorded for at least five years immediately preceding appointment with the same political party or as an independent.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the qualifications and appointment of election board workers, not voting eligibility requirements. It contains no information about voter age or residency requirements, which are constitutional matters separate from this procedural statute governing election administration staffing.

The section establishes in statute that conviction under this election-fraud felony results in disqualification from voting without automatic restoration, thus codifying the disqualification criterion itself. However, the section explicitly blocks the default restoration procedure (by negating sections 13-907 and 13-908) but does not affirmatively codify any alternative restoration pathway, leaving the restoration procedure undefined or subject to discretion elsewhere in statute.

“Notwithstanding sections 13-907 and 13-908, a person who is convicted under this section shall not be automatically restored the right to vote.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section explicitly prohibits automatic restoration of voting rights for persons convicted under this election crime statute, but it does not codify an alternative procedure, timeline, or mechanism for how such persons may petition for or obtain restoration. The statute blocks automatic restoration but provides no enumerated cure or appeal path for affected voters—leaving restoration procedures to discretion elsewhere or undefined.

The statute explicitly requires presentation of identification before receiving a ballot, sets out acceptable forms in exhaustive detail (photo ID or two supporting documents), and provides clear statutory language for the requirement and enumeration. The requirement is grounded directly in statute (A.R.S. § 16-579) rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion.

The statute delegates acceptable ID forms to a specific statutory reference (A.R.S. § 16-579, subsection A, paragraph 1) rather than leaving the determination to administrative discretion. This creates a bounded, statutorily-enumerated set of acceptable documents, fulfilling the procedural clarity requirement. The additional statement that a valid Arizona driver license or nonoperating identification satisfies the requirement provides further statutory grounding.

“Any of the identifying documents prescribed in section 16-579, subsection A, paragraph 1 constitutes satisfactory proof of location of residence.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-128 addresses felony conviction reporting and voter registration cancellation; it contains no provision regarding voter identification requirements, free alternative IDs, or any identification procedure whatsoever. This section is not relevant to the ID.3 criterion.

The statute explicitly prescribes a cure procedure for voters lacking compliant ID: they vote a provisional ballot under section 16-584 or a conditional provisional ballot under the secretary of state's procedures. This is statutorily grounded and enumerates the specific remedy (provisional ballot pathway) rather than leaving it to administrative discretion.

“If the elector does not present identification that complies with paragraph 1 of this subsection, the elector is only eligible to vote a provisional ballot as prescribed by section 16-584 or a conditional provisional ballot as provided for in the secretary of state's instruction and procedures manual adopted pursuant to section 16-452.”

The statute establishes a cure procedure (allowing voters to correct or confirm signatures by the fifth business day after federal elections or third business day after others, and allowing missing signatures to be added by 7 p.m. on election day), which is codified and enumerated. However, the section contains no appeal or review procedure for ballots that are rejected after the cure period expires. The statute states ballots 'shall be rejected' but provides no mechanism for a voter to challenge that rejection or appeal to any body for reconsideration—only a cure opportunity before rejection becomes final.

“Signatures that cannot be verified pursuant to section 16-550.01 or cured pursuant to this section shall be rejected.”

The statute explicitly sets a registration deadline (7:00 p.m. on election day for covered overseas voters under the UOCAVA) as a bright-line rule in the legislative text, leaving no discretion to administrators. Additionally, subsection D provides a second statutory deadline (5:00 p.m. on the Friday before election day) for certain recent returnees from overseas service, and subsection A implicitly establishes procedures for general registration via affidavit. The cutoffs are defined by statute rather than regulation or administrative discretion.

“registration for any person covered under subsection B of this section may be accomplished at any time prior to 7:00 p.m. of an election day”

This section references other statutory sections (16-103 and 16-543.02) as sources for enumerated registration methods but does not itself enumerate those methods. The criterion requires exhaustive enumeration of available registration methods within the section or clear incorporation by reference to specific enumerated methods. While the statute properly grounds registration procedure in law (satisfying the procedural-clarity principle of statutory grounding), the enumeration of actual methods is delegated to other sections not provided here.

“Except for a person who properly registers to vote as prescribed by section 16-103 or 16-543.02”

Arizona statute § 16-134(B) provides a clear, enumerated cure procedure: the county recorder must notify the applicant of missing or illegible information within ten business days, specify what is missing, and allow the applicant to cure the defect up until 7:00 p.m. on election day, with the original receipt date preserved upon cure. This is statutorily grounded with defined deadlines and outcomes.

“the county recorder shall notify the applicant within ten business days of receipt of the registration form, shall specify the missing or illegible information and, if the missing or illegible information includes any of the information prescribed by section 16-121.01, subsection A or C, shall state that the registration cannot be completed until the information is supplied. If the missing or illegible information is supplied before 7:00 p.m. on election day, that person is deemed to have been registered on the date the registration was first received.”

