EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute codifies a balanced political composition requirement for county election boards, mandating three members from the majority party and two from the principal minority party. It also establishes fixed 4-year terms beginning on a defined schedule, gubernatorial appointment with Senate confirmation, and removal only for cause with notice and hearing. These structural safeguards—statutory enumeration of board composition, term lengths, appointment process, and removal protections—collectively establish independence through statutory grounding rather than administrative discretion.

“each local board consists of five regular members. (ii) Three regular members shall be of the majority party, and two regular members shall be of the principal minority party”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 9-106 addresses county funding obligations for voting systems and has no bearing on voter eligibility, age requirements, or residency requirements. The section concerns only the fiscal allocation of costs for equipment and operations, not the constitutional or statutory basis for voting eligibility.

The section statutorily codifies the disqualification criterion (felony conviction with active imprisonment sentence) and cross-references § 3–102(b) for eligibility rules, satisfying statutory grounding. However, the section does not define a restoration procedure—it only states the disqualification applies 'during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote' without specifying how or when that ineligibility ends or how a voter regains the franchise after sentence completion.

“A person who has been convicted of a felony and is currently serving a court–ordered sentence of imprisonment for the conviction, and has been rendered ineligible to vote pursuant to § 3–102(b) of this article, may not vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses restoration of inactive voter registration status, not restoration of voting rights after loss due to felony conviction or other disqualifying event. The criterion asks about procedures for restoring rights that have been lost (e.g., post-felony); this statute only governs the administrative list-maintenance process for voters who failed to respond to a confirmation notice. There is no statutory procedure here for restoring fundamental voting eligibility after a rights-disqualifying event.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (§ 6-207) governs signature verification procedures for nominating petitions, not voter identification requirements at the ballot. It does not address ID requirements for voting, and therefore does not satisfy criterion ID.1, which asks whether voting ID requirements (if any) are set in statute. The section is procedurally clear within its domain (petition signature verification) but is simply outside the scope of the criterion being evaluated.

The statute exhaustively enumerates six categories of acceptable identification in subsection (a)(2), with specific characteristics defined for each form. The enumeration is direct and binding on election judges, leaving no discretion to add or subtract acceptable forms. The provision includes a broad fallback category (vi) that captures government and financial documents, further ensuring comprehensive coverage without administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 3-506 governs the provision of voter registration lists to qualified applicants and jury commissioners. It contains no provisions relating to government-issued identification requirements, free alternative ID programs, or voter ID procedures of any kind. The section is entirely outside the scope of the identification criterion.

Section 10-306(a)(1)(vii) mandates that polling places post information about provisional voting, including the right to cast a provisional ballot, how to fill it out, and the standards for counting it. This establishes provisional voting as the statutory cure procedure for voters unable to satisfy ID requirements at the polls, with the procedure enumerated in statute and disclosure requirements specified.

“information regarding provisional voting, including: 1. information on the right of an individual to cast a provisional ballot; 2. how to fill out the provisional ballot application and cast the provisional ballot; and 3. the standards that will be applied in determining whether a provisional ballot will be counted”

Md. Election Law § 9-306(d)(2)(ii) provides a statutorily codified appeal procedure for rejected absentee ballot applications. When a local board's staff rejects an application, the applicant is explicitly granted the right to appeal to the board members, who must decide the appeal expeditiously. This establishes a clear, enumerated appeal path in statute for applicants whose absentee ballot requests are rejected.

“If the determination has been delegated, the applicant may appeal the rejection to the members of the local board, who shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as practicable.”

The statute explicitly establishes the registration cutoff as the 21st day before an election, with specific times (5 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.) based on submission method. This deadline is enumerated directly in the statutory text without delegation to administrative discretion, and the reopening date (11th day after election) is also statutorily defined. The procedural clarity satisfies the criterion.

The statute exhaustively enumerates five specific methods for party affiliation changes and decline-status changes: via voter registration application (incorporating methods in Subtitle 2), written mail notice, in-person application at local board, polling-place voter authority card, and Motor Vehicle Administration submission. The enumeration is statutory and comprehensive, leaving no gap for unspecified administrative discretion regarding which methods are available.

The section provides a procedure for correcting clerical errors in voter registration records (§3-601.1(c)-(d)) and an administrative complaint process with judicial review rights (§3-602), but does not define a cure procedure specifically for incomplete registrations that are rejected. The statute addresses errors already in the system and provides correction mechanisms, but does not enumerate what happens when an initial registration application is deemed incomplete—no procedure is specified for the applicant to cure or resubmit incomplete information. The section satisfies elements of appeal and correction for some registration disputes, but fails the specific criterion of a cure procedure for incomplete registration applications.

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to file an administrative complaint when aggrieved by a local board's action regarding voter registration, which encompasses challenges to rejection or removal. The statute further establishes a defined appeal path to Circuit Court for eligibility determinations and then to the Appellate Court of Maryland, providing a complete statutory procedure for challenging registration decisions.

“(a) Under the procedures established by the State Board, an administrative complaint may be filed by: (1) a person who feels aggrieved by an action of a local board regarding voter registration”

Section 3-504 establishes clear statutory criteria for voter removal: death (via Social Security Administration reports and court records), felony conviction (via court clerks), and name changes (via court orders). The statute enumerates the sources of removal information, specifies the notice procedure (regular U.S. mail with a 2-week cure window), and provides an explicit appeal/objection mechanism. The procedural clarity is high—both a permissive-access scholar and a restrictive-access scholar would recognize the rules as statutorily grounded and non-discretionary.

