EAIElectoral Access Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 38 addresses voting procedure (voter identity verification, ballot handling, and polling station conduct) and contains no provisions regarding election administration independence, appointment structures, fixed terms, or political composition of any election body. The criterion requires statutory codification of administrative independence; this section is purely procedural for voters and voting officers at the point of voting.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a definitions section that defines terms used in the Electoral Act. It defines 'voter' to mean a South African citizen who is 18 years old or older whose name appears on the voters' roll, but this definition appears in statute (the Electoral Act), not in the constitution. The criterion requires that minimum age and residency requirements be set in the CONSTITUTION rather than statute alone. This section does not address constitutional provisions; it merely operationalizes statutory definitions.

Section 8(2) codifies disqualification criteria in statute, including mental incompetence (subsections c and d), satisfying the first element of the criterion. However, the section provides no statutorily-defined restoration procedure—there is no mechanism by which a disqualified person can regain voting rights after the disqualifying condition changes (e.g., recovery from mental disorder, release from mental health detention). The duration of disqualification and pathways to restoration are absent from this statutory text.

No matching sections in corpus.

Section 38(2)(a) explicitly requires production of an identity document as a condition of voting entitlement, and this requirement is set directly in statute rather than delegated to regulation or administrative discretion. The identity verification procedure is detailed in subsections (3)–(5), establishing a clear statutory framework.

The statute sets a baseline requirement (identity document), but crucially delegates the detailed enumeration of acceptable ID forms to the Minister of Home Affairs by Gazette notice, which is administrative discretion rather than statutory enumeration. While section 6(1) references 'an identity document' as the core requirement, section 6(2) permits the Minister to define the form and parameters of temporary certificates through administrative notice, leaving the exhaustive enumeration outside the statute itself.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 6 establishes who may apply for registration as a voter and what identity documents are acceptable for registration purposes, but it does not address or define any cure procedure for a voter who arrives at the polling place without ID. The criterion asks specifically about at-polls cure procedures (provisional ballots, affidavits, return-with-ID options, signature match procedures), which this registration section does not contemplate or enumerate. No statutorily-defined cure mechanism is present in this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 48–50 of the Electoral Act establish procedures for objecting to irregularities in ballot sorting and vote counting, with appeals to the Commission. However, these provisions address ballot disputes and counting accuracy, not voter identification rejection or provisional ballot procedures due to ID issues. The criterion specifically requires a codified appeal procedure for rejected ID or ID-related provisional ballot rejection. This section contains no reference to identification requirements, ID rejection, or the cure/appeal mechanism for voters whose ballots are rejected on ID grounds. The statutory procedure for ID appeal is not present in this extract.

Section 26-27 establishes a statutory requirement that parties must be registered and must submit candidate lists by a deadline 'stated in the election timetable'—the timetable itself is a statutorily mandated document (referenced in section 24(2) and section 14(2)(A)). The registration requirement and submission deadline are set by statute, not left to administrative discretion, though the specific date is referenced by reference to the timetable rather than hardcoded in the statute itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11 addresses post-registration amendments and deregistration by the chief electoral officer, not the enumeration of voter registration methods themselves. The section grants discretionary power to the officer to change or deregister voters when 'satisfied' certain conditions are met, but contains no enumeration of how voters initially register (in-person, mail, online, etc.). The procedural criterion requires statutory enumeration of available registration methods; this section provides neither enumeration nor reference to such methods.

Section 12 requires notification and reasons for refusal, which is a procedural safeguard. However, the section does not define a cure procedure—it mandates only that the applicant be told why their registration was rejected. There is no mention of an opportunity to correct deficiencies, reapply, or appeal the rejection. The procedural clarity criterion requires both enumeration of requirements AND a defined cure path when a voter fails to meet them; notification alone does not constitute a cure procedure.

Section 15(1) explicitly codifies in statute the right of any person to object to exclusion from, inclusion in, or correction of details on the voters' roll. Section 15(3) mandates that the Commission must decide the objection and notify relevant parties within 14 days, establishing a defined procedural framework. While section 15(5) restricts appeal rights to those under the Electoral Commission Act, the core statutory right to challenge rejection or removal is clearly enumerated and grounded in the Electoral Act itself.

The statute establishes a clear procedure for voluntary deregistration initiated by the voter and mandates removal upon application. However, the section does not address involuntary removal criteria such as death, change of address, or inactivity—it covers only applicant-initiated deregistration. The phrase 'in the prescribed manner' delegates procedural details to regulation. The criterion asks about removal criteria generally, which are only partially addressed here (voluntary removal only).

Section 15 provides a statutory objection mechanism through which voters can challenge their exclusion from the roll, but it does not establish a pre-purge notice-and-opportunity-to-cure procedure initiated by the electoral authority before removal occurs. The section addresses post-hoc objections to exclusions already made, not advance notice to a voter about imminent removal with time to correct their registration before deletion. The criterion requires that the voter receive notice and cure opportunity before removal; this section only guarantees a remedy after exclusion has occurred.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 23 addresses the procedural requirements for conducting a revote when ballot papers are lost, destroyed, or unlawfully removed—a voting-station-level operational matter. It contains no provisions regarding voter-registry data security, encryption, breach notification, access logs, or any aspect of voter-data protection. The criterion evaluates whether data-security safeguards for the voter roll itself are codified in statute; this section is entirely outside that scope.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies who may assist (subsection 2) and requires voter request (subsection 2(b)), but it does NOT grant voters the right to choose their own assistant. The presiding officer retains discretion to approve or withhold approval based on whether they are 'satisfied' the assistant is 18—a subjective standard with no enumerated alternative assistants, no cure mechanism if approval is denied, and no appeal path. The criterion requires both the right to assistance AND clear rules for who may assist; this section provides rules but not the unfettered right to choose.

Section 39(1) codifies in statute a mandatory assistance procedure for voters unable to read, specifying who may provide assistance (presiding or voting officer) and requiring supervision by named parties (accredited observers and agents from different parties). Subsection (3) explicitly requires preservation of voting secrecy. The procedure is enumerated and clear, with witness protections built in.

The statute mandates that voting hours must be prescribed, but delegates the actual setting of those hours to the Commission (an administrative body), not to the statute itself. Section 36(1) requires prescription by a deadline, and s.36(2) permits the Commission discretion to vary hours by station. The statute sets a procedural requirement for administrative action, not the hours themselves. This fails the criterion's core requirement that hours be 'set by statute' rather than administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes eligibility categories for special votes in statute (subsection 1a), which is good procedural grounding. However, subsection 2 delegates the critical procedural elements—application procedure, casting, and counting—entirely to administrative prescription by the Commission rather than enumerating them in statute. This fails the statutory-enumeration requirement: a voter cannot know from the statute alone what steps to follow, what documents to submit, or how votes will be counted. While eligibility is statutorily anchored, the operational mechanics are left to administrative discretion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 33 addresses special votes (mail/remote voting for persons unable to attend polling stations due to disability, government service, etc.), not provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are a distinct procedure typically used when a voter's registration status is disputed at the polling place. The statute grants the Commission authority to 'prescribe' the procedure for special votes, delegating procedural details to administrative regulation rather than enumerating them in statute. The section does not address provisional ballot rights or adjudication procedures at all.