EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute codifies three key procedural elements: (1) appointment authority involves two branches (governor appoints with senate advice and consent), (2) fixed four-year terms are enumerated, and (3) political balance is statutorily mandated—no board may consist entirely of one party, with party membership defined and verified. All requirements are set in statute, not administrative discretion.

“The boards, which shall be in the department of accounting and general services for administrative purposes, shall consist of three members each who shall be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate; their terms of office shall be four years. Each member shall, at the time of appointment and continuing through their term of office, be a registered voter in the respective county of the board to which the member is appointed. (b) In no case shall any board consist entirely of members of one political party.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is statutory law (Hawaii Revised Statutes § 11-12), not constitutional law. The criterion asks whether minimum age and residency requirements are set in the constitution rather than statute alone. While this statute enumerates those requirements clearly, it does not satisfy the criterion because it is statute, not constitution. The criterion's binary scoring rule tests constitutional grounding, which this section does not provide.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (felony per § 831-2, adjudication as incapacitated per ch. 560, loss of citizenship) and provides a statutory restoration procedure (reregistration or appeal per §§ 11-26 and 11-51). However, the section does not specify the duration of disqualification for each ground; it references external statutes for that definition, and the restoration mechanism is not fully enumerated here. Score 2 reflects statutory grounding of criteria + statutory restoration path without full procedural detail.

“Whenever the clerk receives from the department of health or any informing agency, information of the death, loss of voting rights of a person sentenced for a felony as provided in section 831-2, adjudication as an incapacitated person under the provisions of chapter 560, loss of citizenship, or any other disqualification to vote, the clerk may accept the reported information as prima facie evidence to maintain and update the general register. Any person whose name is removed from the register of voters under this section may reregister to vote or appeal in the manner provided by sections 11-26 and 11-51”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses removal and reregistration of voters due to outdated/undeliverable addresses and administrative removal requests—not restoration of voting rights lost due to felony conviction or other disqualifying events. The statute does not address the procedure for restoring voting rights where those rights have been lost as a contemplated by the criterion. While subsection (e) describes reregistration after removal from the register, that is a distinct procedural matter unrelated to the restoration of voting eligibility itself.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute enumerates a primary ID requirement (Hawaii driver's license or ID card) and fallback options (last four SSN digits or clerk-assigned number), which provides some enumeration. However, the fallback provision in subsection (b) permitting the clerk to demand 'substantiating evidence' introduces administrative discretion over which alternative documents satisfy the requirement, undermining exhaustive enumeration. The acceptable ID forms are not fully enumerated in statute; the clerk has discretion to determine what counts as acceptable 'substantiating evidence.'

“The applicant's Hawaii driver's license number or Hawaii state identification card number; provided that: (A) If no driver's license or identification card has been issued to the applicant, the last four digits of the applicant's social security number; and (B) If no social security number has been issued to the applicant, an election official or county clerk shall assign the applicant a unique identification number”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses postage costs for absentee ballots and cost-sharing between state and counties, with no reference to voter identification requirements or the availability of state-issued ID. The criterion evaluates whether free alternative ID is available by statute; this section does not address identification policy at all.

The statute explicitly provides a cure procedure for voters who cannot immediately complete registration verification at the polling place: they receive a provisional ballot if additional time or information is needed. This cure mechanism is statutorily grounded and enumerated, allowing the voter to cast a ballot despite incomplete validation at the moment of application, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement for at-polls cure.

“If additional time or information is required to validate an application, the applicant shall be provided a provisional ballot.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-1 is a definitions section that enumerates terms used throughout Hawaii's election code. It does not address rejection procedures, appeal mechanisms, or any process for challenging an ID rejection or provisional ballot rejection. While the section defines 'provisional ballot' and references various voting procedures, it contains no statutory procedure for appealing or curing a rejection. A definitions section is not the appropriate vehicle for procedural rules.

The statute explicitly defines the registration deadline as the tenth day before the election at 4:30 p.m., with a specified alternative timing rule if that day falls on a weekend or holiday. This is a clear, statutorily-grounded, enumerated procedural rule leaving no administrative discretion over the cutoff timing itself.

“At 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day before each election, but if the day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday then at 4:30 p.m. on the first working day immediately thereafter, the general county register shall be closed to registration for persons seeking to vote”

This section establishes automatic voter registration (motor-voter) tied to driver's license and ID card applications, which is statutorily grounded and enumerated. However, the statute does not exhaustively enumerate ALL available registration methods across Hawaii—it addresses only the automatic/motor-voter pathway. To fully satisfy the criterion, the statute would need to enumerate all permissible methods (in-person, mail, online, same-day, etc.) in a single location or cross-reference them comprehensively. This section captures one method clearly but does not provide the exhaustive enumeration of all registration pathways required by the criterion.

“An application for voter registration shall be a part of the application for issuance of an identification card under section 286-303 and the application for issuance of a driver's license under section 286-111.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section provides that incomplete nomination papers are void, but establishes no cure procedure allowing a candidate to correct deficiencies and resubmit. The statute is clear in stating the consequence (rejection) but does not enumerate any opportunity to cure the defect, distinguish between curable and fatal flaws, or define a timeline or process for remediation.

The statute explicitly codifies in statutory text (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-26) the voter's right to challenge a rejection or adverse ruling on registration. It enumerates two pathways: (1) immediate appeal before leaving the voter service center on election day, and (2) appeal within ten days of service for pre-election day challenges. Both the right to challenge and the appeal mechanism are statutorily grounded, not left to administrative discretion.

