EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs disclosure requirements for political public communications and candidate authorization statements. It contains no provisions addressing election administration body independence, appointment procedures, fixed terms, or political composition. The section is entirely focused on campaign finance disclosure procedural requirements, not administrative structure.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the registration procedure for U.S. citizens residing outside the country, not the foundational eligibility requirements (age and residency) themselves. The criterion asks whether age and residency minimums are set in the constitution; this statute merely implements registration mechanics for an already-qualified subset. The underlying eligibility standards are not addressed in this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses party enrollment status and disqualification of political parties from qualified status, not voter eligibility disqualification based on felony convictions or mental incompetence. It concerns administrative changes to voter enrollment records when parties fail to maintain qualification, not the substantive criteria or restoration procedures for voter disqualification on grounds of felony or mental incompetence that ELIG.2 measures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 306 addresses party enrollment status changes for voters in disqualified or failed-to-qualify parties, not restoration of voting rights post-felony or other disenfranchisement. This section concerns administrative management of party affiliation in the voter registration system, not the statutory procedure for restoring voting eligibility to persons who have lost it. The criterion requires codification of restoration procedures for rights loss (e.g., felony disenfranchisement); this section does not address that topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1012 provides definitions for terms used in campaign finance law (contribution, expenditure, clearly identified candidate, etc.). It does not address voter identification requirements, procedures, or standards for voting access. The section is entirely divorced from the criterion's subject matter—whether voter ID requirements are statutorily grounded. No evaluation of voting procedure is possible from this text.

Section 152 enumerates acceptable ID forms for voter registration (Maine driver's license, nondriver ID, or last 4 SSN digits) in subsection 1.M. However, this section addresses voter *registration* procedure, not voting ID requirements at the ballot box. The criterion ID.2 concerns 'acceptable IDs' in the voting context (e.g., what ID one must present to cast a ballot). While the enumeration is clear for registration, the statute does not establish what ID forms are required or acceptable at the point of voting itself, leaving that question to other parts of the code or administrative rule. This section satisfies enumeration narrowly for registration intake but does not establish the voting-day ID requirement framework.

“A place for the applicant's current, valid Maine driver's license number or nondriver identification card number, if applicable; or, if the applicant has no Maine driver's license number or nondriver identification card, the last 4 digits of the applicant's social security number, if applicable; or, if the application is submitted in writing and the applicant has neither number, a place to put "none" or "not applicable"”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses public records access, ballot confidentiality, and voter address/signature protections. It contains no provision regarding voter identification requirements, free alternative IDs, or any ID-related procedure. The criterion requires a statutory mechanism for providing free government-issued ID to voters who lack identification; this section is entirely outside that subject matter.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 791 addresses criminal penalties and violations related to absentee ballot handling and fraud, but does not define any cure procedure for voters arriving at polling places without ID. It contains no reference to provisional ballots, affidavits, return-with-ID procedures, or signature-match protocols that would apply at the polls. This section is entirely penal in character and does not establish procedural remedies for voter identification challenges.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute defines a clear, enumerated procedural deadline: a 15-day waiting period after filing an application to change party enrollment before the voter becomes eligible to vote in a primary. This cutoff is set directly in statute (21-A § 144, subsection 3), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The procedure is accompanied by a detailed cure mechanism (subsection 2) wherein the registrar must track the 15-day period and automatically update the central voter registration system when it has elapsed.

“a voter may not vote at a caucus, convention or primary election for 15 days after filing an application to change enrollment”

§ 152 explicitly enumerates the available registration methods in statute: written application (which encompasses in-person and mail under the design provisions) and online voter registration application. The statute sets forth these methods exhaustively in subsection 1, with subsection 6 providing detailed statutory requirements for the online method, and cross-references to section 122 and subchapter 9 that together establish the complete registration framework. Both procedural and substantive elements are grounded in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“a person may register to vote or enroll in a political party, or both, by completing a written application that is designed by the Secretary of State or by submitting an online voter registration application”

The statute requires notification of rejection reasons, which is a procedural safeguard, but does not define a cure procedure — i.e., it does not specify timeframes, methods, or steps by which an applicant may correct deficiencies and reapply or have their application reconsidered. Notification alone is insufficient for a true cure procedure.