The section addresses a narrow challenge right for denials of sealing requests under this specific confidentiality procedure, but does not establish a general right for voters to challenge rejection or removal of their voter registration itself. The statute codifies a procedural right to contest a sealing denial, but REG.4 concerns the broader right to challenge any rejection or removal from the voter roll—a distinct and more fundamental procedural safeguard that this section does not address.

“If the court denies an affiant's requested sealing of the voter registration record, the affiant may request a court hearing. The hearing shall be conducted by the court where the petition was filed.”

Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-165 exhaustively enumerates the statutory criteria for voter roll removal, including death (subsection A.2), change of address (A.8-9), and inactivity (A.7). The criteria are grounded directly in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute further specifies notice and cure procedures for some removals (e.g., thirty-five-day cure for citizenship challenges, A.10). This satisfies the criterion at the highest level because the foundational framework is constitutional + statutory (Arizona Constitution Art. II governs elections; the statute implements those constitutional requirements).

The statute establishes a clear, mandatory notice-and-cure procedure: the county recorder must send a follow-up notice to an elector whose mail is returned undelivered, must provide means to correct registration (online or form), and must allow a 35-day cure period before changing status to inactive. This procedure is codified in statute with specific timelines and enumerated remedial pathways, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-165 governs voter registration cancellation procedures—when and how to remove voters from the rolls—but contains no provisions addressing voter-data security, encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging for the voter registry. The criterion requires statutory codification of data security and breach notification regimes; this section addresses registration status changes only.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute expressly grants registered voters the right to be assisted by a person of their own choosing during voting and enumerates a key restriction (candidates for office except precinct committeeman are ineligible). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion by codifying the right and a defined rule for eligibility in statute rather than leaving it to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly sets polling hours at 6:00 a.m. opening and 7:00 p.m. closing in mandatory terms ('shall be opened' and 'shall be closed'), with no discretion left to local administrators. The requirement is statewide, enumerated, and directly embodied in statutory text.

“the polls shall be opened in every precinct at 6:00 a.m. on the day of election and shall be closed at 7:00 p.m.”

This section establishes one restrictive rule (ineligibility for mail-in early ballots for certain voters) but does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure itself—application deadlines, return methods, signature verification standards, or cure procedures are not enumerated here. The statute references section 16-166 for citizenship evidence standards but does not provide the procedural detail required by the criterion. To satisfy VM.2, the statute would need to exhaustively enumerate application procedures, deadlines, return methods, verification steps, and cure paths; this section addresses only an eligibility gate, not the procedure.

“A person who has not provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship pursuant to section 16-166 and who is eligible to vote only for federal offices is not eligible to receive an early ballot by mail.”

The statute codifies the absentee (early) voting framework in detail: eligibility (any voter may request inclusion, with specific attestation requirements in subsection B), application procedure (written request with enumerated required information per subsection B), mailing procedures (subsection D specifies timing at least 90 days before elections; subsection F specifies first day of early voting), return procedures (subsection H describes automatic mailing until removal), and treatment rules (inactive status, removal, re-qualification). All procedural elements are statutorily grounded and enumerated rather than left to administrative discretion.

“Any voter may request to be included on a list of voters to receive an early ballot by mail for any election for which the county voter registration roll is used to prepare the election register. The county recorder of each county shall maintain the active early voting list as part of the voter registration roll.”

This section governs early MAIL voting and the mailing timeline, but does not address early IN-PERSON voting period or locations. The criterion asks specifically about in-person early voting—its period and locations. This statute sets the early mail-ballot procedure but leaves in-person early voting rules to other statutory sections or administrative authority not excerpted here.

“Not later than the first day of early voting, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail an early ballot to all eligible voters who are not listed as inactive and who are included on the active early voting list”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16-1005 defines criminal prohibitions and penalties for ballot abuse, misrepresentation of official drop sites, and unauthorized ballot collection—addressing enforcement against illegal drop-box conduct. However, it does not define any affirmative procedures for placement, security, or chain-of-custody of lawful drop-boxes. The statute criminalizes false drop sites and unlawful collection but delegates the actual procedural requirements (location, security, handling protocols) to election officials' administrative authority, not to statutory enumeration.

A.R.S. § 16-579 establishes a clear statutory right to a provisional ballot for electors who fail the identification requirement, with the procedure for adjudication explicitly cross-referenced and codified in section 16-584. The statute enumerates the triggering condition (failure to present compliant ID) and designates the specific statutory section governing adjudication, satisfying the requirement for statutory codification of both the right and procedure.

“If the elector does not present identification that complies with paragraph 1 of this subsection, the elector is only eligible to vote a provisional ballot as prescribed by section 16-584 or a conditional provisional ballot as provided for in the secretary of state's instruction and procedures manual adopted pursuant to section 16-452.”