EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Article 97 of the Código Eleitoral explicitly enumerates three categories of parties with standing to contest candidate registration: (1) candidates ('candidato'), (2) political parties ('partido político'), and (3) any elector ('qualquer eleitor'). The statute further specifies that electors must present proof of alleged grounds (ineligibility or incompatibility). This enumeration provides clear, statutory codification of who may challenge registration, satisfying the procedural clarity requirement for contest standing.

Article 57 of the Brazilian Electoral Code establishes clear statutory jurisdiction for electoral disputes concerning voter registration transfer requests. The statute explicitly designates the 'juiz eleitoral' (electoral judge) as the court of original jurisdiction to decide transfer requests, with detailed procedural timelines (10-day objection period, 5-day publication of decision). Appeals are clearly routed to the 'Tribunal Regional Eleitoral' (Regional Electoral Court) within a 3-day deadline, with a 5-day decision window. The venue and jurisdiction are specified by statute rather than left to discretion, satisfying the criterion for venue and jurisdiction specification.

Article 93 addresses candidate registration deadlines and timelines for judgment of registration challenges (up to 20 days before election day), but does not specify a filing deadline for general election contests after certification. The statute establishes when challenges to candidate registrations must be resolved, not when contests to election results must be filed. The criterion asks for a deadline for filing an election contest (recount/contest of results), typically measured from certification or a defined event. This section codifies procedural timelines for the registration phase, not the post-election dispute resolution phase. While procedurally clear on registration challenges, it does not address the statutory deadline for filing election contests proper, which would be the primary mechanism for disputing actual election results.

Article 97 of the Brazilian Electoral Code establishes a procedural framework for candidate registration challenges with codified standing (candidates, parties, any voter) and a statutory 2-day filing deadline. § 3 requires that electoral challengers offer 'prova do alegado' (proof of allegations), which establishes a basic requirement to present evidence. However, the statute does not codify a specific standard of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt) nor does it articulate evidentiary rules governing admissibility, weight, procedure, or the burden of proof. The provision requires evidence but leaves substantive evidentiary standards and procedures to judicial discretion. This satisfies the requirement for a standard to be 'set' (scoring 1) but falls short of the full 2-point threshold, which requires both a standard AND articulated evidentiary rules.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 181 establishes that vote recounts may only be granted by Regional Electoral Courts in appeals filed immediately after each ballot box count. This provides a procedural mechanism (petition-based via appeal) and timing constraint (immediately after appraisal). However, the statute does not enumerate specific triggers for when a recount must or may be granted—it does not codify margin thresholds, categories of sworn challenges, or other substantive conditions that would activate recount rights. The phrase 'salvo nos casos mencionados nos artigos anteriores' (except in cases mentioned in previous articles) suggests triggers exist elsewhere in the Code, but this excerpt alone does not enumerate them. The provision clarifies venue and procedural form but not the enumerated grounds.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute sets a 10-day deadline for transmitting certification documents (diplomas and records) to the superior court AFTER diplomation occurs. This establishes a procedural timeline for submission of materials. However, the section does not explicitly define when the result becomes 'official' or 'certified'—it addresses when diplomas are issued and reports transmitted, but does not clarify whether certification is complete upon diploma issuance, upon transmission, or upon superior court receipt/approval. The criterion requires a clear statutory deadline for when results are final/official. The 10-day rule is codified but applies to post-diplomation reporting rather than defining the certification moment itself. There is some procedural clarity, but ambiguity remains about the exact point at which certification becomes final.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses sanctions (registration cassation or diploma revocation) for violation of campaign finance or conduct rules, not certification timing or stay mechanisms. It does not establish or reference any procedure to stay certification pending a recount or election contest. The provision concerns post-election remedies through cassation rather than pre-certification procedural stays. To satisfy TIME.2, the statute must codify a mechanism that explicitly delays or stays certification while disputes are pending; this section does neither.