EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute establishes a board of elections and some independence protections (requirement that members hold no other public office, appointment by governor with senate consent). However, the section does not codify fixed terms for board members, does not mandate balanced political composition, and does not establish appointment powers in multiple branches beyond governor-and-senate confirmation. These gaps are material to the criterion's core procedural requirements.

“a board of elections consisting of seven (7) qualified electors of this state, of outstanding honesty and ability and none of whom shall hold any other public office”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 17-19-54 addresses bilingual voting material requirements under the Voting Rights Act and imposes procedural obligations on cities, towns, and the state to provide materials in minority languages. It does not set, establish, or reference minimum age or residency requirements for voting eligibility. This section is entirely procedural regarding ballot materials and does not touch constitutional or statutory eligibility criteria.

This section satisfies the criterion at the highest level (3). The disqualification is anchored constitutionally (Article II, Section 1), the criterion for loss is statutorily enumerated (felony conviction + incarceration), the duration is clear (during incarceration only), and a detailed statutory restoration procedure is codified, including mandatory notification, voter registration assistance, transmission protocols, and affirmative duties on the Department of Corrections and Secretary of State to remove barriers and track eligible persons. Both a strict-access and permissive-access scholar would recognize this as providing clear, judicially-reviewable statutory procedure.

The statute establishes a clear, automatic restoration procedure triggered by a specific, objective event: discharge from incarceration. The right is codified in statute, the trigger is enumerated exhaustively (discharge from incarceration), and the restoration is automatic rather than discretionary. The statute further specifies the Department of Corrections' duties to notify the person in writing and transmit registration forms to local boards, with the Secretary of State ensuring no continued barriers exist. The 15th-day reporting deadline to the Secretary of State provides administrative structure and transparency.

The statute explicitly mandates photo ID (or approved non-photo ID) beginning on a fixed date for all elections. The requirement is grounded directly in statute, not left to administrative discretion, and applies uniformly across primary, special, and general elections. The acceptable ID forms are enumerated in statutory text.

“Beginning on January 1, 2012, any person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter who desires to vote at a primary election, special election, or general election shall provide proof of identity.”

The statute exhaustively enumerates acceptable forms of ID in two categories (photo and non-photo documents) with specific examples, each listed in the statute itself rather than delegated to administrative discretion. While the phrase 'including without limitation' appears, the substantive enumeration—driver's license, passport, military ID, educational institution ID, birth certificate, social security card, and government-issued medical card—is statutorily grounded and specific enough to provide clear guidance to election officials and voters.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 17-6-8 addresses the administrative distribution of voter registration lists to local canvassing authorities and does not address voter identification requirements, free alternative ID procedures, or any ID-related policy. The section has no bearing on the criterion's question of whether free state-issued ID is available to voters who lack government-issued identification.

The statute provides a clear, enumerated cure procedure for voters who arrive without ID: they may cast a provisional ballot and execute a provisional ballot voter's application. The procedure is set in statute (not left to administrative discretion), and the acceptance standard is defined (signature matching on the voter's registration). Both procedural elements—the availability of the provisional ballot mechanism and the specific verification step—are statutorily grounded.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the mechanics of voting at the polling place—providing ID, marking ballots, handling overvotes and marking errors—but contains no appeal or review procedure for voters whose identification is rejected or who are directed to vote provisionally due to ID issues. The statute describes what happens when a voter cannot be found on the list (referral to the clerk for verification), but does not establish a statutory cure procedure, appeal path, or post-election review mechanism for rejected voters. The procedural-clarity criterion requires an enumerated appeal or review path in statute, which is absent here.

The statute explicitly sets the registration deadline in clear, enumerated terms: 30 days before an election. This is not delegated to administrative discretion or left to regulation; it is defined directly in the statutory text with a specific numerical standard. The provision is unambiguous and leaves no room for administrative interpretation of when registration closes.

“Registration for any election shall close on the thirtieth (30th) day preceding an election”

This section establishes motor-voter registration at the DMV with detailed statutory procedure (acceptance date, transmission timing, verification process). However, the criterion requires enumeration of ALL available registration methods (in-person, mail, online, same-day, automatic, etc.). This section covers only the DMV method and does not enumerate or reference other registration pathways that may exist elsewhere in Rhode Island law. A complete answer to REG.2 requires reviewing the full Title 17 statutory scheme; this single section addresses only one method.

The statute requires notification of incomplete applications and directs the applicant to contact the local board, establishing minimal procedural clarity. However, the statute does not define what cure steps must be taken, what timeframe the applicant has to cure, whether the local board must assist in completing the application, or what happens if the application is not cured—these are left to administrative discretion. A clear cure procedure requires statutory enumeration of cure deadlines, acceptable methods of cure submission, and consequences of failure to cure.

“Your application to register to vote has been received incomplete. Please contact our office at the telephone number or address listed below.”

The statute provides a clear hearing procedure for voters whose registration is challenged (§ 17-9.1-28 establishes the right to appear and answer questions), but the criterion asks about a voter's right to *challenge a rejection or removal* of their registration — a distinct procedural protection. The section describes how voters may defend against a challenge to their existing registration, but does not establish a statutory right or procedure for a voter to appeal or challenge an adverse removal decision by the local board. The statute lacks an enumerated appeal or review mechanism above the local board level.

