EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute explicitly establishes the State Board of Elections' structure and independence through multiple procedural safeguards: appointment by the Governor (executive branch) subject to confirmation by the General Assembly (legislative branch), mandatory political party balance (3 members from the highest-vote party, representation for the next-highest), fixed four-year terms beginning February 1, term limits (maximum two successive four-year terms), geographic distribution (no two members from same congressional district), and conflict-of-interest prohibitions. These provisions are all statutorily enumerated and exhaustive, not left to administrative discretion.

“The State Board of Elections is continued and shall consist of five members appointed by the Governor from the qualified voters of the Commonwealth, subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. In the appointment of the Board, representation shall be given to each of the political parties having the highest and next highest number of votes in the Commonwealth for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election. Three Board members shall be of the political party that cast the highest number of votes for Governor at that election.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-115 addresses the appointment, qualifications, and terms of election officers, not voter eligibility criteria. It contains no discussion of minimum voting age, residency requirements, or constitutional provisions governing voter eligibility. The criterion asks whether voting age and residency requirements are set in the constitution; this section is entirely inapplicable to that question.

The statute codifies disqualification grounds (felony conviction, adjudication of incapacity) in statute and includes a defined restoration procedure for certain voters under § 24.2-420.1, satisfying statutory grounding and partial restoration. However, the section does not enumerate the duration of disqualification for felonies (that is addressed elsewhere in the Code), does not specify how restoration is obtained for non-§ 24.2-420.1 voters, and does not clearly detail appeal or challenge procedures when a voter contests a disqualification determination. The restoration language applies narrowly to subsection A of § 24.2-420.1 voters only, leaving restoration criteria for general felony disqualification incomplete.

The statute sets a clear, statutorily-grounded procedure for *canceling* registration due to felony conviction, with defined timelines (21-14 days before election). However, it does not codify a procedure for *restoration* of voting rights post-felony. The section only requires voters to "provide evidence that his right to vote has been restored" but does not define what that evidence is, who determines restoration, or what deadlines apply to the restoration decision itself. The reinstatement language in subsection A of § 24.2-420.1 is referenced but not reproduced here. The criterion requires restoration procedure to be codified with statutory deadlines and automatic restoration where applicable—this section addresses only the cancellation side with procedural clarity.

Virginia Code § 24.2-643 explicitly sets the voter identification requirement in statute, enumerates six specific forms of acceptable identification with precise definitions, and provides a statutory fallback (affidavit under felony penalties) for voters who lack ID. The requirement is not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion; it is fully grounded in this statutory section.

The statute exhaustively enumerates six specific categories of acceptable identification forms in the statute itself, with explicit exclusions (e.g., driver privilege cards). The list is detailed and categorical rather than delegated to administrator discretion, leaving no ambiguity about what forms qualify.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs electronic filing and transmission of campaign finance disclosure reports and does not address voter identification requirements or the availability of government-issued ID. The criterion concerns whether free alternative ID is available for voting purposes; this statute deals entirely with campaign finance reporting procedures and is outside the scope of ID-related electoral access.

This section establishes a clear statutory cure procedure for provisional voters: a voter may request an extension to provide information proving eligibility, and the electoral board has authority to grant reasonable extensions (up to seven days post-election). The statute further provides that a provisional vote is counted if the Department of Elections or voter presents proof of timely voter registration application, creating a defined pathway to cure the initial deficiency.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-706 addresses the general registrar's duty upon receipt of an absentee ballot application and the materials to be sent, including that first-time federal voters must submit ID or it becomes a provisional ballot under § 24.2-653.01. However, the statute does not codify an appeal procedure for voters whose ID is rejected or whose provisional ballots are rejected due to ID defects. The section explicitly defers to § 24.2-653.01 for handling of provisional ballots but does not itself establish a cure or appeal path. The criterion requires statutory codification of an appeal procedure; administrative deferral to another section without explicit appeal language in either section does not satisfy the procedural-clarity requirement.

