Binding force

The section establishes that when the Federal Election Authority (Bundeswahlbehörde) reviews numerical findings and determines they are incorrect, it must immediately correct the result, revoke the prior announcements, and publish the correct result. This mandatory language ('hat...zu') makes audit findings legally binding and directly binding on the final certified result.

“Ergibt sich aus diesen Schriftstücken die Unrichtigkeit der Ermittlung, so hat die Bundeswahlbehörde sofort das Ergebnis der betroffenen Ermittlungen richtigzustellen, die Verlautbarung der Landeswahlbehörde und der Bundeswahlbehörde zu widerrufen und das richtige Ergebnis zu verlautbaren.”

Cal. Elec. Code § 19270(a) makes VVPAT certification non-negotiable for any DRE system — the paper audit trail is therefore the official record under § 19273(b) (not in this datapoint's FTS results, but referenced). The RLA outcome under § 19204.5 is binding on the certified result, making audit findings legally enforceable.

The section establishes that the Standing Committee or Presidium of the People's Congress makes final determinations regarding representative qualification and election validity based on the Credentials Review Committee's report, and these determinations result in either confirmation of credentials or declaration of election invalidity. This demonstrates binding legal force on the final certified result.

The statute explicitly mandates that manual audit results (paper record tallies) shall be used as 'the official record for purposes of declaring the official election results' when they do not reconcile with electronic tabulations. This makes audit findings legally binding on the final certified result.

“If the manual tabulation of such contemporaneously produced paper records does not reconcile with the electronic vote tabulation of a particular direct recording electronic voting tabulator or tabulators, such contemporaneously produced paper records shall be considered the true and correct record of each elector's vote on such electronic voting tabulator or tabulators and shall be used as the official record for purposes of declaring the official election results”

§ 89 codifies that 'if Folketinget decides that voting in a constituency is invalid, candidates' election in the storkreds is postponed.' § 87 codifies Folketinget's authority to approve the election validity, including reviewing Ministry calculations. § 12 codifies new-party deadline. § 13 codifies party-name approval. § 37 codifies candidate notification deadline. Folketinget's decisions on validity are binding on certification.

§ 94 codifies that the constituency election committee confirms (vahvistaa) the parliamentary-election result on the 3rd day after election day. § 95 codifies parallel for municipal elections. § 179 codifies presidential-election confirmation by the Helsinki constituency committee. The confirmed check-count result is binding — § 100 codifies that appeal lies only against the decision confirming the result. Binding-force framework codified.

§ 21-2-498 codifies that the precertification audit is 'completed prior to final certification of the contest' — making the audit findings necessarily binding on the certified outcome via the State Election Board's implementing rules.

“Complete the audit prior to final certification of the contest;”

§ 204C.33 codifies that the county canvassing board 'must meet… following the state general election' and certify results. § 204C.28 codifies election-night returns processing. § 206.88 codifies that recount results 'must be reported to the appropriate canvassing board' and certified. § 204D.07 codifies ballot placement. Canvass + recount results binding on certification codified.

The audit feeds the official result — § 13-17-506 has the county audit committee certify the audit results to the election administrator and secretary of state, and § 13-17-507(1) makes it binding: where the audit and machine totals disagree, the random-sample audit results 'must serve as the definitive record for purposes of the canvass'.

“the county audit committee shall certify the results to the county election administrator and the secretary of state”

§ 9-211(2) codifies that 'if upon the completion of [the] additional audit the criteria are met for the results of the audit to replace the canvass then the board of canvassers shall forthwith reconvene and adjust the canvass as required.' § 9-211(3) codifies discrepancy-triggered escalation. Audit is binding.

“if upon the completion of such additional audit the criteria are met for the results of the audit to replace the canvass then the board of canvassers shall forthwith reconvene and adjust the canvass as required.”

§ 16.1-15-09 codifies that election officers shall generate reports of votes cast/counted by voting systems for all candidates and measures; printed records (zero-state + end-state) must be certified by inspector + judges. § 16.1-15-22 codifies certified abstract transmittal. § 16.1-15-44 codifies Secretary of State recording of statement. § 16.1-16-01 makes recount results binding on certification. Comprehensive binding-force framework.

