Standing enumerated

Section 355(c) explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest an election: (1) a candidate at the election in dispute; (2) a person qualified to vote at the election; and (3) for Senate appointments under the Constitution, a person qualified to vote at Senate elections in the relevant State or Territory. The statute provides clear, closed categories of who may file a petition disputing an election or return. This satisfies the requirement that standing categories be enumerated in statute rather than left to discretionary judicial determination.

“be signed by a candidate at the election in dispute or by a person who was qualified to vote thereat, or, in the case of the choice or the appointment of a person to hold the place of a Senator under section 15 of the Constitution or section 44 of this Act, by a person qualified to vote at Senate elections in the relevant State or Territory at the date of the choice or appointment”

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.

Чл. 306 codifies that the Constitutional Court hears the National Assembly election contest within 2 months; venue + timing. Standing comes from Чл. 305 (in same series).

“Конституционният съд разглежда искането и се произнася в двумесечен срок от постъпването му”

Section 524(1) of the Canada Elections Act explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest an election: (1) any elector who was eligible to vote in the electoral district, and (2) any candidate in the electoral district. The statute clearly and unambiguously identifies these two categories of potential contestants without discretionary or vague language. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement for standing enumeration—the statutory framework makes plain who may bring a contest application, eliminating ambiguity about access to the dispute-resolution mechanism. The grounds for contestation are also specified (ineligibility under section 65, or irregularities, fraud, corrupt or illegal practices affecting the result), further clarifying the scope of available remedies.

“Any elector who was eligible to vote in an electoral district, and any candidate in an electoral district, may, by application to a competent court, contest the election in that electoral district”

Connecticut General Statutes § 9-329a explicitly enumerates standing in subsection (a) by identifying three categories of parties with standing to contest primary elections: (1) any elector or candidate aggrieved by a ruling of an election official, (2) any elector or candidate alleging a mistake in vote count, and (3) any candidate alleging violation of absentee ballot provisions. The statute uses clear categorical language ('Any... may bring his complaint') rather than discretionary or open-ended language. The enumeration is specific and narrow, meeting the EDRI standard for procedural clarity. While this section addresses primaries rather than general elections, it satisfies the criterion of enumerated standing as applied to primary contests.

The statute explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest an election: (1) political parties; (2) persons authorized to represent independent lists; (3) candidates for representatives in Sabor; (4) at least 100 voters; and (5) at least 5% of voters in the electoral unit where the election is conducted. This is a clear, codified enumeration of standing categories that provides procedural clarity and specificity, satisfying the criterion that standing parties must be enumerated in statute.

“Prigovor zbog nepravilnosti u postupku kandidiranja ili u postupku izbora može podnijeti svaka politička stranka, osoba ovlaštena za zastupanje neovisne liste, kandidati za zastupnike u Sabor, najmanje 100 birača ili najmanje 5% birača izborne jedinice u kojoj se provode izbori.”

§ 87 of Czech Law No. 247/1995 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections. For Chamber of Deputies elections, standing is granted to: (1) every citizen registered in the voter list of the electoral district where the deputy was elected, and (2) every electoral party whose candidate list in the electoral region was registered for Chamber of Deputies elections. For Senate elections, standing is granted to: (1) every citizen registered in the voter list of the electoral district where the senator was elected, and (2) every electoral party whose candidate list in the electoral district was registered for Senate elections. The statute also specifies three distinct grounds for contesting: voting nullity, election nullity, and candidate selection nullity, each with enumerated standing requirements. This provides clear, statutory enumeration of eligible contestants rather than discretionary or open-ended standards.

“navrhovatel, jímž je každý občan zapsaný do seznamu voličů ve volebním okrsku, kde byl poslanec volen, a každá volební strana, jejíž kandidátní listina ve volebním kraji byla pro volby do Poslanecké sněmovny zaregistrována”

§ 88 codifies standing: 'every voter can complain about Folketing elections. Complaints shall be addressed to the Folketing and sent to the Minister of the Interior and Health.' § 103 codifies parallel for referendums. § 22 codifies voter-list correction. Comprehensive standing codified — any voter has standing.

“Enhver vælger kan klage over folketingsvalg.”