“If the applicant is not qualified, the registrar or the Secretary of State shall notify the applicant of the reason for rejection of the application.”

The statute explicitly establishes a codified right for voters to challenge both cancellations and rejections of registration. The appeal mechanism is set forth in statute with specified procedures: written appeal within 30 days, appointment of a multi-member appeals board with defined composition, notice requirements (20 days in advance), de novo hearing rights, and further appeal to Superior Court. All elements—statutory grounding, enumeration of appeal paths, and defined procedures—are clearly present.

“if a person is aggrieved by the decision of the registrar of voters to cancel that person's registration in the central voter registration system or to reject that person's voter registration application, that person may appeal in writing to the registration appeals board”

Maine statute explicitly enumerates removal criteria in § 161(2-A): inactivity is prohibited as sole grounds; cancellation is permitted only for dual registration in another jurisdiction (in-state or out-of-state). The statute also addresses deceased voters and proof-of-qualification hearings. These core removal standards are set directly in statute, not delegated to regulation, satisfying the criterion.

The statute explicitly requires written notice at least 20 days in advance of any hearing regarding voter qualifications, an opportunity for the voter to present evidence and testimony, and a cure mechanism allowing the voter to offer satisfactory proof of qualifications either before or at the hearing to prevent cancellation. The registrar may only cancel registration if the voter fails to offer satisfactory proof after these procedural safeguards.

“If the registrar is in doubt as to the qualifications of a person to vote, the registrar shall fix a reasonable time and place for a hearing and give written notice of the hearing to the voter at the last known address provided by the voter at least 20 days in advance. The voter must have the opportunity to testify and to present witnesses and other evidence at the hearing. The voter may respond in person or in writing with proof of qualifications prior to the date of the hearing.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section delegates authority to the Secretary of State to adopt administrative rules regarding voter data security and confidentiality, but does not codify specific data security requirements (encryption, breach notification procedures, access logs) in statute itself. The criterion requires the regime to be codified in statute, not left to administrative rule-making. While the statute authorizes confidentiality and use limitations, the concrete procedural requirements for security and breach notification are delegated to future rulemaking without statutory enumeration.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies the right to assistance for voters with disabilities or illiteracy, specifies the categories of persons who may assist (excluding employers, union officials, and their agents), and sets the procedure for requesting assistance. The exclusions and procedural rules are enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“A voter who is unable to read or mark the ballot because of physical disability, illiteracy or religious faith may request another person, other than the voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union, to assist the voter in reading the ballot or marking the ballot according to the voter's wishes.”

The statute explicitly codifies assistance for voters unable to read because of illiteracy, defines eligible assistants (excluding employers/union agents), specifies the procedure (voter requests assistance, aide assists without influencing choices), and provides ballot-secrecy protection through the prohibition on aides telling voters how to vote or influencing them. The reference to section 682 establishes a defined legal constraint protecting voting independence.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 711 addresses the preparation and filing of election returns after voting has concluded. It contains no provisions regarding polling-place opening or closing hours. The criterion asks whether such hours are set by statute rather than administrative discretion, but this section does not engage that question at all—it is about post-election return procedures, not voting-place operations.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section establishes statutory codification of absentee ballot framework for uniformed service and overseas voters, including enumerated eligible applicant categories, specified application methods (federal form or section 753-A), defined time limits (3-month rule prohibited for federal elections), and explicit validity duration (18 months). The framework is set in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 674 is a criminal penalties statute that prohibits interference with drop boxes and other election crimes. It does not define drop-box placement, security, or chain-of-custody procedures; it merely criminalizes misconduct related to them. The actual procedural requirements for drop boxes would be found in other sections of Maine's election code, not in this penalties provision.