§ 10-4 codifies that the election board has authority to approve ballots from valid votes placed in ballot envelopes and to decide on doubtful ballots — board decisions are binding on the canvass. § 16-11 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies the National Election Board's authority to declare an election invalid where rule breaches affected mandate distribution. The dual-count results bind the canvass under § 10-11(5).

The statute explicitly provides that when a risk-limiting audit results in a full manual tally, those manual vote counts shall replace the previously reported vote counts for purposes of determining official contest results. This language directly establishes that audit results (when a full manual tally occurs) are legally binding and override the initial machine tabulation.

“If a risk-limiting audit of a contest leads to a full manual tally of the ballots cast using the voting system, the vote counts according to that manual tally shall replace the vote counts reported pursuant to §§ 17-19-36 and 17-19-37 for the purpose of determining the official contest results pursuant to §§ 17-22-5.2 and 17-22-6 .”

§ 12-20-40 codifies that the county auditor shall make out a certificate of election to each person with highest votes. § 12-21-47 codifies certiorari review of recount determination. § 12-17B-13 codifies that final tabulating returns are 'presented to the canvassing board for review and certification as the official returns.' § 13-1 codifies binding certification chain. Recount/canvass binding on certification codified.

14 kap. 1 § codifies that 'the central election authority shall, on the basis of the final vote count, distribute mandates… and establish which candidates have been elected.' Mandate distribution flows directly from the recount-binding final count under 13 kap. 1 §. 14 kap. 13 § codifies application to other elections. 15 kap. 5 § codifies appeals procedure. Recount results binding on certification.

The statute explicitly states that amended abstracts resulting from a recount canvass supersede prior abstracts, making the recount audit results legally binding on the final certified result. This language directly establishes that audit results have binding legal force over the original election results.

“An amended abstract certified under this section supersedes any prior abstract of the results for the same offices or issues at the same primary or election.”

§ 5.05 grants the elections commission authority to certify results — the audit/recount findings are binding because they alter the certified canvass per § 9.01. § 7.08 enumerates commission duties including issuance of certificates.

§ 101.591 requires the audit to be performed but the binding force of audit findings is implicit through the canvassing-board certification — not explicit invalidation triggers.

“conduct a manual audit or an automated, independent audit of the voting systems used”

Constitution Article 60 grants the Constitutional Court authority over election disputes. Election Code Article 76 codifies CEC summarisation as the binding act for certification. No formal audit exists, but the certified canvass + recount findings are binding.

KRS 120.157(7) gives the automatic recount binding force on certification: 'no certificate of election shall be issued by the State Board of Elections while the recount is pending,' and the certified recount result determines the certificate of election. The hand-to-eye audit under KRS 117.383(8), however, escalates a discrepancy to an investigation rather than directly amending the result, so audit binding force is only partially codified.

Article 60 establishes binding nature of audit findings on commission financial accountability. Article 77 (cancellation of decision on voting results) makes audit/violation findings binding on the certified result — the commission may cancel results upon discovered violations. Findings are statutorily binding.

§ 127.302 codifies the risk-limiting audit, and § 129.003(c)-(d) (cross-referenced) makes its findings determinative of the official record: the electronic vote is the official record only if the RLA produces strong evidence that the reported outcome matches a full count of the paper records, and the paper record becomes the official record if the RLA fails. The surfaced section codifies the audit itself; binding force on certification is established by the cross-referenced § 129.003.

