EAIElectoral Access Index

The section establishes statutory mechanisms for election administration independence: appointment requires consent of both executive (governor) and legislative (senate) branches; five-year fixed terms limit executive reappointment; explicit political party balance requirement (no more than three of one party) is statutorily codified; and removal grounds are restricted to neglect of duty or misconduct. These elements satisfy all procedural components of the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a preregistration procedure in statute for persons ages 16–17, but it does not set the minimum voting age or residency requirements in the constitution; it operates within a constitutional framework. The criterion asks whether age and residency requirements are constitutionally grounded, not whether a statutory preregistration scheme exists. Washington's constitutional voting-age requirement is not quoted or addressed in this statute section.

This section provides statutory disqualification criteria (felony conviction + active incarceration), an enumerated restoration trigger (completion of sentence/release from incarceration), and an automatic restoration mechanism that requires no discretionary action. The criteria are clear and the duration is codified—voting rights are restored upon release. Subsection (2) adds a defined administrative procedure (monthly comparison, notice, opportunity to challenge through reregistration) that gives voters a documented path to restoration.

“For a felony conviction in a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is not serving a sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. For a felony conviction in a federal court or any state court other than a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is no longer incarcerated.”

The statute codifies an automatic restoration procedure with clear, enumerated conditions: voting rights are automatically restored upon release from total confinement (Washington felonies) or upon release from incarceration (federal/other state felonies). The statute further requires monthly comparison checks by the secretary of state and mandates notice to affected persons at their last known address, establishing a defined administrative process for implementation. The automatic-restoration mechanism eliminates discretionary gaps.

“For a felony conviction in a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is not serving a sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. For a felony conviction in a federal court or any state court other than a Washington state court, the right to vote is automatically restored as long as the person is no longer incarcerated.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While RCW 29A.40.110(3) is statutory and requires signature verification, it does not address or establish requirements for voter ID in the traditional sense (photo ID, government-issued documentation, etc.). The section mandates signature matching against registration files but does not enumerate what constitutes acceptable identification documents or set an explicit ID requirement policy. The criterion asks whether ID requirements (if any exist) are statutorily grounded with enumeration, or whether 'no ID is required' is explicit in statute. This section addresses signature verification procedure but does not satisfy either prong of the criterion.

The statute exhaustively enumerates in subsection (2) the acceptable forms of identification to cure a provisional registration, including driver's license, state ID, SSN, valid photo ID, tribal enrollment card, utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, and identified government documents. This enumeration is set directly in statute and leaves no discretion to administrators to add, subtract, or redefine these categories.

“An identification notice must be sent to the voter to obtain the correct driver's license number, state identification card number, last four digits of the social security number, or one of the following forms of alternate identification: (a) Valid photo identification; (b) A valid enrollment card of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington state; (c) A copy of a current utility bill; (d) A current bank statement; (e) A copy of a current government check; (f) A copy of a current paycheck; or (g) A government document, other than a voter registration card, that shows both the name and address of the voter.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns voters' pamphlet printing and distribution—entirely unrelated to voter identification requirements or alternative ID procedures. It contains no statutory provision regarding ID requirements, free alternative IDs, or any identification procedure whatsoever.

The statute explicitly defines a cure procedure for voters without ID: they receive a provisional ballot that is accepted if the signature on their declaration matches their voter registration record. This is a statutory, enumerated procedure that does not rely on administrative discretion.

“Any individual who desires to vote in person but cannot provide identification shall be issued a provisional ballot, which shall be accepted if the signature on the declaration matches the signature on the voter's registration record.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance reporting and public inspection of political committee accounts. It contains no provisions related to voter identification, rejected IDs, provisional ballots, or any appeal procedure for election administration at the voting stage. The criterion requires statutory codification of an appeal procedure for rejected voter ID or provisional ballots; this section does not address that topic.

The statute explicitly sets the registration deadline at eight days before an election and defines what 'received' means (physical receipt by close of business, or by midnight for electronic applications). The deadline is fixed by statute, not delegated to administrative discretion. The cutoff is enumerated clearly and applies uniformly across primary, special, and general elections.

“Submit a registration application that is received by an election official no later than eight days before the day of the primary, special election, or general election”

This section describes one specific registration method (automatic registration via enhanced driver's licenses) with detailed statutory procedures for its operation, cure pathway (45-day verification notice), and decline mechanism. However, it does not enumerate all available registration methods across the state. The criterion requires exhaustive enumeration of all available methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, same-day, etc.) in a single section or statute. This section addresses only the automatic registration method and references but does not enumerate other pathways in RCW 29A.08.355 and related sections.

“For persons age eighteen years and older registering under RCW 29A.08.355(1), an application is considered complete only if it contains the information required by RCW 29A.08.010 and other information as required by the secretary of state.”

The statute requires forms for completing incomplete ballot declarations and updating signatures, which is a foundational procedural element. However, the section does not define when a registration is deemed incomplete, what triggers the cure process, what timeline applies, how voters are notified of rejection, or what happens if a cure attempt fails. The statute delegates form design to the secretary of state but leaves the substantive cure procedure to regulation or administrative practice.