“In cases where the clerk, or voter service center officials, rules on a challenge on election day, the person ruled against may appeal from the ruling to the board of registration of the person's county for review under part III.”

The removal criteria (outdated/undeliverable address, non-voting in two previous federal cycles, preregistration exception) are comprehensively defined in statute rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute further specifies both the identification method (subsection b) and the reregistration cure procedure (subsection e), providing a complete statutory framework for voter removal and restoration.

“The clerk, after every general election, shall remove the names of registered voters who were identified as having an outdated or undeliverable address who did not vote in all elections held during the two previous federal election cycles with the exception of anyone who preregistered pursuant to section 11-12(b).”

The statute mandates that before removal under subsection (a), the clerk must identify voters via postal database or by mailing notice that receives a postal notation of non-deliverability (subsection b). Subsection (c) then requires the clerk to conduct notification mailings as required by applicable federal law (the NVRA), which provides a cure period. Any person removed may restore their name by presenting to the clerk and reregistering or applying by mail (subsection e). The procedure is set by statute, enumerated, and includes both pre-removal notice and a defined reinstatement mechanism.

The statute designates certain voter data as confidential and invokes chapter 91 (administrative rulemaking), but does not itself codify specific data security measures (encryption, breach notification, access logs). Instead, it delegates security rules to the chief election officer's discretion within chapter 91, leaving the core procedural requirements undefined in statute.

“A voter's full name, district/precinct designation, and voter status shall be public; but all other personal information, as provided on the voter registration affidavit, shall be confidential except for election or government purposes in accordance with rules adopted by the chief election officer, pursuant to chapter 91.”

The section codifies in statute the trigger for language assistance: the Voting Rights Act's federal requirements. This is a clear, enumerated statutory standard that does not rely on administrative discretion to determine whether language assistance is needed—the trigger is anchored to federal law as administered by the office of elections.

“Translate the statement into other languages required under the federal Voting Rights Act, as specified by the office of elections”

The statute codifies the right to voter assistance by a person of the voter's choice and exhaustively enumerates who may not provide assistance (employer, labor union agent, candidate). Violations are defined as election fraud with statutory consequences, providing clarity on enforcement.

“Except as otherwise provided, any voter who requires assistance may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice. A person with disabilities may be provided assistance at a voter service center pursuant to any state or federal law relating to persons with disabilities. The voter's employer or agent of that employer, agent of the voter's labor union, or a candidate for any office that is listed on the ballot shall not provide assistance.”

The statute requires provision of accessible voter information materials (screen-reader format, translations, printed copies) but does not codify a defined procedure for in-person voting assistance for illiterate voters, such as who may assist, how assistance is provided at the polling place, or explicit ballot-secrecy protections during the assistance process. The section addresses voter information access, not direct voting assistance procedures.

“Prepare a digital voter information guide, which shall be posted on the office of elections website in a screen reader-accessible format for voters with special needs who are unable to read standard print due to disability”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-18 addresses voter registration transfer procedures when a voter changes precincts, not polling-place hours. It contains no information about when polling places open or close, and therefore does not satisfy the criterion requiring statutory specification of polling-place hours.

The statute authorizes mail-in voting for disaster-affected precincts but does not codify the full procedure itself. Instead, it delegates to 'part VIIA of chapter 11' (the general mail-in voting statute) and explicitly authorizes the chief election officer to 'adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91'—meaning critical procedural elements (application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification, cure mechanisms) are left to administrative rulemaking rather than statutory enumeration. While the statute sets the triggering condition (natural disaster determination) in writing, the actual mail-in voting procedure is not codified in this section and depends on separate regulations.

“the chief election officer and county clerk, by written order, may require the registered voters of any precinct to vote by mail as provided in part VIIA of chapter 11”

The statute codifies eligibility (former Hawaii residents within 24 months), the application mechanism (request form, return to prior county), and a basic return procedure. However, critical procedural elements are absent or delegated: the statute does not enumerate what specific information the application must contain (instead referencing undefined rules 'promulgated by the chief election officer'), provides no timeline for when applications must be submitted relative to election day, does not specify how ballots are actually returned or verified, and does not establish a cure procedure if an application is rejected or a ballot is questioned. The framework is partially statutory but delegates core procedural details to administrative rules rather than enumerating them exhaustively in statute itself.

“any former registered voter of Hawaii may vote an absentee ballot in any presidential election occurring within twenty-four months after leaving Hawaii by requesting an application form and returning it properly executed to the county of the voter's prior Hawaii residence”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute authorizes drop-boxes ('places of deposit') and imposes a general security standard (ballots 'can be securely maintained'), but does not enumerate specific placement criteria, security protocols, or chain-of-custody procedures. The phrase 'as may be permitted by the operational hours' delegates further definition to administrative discretion, leaving the core procedural details unspecified in statute.

“The clerks may designate and provide for places of deposit to be open as early as the mailing of ballots by the clerks; provided that the locations and apparatus for receiving voted ballots can be securely maintained during the period of use for each election, and as may be permitted by the operational hours.”

The statute codifies a right to a provisional ballot in a narrow circumstance (registration application not processed in time at voter service center on election day), satisfying statutory grounding. However, the section does not enumerate the procedure for adjudicating provisional ballots—e.g., deadline for processing, standards for acceptance/rejection, cure procedures, or appeal rights. The adjudication procedure is delegated elsewhere (likely to regulation or administrative practice), leaving key procedural elements outside statutory control.

“If additional time is required to process the application, the applicant shall be provided a provisional ballot.”