§ 70 of the Riigikogu Election Act enumerates standing — an individual, a candidate or a political party whose rights are infringed by a contested act (an 'interested person') has the right to file a complaint.

“An individual, a candidate or a political party (hereinafter interested person) who finds that their rights have been infringed by a contested act has the right to file a complaint.”

§ 101 codifies standing: 'the right of appeal belongs to anyone whose interest or right the decision infringes, and to every person who was a candidate and every party and joint list that filed a candidate application, on the ground that the decision is unlawful' — and additionally every eligible voter in the constituency (or, in municipal elections, every member of the municipality) may appeal on the ground that the election was conducted improperly in a way that may have affected the result. § 105 codifies onward-appeal standing. Comprehensive standing enumeration codified.

“Valitusoikeus on sillä, jonka etua tai oikeutta päätös loukkaa, sekä jokaisella vaaleissa ehdokkaana olleella henkilöllä ja ehdokashakemuksen antaneella puolueella ja yhteislistalla sillä perusteella, että päätös on lainvastainen.”

§ 2(2) WahlPrüfG explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to lodge an election contest (Einspruch): (1) every eligible voter (jeder Wahlberechtigte), (2) groups of eligible voters (jede Gruppe von Wahlberechtigten), and (3) in official capacity, the state election directors (Landeswahlleiter), the federal election director (Bundeswahlleiter), and the president of the Bundestag (Präsident des Bundestages). This enumeration is exhaustive and codified in statute, satisfying the criterion for procedural clarity regarding standing.

“Den Einspruch kann jeder Wahlberechtigte, jede Gruppe von Wahlberechtigten und in amtlicher Eigenschaft jeder Landeswahlleiter, der Bundeswahlleiter und der Präsident des Bundestages einlegen.”

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 125 enumerates standing for election contests: every declared-but-not-elected candidate in that district + every elector registered on that district's electoral rolls (limited to grounds in Art 126 para 1.a-b for the latter).

“Ένσταση κατά του κύρους βουλευτικής εκλογής σε ορισμένη εκλογική περιφέρεια, έχει το δικαίωμα ν’ ασκήσει για οποιοδήποτε λόγο ο καθένας που ανακηρύχτηκε υποψήφιος”

§ 56 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest an election: 'any voter and candidate' (Enhver vælger og kandidat). This provides clear, statutory enumeration of who may challenge election validity. The provision is unambiguous and codifies standing without discretionary language. It does not require interpretation of implied categories or rely on case-by-case judicial determination. While the enumeration is narrow (voters and candidates only, excluding parties or public officials as separate categories), it is precisely enumerated in statute, which satisfies the criterion for procedural clarity.

“Enhver vælger og kandidat kan klage over gyldigheden af valget.”

10 ILCS 5/22-9.1 enumerates two standing classes for petitions for discovery / recount: (a) candidates who received ≥95% of the winner's vote total, and (b) any 5 electors on a public-policy question where 5% could flip the result.

“the following persons may file a petition for discovery: (a) any candidate who, in the entire area in which votes may be cast for the office for which he is a candidate, received votes equal in number to at least 95% of the number of votes cast for any successful candidate for the same office; and (b) any 5 electors of the same area within which votes may be cast on a question of public policy”

The statute explicitly enumerates three categories of parties with standing to contest elections: (1) candidates for nomination or election to local or school board office (with narrow exceptions for those receiving the most votes in primary elections and certified deceased candidates); (2) county chairmen of political parties (as secondary filers when eligible candidates do not file within the deadline, limited to partisan races); and (3) voters of the school corporation (as a fallback when no candidate is eligible to contest a school board election). The enumeration is precise and hierarchical, establishing a clear procedural order of who may file and under what conditions. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that standing be enumerated in statute.

KRS 120.055 enumerates standing to contest a primary — any candidate for nomination for whom votes equal to at least 50% of the successful candidate's were cast. KRS 120.155 codifies parallel standing for regular elections (a 25% threshold), and KRS 120.280 grants standing to 'any elector who was qualified to and did vote' on a constitutional amendment or statewide public question. The parties with standing to contest are enumerated by statute.

§ 51 of the Saeima Election Law enumerates standing — the submitter of a list of candidates and a nominated candidate may appeal the Central Election Commission's result-approval decision to court; § 35¹ extends the same standing to contesting the vote-counting report.

