EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute codifies independence through multiple mechanisms: (1) appointment by the governor requires senate advice and consent (multi-branch involvement), (2) balanced political composition is explicitly mandated with equal representation from each major party and a prohibition on more than two from the same party, and (3) the chairman and secretary must be from different parties. All core independence safeguards are enacted in statute with enumerated requirements, not left to administrative discretion.

“Each board of election commissioners shall be composed of four members, appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate. Two commissioners on each board shall be members of one major political party, and two commissioners on each board shall be members of the other major political party. In no case shall more than two commissioners on a board be members of the same political party.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RSMo § 115.157 governs voter registration database management and information disclosure—it contains no substantive voting eligibility requirements (age, residency) whatsoever, let alone a specification that such requirements are set in the constitution. The criterion asks whether minimum age and residency requirements appear in the state constitution; this section addresses only administrative procedures for storing and releasing voter records.

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in statutory text with enumerated grounds (felony conviction or guilty plea). However, the section provides no statutory restoration procedure—it does not specify when or how a disqualified person regains candidacy eligibility (e.g., post-sentence, post-pardon, or post-rights restoration). This satisfies the first procedural requirement (statutory grounding and enumeration) but lacks the second (defined restoration pathway), placing it at level 2.

“No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the federal laws of the United States of America or to a felony under the laws of this state or an offense committed in another state that would be considered a felony in this state.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the data-sharing mechanism by which election authorities are notified of ineligible persons (deceased, felony-convicted, or incapacitated). It does not codify any procedure for restoration of voting rights, establish statutory deadlines for restoration, or provide automatic restoration mechanisms. The section is about removing ineligible voters from rolls, not restoring eligible ones.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the computerized voter registration system, data fields, record maintenance, and public access to voter information. It does not address voter identification requirements at any point in the voting process—neither requiring ID nor explicitly prohibiting ID requirements. The criterion requires statutory grounding of ID requirements (or explicit statutory prohibition). This section is silent on identification requirements and therefore does not satisfy the criterion.

The statute exhaustively enumerates acceptable photo identification forms in subsection 1, listing four specific categories with detailed criteria, and explicitly prohibits acceptance of any other forms ('No form of personal photo identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted'). This leaves no room for administrator discretion in determining which IDs qualify.

“Forms of personal photo identification that satisfy the requirements of this section are any one of the following: (1) Nonexpired Missouri driver's license; (2) Nonexpired or nonexpiring Missouri nondriver's license; (3) A document that satisfies all of the following requirements: (a) The document contains the name of the individual to whom the document was issued, and the name substantially conforms to the most recent signature in the individual's voter registration record; (b) The document shows a photograph of the individual; (c) The document includes an expiration date, and the document is not expired, or, if expired, the document expired after the date of the most recent general election; and (d) The document was issued by the United States or the state of Missouri; or (4) Any identification containing a photograph of the individual which is issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States Armed Forces, including the Space Force, or the United States Department of Veteran Affairs to a member or former member of the Missouri National Guard or the United States Armed Forces, including the Space Force, and that is not expired or does not have an expiration date.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the Governor's obligation to furnish lists of pardoned persons to election authorities. It contains no requirement for government-issued ID, no procedure for obtaining free alternative ID, and no procedural framework related to voter identification at all. The section is entirely outside the scope of criterion ID.3, which concerns voter ID requirements and free alternative identification procedures.

The statute explicitly establishes a cure procedure for voters unable to provide ID at the polls: they may execute an affidavit under § 115.427 as an alternative, or vote a provisional ballot. The procedure is statutorily grounded, enumerated (affidavit or provisional ballot options), and provides a clear pathway for voters without ID to participate. This satisfies the dual-scholar test—both strict and permissive election scholars can recognize the procedure as clearly defined in statute.

“A voter claiming to be properly registered in the jurisdiction of the election authority and eligible to vote in an election, but whose eligibility at that precinct cannot be immediately established upon examination of the precinct register, shall be entitled to vote a provisional ballot after providing a form of personal identification required pursuant to section 115.427 or upon executing an affidavit under section 115.427”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign contribution and expenditure restrictions, disclosure requirements, and anonymous contribution handling — topics entirely unrelated to voter identification, ID rejection, or provisional ballot procedures. It contains no statutory procedure for appealing a rejected voter ID or provisional ballot.

The statute explicitly sets the registration deadline at the fourth Wednesday prior to the election at a specified time (5:00 p.m. or the normal closing time of public buildings, whichever is later). This deadline is defined in statutory text, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, and is expressed with clear temporal reference to the election date.

“In order to vote in any election for which registration is required, a person must be registered to vote in the state of Missouri no later than 5:00 p.m., or the normal closing time of any public building where the registration is being held if such time is later than 5:00 p.m., on the fourth Wednesday prior to the election”

The statute permits federal postcard applications and electronic equivalents for covered voters, but explicitly delegates authority to unspecified 'other approved methods' without enumeration. The phrase 'in addition to any other approved method' defers enumeration to administrative discretion rather than grounding available methods exhaustively in statute, failing the enumeration requirement for procedural clarity.

“To apply to register to vote, in addition to any other approved method, a covered voter may use a federal postcard application, or the application's electronic equivalent.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses election result contests and challenges by candidates and voters, not voter registration procedures or cure mechanisms for incomplete registrations. It contains no statutory procedure for curing rejected or incomplete registrations. The criterion requires a defined cure procedure when registration is rejected; this section does not address registration rejection at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses post-election challenges to election returns and results by candidates and voters, not the registration rejection or removal challenge procedures that criterion REG.4 requires. The statute provides no procedure for a voter to challenge a rejected or removed registration—it covers only contestation of completed election outcomes.

