EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute codifies a multi-branch appointment structure (legislative majority and minority leaders from both chambers, plus two political parties), ensuring balanced political composition and distributed appointment authority. The statute also mandates an independent chairman and specifies qualifications and timeline requirements, all enumerated in the text itself rather than left to discretion.

“b. There shall first be appointed 12 as follows: (1) two members to be appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) two members to be appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly; (3) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; (4) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the General Assembly; and (5) four members, two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the largest numbers of votes at the most recent gubernatorial election and two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for Governor received the next largest number of votes at that election.”

The statute explicitly directs that age and residence requirements are prescribed by the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, not by statute alone. Section 19:4-1 anchors voting eligibility to the constitutional requirements rather than creating independent statutory requirements, thereby satisfying the criterion that these core qualifications are constitutionally grounded.

“if he shall be a citizen of the United States and shall meet the age and residence requirements prescribed by the Constitution of this State and the laws of the United States”

The statute codifies disqualification criteria in statute (adjudication for lack of voting capacity, conviction of indictable offenses, and incarceration status) and provides a restoration pathway ('unless pardoned or restored by law'). However, the restoration mechanism is referenced generically without detail; the statute points to unspecified restoration 'by law' but does not enumerate the statutory procedures, timelines, or administrative processes for how voters seek and obtain restoration. This satisfies the 'statute + statutory restoration' framework at a basic level but lacks the detailed procedural enumeration expected for a 3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute identifies that voting rights may be lost due to incarceration or felony conviction and states that restoration occurs 'unless pardoned or restored by law,' but it provides no codified procedure, statutory deadlines, automatic restoration trigger, or defined cure path for voters seeking restoration. The statute merely references restoration 'by law' without enumerating how, when, or by what process that restoration occurs, leaving the substance to other laws or administrative discretion.

The statute explicitly sets the requirement for signature verification (a form of identification/authentication) in the mail-in ballot issuance process. The procedure is grounded in statute, not left to administrative discretion. The comparison method, standards for approval/disapproval, and notification requirements are all enumerated in statutory language.

“Upon receipt of a request for a mail-in ballot, the county clerk shall, with the cooperation of the commissioner of registration, cause the signature of the applicant to be compared with the signature of the person appearing on the permanent registration form, or the digitalized image of the voter's signature stored in the Statewide voter registration system”

The statute enumerates acceptable ID forms for mail-in voter registration (driver's license, SSN, photo ID, utility bills, government documents), but critically delegates to the Attorney General discretionary authority to determine additional acceptable documents via the catch-all clause '(4) any other identifying document that the Attorney General has determined to be acceptable.' This administrative discretion undermines exhaustive statutory enumeration and fails the procedural-clarity criterion under the dual-scholar test.

“Whenever an individual registers by mail after January 1, 2003 to vote for the first time in his or her current county of residence, that individual shall provide either the individual's New Jersey driver's license number or the last four digits of the individual's Social Security Number, or shall submit with the voter registration form a copy of: (1) a current and valid photo identification card; (2) a current utility bill, bank statement, government check or pay check; (3) any other government document that shows the individual's name and current address; or (4) any other identifying document that the Attorney General has determined to be acceptable for this purpose.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute mandates a written notice informing voters how to access information about ballot acceptance and rejection reasons, which establishes part of a post-election review mechanism. However, the section does not define the substantive cure procedure itself—it does not specify what happens if a voter arrives without ID, what options are available (affidavit, return-with-ID, signature match), or how the voter can cure a defect. The statute references section 4 of P.L.2004, c.88 (C.19:61-4) but does not itself enumerate the cure mechanism, leaving the procedural details to that external citation.

“the member of the district board shall hand to the voter the written notice of instructions on how the voter may access information regarding whether the ballot of the individual is accepted for counting, and if the vote is not counted, the reason for the rejection of the ballot”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly establishes a registration deadline—29 days prior to election day—in statutory text, not by reference to regulation or administrative discretion. The cutoff is numerically enumerated and directly enforceable.

“a voter who registers after the 29th day prior to a school election”

The statute enumerates specific registration methods for overseas voters (mail via county clerk or Secretary of State, and federal postcard application), but this is a narrow subset addressing only overseas voters and their application procedures. The section does not exhaustively enumerate registration methods for all voters (in-person, online, motor-voter, same-day, etc.), nor does it purport to be a comprehensive registration procedure statute. It addresses overseas ballot applications, not the full scope of registration method availability that REG.2 requires.

“Requests for an application to vote in an election as an overseas voter may be made by or on behalf of an applicant to the county clerk of the county in which the applicant was formerly domiciled or to the Secretary of State of New Jersey”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While the statute acknowledges that cure procedures may exist and delegates authority to the Secretary of State to create rules about curing defects in registration forms, it does not itself define or enumerate any cure procedure in statutory text. The actual cure procedure is left entirely to administrative discretion and regulation rather than being established by statute. For the procedural-clarity standard, a defined cure procedure must be set forth in the statute itself, not merely authorized to be created by administrative agency.