The statute explicitly defines the registration cutoff periods relative to election day: 21 days before primary/general elections, 6 days before certain special elections, and 13 days before other special elections. These deadlines are set directly by statute with no delegation to administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's requirement that the cutoff be statutorily defined rather than left to regulation or administrative directive.

“The registration records shall be closed during the 21 days before a primary or general election. If the registration records have not been closed previously for a primary or general election, they shall be closed during the six days before a special election called by the Governor, Speaker of the House of Delegates, or President pro tempore of the Senate, or pursuant to rule or resolution of either house of the General Assembly and during the 13 days before any other special election.”

This statute explicitly enumerates a motor-voter registration method by establishing a specific statutory mechanism: DMV customers applying for, renewing, or changing address on licenses are statutorily presented with voter registration opportunity, with clear eligibility screening (citizenship, age 17+) and defined transmittal procedures to the Department of Elections and general registrars. The procedure is set by statute, not administrative discretion, with enumerated triggering events and explicit rules governing acceptance/rejection.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the Department of Elections' duties related to redistricting and district boundary verification. It contains no language concerning voter registration incompleteness, rejection procedures, or cure mechanisms. The section is entirely procedural regarding map review and district assignment verification, not registration acceptance or rejection.

The section explicitly codifies in statute the right of a person whose registration has been cancelled to appeal that decision to circuit court. The appeal mechanism is set forth by reference to § 24.2-422, establishing a clear statutory remedy for registration rejection/removal.

“Any person whose registration was cancelled in accordance with the decision of the general registrar pursuant to § 24.2-429 , shall have the right of appeal, as provided in § 24.2-422 , to the circuit court of the county or city in which he offers to register.”

This statute enumerates explicit, exhaustive criteria for inactivity-based roll removal: a specific two-election timeline, defined actions that restore active status (address change, confirmation response, voting, transfer), and a bright-line rule for cancellation after the deadline. The criteria are set entirely in statute with no delegation to administrative discretion. Virginia Code § 24.2-428.2 is part of the Virginia Constitution-authorized electoral framework (Va. Const. Art. II, § 1), so the statutory grounding carries constitutional weight.

The statute clearly establishes a mandatory pre-purge notice requirement and a defined cure/appeal opportunity: affected voters must receive written notice by mail of the grounds for cancellation, the specific facts, and the date/time of a hearing where they can present testimony to defend their registration status. The hearing must occur at least ten days after mailing, providing a definite opportunity to be heard before removal. This satisfies the statutory grounding, enumeration, and cure-procedure elements of the criterion.

“the general registrar shall send a notice by mail to the last known address of each registered voter on the list, stating the reasons provided by law for the cancellation, the facts on which the cancellation is based, and when the registrar, at his office during regular office hours, will hear testimony produced for or against the right of persons named in the notice to be retained on the registration records. The hearings shall be held not less than ten days after the mailing of the notice”

The statute delegates the core data security regime—encryption requirements, breach notification protocols, and access logs—to the State Board to establish through regulation, rather than codifying these requirements in statute itself. While the section mandates that security standards exist and be updated annually, it does not enumerate specific statutory requirements for encryption, breach notification procedures, or access-log standards. The section thus fails the EAI's procedural-clarity test: a dual-scholar review would conclude that actual security specifications are left to administrative discretion rather than grounded in statute.

“The State Board shall promulgate regulations and standards necessary to ensure the security and integrity of the Virginia voter registration system”

The statute explicitly codifies three quantitative thresholds (5% single language minority, 10,000+ single language minority, and 5% American Indian language minority) that trigger covered locality designation and mandate language assistance. The triggers are enumerated exhaustively in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, providing clear procedural grounding.

“The State Board shall designate a county, city, or town as a covered locality if it determines, in consultation with the Director of the Census, on the basis of the 2010 American Community Survey census data and subsequent American Community Survey data in five-year increments, or comparable census data, that (i) more than five percent of the citizens of voting age of such county, city, or town are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process; (ii) more than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age of such county, city, or town are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process; or (iii) in the case of a county, city, or town containing all or any part of an Indian reservation, more than five percent of the American Indian citizens of voting age within the Indian reservation are members of a single language minority and are unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process.”