“The challenged voter shall appear before the local board at a time and place to be determined by the local board. The objector shall also be notified of the hearing.”

The statute statutorily mandates removal of duplicate registrations and defines one removal criterion (duplicate registration) in statute. However, the section does not address the other removal criteria specified in the criterion (death, change of address, inactivity), nor does it enumerate detailed procedures for those removals—those appear to be left to regulations adopted by the secretary of state. The procedure for duplicate removal is statutorily grounded but the broader roll-maintenance criteria are not fully addressed.

“The local board of canvassers of each city or town shall review their voter registration files on a quarterly basis in accordance with regulations adopted by the secretary of state for the purpose of removing duplicate voter registrations in the central voter registration system for any voter registered in their city or town.”

The statute provides a clear, enumerated pre-removal procedure: confirmation cards are mailed to trigger the cure period (during which the voter may vote or appear to vote to retain registration), and cancellation occurs only if the voter fails to respond within a defined timeframe (after the second general election following the mailing). The statute further mandates written notice of cancellation to the voter's last known address, creating both notice and an implicit opportunity to correct the record by re-registering. Both procedural elements—statutory grounding and defined cure opportunity—are satisfied.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section establishes procedures for electronic voter registration and information sharing between agencies, but contains no statutory codification of data security requirements (encryption standards, breach notification protocols, or access logging requirements). While the statute addresses confidentiality and data use restrictions, it does not enumerate specific security measures or breach-notification procedures that must be followed. The procedural clarity required by the EAI criterion is absent.

The statute codifies explicit, enumerated thresholds for triggering language assistance obligations: a 5% single-language-minority threshold or a 10,000-person threshold, combined with an illiteracy-rate condition. These triggers are set in statute (not left to administrative discretion), are mathematically defined, and apply automatically when the Director of the Census makes the factual determination. The provision establishes clear, statutory procedure for when bilingual materials must be provided.

“a city or town shall be subject to the provisions of the bilingual voting materials requirement whenever the Director of the Census determines, based on census data, that: More than five percent (5%) of the citizens of voting age of a city or town are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or More than ten thousand (10,000) of the citizens of voting age of a city or town are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; and The illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.”

The statute explicitly codifies the right to assistance for voters with blindness, disability, or inability to read/write, and statutorily enumerates the categories of persons who are prohibited from assisting (employer, agent of employer, union officer/agent). The procedure is set in statute with clear eligibility rules and disqualifying relationships. An affidavit process is also statutorily mandated to verify compliance.

The statute codifies assistance for voters unable to read, specifies the procedure (affidavit filed with warden), defines who may assist (voter's choice, excluding employer/union), and protects ballot secrecy through the affidavit requirement and prohibition on the assistant marking the ballot unless the voter requests it due to physical disability. The procedure is enumerated in statute with safeguards against coercion and conflicts of interest.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns telephone access and reimbursement for election officials at polling places. It does not address polling-place opening and closing hours at all. The criterion asks whether hours are set by statute; this section provides no information about hours or their statutory basis.

The statute codifies key procedural elements: statutory eligibility criteria (legally qualified elector on official voting list), application requirements (including certificate of circumstances), a specific filing deadline (4:00 p.m. the day before election), prescribed ballot delivery methods (mail, in-person pickup, or in-person at board), and signature verification requirements (notary or two witnesses with addresses). The procedure is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, satisfying the procedural-clarity criterion even though cure procedures for signature defects are not explicitly addressed in this section.

This statute codifies the absentee voting framework for permanently disabled or indefinitely confined voters in statutory text rather than administrative discretion. It sets forth clear eligibility criteria (indefinite confinement due to physical illness, infirmity, or disability), specifies the application mechanism (affidavit form prescribed by secretary of state), establishes the return process (stamped return envelope to local boards of canvassers), and provides a defined removal procedure with voter notification within five days. The framework is exhaustively enumerated in statute and leaves minimal administrative discretion.

“A voter who is indefinitely confined because of physical illness or infirmity or is disabled for an indefinite period may, by signing an affidavit to that effect, request that an absentee ballot application be sent to him or her automatically for every election. The affidavit form and instructions shall be prescribed by the secretary of state, and furnished upon request to any elector by each local board of canvassers. The envelope containing the absentee ballot application shall be clearly marked as not forwardable. If any elector is no longer indefinitely confined, he or she shall notify the clerk of the local board of canvassers of this fact. The clerk shall remove the name of any voter from the mailing list established under this section upon receipt of reliable information that a voter no longer qualifies for the service. The voter shall be notified of the action within five (5) days after the board takes the action. The affidavit form and instructions prescribed in this section shall be mailed to the applicant along with a stamped return envelope addressed to the local boards of canvassers.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a study commission to analyze advanced voting methods and make recommendations to the legislature; it does not set any early voting period or locations rule by statute. The section is purely procedural for a commission's investigatory work and contains no substantive voting procedure regulations.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section statutorily establishes the right to cast a provisional ballot and provides an enumerated adjudication procedure (signature-matching test by the local board, with explicit rules for acceptance or rejection). However, it lacks any cure procedure—no mechanism for a voter to correct or cure a rejected ballot—and no appeal or review path beyond the local board's initial determination. The procedure is one-directional with no comeback avenue for the voter.