Art. IV-289 codifies supplementary-election procedure when precinct results are invalidated. Art. I-35 codifies commission legal-personality. CEC protocols are binding — codified throughout Books II-IV, with results becoming official upon CEC promulgation (Art. III-187 / IV-282).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the filling of vacancies on boards of registrars by appointment authority. It contains no language regarding post-election audits, audit results, or the binding force of any audit findings on certified election results. The section is entirely procedural regarding registrar board composition and is unrelated to the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the procedures for certifying, auditing, and paying election expenses (costs and administrative matters), not the legal force or binding nature of post-election audit results on certified election outcomes. It does not address whether audit findings must be applied to modify or affirm final certified results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the procedural steps for conducting the definitive ballot count (escrutinio definitivo) by the National Electoral Board, including verification checks and arithmetic operations on reported results. However, it does not address whether audit results are legally binding on the final certified result—it is silent on the legal force or binding status of audit findings. The section governs how the count is performed, not the binding status of audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses campaign finance enforcement procedures and investigation authority. It does not address post-election audits or whether audit results are binding on certified election results. The section is about enforcement of campaign finance violations, not election audits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the appropriation and transfer of funds for election expenses and operations. It does not address post-election audits, audit procedures, or the legal binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section is entirely fiscal in nature and is therefore irrelevant to the criterion.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 178 addresses the procedural treatment of candidates who die before, during, or after election day, and the succession of alternates to fill vacant seats. It does not concern post-election audit procedures, audit results, or the binding force of audits on certified election results. This section is entirely outside the scope of criterion 3.5.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the retention of campaign account documentation by candidates and parties for 180 days after diplomation. It does not concern audit results, their legal force, or binding effect on certified election results. The criterion requires binding force of audit results on final certified results, which is outside the scope of this provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 161 of the Bulgarian Election Code addresses candidate leave entitlements during campaign periods. It is entirely unrelated to post-election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section does not address audit procedures, audit binding authority, or certification of election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the administrative reimbursement of audit expenses up to a maximum amount, not whether audit results are legally binding on certified election results. It describes payment procedures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but contains no provisions regarding the legal force or binding nature of audit findings on final certified results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains statutory definitions for election-related terms. It does not address audit procedures, audit results, certification processes, or the legal binding force of audits on final certified election results. The section is definitional in nature and does not engage with the substantive question of whether audit outcomes are legally binding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 73 contains only a heading indicating the section was deleted ('Brisan') and does not contain substantive provisions regarding audit results or their binding force on certified election results. The section does not address the criterion at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the announcement and publication of presidential election results by the State Election Commission, not post-election audits or their binding force. It describes procedural requirements for declaring election outcomes after the first round but contains no provisions regarding audit procedures, audit results, or the legal bindingness of audit findings.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the Governor's certification and proclamation of election results based on county returns, but it does not discuss post-election audits or their binding force on certified results. The statute concerns the initial certification process, not audit procedures or audit bindingness.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaced party-finance and constitutional-procedure sections; none codifies whether the electronic-voting integrity audit is legally binding on the certified result. (§ 59¹(9), surfaced elsewhere, conditions signing of the e-voting result on integrity verification but stops short of a codified audit-binding rule.)

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses incompatibility rules for elected deputies who hold multiple mandates simultaneously — it requires them to resign from one mandate within 30 days of election proclamation. It has no relevance to post-election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidate alliances (kandidatforbund) for independent candidates in electoral registration. It contains no provisions regarding audit procedures, audit results, or binding force of audits on certified election results. The section is entirely unrelated to post-election audit requirements.

The statute requires that certification be based on a comparison and reconciliation that includes audit results, but does not explicitly state that audit results are legally binding on or must override the final certified result. The language indicates audits are part of the reconciliation process for certification, but stops short of making audit results independently binding or capable of superseding other tabulation methods.

“The certification shall be based on a comparison and reconciliation of the following: (1) The results of the canvass of ballots conducted pursuant to chapter 16; (2) The audit of records and resultant overage and underage report; (3) The audit results of the manual audit team; (4) The results of any mandatory recount of votes conducted pursuant to section 11-158; and (5) All logs, tally sheets, and other documents generated during the election and in the canvass of the election results.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the nomination and candidacy qualifications for delegates to a constitutional convention, including petition requirements, candidate declarations, and certification procedures. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section is entirely about pre-election nomination processes, not audit procedures or their legal effect.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/9-13 governs campaign-finance audits (Board ordering political-committee audits), not the binding force of election audits/recounts.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section provides only a definitional statement of what constitutes a 'post-election audit' in terms of its statistical methodology and design objectives. It does not address whether audit results are binding on the final certified election result or establish any legal requirement that audit findings must override or correct preliminary outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 43.24 addresses the objection process for nomination petitions and certificates of nomination prior to elections. It does not concern post-election audits, audit results, or the binding force of audit findings on certified election results. This section is entirely about pre-election nomination validity challenges, not post-election audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 122 addresses the exclusion and transfer of votes during the counting/tabulation process in a proportional representation election. It has no bearing on post-election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified outcomes. This section is procedurally about vote transfers, not electoral audits.

The statute states that audit results 'shall be used' by the canvassers when certifying official results, which suggests the audit informs the certification process. However, the language does not establish that audit results are legally binding on the final certified result—the canvassers retain discretion in how they 'use' the results, and the statute does not mandate that discrepancies discovered in the audit must be resolved in favor of the audit or that the audit result overrides the election night returns. The provision only requires additional audits if discrepancies 'cannot be resolved,' leaving ambiguity about the ultimate binding authority.

