EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute establishes election administration independence through explicit, statutorily-grounded procedures: the director and assistant director must be from different political parties; their appointment requires board approval with a supermajority threshold (at least 3 members) and bipartisan voting requirement (at least 2 of approving members from different parties). These mechanisms are enumerated in statute and create structural checks on unilateral partisan control, satisfying the criterion's demand for codified institutional independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedural mechanics of transmitting voter registration applications to county clerks within five days. It does not address, define, or establish minimum age or residency requirements for voting eligibility. The criterion requires constitutional grounding of age and residency rules; this statute section contains no eligibility rules at all, only administrative transmission procedures.

This section grounds disqualification criteria in statute (referencing § 3-7-46-2 for the substantive disfranchisement rule) and mandates removal in statutory language. However, it does not address or define any restoration procedure for restoring voting rights after a felony sentence is completed, which is the second essential component of the criterion. The section implements federal notification requirements but lacks the statutorily-codified restoration pathway needed for a full 'yes' or score of 2.

The statute establishes a statutory threshold for restoration eligibility (release from imprisonment or detention) rather than leaving it to administrative discretion, which is procedurally positive. However, it lacks the procedural elements required by the criterion: no statutory deadline for when the person can actually re-register, no automatic restoration mechanism, and no reference to how or when someone learns they are eligible. The section describes a condition for eligibility but not a codified restoration procedure with defined timelines or automatic triggers.

The requirement for voter identification at registration is explicitly set in statute (Ind. Code § 3-7-13-13), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The statute enumerates the specific identification elements required: driver's license number, or last four digits of Social Security number, or an assigned identification number if neither is available. The legal grounding is clear and statutorily established.

The statute exhaustively enumerates exactly two acceptable forms of identification in subsection (2): an Indiana driver's license or an Indiana identification card for nondrivers, both issued under specified statutory references. The enumeration is statutory, specific, and leaves no discretion to administrators to accept alternative forms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting procedures and electronic filing systems for candidates and political committees. It contains no provisions relating to voter identification requirements, free state-issued ID, or any identification procedures for voters. The criterion concerns electoral access (voter ID), whereas this section concerns campaign finance disclosure and electronic filing infrastructure.

The statute explicitly prescribes a cure procedure: when a voter is challenged as ineligible, they receive a provisional ballot (rather than being turned away) and the affidavit satisfies the requirements for that ballot. This is a statutory-defined cure path (provisional ballot plus affidavit) rather than left to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly defines the registration deadline as a fixed, enumerated period relative to election day (29 days before through 8 days before), set directly by statute rather than left to administrative discretion. The cutoff is unambiguous and gives voters clear notice of when they must register.

The statute exhaustively enumerates the three permitted methods for transmitting voter registration applications: hand delivery, USPS mail, and electronic transfer. This provides clear statutory grounding and enumeration of available registration methods, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion under REG.2.

The statute defines a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure for incomplete registration applications. Subsection (a) specifies the mechanism (written statement under penalty of perjury), the deadline (29 days before the next election), and the mandatory processing outcome ('shall process'). Subsection (b) adds a parallel cure path for other incompleteness issues via administrative information-matching. The procedure is enumerated and leaves no discretion to reject an application if the cure requirements are met.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs challenged candidacy filings and the procedure for questioning a candidate's eligibility—it is not about voter registration rejection or removal. The criterion asks whether a voter has a statutory right to challenge their own rejected or removed registration; this statute addresses only the right of registered voters or party chairs to challenge candidate eligibility. There is no procedural guidance here on registration rejection, removal, or cure.

The statute exhaustively enumerates five specific grounds for voter removal: death, out-of-county residence, inactivity per NVRA, criminal disfranchisement, and failure to provide proof of citizenship. All criteria are defined directly in statute (Ind. Code § 3-7-26.3-11), not delegated to regulation. The reference to federal law (52 U.S.C. 21083, 20507) and cross-references to other statutes (IC 3-7-46, IC 3-7-38.2-7.3) anchors removal authority in statutory text, satisfying the constitutional + statute level (score 2).

The statute explicitly requires that notices be mailed to voters before cancellation and mandates a cure period of at least 30 days after the second general election following notice, during which a voter who responds to the notice can prevent removal. The procedure is grounded in statute and provides a defined, enumerated timeline for both notice and cure opportunity.

The section imposes confidentiality obligations and limits use of voter-data information, but does not codify encryption requirements, access logs, or breach-notification procedures. The statute addresses information handling and public-records redaction but lacks the technical and operational security measures required by the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute clearly codifies the right to request assistance and designates who may assist (a person of the voter's choosing, with enumerated exclusions for employer/union agents). The eligibility conditions (disability or inability to read/write English) and the procedural mechanism (request before entering booth, sworn affidavit, accompaniment into booth) are all set by statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

Indiana Code § 3-11-9-2 provides clear statutory codification of assistance for voters unable to read or write English. The procedure is enumerated: the voter may designate an assistant (with specified exclusions), the assistant must execute a sworn affidavit on a prescribed form, and the assistant may accompany the voter into the voting booth to assist in marking the ballot or registering the vote. The statute protects ballot secrecy implicitly through the voting-booth requirement and the sworn affidavit mechanism that establishes the voter's actual need.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the procedural mechanics of opening and marking provisional ballot envelopes after they have been determined valid. It contains no language establishing or governing polling-place opening and closing hours. The criterion asks whether such hours are set by statute rather than administrative discretion, but this section does not address polling-place hours at all.

While § 3-11-10-24 sets out statutory eligibility criteria for mail-in voting (who may vote absentee by mail), it does not codify the full procedure for mail-in voting. The section enumerates qualifications but does not address application procedures, deadlines for requesting or returning ballots, signature verification rules, or cure procedures for rejected ballots. These critical procedural elements—the 'how' and 'when' of the mail-in process—are absent from this statute and would need to be found in other sections or regulations to assess whether the full procedure is statutorily codified. A dual-scholar test would agree that eligibility criteria alone do not satisfy a criterion requiring the entire procedural pipeline.

This section codifies in statute the mandatory contents and procedural requirements for absentee ballot application forms, prescribing specific enumerated elements that must be included (oath requirements, perjury penalties, name change indication). The election division's discretion is limited to prescribing the form's structure while complying with these statutory mandates. The framework is set in statute with defined procedural requirements rather than left to administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the designation of precinct election officers in vote center counties and does not address early voting periods, locations, or rules governing early in-person voting. The criterion asks whether early voting period and location rules are set by statute; this section contains no such rules or procedural frameworks.

The statute establishes a rejection rule for non-compliant drop boxes but does not affirmatively define statutory procedures for placement, security, and chain-of-custody. It specifies a negative requirement (what triggers rejection) without enumerating the affirmative drop-box procedures themselves, leaving those details to administrative implementation under IC 3-11-10-24.

The section establishes a statutory procedure for notifying provisional voters about ballot status and the reasons for rejection, satisfying transparency and access requirements. However, it does NOT codify the right to cast a provisional ballot or the core adjudication procedure for determining validity—those appear to be governed by cross-referenced statutes (IC 3-11.7-5). This section addresses only the post-adjudication notification and review access, not the foundational right or the substantive adjudication process itself.