EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 250.027 addresses signature inspection procedures and copying restrictions for petition signatures. It does not address the structural independence, appointment mechanism, term length, or political composition of any election administration body. The section does not codify how the chief elections officer is appointed, by whom, for what term, or any safeguards ensuring balanced political representation.

The section establishes that voting eligibility is set in the constitution, but the provided text does not actually enumerate the minimum age or residency requirements—it only states the framework that citizens are entitled to vote 'if such citizen' meets unspecified conditions. The actual age and residency thresholds must appear in text following the quoted passage (not provided here). The constitutional grounding exists, but the specific numerical requirements are not visible in this excerpt.

“Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen:”

This is constitutional framing (Art. I, § 45) that codifies disqualification criteria (prior criminal conviction) at the highest statutory level. Oregon's Constitution establishes the substantive eligibility rule, and Oregon statutes (ORS 10.030 and related provisions) provide statutory restoration procedures through rights restoration mechanisms. The criterion requires constitutional or statutory codification with defined restoration—this satisfies both.

“In all grand juries and in all prosecutions for crimes tried to a jury, the jury shall be composed of persons who have not been convicted”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses water development fund financing and eligibility for loans—a fiscal and property matter wholly unrelated to voting rights, voter eligibility, or restoration of voting rights post-felony or otherwise. There is no voting-rights procedure in this text to evaluate.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the procedural mechanics of withdrawing initiative and referendum petitions—a ballot measure process unrelated to voter identification requirements at the point of voting. The statute does not address whether ID is required for voting, whether such a requirement is statutory versus regulatory, or whether no-ID voting is explicitly mandated. This section falls entirely outside the scope of the ID.1 criterion, which evaluates voter identification policy.

The statute exhaustively enumerates the four acceptable forms of identification for electronic voter registration: driver license, driver permit, state identification card, and Social Security number. While the Secretary of State adopts implementing rules for the system, the acceptable ID forms themselves are statutorily defined and limited to these enumerated categories, leaving no discretion to accept other forms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns the World War II Veterans' Compensation Fund and procedures for furnishing forms and supplies for veteran benefit applications — it has no connection to voter identification requirements or free state-issued ID for voting purposes. The criterion addresses whether a free alternative ID is statutorily available to voters who lack government-issued ID; this section does not address voter ID at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 255.075 governs notice and publication procedures for district elections to elect board members. It contains no language addressing voter identification requirements, cure procedures for voters without ID, provisional ballots, affidavits, signature matching, or any remedy available to voters rejected for lack of identification at the polls. The criterion concerns at-polls ID cure procedure; this section is entirely procedural about election notice and does not touch identification or cure mechanisms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only definitional provisions for terms used throughout ORS Chapter 254. It does not address identification requirements, rejection procedures, or appeal mechanisms for rejected IDs or provisional ballots. The criterion requires a statutorily codified appeal procedure for rejected identification, which is not present in this definitional section.

ORS § 247.025 sets the registration deadline directly in statute with clear, enumerated temporal requirements: receipt by close of business on the 21st day before the election (or midnight at the latest), postmark by the 21st day before the election, or electronic delivery by 11:59 p.m. on the 21st day before. The deadline is defined relative to a fixed event (election day) with no delegation to administrative discretion.

ORS 247.012(1) exhaustively enumerates all available registration methods in statute: mail delivery, in-person delivery, Department of Transportation (motor-voter), Oregon Health Authority (health-plan-based registration), and electronic registration system. Each method is specifically identified with closure language ('by:' followed by enumerated options a–e), satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion for enumeration.

ORS § 247.012(4)(b) provides a clear statutory cure procedure for incomplete registrations. The statute enumerates mandatory steps: the county clerk must attempt to obtain missing information from available sources, then use reasonable efforts to contact the registrant by phone, mail, and email if information cannot be obtained from existing sources. This is concrete, statutorily-grounded, and leaves no discretion about whether a cure attempt must be made.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 254.535 addresses only the preservation and destruction of election materials (tally sheets, ballots, challenge statements) following an election. It contains no provisions regarding voter registration rejection, removal, or the right to challenge such administrative actions. The statute is silent on registration disputes and appeal procedures, which are the subject of REG.4.

