EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses sample ballot requirements—specifically format, diagram arrangement, and mark-prevention measures. It does not establish a statutory requirement for a voter pamphlet or analog publication containing candidate information and ballot-question details. Sample ballots showing ballot structure are distinct from comprehensive voter information pamphlets that enumerate candidate and measure content. The statute mandates sample ballot availability but does not define content requirements for candidate information, ballot measure descriptions, or distribution mechanisms that would constitute a voter information pamphlet.

No matching sections in corpus.

Indiana Code § 3-8-2-6(c) requires public posting of declarations of candidacy on the day filed, but only for counties with population between 400,000 and 700,000. This creates a jurisdiction-specific requirement rather than a statewide mandate. The statute establishes a defined timeline (same day posting) and public accessibility mechanism for affected counties. However, the criterion asks whether candidate-filing documents are 'required by statute to be publicly accessible within a defined time' generally. The section satisfies this for a subset of Indiana counties but leaves other jurisdictions without explicit statutory requirement for public posting of declarations of candidacy. Additionally, subsection (d) addresses inter-county certification but does not establish public accessibility requirements. The partial satisfaction stems from codified timing (same-day posting) and public-access requirement for a defined population subset, though not uniformly across the jurisdiction.

The statute codifies a requirement that disqualified candidates must file a notice of withdrawal immediately (subsection b). However, the section does not codify any PUBLIC-NOTICE procedure—it establishes only the candidate's filing obligation. The criterion asks whether 'the public-notice procedure' is codified, meaning whether the statute specifies how the jurisdiction must notify voters or the public when a disqualification or post-ballot-printing withdrawal occurs. This section addresses the candidate's duty to file notice with the election office, not the election office's duty to communicate that disqualification to the public. The statute is silent on whether notices must be posted, how they must be disseminated, timing of public notification, or format of public disclosure.

This section codifies timing for certification of public questions (30 days before special elections; by a specified date for general elections) and mandates that county boards publish notice per IC 5-3-1. However, the statute does not directly specify content requirements (polling place, registration deadline) or establish notice requirements for voters regarding election dates, registration deadlines, or polling locations. It addresses only the mechanical certification of *questions* to county boards and incorporation of those questions into ballots. The reference to IC 5-3-1 suggests notice requirements exist elsewhere, but they are not enumerated here. This satisfies half the criterion: timing is codified, but content for voter notification and comprehensive pre-election notice are not explicitly defined in this section.

The statute requires notice of polling-place changes to be given 'in the same manner' as the original notice (via publication under IC 5-3-1), and establishes a two-day pre-election prohibition on changes. However, the criterion asks whether there is a requirement to provide INDIVIDUAL notice within a DEFINED TIMEFRAME. The statute mandates publication notice but does not explicitly require individual voter notification (e.g., by mail, email, or direct contact), nor does it codify a specific timeframe within which such notice must be delivered to voters. The prohibition on changes within two days before an election implies a timing constraint, but the statute does not specify when notice of a change must be published relative to the change itself. The procedural clarity is partial: change-notice requirement exists and a publication method is referenced, but the mechanism lacks specificity regarding individual notification and defined delivery timeframe.