Missouri statute RSMo § 115.193 explicitly defines removal criteria in statutory language: change of residence (with written confirmation or notice nonresponse plus two election cycles without voting) and inactivity (via USPS notification or notice nonresponse within 30 days). The criteria are enumerated in statute with clear conditions and procedural safeguards, including notice requirements, cure opportunities (return of notice, address confirmation, affirmation of continued residence), and a defined remedy for improper removal (election authority may authorize voting on election day). This satisfies the statutory-grounding and enumeration requirements at the statutory level.

“a registered voter's name shall not be removed from the list of registered voters on the ground that the voter has changed residence unless: (1) The voter confirms in writing that the voter has changed residence to a place outside the election authority's jurisdiction in which the voter is registered; or (2) The voter fails to respond to a notice described in this section and has not voted in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election that occurs after the date of the notice.”

The statute requires written notice to voters (with prepaid return card) before removal and provides a cure period: voters can respond to the notice, return the card with their current address, or vote during the specified election period (ending after the second general election following notice). The procedure is enumerated in statute with specific timelines and response mechanisms, allowing voters to cure their status or prevent removal entirely.

“a registered voter's name shall not be removed from the list of registered voters on the ground that the voter has changed residence unless: (1) The voter confirms in writing that the voter has changed residence to a place outside the election authority's jurisdiction in which the voter is registered; or (2) The voter fails to respond to a notice described in this section and has not voted in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice and ending on the day after the date of the second general election that occurs after the date of the notice. 2. The notice referred to in subsection 1, subdivision (2) of this section shall contain a postage prepaid and preaddressed return card, sent by forwardable mail, on which the voter may state the voter's current address.”

The statute requires the Secretary of State to implement 'adequate technological security measures' but does not enumerate specific requirements (encryption, access logs, etc.) or establish a breach notification procedure. The provision delegates detailed security standards to administrative discretion rather than codifying them statutorily, failing the procedural-clarity requirement.

“The secretary of state shall provide adequate technological security measures to prevent the unauthorized access to the system established pursuant to this section.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly grants the right to disability assistance by a person of the voter's own choosing and enumerates the qualifying conditions (blindness, inability to read/write English, physical incapacity). The statute also establishes penalties for unauthorized assistance or coercion, creating a clear statutory framework with defined procedures and consequences.

“If the voter is blind, unable to read or write the English language, or physically incapable of voting the ballot, the voter may be assisted by a person of the voter's own choosing.”

The statute codifies assistance for voters unable to read or write, establishing a clear triggering mechanism (declaration under oath to election judges), enumerated assistance options (election judges of different parties, or voter's chosen assistant), and a defined procedure requiring the assistant to enter the booth with the voter and cast the ballot as directed. Ballot secrecy is protected by limiting assistants (only election judges and immediate family per subsection 3), requiring oaths, and specifying that assistants follow voter direction.

“If any voter declares under oath to the election judges that he cannot read or write, is blind or has any other physical disability and cannot vote his ballot, he may be assisted by the election judges or by any person of his own choice other than a judge. If the voter asks for the assistance of election judges, two judges of different political parties shall go to the voting booth and cast his vote as he directs. If the voter asks for the assistance of someone other than election judges, the assistant shall go to the voting booth with the voter and cast his vote as he directs.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses ballot counting procedures and handling of damaged or defective ballots at the counting location, not polling-place hours. The criterion requires statutory specification of polling-place opening and closing hours; this section contains no information about when polling places open or close. The section does not engage with the topic of the criterion at all.

The statute establishes mail-in voting eligibility and a provisional ballot pathway, but does not codify the full procedure. It requires identification verification before absentee ballots are delivered but does not specify application deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or a meaningful cure process. The provisional ballot provision explicitly states ballots 'shall not be counted' with only notification of rejection—no cure mechanism is provided. Critical procedural elements are missing.

“An individual who has registered to vote by mail but who does not meet the requirements of this subsection may cast a provisional ballot by mail. Such ballot shall not be counted pursuant to this chapter, and the individual shall be notified of the reason for not counting the ballot.”

RSMo § 115.277 is a statutory codification of the complete absentee voting framework. It explicitly sets forth eligibility (registered voters), enumerated reasons for absentee voting (subsection 3 lists six specific categories including absence from jurisdiction, illness, religious belief, employment, incarceration, and address confidentiality participation), procedures for in-person and mail absentee voting (including ID and notarization requirements), and special provisions for covered voters and new residents. Both a left-leaning scholar focused on access and a right-leaning scholar focused on ballot security would recognize this as a procedurally clear, statutorily grounded framework with defined parameters rather than administrative discretion.

“A registered voter of this state may cast an absentee ballot in person at a location designated by the election authority for all candidates and issues for which such voter is eligible to vote at the polling place if such voter expects to be prevented from going to the polls to vote on election day due to one of the reasons listed in subsection 3 of this section.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prohibits drop boxes entirely rather than permitting them and defining procedural safeguards. The criterion asks whether drop-box procedures are defined in statute when drop boxes are permitted; this statute eliminates the category entirely, making the procedural-clarity question inapplicable. The section does not address placement, security, or chain-of-custody because the practice is forbidden.

Missouri statute § 115.427 establishes a clear statutory right to a provisional ballot for voters lacking required photo ID, codifies the procedure for casting it (completion of a provisional ballot affidavit on a designated envelope), and specifies enumerated methods for adjudication (voter return with valid ID same day, or election authority signature verification). The procedure is exhaustively set out in statute with no delegation to administrative discretion.

“An individual who appears at a polling place without a form of personal identification described in subsection 1 of this section and who is otherwise qualified to vote at that polling place shall be allowed to cast a provisional ballot.”