EAIElectoral Access Index

This section statutorily codifies the composition of the Board of Ballot Commissioners with balanced political representation by requiring appointment from the two largest political parties' county executive committees, plus the county clerk. It establishes fixed terms (two years beginning February 1) and specifies the appointment process with mandatory timelines and notice requirements, creating independence through multi-party involvement and statutory constraints on discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute § 3-2-2 sets the age and residency requirements for voting eligibility, but the criterion asks whether these requirements are set in the *constitution* rather than statute alone. This section is statutory law (W. Va. Code ch. 3, art. 2), not constitutional text. The criterion is not satisfied because the requirements appear only in statute, not in West Virginia's constitution.

West Virginia § 3-1-3 codifies disqualification criteria statutorily (felony conviction, total mental incompetence) and provides explicit statutory restoration procedures: sentence discharge or pardon for felons (§3-1-3(c)(4)), and court certification of requalification for the mentally incompetent (§3-1-3(b)). The framework is enumerated and non-discretionary, meeting the procedural-clarity standard for a score of 2 (statute + statutory restoration). The statute does not rest on constitutional framing alone, hence not a 3.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute requires 'valid identification' but does not exhaustively enumerate which forms of ID are acceptable; instead, it leaves the definition of 'valid identification' to administrative discretion or interpretation. While subsection (d)(2) mentions 'current driver's license or state-issued identification card' as one acceptable form (with specific requirements), the broader requirement in subsection (b) uses the undefined term 'valid identification,' failing the enumeration standard. A clear statutory enumeration of all acceptable ID types is absent.

“The applicant shall present valid identification and proof of age.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses training requirements for election officials, not voter identification requirements or the availability of free alternative ID. It contains no statutory procedure, enumeration, cure mechanism, or appeal path related to voter ID or free ID alternatives. The section is entirely outside the scope of the criterion being evaluated.

The statute provides a clear, statutorily-grounded at-polls cure procedure: a voter without valid ID may cast a provisional ballot after executing an affidavit. The procedure for counting is enumerated—signature verification against the voter registration record. This creates a defined remedy that is neither discretionary nor left to administrative interpretation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes technical requirements for electronic voting systems themselves (security, accuracy, accessibility, paper audit trails, etc.), not procedures for voter identification, rejection of ballots due to ID issues, or appeals of such rejections. The criterion asks whether an appeal procedure for rejected ID is codified in statute; this section contains no such procedure or even any reference to identification requirements or ballot rejection based on ID deficiency.

The statute directly and unambiguously sets the registration deadline at 21 days before the election, with specified exceptions for weekends and holidays. This is a clear statutory prescription, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The deadline is enumerated in the statute itself with no language indicating flexibility or deference to administrative judgment.

“Voter registration before an election closes on the 21st day before the election or on the first day thereafter which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”

The statute exhaustively enumerates five distinct registration methods: (1) in-person at county clerk or Secretary of State offices, (2) mail, (3) motor-voter (designated agencies and motor vehicle licensing offices), (4) registration outreach programs, and (5) online/electronic registration system. Each method is specified with particular deadlines and procedures, leaving no gap for administrative discretion over which methods are available.

The statute explicitly provides a cure procedure for incomplete registrations: applicants have four business days after the close of registration to correct deficiencies by providing the required information. This is a statutorily-defined, enumerated remedy with a clear timeline and condition.

“Incomplete applications for registration containing information which are submitted within the required time may be corrected within four business days after the close of registration if the applicant provides the required information”

W. Va. Code § 3-2-17 establishes a comprehensive, statutorily-grounded challenge procedure for rejected registrations. The section specifies multiple appeal pathways: reconsideration before the county clerk (subsection c, with a 14-day decision deadline), a hearing before the county commission (subsection d, with 30-day hearing and 15-day decision timelines), and further appeal to circuit court (subsection e) and the Supreme Court of Appeals (subsection f). All procedural steps and deadlines are enumerated in statute, not left to administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion.

“An applicant whose application for registration is denied by the clerk of the county commission because of ineligibility or for failure to submit proof of residence may make a written request for a reconsideration by the clerk, and may present information relating to his or her eligibility. The clerk shall review the request for consideration and shall issue a decision in writing within fourteen days of the receipt of the request.”

West Virginia Code § 3-2-27 provides statutorily-grounded, enumerated criteria for roll maintenance across multiple removal pathways: inactivity (non-response to confirmation notice by February 1); change of address; and loss of citizenship (upon DMV notification). Each criterion is defined in statute with specific triggering events and timelines, rather than delegated to administrative discretion. The procedure also includes a reactivation mechanism allowing inactive voters to restore active status upon application or voting.