The statute defines one specific criterion for inactivity—failure to cure a signature mismatch challenge within 21 days—in clear statutory language. However, this section addresses only one narrow basis for inactivity (signature mismatch cure failure), not the full range of roll-maintenance criteria (death, change of address, general inactivity). The section also delegates implementation details (certified statement forms) to administrative design by the Secretary of State. Score 1 reflects statutory grounding of at least one removal criterion, though the criterion is incomplete relative to the full spectrum of roll-maintenance grounds.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 260.695 is a section on prohibitions relating to voting (ballot imitation, electioneering, obstruction, fraud, ballot secrecy, etc.). It contains no provisions addressing voter registration purges, notice requirements, or cure procedures for removal from rolls. The criterion requires statutory specification of pre-purge notice and opportunity to cure; this section does not address registration maintenance or purge procedures at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS § 247.208 addresses voter registration agency designation, services, and procedural requirements under the National Voter Registration Act, but contains no statutory language on data security, encryption, breach notification procedures, or access logs for voter registry data. The section focuses on registration processes and conduct of registration personnel, not the technical or administrative security infrastructure governing voter data.

The statute sets clear, enumerated triggers for language assistance in voters' pamphlets: the five most commonly spoken languages statewide (other than English) and any language spoken by 300 or more individuals in a county. These thresholds are codified directly in statute with defined data sources (American Community Survey, Portland State University Population Research Center) and update intervals (at least every five years), providing transparent and objective criteria rather than leaving the decision to administrative discretion.

ORS § 254.445(1) codifies in statute the right to disability assistance in voting, explicitly permitting an elector to choose their own assistant (or receive clerk-provided assistants), and § 254.445(2) enumerates statutory restrictions on who may assist (prohibiting employers and union officers). The right, the mechanism, and the disqualifications are all set by statute, not administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

ORS § 246.270 sets polling-place hours by statute, establishing mandatory opening (7 a.m.) and closing (8 p.m.) times that apply uniformly throughout the county on election days. The rule is enumerated exhaustively in the statute itself with no discretion left to local administrators.

This section addresses only the state's cost obligation for return postage on mail ballots. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure—there is no coverage of application requirements, deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure mechanisms for rejected ballots. While it confirms mail-in voting exists and is funded, the statute leaves the procedural details (enumeration of acceptable methods, verification standards, cure rights) to be found elsewhere in Oregon law or to administrative discretion. A complete procedural criterion requires all elements in one statutory section or explicit cross-reference; this section covers only financing.

ORS 254.470 codifies the absentee voting framework directly in statute, specifying eligibility (active electors as of the 21st day before election), application procedures (written application for non-affiliated voters in primary elections per subsection (3)(c)), ballot mailing timelines (20-14 days before election in subsection (2)(a)), return methods (mail, county clerk office, or designated drop sites per subsection (6)(b)), and treatment requirements (signing return identification envelope per subsection (6)(a)). The framework is exhaustively enumerated with specific dates, procedures, and administrative requirements, leaving minimal discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute authorizes drop-boxes and mandates minimum hours of operation (8+ hours, open until 8 p.m. on election day), but delegates placement criteria, security requirements, and chain-of-custody procedures to administrative rulemaking by the Secretary of State rather than enumerating them in statute. This violates the core procedural-clarity principle that substantive procedural rules must be set by statute, not left to administrator discretion.

This section mentions provisional ballots only in the context of risk-limiting audit procedures (subsection 4(d)), requiring that audits account for accepted provisional ballots. However, it does not codify the right to cast a provisional ballot, does not establish the procedure for adjudicating provisional ballots, and does not define when or how provisional ballots are deemed 'accepted.' The statute delegates rule-making authority to the Secretary of State (subsection 6) but provides no enumerated statutory procedure for provisional ballot adjudication itself. The criterion requires both the right and the adjudication procedure to be in statute; this section addresses neither.