EVCIElection Voter-Confidence Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the physical posting of sample ballots at polling places, not the publication of a comprehensive voter pamphlet with candidate and ballot-question information. The statute requires posting of sample ballots but does not establish: (1) a statutory requirement to publish a voter pamphlet or analog document, (2) content requirements for candidate information, (3) content requirements for ballot-question information, or (4) distribution mechanisms beyond posting at polling locations. While sample ballots may contain some information, this section does not codify a pamphlet-based voter information framework with defined content and distribution requirements as contemplated by the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute requires that an affidavit of qualifications be filed with the secretary of state as a condition for ballot access, establishing a procedural requirement for candidate-filing documentation. However, the statute does not explicitly codify public accessibility of these filing documents or define a specific time frame within which they must be made publicly available. While the statute describes what must be filed (affidavit of qualifications) and with whom (secretary of state), it does not address the public disclosure or accessibility dimension that the criterion requires. The statute satisfies part of CAND.1 by establishing filing requirements but fails to satisfy the public access and defined timing components.

“The secretary of state shall not print upon the primary ballot of any party the name of any person unless there is filed with him such an affidavit at the time his candidacy is filed.”

The statute codifies a procedure for handling candidate withdrawal (paragraph VI), specifying that pledged delegates are released and become free to support other candidates. However, the section does not establish a public-notice procedure for informing voters about the withdrawal or disqualification. The statute addresses internal delegate management following withdrawal but does not require notification to the public, ballot correction procedures, or voter communication mechanisms. The criterion asks whether public-notice procedures are codified; this section addresses delegate release procedures only. Under the dual-scholar test, one scholar would note the codification of withdrawal consequences for delegates (partial satisfaction), while another would emphasize the complete absence of public-notice or voter-communication requirements (non-satisfaction).

“If a presidential candidate has received a share of the delegates as a result of the presidential primary but withdraws as a presidential candidate at any time prior to the convention, his pledged delegates shall be released by the candidate and each delegate is free to support any candidate of his political party who may be his choice as a candidate for president.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 652:25 addresses notice requirements for photo identification requirements only, not for notifying voters of upcoming election dates, polling places, or registration deadlines. While the statute does codify timing (14 days prior to election) and designates content (photo ID requirements), it does not satisfy NOTIF.1, which specifically requires notification of election dates, polling places, and registration deadlines. This section is narrowly tailored to voter identification procedures and does not encompass the broader pre-election notification framework the criterion evaluates.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This statute addresses internal administrative notification between the city clerk and supervisors of the checklist when a voter changes registration between wards within a city. It requires the clerk to notify supervisors of the proper polling place, but it does not establish a requirement to provide individual notice to the voter themselves regarding their polling place change, nor does it specify a timeframe for providing such voter notice. The criterion requires statutory notice requirements to voters within a defined timeframe when polling places change between elections. This section satisfies neither element: it does not mandate individual voter notification of polling place changes, and it contains no defined timeframe for notifying voters (only supervisors). The dual-scholar test would conclude that this section fails to codify the procedural clarity required by NOTIF.2.