The statute clearly requires written notice by certified mail before removal and provides a defined cure period of thirty days during which the voter may appear in person and present evidence of eligibility to prevent cancellation. Both procedural elements—notice and opportunity to cure—are explicitly mandated in the statutory text with specific timelines and methods.

“Upon the receipt of a challenge, the clerk of the county commission shall mail a notice of challenge to the registrant, setting forth that the voter's registration will be canceled if the voter does not appear in person during business hours at the clerk's office within a period of thirty days from the mailing of the notice and present evidence of his or her eligibility.”

The statute mandates 'adequate technological security measures' in broad terms, but does not enumerate specific requirements such as encryption standards, breach notification procedures, or access-logging protocols. The language delegates the substance of security implementation to administrative discretion rather than codifying concrete procedural safeguards in statute.

“The Secretary of State and the clerks of all county commissions shall provide adequate technological security measures to prevent the unauthorized access to the statewide voter registration database established under this section.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly grants disabled and elderly voters the right to be assisted by a person of their choosing and exhaustively enumerates the categories of persons who are prohibited from providing that assistance (employer, labor union agent, candidate). The rule is set entirely in statute with no delegation to administrative discretion.

The statute codifies a defined procedure for voters unable to sign their names (which encompasses illiteracy). It specifies the exact mechanism (mark affixed by poll clerk in presence of another), requires documentation of which clerk performed the task, and establishes a two-person verification process that protects against error or manipulation. While the statute does not explicitly address literacy assistance beyond signing, the procedural framework for voter assistance is statutorily grounded and enumerated with sufficient specificity.

“If that person is physically or otherwise unable to sign his or her name, his or her mark shall be affixed by one of the poll clerks in the presence of the other and the name of the poll clerk affixing the voter's mark shall be indicated immediately under the affixation.”

The statute explicitly and exhaustively sets polling-place hours in statutory language ('shall be opened' and 'be closed'), specifying precise times (6:30 AM to 7:30 PM) that apply uniformly across all primary, general, and special elections. There is no delegation to local administrative discretion; the rule is mandatory and enumerated in the statute itself.

“At every primary, general, or special election the polls shall be opened in each precinct on the day of the election at 6:30 in the morning and be closed at 7:30 in the evening.”

Section 3-3A-2 authorizes a mail-in voting pilot program but does not codify the full procedure. It identifies who may participate (Class IV municipalities in phase one, five municipalities in phase two) and what elections are covered, but does not enumerate the application process, deadlines, return procedures, signature verification standards, or cure mechanisms—all essential procedural elements. The statute delegates these critical details elsewhere or to administrative discretion, failing the requirement that procedure be 'codified in statute' exhaustively.

“This article establishes a two phase pilot project that will allow certain municipalities to vote by mail.”

The section comprehensively codifies the emergency absentee voting framework in statute, including: eligibility criteria (§3-3-1(c)), application procedures (subsection d—timing, form requirements prescribed by Secretary of State), commissioner appointment and duties (subsections c and g), return procedures and deadlines (subsection g—prior to close of polls), and treatment of ballots (subsection h—registration verification) and challenges (subsection i and reference to §3-3-10). All core procedural elements are statutorily enumerated rather than left to administrative discretion.

“a person qualified to vote an emergency absentee ballot, as provided in §3-3-1(c) of this code, may vote an emergency absentee ballot under the procedures established in this section”

The statute comprehensively sets forth the early voting period rule (referenced to § 3-3-3) and mandates specific location requirements: the courthouse/annex as primary location is statutorily required, and community voting locations are governed by enumerated criteria (accessibility, facilities, security, public notice at least 30 days in advance, and minimum five consecutive voting days). The county commission's discretion to designate additional locations is constrained by statutory criteria and procedural requirements, making the overall framework a matter of statute rather than administrative discretion.

“The county commission shall designate the courthouse or annex to the courthouse as the primary location for early in-person voting and, in addition, the commission may designate other locations as provided in subsection (b) of this section.”

The statute delegates drop-box regulation to the Secretary of State rulemaking rather than enumerating requirements in the statute itself. While subsection (b) requires the Secretary to propose rules addressing placement ('designation'), hours of operation, and security, these procedural specifics are not statutorily enumerated—they remain subject to administrative discretion within rulemaking. Only the minimum hours requirement (8 p.m.) is set in statute. The criterion requires statutory definition, not a mandate that rules be created.

The statute codifies both the right to cast a provisional ballot in a specific scenario (voter moved within county to different precinct) and the adjudication procedure: the ballot is counted if the voter's registration is found in county records during canvass and no other eligibility challenge was entered on election day. The procedure is statutorily enumerated and not left to administrative discretion.

“The voter may cast a challenged or provisional ballot at the new polling place if the voter's registration is found on the registration records within the county during the canvass and no other challenge of eligibility was entered on election day, the challenge shall be removed and the ballot shall be counted”