“the results of the audit shall be used by the county board of canvassers when certifying the official election results”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 58 addresses the structure, election, and duties of Parliament Chamber chairpersons. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit procedures, or the legal binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. This section is unrelated to the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Lithuania has no codified post-election vote audit, so there is no audit-binding-on-result rule; § 25 governs publication of the (binding) party-finance audit.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18:59.4 establishes a voter registration administrator certification program and specifies educational requirements, professional standards, and compensation incentives for registrars of voters and related personnel. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit results, or the legal binding force of any audit findings on certified election results. The section addresses personnel certification, not audit procedures or their enforceability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 308 describes the counting procedures and public proclamation of results at individual polling stations, but does not address whether audit results are legally binding on final certified results. The section deals with tabulation and reporting of votes, not post-election audit procedures or their legal effect on certification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 191-192 addresses the process for provisional and final result publication by the electoral commission and competent jurisdiction, and procedures for document verification in case of destruction. The sections do not address post-election audits or whether audit results are binding on certified final results. The criterion concerns audit binding force, which is a distinct procedural safeguard not covered in this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the commission's power to conduct investigations and audits, including subpoena authority and confidentiality rules, but does not address whether audit results are binding on final certified election results. The section focuses on procedural mechanisms for investigations, not on the legal effect of audit findings on certified results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 52 of Malta's General Elections Act addresses candidate nomination deposits and vote forfeiture rules. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit procedures, audit results, or the binding force of any audit findings on certified election results. This section is entirely unrelated to the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute explicitly states that audit results 'may not have any effect on the certified election results,' meaning they are not legally binding on the final certified result. The audit is described as being 'used to improve the voting system and voting process for future elections,' establishing it as a quality assurance mechanism rather than a mechanism that can alter or overturn certified results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses nomination paper filing deadlines, political party membership requirements, and term limits for candidates. It contains no provisions related to post-election audits, audit results, or the binding force of audit findings on election certification.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute explicitly states that election audits do not change any certified election results. This directly contradicts the requirement that audit results be legally binding on the final certified result. The audit is informational and supervisory in nature, not a mechanism that can alter official election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the transmission and tabulation of election returns by county commissioners and the Secretary of State, establishing that certified county vote totals represent the final results. However, it contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit procedures, or the binding force of any audit results on certified election outcomes. The criterion asks about audit results specifically, which this section does not address.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the jurisdiction of Missouri's Supreme Court to hear contested elections for state offices and constitutional matters. It does not address post-election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section is about election dispute resolution procedures, not audit requirements or their legal effect.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section outlines the Central Electoral Commission's tasks in supervising and controlling political party and election campaign financing. It does not address whether audit results are legally binding on the final certified election result. The section concerns financial oversight and reporting mechanisms, not the legal effect of audits on election certification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section describes the board of state canvassers' duty to canvass votes, which is characterized as ministerial in nature. However, it does not address whether audit results are binding on final certified results, nor does it establish any audit procedures or legal consequences for audit findings. The section governs vote canvassing, not post-election audits.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section requires collection and reporting of audit procedures and results (subsection 1(f)), but it does not establish that audit results are legally binding on certified election results. The statute merely mandates that county clerks report audit results to the Secretary of State, who then compiles them into a legislative report. There is no provision stating that audits can override or modify certified results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute describes an audit procedure that requires comparison of results and reporting of findings, but contains no language establishing that audit results are legally binding on the final certified result. The provision allows the secretary of state to expand sampling or order a full hand recount in cases of 'significant differences,' but does not specify that audit findings modify or override the certified election result.

The section specifies that voter-verified paper records become the official tally in a recount, which establishes binding force for recounts. However, the criterion asks about audit results generally, and this statute addresses only recounts, not broader post-election audits. The section does not establish a general binding audit mechanism beyond the recount context.