The statute explicitly codifies a voter's right to challenge a rejection or denial of the right to vote, providing a clear appellate remedy via Superior Court application. The procedure is detailed, including the substantive findings required (residency, citizenship, non-disenfranchisement, proper registration or good-faith registration attempt), the evidence standard (preponderance where credibility is disputed), and the remedy (written authorization to vote). This satisfies the procedural-clarity criterion for registration challenge rights.

“Any person whose name does not appear on a challenge list prepared by the superintendent of elections of the county but who is challenged and denied the right to vote on the day of a municipal, primary, general, or special election by a duly authorized challenger or by a member of a district board of elections, may apply to a Superior Court judge sitting at the county seat for permission to vote.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voting procedure and timing at polling places, not voter roll maintenance or removal criteria. It contains no statutory definition of grounds for removing voters from registration rolls (death, change of address, inactivity, etc.). The criterion requires evaluation of removal criteria, which are entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the membership, organization, and operation of county political party committees—including election of committee members, officer duties, vacancy procedures, and certification requirements. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding voter registration, voter roll maintenance, purging of registered voters, notice procedures before removal, or cure periods. The criterion asks about pre-purge notice and opportunity to cure for voters being removed from rolls; this statute addresses party committee internal governance only.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses provisional ballot handling and custody procedures—specifically how voted provisional ballots are placed in envelopes, sealed, and transferred to the district board. It contains no provisions addressing voter registry data security, encryption requirements, breach notification procedures, or access logging. The section's scope is ballot chain-of-custody during voting, not the statutory codification of voter-data protection regimes.

The statute explicitly codifies the trigger for language assistance: bilingual sample ballots must be provided in districts where 10% or more of registered voters have Spanish as their primary language. This threshold is enumerated in the statute itself, not left to administrative discretion, and applies uniformly across both district boards and commissioners of registration.

“except that for districts in which the primary language of 10% or more of the registered voters is Spanish, a properly stamped envelope containing a copy of the bilingual sample ballot, addressed to each registered voter in the district of such board at the address shown on the register shall be prepared and deposited”

The statute explicitly allows family member assistance in marking mail-in ballots, establishing a statutory right to assistance. However, the section does not exhaustively enumerate all permissible assisters (e.g., whether non-family caregivers, election officials, or other designated persons may assist), nor does it address the rules, procedures, or limitations governing who may serve as an assistant beyond the family member reference. The procedural framework for disability assistance is thus partially codified but incomplete.

“However, a family member may assist you in doing so.”

No matching sections in corpus.

Polling-place hours are set directly by statute with specific enumerated times (6:00 A.M.–8:00 P.M. for general elections; 5:00 P.M.–9:00 P.M. for school elections with limited school board discretion only for additional hours within a statutory range). The core opening and closing times are statutorily fixed, not subject to local administrative discretion.

“The district boards shall open the polls for such election at 6:00 A.M. and close them at 8:00 P.M., and shall keep them open during the whole day of election between these hours; except that for a school election held at a time other than at the time of the general election the polls shall be open between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. and during any additional time which the school board may designate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.”

This section codifies the statutory requirement for delivery timing and method (first-class mail or hand delivery), but does not address the full mail-in procedure. Missing from this section are statutory specifications for: application procedures and deadlines, ballot return methods and deadlines, signature verification standards, and cure procedures for rejected ballots. To fully satisfy VM.2, the criterion requires exhaustive statutory codification of the entire mail-in pipeline, not just one step (delivery).

“Starting on or before the 45th day before the day an election is held, each county clerk shall forward mail-in ballots by first-class postage or hand delivery to each mail-in voter whose request therefor has been approved.”

This section addresses only the administrative mechanics of form preparation and distribution—color of paper and timing of delivery to municipal clerks. It does not codify the absentee voting framework itself (eligibility criteria, application procedures, return methods, or treatment of ballots). The statute is a narrow procedural detail, not a comprehensive statutory codification of absentee voting rules. A dual-scholar test would confirm this is insufficient to meet the criterion's requirement for a full framework.

“Application forms for Presidential ballots to be made by removed residents and forms of affidavits of residence shall be prepared by the county clerk and shall be printed on paper of a different color from that used for applications for military service and civilian absentee ballots and sufficient quantities thereof shall be furnished by the county clerk to each municipal clerk in his county not later than August 1 preceding such election.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

This section establishes that provisional ballots are authorized by statute and cross-references the statutory source (P.L.1999, c.232), satisfying statutory grounding. However, the section itself contains no enumeration of who qualifies, no cure procedure, and no appeal/review path—it merely directs readers to another statute. The actual right and adjudication procedure are codified elsewhere, not in this section.

“provisional ballots for use by certain voters who no longer reside at the place from which they are registered, as provided in P.L.1999, c.232 (C.19:53C-1 et al.)”