“Whenever a local board receives a report obtained by the State Administrator under subsection (a)(3) of this section that includes a registered voter, the election director shall mail to the address shown on the statewide voter registration list, by regular U.S. mail, a notice that: 1. states that the registered voter has been reported by the Social Security Administration to have died; and 2. notifies the registered voter or a person attending the affairs of a deceased voter that the voter will be removed from the statewide voter registration list unless, within 2 weeks after the date of the letter, the registered voter or a representative: A. objects to the removal; and B. shows cause why the removal should not proceed.”

Md. Election Law § 3-504(c)(2) establishes a clear statutory notice requirement and a defined cure period. The section mandates that the election director mail notice by regular U.S. mail to the voter's registered address, stating the reason for proposed removal (Social Security Administration death report) and explicitly preserving the voter's right to object and show cause within 2 weeks. The statute further specifies the director's options upon timely objection, including retention or a hearing, and the automatic removal upon failure to respond timely. All procedural elements—notice, enumerated grounds, cure period, and administrative review path—are set by statute rather than left to discretion.

“the election director shall mail to the address shown on the statewide voter registration list, by regular U.S. mail, a notice that: 1. states that the registered voter has been reported by the Social Security Administration to have died; and 2. notifies the registered voter or a person attending the affairs of a deceased voter that the voter will be removed from the statewide voter registration list unless, within 2 weeks after the date of the letter, the registered voter or a representative: A. objects to the removal; and B. shows cause why the removal should not proceed.”

The section establishes a statutory breach notification procedure (7-day reporting requirement) and defines security violations by reference to state policy, but does not codify encryption requirements, access-log standards, or retention rules. It addresses notification timing and reporting path but leaves the substantive data-security regime to Department of Information Technology policy rather than statute.

“Within 7 days after becoming aware of a security violation or significant attempted security violation, the State Administrator shall submit to the Department of Information Technology and the appropriate persons a report on each security violation and significant attempted security violation involving an election system”

No matching sections in corpus.

Maryland Election Law § 10-310(c)(3)(i) provides a clear statutory right for voters with disabilities or English-language barriers to choose any individual to assist them in voting. The statute enumerates the core rule and one exclusion (employers/union agents), establishing the procedure in statute rather than administrative discretion.

“a voter who requires assistance in marking or preparing the ballot because of a physical disability or an inability to read the English language may choose any individual to assist the voter”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute directly and exhaustively sets polling-place hours in statutory text, requiring opening at 7 a.m. and closing at 8 p.m. This removes discretion from local administrators and provides clear, enumerated timing.

“On an election day, a polling place shall be open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m.”

This section permits mail-in voting for certain categories (uniformed services and overseas voters in special elections) but delegates the full procedure—including application, deadlines, return process, signature verification, and cure mechanisms—to regulatory adoption by the State Board rather than codifying it in statute. The statute provides only a 45-day minimum gap and general process direction, leaving the substantive procedural details to administrative discretion.

“The State Board shall adopt regulations to establish requirements concerning: (1) notice to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters concerning a special election; and (2) the process for absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to: (i) request an absentee ballot for a special election; and (ii) return an absentee ballot by mail in a timely manner.”

The section establishes absentee voting eligibility (all voters eligible), application methods (State Board-approved form, written request, or online application), and treatment/removal procedures (subsection (i) enumerates four grounds for removal from the permanent absentee ballot list). The framework is entirely statutory with enumerated procedures for application submission, notification requirements, and list management.

The statute sets the early voting period exhaustively by statute (second Thursday before election through Thursday before election, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.), and prescribes early voting center locations through detailed enumerated requirements tied to county voter population in subsection (b). Both the timing and location rules are statutorily grounded with specific, non-discretionary thresholds, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion regardless of policy preference.

“Each early voting center shall be open for voting as follows: (1) beginning the second Thursday before a primary or general election through the Thursday before the election; and (2) during the hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. each early voting day.”

The statute defines placement factors statutorily with some enumeration (subsection a lists five criteria) and establishes a review process with the State Administrator. However, the section contains no statutory definition of security procedures or chain-of-custody procedures—both critical elements of the criterion. The placement factors themselves are also somewhat discretionary (e.g., 'maximizing voter participation' and 'equitable distribution') rather than mechanically enumerated. Security and chain-of-custody are entirely absent from this statutory text.

“(a) A local board shall consider the following factors when determining the location of a ballot drop box: (1) the accessibility of the ballot drop box to historically disenfranchised communities, including voters with disabilities, cultural groups, ethnic groups, and minority groups; (2) proximity of the ballot drop box to dense concentrations of voters; (3) accessibility of the ballot drop box by public transportation; (4) equitable distribution of ballot drop boxes throughout the county; and (5) maximizing voter participation, including through placement of ballot drop boxes at community centers and public gathering places.”

The statute clearly establishes the statutory right to cast a provisional ballot and enumerates where and when it may be cast. However, the section provided does not describe the adjudication procedure for provisional ballots—i.e., how they are counted, reviewed, challenged, or cured. A complete statutory framework requires not only the right to cast but also a defined cure and appeal procedure, which is absent from this excerpt.

“If an individual is eligible under subsection (b) of this section, the individual shall be issued and may cast a provisional ballot: (1) at a polling place on election day; (2) at an early voting center during early voting; or (3) at the local board office in the county where the individual resides after the close of registration and before the closing of the polls on election day.”