EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: NMSA 1978, § 1-4-5.6 addresses criminal penalties for unauthorized use of voter data and special voter lists. It contains no requirement to publish a voter pamphlet, defines no ballot-information content requirements, and does not establish any framework for candidate or ballot-question information distribution. The section is exclusively penal in nature and relates to data protection violations, not to voter communication of election information. It is unrelated to the statutory requirement for a ballot information pamphlet with defined content and distribution.

NMSA 1978, § 1-2-3(B) and (C) establish statutory triggers for multilingual voter materials. Subsection (B) codifies a blanket requirement for English and Spanish for all registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, and electoral process information. Subsection (C) codifies an additional trigger for historically unwritten minority languages, requiring oral availability through media, public meetings, and at polls. These provisions establish clear statutory triggers (universal Spanish requirement plus language-minority oral provisions) that dictate when multilingual materials must be provided, satisfying the criterion's requirement that triggers be 'set by statute.'

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes the requirements for independent candidates to file a declaration of independent candidacy and nominating petition, and prescribes the form and content of the declaration. However, it does not address public accessibility of filed candidate documents or specify any timeline for making such documents publicly available. The statute describes what must be filed and the procedural requirements for filing, but does not contain language requiring that these filings be made accessible to the public within a defined timeframe. A complete answer to CAND.1 would require statutory language explicitly mandating public access and specifying when such access must occur (e.g., 'within 2 business days of filing' or 'immediately upon filing').

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (§ 1-19-35) addresses late filing penalties and enforcement mechanisms for campaign reporting violations, not the public-notice procedures for candidate disqualification or withdrawal after ballot printing. While Subsection F addresses consequences for candidates who fail to file reports (preventing ballot placement or certificate issuance), it does not codify any public-notice procedure to inform voters about disqualifications or post-ballot-printing withdrawals. The criterion requires that the public-notice procedure itself be codified in statute—i.e., how the jurisdiction notifies the public when a candidate is disqualified or withdrawn after ballots are printed. This section concerns penalties and filing requirements, not voter notification procedures.

This section establishes statutorily-codified notice requirements with specific timing (42 days before election) and defined content (address verification requirement, clerk contact information, internet address). However, this statute addresses only special elections conducted as all-absentee, all-mailed-ballot elections, and the notice requirement is limited to notifying voters about address verification—not the broader pre-election notice contemplated by NOTIF.1 (date, polling place, registration deadline). The section does not address general election notification, polling place locations are explicitly irrelevant here (no traditional polling places exist in special elections per Subsection D), and registration deadlines are not addressed in this excerpt. The statute does specify timing and content for a narrower category of voter notification, satisfying the criterion only partially.

The statute codifies a notification requirement for precinct and polling place changes, addressing part of NOTIF.2. It specifies that county commissioners must send notice to state and party officials and publish in a newspaper. However, the criterion specifically requires 'individual notice' to voters within a 'defined timeframe.' This statute establishes notice to officials and newspaper publication but does not explicitly require direct individual voter notification or specify a timeframe for such notification relative to the election. Newspaper publication is a public notification mechanism but not equivalent to individual voter notice. The statute satisfies the notification-rule codification component but fails to explicitly require individual voter notification with a defined timeframe, which are key elements of the criterion.