EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute codifies balanced political composition (two major party representatives) and specifies the commission's membership enumeration. However, the criterion requires three elements: (1) appointment by multiple branches, (2) fixed terms, and (3) balanced composition. The section addresses balanced composition and multiple-source appointment (governor, state parties, county auditors), but contains no explicit fixed terms for commission members. The statute establishes statutory grounding and enumeration of membership but lacks the procedural clarity on term limits that dual scholars would expect for true independence protections.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 49.81 addresses the procedural mechanism for casting provisional ballots when voters cannot immediately verify eligibility, but it does not set or reference age and residency requirements themselves. The criterion asks whether those substantive requirements are established in the constitution rather than statute alone. This section is purely procedural—it describes how provisional ballots are handled, documented, and reviewed post-election. The underlying eligibility standards are referenced (sections 48A.8, 49.77, 49.80, 53.19), but this section neither establishes those standards nor discusses their constitutional grounding.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria (felony conviction, incompetence) with specific cross-references (§701.7) and establishes a defined restoration procedure via gubernatorial or presidential rights restoration. The competency disqualification also includes a statutory restoration path (court certification of restoration). This satisfies the statutory grounding and restoration procedure elements, though the criteria themselves are not fully enumerated in this section (they reference external definitions).

The statute confirms that voting rights *may* be restored by executive action (gubernatorial or presidential), but it does not codify the restoration *procedure* itself—no statutory deadlines, no automatic restoration triggers, and no enumerated grounds or process. The criterion requires procedural codification; this section merely acknowledges the possibility of restoration without establishing statutory requirements for how, when, or under what conditions it occurs. The cross-reference to chapter 914 (restoration of rights) may contain additional procedure, but this section alone does not satisfy the criterion.

Iowa Code § 49.78 explicitly grounds the voter ID requirement in statute, not regulation or administrative discretion. The statute enumerates five primary acceptable forms of ID (driver's license, nonoperator ID, passport, military ID, tribal ID) and provides alternative pathways (registered voter card, other forms under § 48A.7A, oath procedure) all within the statutory text itself. The requirement is clear, comprehensive, and leaves minimal room for administrative interpretation.

The statute exhaustively enumerates five specific forms of acceptable identification in subsection 2.a, with no discretion left to election officials regarding which forms qualify. Additionally, subsection 3 provides a narrowly-defined fallback procedure for registered voters unable to present the primary forms, including a voter ID card under section 48A.10A or other identification "sufficient to establish identity and residence under section 48A.7A, subsection 1, paragraph 'b'"—still grounded in statute rather than administrator discretion. The enumeration is clear and binding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the physical location and venue requirements for caucuses, not voter identification requirements or procedures. It contains no provisions regarding voter ID requirements, free alternative ID issuance, or any identification-related procedures. The criterion is not applicable to this statute section.

Iowa Code § 49.81 provides a clear statutory cure procedure for voters without ID: they cast a provisional ballot and must provide required identification either at the polling place before closing or to the commissioner's office by noon the Monday following the election (or before the canvass if earlier). The procedure is enumerated with specific deadlines and responsible officials, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion regardless of whether one favors strict or lenient ID rules.

Iowa Code § 50.22(3) mandates notification of rejection within ten days with stated reasons—a clear cure-notice procedure. However, the statute does not establish a defined appeal or review path for the voter to contest the rejection decision; notification alone does not constitute an appealable procedure. The criterion requires a codified appeal mechanism, which is absent from this section.

The registration cutoff is explicitly defined in statute (Iowa Code § 48A.9(1)) as fifteen days before each election at 5:00 p.m. This is a clear, numerical, statutorily-grounded deadline that leaves no room for administrative discretion. The provision is enumerated precisely and requires no interpretation or regulatory implementation.

“Registration closes at 5:00 p.m. fifteen days before each election.”

This section establishes one specific registration method (federal mail form) with statutory grounding and conditions, but does not enumerate all available registration methods in Iowa. The criterion requires exhaustive enumeration of all methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, same-day) in statute. This section addresses only mail registration via federal form and leaves other methods to be defined elsewhere in the code, failing the exhaustiveness requirement.

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for incomplete registrations: when a form is missing required information, the commissioner must advise the applicant of the deficiency and enclose a new registration form for resubmission. This is statutory (not discretionary), enumerated (advise + enclose new form), and provides a clear path for the registrant to remedy the rejection.

The statute provides clear notice and appeal rights for a registrant whose registration is canceled (subsection 2 requires notification by mail; subsection 1 provides for appeal to district court). However, the criterion asks specifically whether the voter's right to *challenge* a rejected or removed registration is codified. This section addresses the *hearing and appeal process* after a challenge has been filed by another party (challenger), not the voter's affirmative right to challenge their own removal or rejection. The statute does not enumerate what triggers a challenge, who may file one, or what procedural rights exist for a voter to affirmatively contest their own removal before the hearing stage. Cure procedures and initial challenge-filing rights are not addressed here.