“In the event of a recount of the results of an election, the voter-verified paper record shall be the official tally in that election.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses ballot ordering requirements for elections and contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit results, or the legal binding force of audit findings on certified election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses criminal penalties, reporting duties, and prosecution procedures for campaign finance violations under North Carolina election law. It does not address post-election audits or whether audit results are binding on certified election results. The section is entirely outside the scope of the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

The section describes an audit process and indicates that if audit results show the canvassed results must be amended, the board should amend them, but the text is truncated before completing the board's obligation. The section does not clearly establish that audit results are automatically binding or that they mandate certification changes; rather, it appears discretionary or conditional based on what 'results indicate.'

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the use of public property for political purposes and equal access to facilities. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit procedures, or the binding effect of audit results on certified election outcomes. The section is entirely outside the scope of election auditing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only definitional provisions for terms used in ORS Chapter 251, such as 'candidate,' 'city office,' 'county clerk,' 'elector,' and 'measure.' It does not address post-election audits, audit results, or the binding force of audit findings on certified election results. The section is entirely inapplicable to the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1635 establishes an audit function that produces findings reported to the Secretary of the Commonwealth and Attorney General, but it does not establish that audit results are legally binding on the final certified result. The statute describes audit procedures, reporting requirements, and the ability to initiate criminal prosecutions, but contains no language making audit findings modify, override, or legally bind the certification of election results.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 56 of the Polish Constitution addresses asylum rights and refugee status for foreigners. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit results, or their binding force on certified election results. This section is entirely unrelated to election integrity or audit procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 109.º addresses the proclamation and publication of general counting results by the Constitutional Court president, but does not address audit procedures or the binding force of audit results on the final certified result. The section is about result publication timelines, not post-election audit mechanisms or their legal enforceability.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses military service obligations for Romanian citizens and has no connection to election audits or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes. The criterion concerns post-election audit procedures in an electoral context, which is entirely absent from this constitutional provision on national defense.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 101 governs MP mandate confirmation procedure (meta) — not binding force of any audit.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes the role and responsibilities of the State Election Commission's executive director, including supervisory duties over county boards and voter registration processes. It does not address post-election audits or whether audit results are binding on certified election results. The section focuses on administrative organization and pre- and post-election voter file management, not audit authority or binding force.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This article addresses the Central Electoral Board's responsibilities for vote counting, seat allocation, and proclamation of elected representatives, but does not discuss audit procedures or whether audit results are binding on certified election results. The section concerns post-election procedural steps rather than audit mechanisms or their legal binding force.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes procedures for conducting audits of campaign finance reports and statements filed with the registry of election finance. It does not address whether audit results are binding on final certified election results; rather, it concerns compliance audits of candidate financial disclosures. The section discusses audit procedures, penalties for non-compliance, and posting of findings, but contains no language making audit results legally binding on the certification of election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 2820 Article 74 governs Constitutional Court audit of PARTY FINANCES, not election-result audit binding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 160 of PPERA 2000 is a definitional section that provides interpretative rules and definitions for terms used throughout the Act. It contains no provisions concerning audit results, their legal binding force, certification procedures, or the finality of election results. The section is entirely procedural and lexical in nature.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses enforcement procedures for violations of campaign finance and election laws, including complaint filing, investigations, conciliation, and penalties. It does not address post-election audits or whether audit results are binding on final certified election results. The section is focused on administrative and judicial enforcement of federal election law violations, not audit procedures or their legal effect on certification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses criminal convictions and forfeiture of office for violations of Utah's election law, not post-election audits or audit results. It contains no language regarding audit procedures, audit findings, or the binding force of audit results on certified election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2103 is the definitions section. The post-election audit (§ 2493) refers possible fraud to the Attorney General rather than directly amending the certified result; recount findings, by contrast, are binding under § 2686.

The statute describes the mechanics of risk-limiting audits and what happens if a full hand count is triggered (it 'determines the outcome'), but it does not explicitly state that audit results are legally binding on the final certified election result or that they override the initial reported outcome. The section prescribes the audit process and mentions that a full hand count 'determines' the outcome, but stops short of establishing a clear legal mandate that binds the certification to the audit result.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses candidate certification and public campaign financing eligibility procedures for West Virginia judicial elections. It does not discuss post-election audits, audit results, or their binding force on certified election results. The section is entirely focused on certifying candidates as eligible for public financing, not on auditing election outcomes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section prescribes the order in which offices must appear on partisan election ballots. It contains no provisions regarding post-election audits, audit results, or their binding force on certified election results. The section is about ballot design and layout, not audit procedures or their legal effect.