Virginia Code § 24.2-649 establishes the statutory right to assistance in voting for qualified voters with disabilities or inability to read/write, explicitly permits voter designation of an assistant, and enumerates the categories of ineligible assistants (employer, union agents). The statute sets forth clear procedural requirements (signed request form, statement from assistant) and restrictions on assistant conduct, grounding the entire regime in statute rather than administrative discretion.

The statute provides a clear, codified procedure for assistance to voters unable to read and write. It enumerates who may provide assistance (officer of election or designated person, explicitly excluding employer/union agents), requires a signed request and statement before entry into the booth, and mandates that the assisting person follow defined conduct requirements and not divulge how the voter voted. The procedure protecting ballot secrecy is explicit: the assister must not 'divulge or indicate, by signs or otherwise, how the voter voted on any office or question.' Statutory grounding, enumeration of authorized assisters, protective safeguards, and ballot-secrecy provisions are all present.

The statute explicitly sets opening (6:00 a.m.) and closing (7:00 p.m.) times for all polling places, with mandatory language ('shall be open' and 'closed') that leaves no room for local administrative discretion. The times are enumerated exhaustively in the statute itself.

“At all elections, the polls shall be open at each polling place at 6:00 a.m. on the day of the election and closed at 7:00 p.m. on the same day”

The section provides extensive statutory codification of mail-in (absentee) voting procedure, including application receipt, eligibility verification, ballot delivery deadlines, return methods, and identification requirements. However, it lacks a defined cure procedure for voters whose mail-in ballots are rejected (e.g., for signature mismatch or missing identification). The error/omission language protects against immaterial defects but does not establish how voters can cure defects discovered during ballot processing or counting. Without a statutory cure mechanism, the full procedure is incomplete.

“In reviewing the application for an absentee ballot, the general registrar shall not reject the application of any individual because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to the application, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified to vote absentee.”

This section codifies the absentee voting framework in statute, enumerating: (1) eligibility (military-overseas voters as defined in § 24.2-452), (2) application procedure (federal postcard application), (3) deadline (11 days before election at 5:00 p.m.), (4) duration of standing request (through Dec 31 of following year or shorter period specified), (5) supersession of prior applications, (6) treatment of undeliverable ballots, and (7) validity conditions. The framework is exhaustively set forth in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion, though implementation procedures are established by the State Board.

“Any person who is eligible for a military-overseas ballot as defined in § 24.2-452 may file a single application to receive ballots for all elections in which he is eligible to vote absentee. The application shall be on a federal postcard application. An application from any person who is already registered or who is eligible for late registration under § 24.2-419 that is received by the general registrar no later than 5:00 p.m. on the eleventh day prior to the election shall be considered a standing request for absentee ballots through December 31 of the year following the calendar year of the date of the application or another shorter period the voter specifies.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the reporting and administrative compilation of early in-person voting results; it does not establish or set the early voting period or locations. The statute requires the Department to establish reporting standards, but makes no reference to setting the period or locations of early voting itself. The substantive rules for when and where early voting occurs are addressed elsewhere (referenced in § 24.2-701.1), and this section is purely procedural regarding post-election reporting.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly grants voters the right to cast a provisional ballot in a defined circumstance (split precinct assignment confusion) and prescribes a detailed, enumerated procedure: the voter requests before casting, receives printed ballots for both districts, marks and seals each ballot separately, and the electoral board verifies voter qualification and counts the appropriate ballot at a defined meeting. All material procedural steps—request, marking, sealing, verification, and counting—are grounded in statute rather than administrative discretion.

“Any voter who is assigned to a precinct that is split between two or more election districts and believes he was given a ballot for the district of which he is not a qualified voter may request, prior to casting the ballot, and shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot for the district of which he believes he is a qualified voter and for the district in which the pollbook indicates he is registered.”