Iowa Code § 48A.30 sets roll-maintenance criteria directly in statute with exhaustive enumeration of specific grounds for cancellation, including death, change of address (registration in another jurisdiction or non-residency), inactivity (two successive general elections), felony conviction, and incompetency. The statute also mandates notice to voters when cancellation occurs under specified paragraphs (subsection 2), providing procedural clarity and transparency. This satisfies the statutory requirement at the highest level.

Iowa Code § 48A.27(4) establishes a clear statutory procedure for pre-purge notice and cure. When the postal vendor indicates a voter has moved outside the county, the commissioner must mail notice and provide a postage-paid return card allowing the voter to correct address information before the record is made inactive or removed. The statute specifies the notice content, the vehicle for response, and the timeline (fifteen days before an election). This satisfies the procedural-clarity requirement regardless of policy views on purge strictness.

The statute delegates the core data security regime—encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, and access logs—to administrative rules rather than codifying them in statute itself. While § 47.7(2)(d) mandates that the registrar 'prescribe by rule' certain safeguards and breach protocols, the actual specifications are left to regulatory discretion, not statutorily enumerated. This fails the procedural-clarity test: neither a left-leaning nor right-leaning election scholar would deem unspecified rule-making authority a sufficient statutory codification of security requirements.

No matching sections in corpus.

Iowa Code § 53.15(2) statutorily codifies the right to disability assistance and explicitly specifies that the voter may select any person to assist—establishing both the right and a clear, enumerated rule for who may assist (the voter's choice). This is a direct statutory grant with defined parameters, not left to administrative discretion.

The statute explicitly codifies assistance for voters who cannot read, identifying them by category (blind, cannot read, physical disability) and establishing a defined procedure: the voter may select any person to assist. The preceding subsection establishes the ballot-secrecy protection requirement (marking so no other person will know how the ballot is marked), which applies to the assistance context as an implicit safeguard. The procedure is statutorily grounded, enumerated (assistance available upon the voter's selection), and ballot secrecy is protected by the general marking rule.

Iowa Code § 49.73 sets standard closing hours (8:00 p.m.) and a default opening time (7:00 a.m.) by statute. However, it grants the commissioner discretion to alter opening hours based on discretionary factors (voter turnout and other conditions), which delegates a key procedural decision to administrative judgment rather than exhaustive statutory enumeration. The default closing time is clear, but the opening-hours provision is partially displaced by administrative discretion.

§48A.8 addresses mail-in voter registration and first-time voter identification requirements for mail-in absentee voting, but it does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure. The section specifies identification and residence documentation requirements (subsections 2–3) and provisional ballot procedures (subsection 4), but omits critical procedural elements: no application deadline is specified, no ballot return deadline is given, no signature verification procedure is described, and no cure procedure for rejected ballots is enumerated. The statute delegates essential mail-in voting mechanics to other statutory sections (49.81, 53.31) and implicitly to administrative regulation, failing the exhaustive-enumeration requirement.

The statute exhaustively codifies the special absentee ballot framework, including eligibility requirements (residing/stationed/working outside continental US and inability to return regular absentee by mail), application procedures (application requirement, timing restriction of 120+ days before election), ballot contents (offices and measures if known, write-in eligibility), and treatment (processing and canvassing per normal absentee procedures, voiding if regular absentee is properly returned). All substantive procedural elements are statutorily grounded with clear enumeration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Iowa Code § 49.11 addresses precinct boundaries, consolidation, and voting centers, but does not establish an early voting period or define rules governing early in-person voting access. The statute authorizes the commissioner of elections to establish voting centers for specific election types, but provides no statutory enumeration of early voting period dates, duration, or hours of operation. The criterion requires the early voting period itself to be set by statute; this section delegates voting center location to administrative discretion without establishing temporal parameters for early voting.

Iowa Code § 53.17 establishes comprehensive statutory procedures for ballot drop-boxes covering placement (single box at commissioner's office or county property), security (video surveillance, tamper-evident seal, lock access restrictions, secure fastening), and chain-of-custody (mandatory log with date/time/name, expeditious retrieval no less than four times daily, recording of retrieval details on ballot). All requirements are enumerated in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

The statute comprehensively codifies the provisional ballot right and procedure in statutory language. It enumerates the categories of voters entitled to cast provisional ballots, specifies the ballot-marking and envelope procedures, and defines the post-election adjudication process including receipt of proof by deadline (subsection 6) and notification to voters (subsection 3.d). The cure pathway and appeal mechanism are statutorily defined rather than left to administrative discretion.