“The secretary of state shall design forms for voters to use in completing incomplete ballot declarations and forms to be used by voters in updating a voter's signature in the county's registration files”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.68.020 addresses election contests and challenges to candidate eligibility and election results, not voter registration rejection or removal. The statute does not establish a procedure for voters to challenge their own registration rejection or removal. For the registration challenge criterion, this section is simply off-topic and provides no relevant procedure.

The statute explicitly sets forth the criteria for removing voters from rolls in three categories: inactivity (failure to respond or vote within two federal general election cycles), change of address, and death/out-of-state relocation. These removal triggers are statutorily defined with concrete procedural steps (change of address notification, response to confirmation notice, voting activity), leaving no room for administrative discretion. The rules are grounded in statute (RCW 29A.08.630) rather than regulation.

The statute provides statutory notice and a defined cure period (reregistration/address update until 8 p.m. election day) specifically for address-based challenges under RCW 29A.08.810(1)(c). However, for other grounds of challenge under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d), or (e)—where registration cancellation occurs without ballot counting—no cure procedure is provided; the voter receives notice but no opportunity to remedy the defect before removal. This creates an asymmetrical framework where some removal scenarios have cure rights and others do not.

This section establishes statutory breach-notification obligations and requires intrusion detection systems (subsection 2), but does not enumerate encryption requirements for voter data or mandate access logs. The statute mandates WHO must notify and WHEN, but omits core data-security procedural elements: no specified encryption standards, no required audit logging, no defined cure procedures if a breach occurs, and no appeal mechanism. Breach notification without security architecture requirements leaves the core criterion unsatisfied.

“A county auditor or county information technology director of any county, participating in the shared voter registration system operated by the secretary of state under RCW 29A.08.105 and 29A.08.125, or operating a voting system or component of a voting system that is certified by the secretary of state under RCW 29A.12.020 shall disclose to the secretary of state and attorney general any malicious activity or breach of the security of any of its information technology (IT) systems immediately following discovery”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.92.030 addresses violations of redistricting law based on polarized voting and unequal opportunity to elect; it contains no codified triggers, thresholds, or procedures for language assistance, bilingual ballots, or language-minority population requirements. This section is not about voter assistance or language access procedures.

RCW 29A.40.160(13) codifies in statute both the right to disability assistance and the rules governing it: a voter unable to cast a vote due to disability may designate a person of their choice OR two election officers to assist. This is statutory, enumerated, and provides clear procedure without delegating to administrative discretion.

“If any voter states that the voter is unable to cast a vote due to a disability, the voter may designate a person of the voter's choice, or two election officers, to enter the voting booth and record the votes as the voter directs.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses county central committee organization meetings and internal party procedures, not polling-place hours. It contains no provisions regarding when polling places open or close, and therefore does not engage with the criterion's subject matter at all.

The section statutorily establishes automatic mail-ballot issuance for all active registered voters, satisfying the core authorization and basic procedure. However, the section does not codify critical procedural elements required by the criterion: application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification procedures, or cure processes for rejected ballots. These procedural details must be found elsewhere in the statute (other sections of RCW ch. 29A.40 or related chapters), meaning this single section does not provide the 'full procedure' as the criterion requires.

“Each active registered voter of the state, overseas voter, and service voter shall automatically be issued a mail ballot for each general election, special election, or primary.”

This section provides a complete statutory framework for special absentee voting, including eligibility (registered voters unable to vote by normal mail), application procedure, timing restrictions (ninety-day window), ballot contents, and voting method (write-in). The framework is enumerated in statute rather than left to administrative discretion, though application approval is left to auditor judgment. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that the absentee voting framework be codified in statute.

This statute sets the early voting period by explicit statutory language: voting centers must open eighteen days before and close at 8:00 p.m. on election day. It also statutorily mandates voting center locations: the county auditor's office (or elections division) and, for presidential general elections, in each city with population over 100,000. Both the temporal period and locational requirements are enumerated in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

“Each county auditor shall open a voting center each primary, special election if the county is conducting an election, and general election. The voting center shall be open during business hours during the voting period, which begins eighteen days before, and ends at 8:00 p.m. on the day of, the primary, special election if the county is conducting an election, or general election.”

The statute enumerates specific, mandatory procedures for drop-box security (two-person removal requirement, record-keeping of date/time/names), chain-of-custody (secured transport containers, record copies, seal verification), and placement (minimum density and geographic distribution). These requirements are set directly in statute with clear, actionable language rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

“The county auditor must prevent overflow of each ballot drop box to allow a voter to deposit his or her ballot securely. Ballots must be removed from a ballot drop box by at least two people, with a record kept of the date and time ballots were removed, and the names of people removing them. Ballots from drop boxes must be returned to the counting center in secured transport containers. A copy of the record must be placed in the container, and one copy must be transported with the ballots to the counting center, where the seal number must be verified by the county auditor or a designated representative. All ballot drop boxes must be secured at 8:00 p.m. on the day of the primary, special election, or general election.”

RCW 29A.40.160 establishes the provisional ballot right in statute (subsection 10(b)), specifying the triggering condition (inability to provide identification), the remedy (issuance of provisional ballot), and the adjudication standard (signature matching). Subsection (11) adds statutory procedure for provisional ballot documentation and voter notice of the outcome, providing clear statutory grounding without delegation to administrative discretion.

“Any individual who desires to vote in person but cannot provide identification shall be issued a provisional ballot, which shall be accepted if the signature on the declaration matches the signature on the voter's registration record.”