EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section text addresses only compensation for election commissioners and poll workers, not the independence, appointment, fixed terms, or political composition of the election administration body. There is no statutory codification of procedural safeguards for independence in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses municipal candidate qualification requirements, not voter eligibility or voting age/residency. It contains no language establishing or referencing constitutional provisions for voter age or residency. The criterion requires constitutional grounding of voting eligibility rules, and this statute deals exclusively with candidacy vetting procedures.

The statute sets forth felony disqualification criteria in enumerated, statutory form with specific dates and exceptions (manslaughter, tax code violations unless involving misuse of office). Critically, it references pardon as a restoration mechanism ('not pardoned'), which is codified elsewhere in Mississippi law. However, the statute does not independently detail the pardon procedure itself—it relies on constitutional/separate statutory framework for restoration. This satisfies level 2: statutory criteria with restoration reference, even though the restoration procedure is not fully elaborated within this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section regulates campaign finance reporting requirements for candidates and political committees, addressing contribution and expenditure disclosure, filing deadlines, and notification procedures. It contains no provisions regarding voter identification, acceptable ID forms, or any enumeration of identification documents. The criterion ID.2 concerns voting procedure (enumerated acceptable voter IDs); this statute addresses campaign finance disclosure procedure only.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs mail-in voter registration procedure and does not address government-issued ID requirements or the availability of free alternative IDs. The criterion concerns identification requirements and free ID remedies; this section contains no discussion of ID, identification standards, or ID alternatives. The section is procedurally clear on registration by mail but is entirely silent on the ID criterion.

The statute provides a cure-adjacent procedure allowing voters to cast affidavit ballots at the polls and to later ascertain whether their votes were counted and why they were not. However, the statute does not define what happens *after* a voter learns their affidavit ballot was rejected—there is no statutory procedure for the voter to cure the defect (e.g., by later providing ID or resolving registration issues). The statute addresses post-election notice and inquiry rights but not cure remedies.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly defines the registration deadline as ten (10) or more days prior to the election date. This cutoff is set directly in the statutory text, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, and applies with clarity to absent voters using federal applications or ballots.

This section enumerates mail-in registration as one method and provides detailed statutory procedure for it. However, the criterion asks whether ALL available registration methods are exhaustively enumerated in statute. This section addresses only mail-in application; it does not enumerate or reference in-person, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day registration methods. A complete answer to REG.2 requires review of the entire statutory scheme, but this section alone does not satisfy the criterion because it covers only one method without exhaustively listing all methods available under Mississippi law.

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for incomplete or illegible applications in § 23-15-47(2)(e): the registrar must attempt to contact the applicant by mail or telephone to obtain missing information, and if successful, shall register the applicant. If unsuccessful, the statute requires written notice of rejection with stated reasons and informs the applicant of the right to re-apply in person or by mail. This provides both statutory grounding and enumerated cure pathway.

The statute codifies a voter's right to challenge a rejected registration by establishing a clear statutory appeal mechanism: denial may be appealed to the board of election commissioners within a defined timeframe (same day or within 5 days) via written application. The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

The statute identifies death, change of address, and disenfranchising convictions as removal criteria that county officials must receive reports about, establishing these grounds statutorily. However, the section does not define the specific procedures, timelines, or standards for actual removal based on these criteria—it only requires notification to registrars. The substantive removal procedures appear to be left to regulation (subsection 4 allows the Secretary of State to adopt rules necessary to administer the system).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute sets out the times when commissioners shall meet to revise registration books and erase names of persons 'erroneously on the books, or who have died, removed or become disqualified,' but it contains no requirement for pre-removal notice to affected voters or any opportunity to cure before erasure. The section explicitly permits erasure based on death, removal of residence, and disqualification with no cure mechanism described.

The statute delegates security requirements to the Secretary of State's discretionary rulemaking authority (subsection 4), rather than codifying them directly in statute. While subsection 4(c)–(e) envision security measures, they are stated as requirements for administrative rules, not statutory mandates. Critically, there is no mention of encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging—key elements of data security governance. The procedural clarity is insufficient because the actual security specifications are left to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies the right to voter assistance based on specified conditions (blindness, disability, inability to read or write), establishes the procedure for claiming assistance (declaration to election managers), permits the voter to choose their own assistant, and enumerates excluded categories (employer, employer's agent, union officer or agent). The procedural framework is statutorily grounded and exhaustively enumerated.

The statute codifies assistance for voters who cannot read (explicitly naming illiteracy alongside blindness and disability), prescribes a specific certificate form documenting the assistance, and protects ballot secrecy by requiring the assisting person to mark the ballot according to voter instructions while the voter marks it in secret (subsection 1). The procedure is set in statute with defined forms and roles, satisfying both statutory grounding and enumeration.

The statute explicitly mandates polling-place hours as a statewide requirement set by law, not subject to local administrative discretion. The language 'shall be opened at seven o'clock' and 'kept open until seven o'clock in the evening and no longer' establishes fixed, enumerated hours with no delegation to local officials.

The statute codifies eligibility categories, application deadline (45 days), and mailing procedures. However, it does not statutorily enumerate what constitutes acceptable signature verification, does not establish a defined cure procedure for rejected ballots, and does not provide a defined appeal or review path for voters whose mail-in ballots are challenged or rejected. These omissions prevent satisfaction of the full procedural-clarity standard.

This section codifies the absentee voting framework in statute, establishing clear procedures for application distribution, authorized requesters, witness requirements, designation validity (one year), and a detailed enumerated application form specifying eligibility categories (military, disabled, over 65, students, work requirements, etc.), signature and witnessing requirements, and notarization rules. The statutory grounding and exhaustive enumeration of procedures and eligibility criteria satisfy the procedural-clarity standard.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

Mississippi's affidavit ballot statute (the functional equivalent of a provisional ballot) is fully codified in statute. The statute enumerates the triggering conditions for affidavit eligibility, mandates poll manager notification, specifies the ballot execution procedure before an election manager, requires a signed written affidavit with enumerated elements, and establishes an adjudication path through the executive/election commission who must examine records and determine whether to count or reject the ballot. Subsection (4) further requires written notice to the voter of how to determine whether the ballot was counted and why, and subsection (6) mandates a free HAVA-compliant system to check ballot status. All procedural elements are statutorily grounded and clearly enumerated.