“The submitter of the list of candidates and the nominated candidate have the right to appeal to the court”

§ 86 of the Seimas Election Law enumerates standing — parties, candidates, their election representatives and election observers may appeal vote-counting decisions; § 74 of the Referendum Law extends the same to groups, parties and their representatives.

“Parties which have nominated a candidate for Seimas member, candidates for Seimas member, their representatives for elections, election observers may appeal”

La. R.S. 18:1401 enumerates multiple categories of parties with standing to contest elections and related matters: (1) qualified electors objecting to candidacy in primaries (subsection A); (2) qualified electors objecting to unaffiliated candidates in general elections for party primary offices (subsection A(2)); (3) candidates contesting elections for advancement or election (subsection B); (4) persons in interest contesting proposition elections (subsection C); (5) qualified electors objecting to special election calls (subsection D); (6) public officers and designated petition officials contesting recall certification (subsection E); and (7) public officers contesting recall elections (subsection F). The statute does not rely on open-ended discretionary language or judicial determination of standing; instead it explicitly identifies who may bring actions and under what circumstances. This satisfies the criterion that standing be enumerated rather than left to case-by-case judicial interpretation.

Article 202 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections: (1) qualified registered voters who participated in the vote; (2) each candidate; (3) candidate lists; (4) representatives of entities supporting an option; (5) delegates of candidates in the relevant constituency; and (6) national observers. The statute clearly identifies distinct categories of entitled parties and specifies their scope of standing (e.g., voters may challenge conduct in their voting precinct or circumscription where registered; candidates may challenge results of their voting bureau or conditions in their candidacy area). This enumeration satisfies the criterion by providing clear, statutory demarcation of who may initiate dispute procedures.

Article 12 of LGSMIME explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to participate in electoral dispute procedures. The statute identifies three categories of parties: (a) the actor/plaintiff (legitimated party presenting the challenge); (b) the responsible authority or political party that issued the contested act; and (c) interested third parties, specifically enumerated as citizens, political parties, coalitions, candidates, and political organizations. The provision provides both categorical enumeration and a definitional standard (legitimate interest derived from an incompatible right). This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement by naming who may bring or participate in election contests, though the 'legitimate interest' standard adds some discretionary element. The enumeration is sufficiently specific and statutory to meet the binary threshold for standing enumeration.

Article 94(1) of Moldova's Electoral Code explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to lodge appeals: voters, nominees, initiative groups, electoral competitors, referendum participants, and political parties entitled to participate in elections. This enumeration satisfies the criterion because standing is codified in statute with a clear list of categories rather than left to discretionary or case-by-case determination. The statute identifies specific classes of persons authorized to contest electoral decisions.

§ 13-36-101 enumerates standing — any elector with the right to vote for the office may contest a nomination or election — together with the grounds of contest (material law violation, candidate ineligibility, illegal or fraudulently counted votes).

“An elector may contest the right of any person to any nomination or election to public office for which the elector has the right to vote”

The statute explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections in this jurisdiction (BES islands). It identifies two categories: (1) 'belanghebbende' (interested parties) and (2) 'iedere kiezer' (every voter/elector). This enumeration is clear and codified in statute. The provision further narrows standing by specifying that it applies only to decisions on candidate lists meeting certain criteria (articles I 4, S 2, Y 2). The reference to applicable provisions in articles I 7, I 8, and Ya 42 reinforces the statutory framework for contest procedures. While the term 'belanghebbende' requires interpretation in context, the statute does enumerate the classes of persons with standing rather than leaving it to judicial discretion. This satisfies the EDRI criterion that standing categories be enumerated in statute, even if the definition of 'interested party' may have some contextual bounds.

“door een belanghebbende en iedere kiezer uitsluitend beroep worden ingesteld bij het Gemeenschappelijk Hof”

§ 16.1-16-02 codifies standing: 'A defeated candidate or ten qualified electors may contest the nomination or election of any person or the approval or rejection of any question or proposition.' Explicit standing enumeration codified.

“A defeated candidate or ten qualified electors may contest the nomination or election of any person or the approval or rejection of any question or proposition submitted to a vote of the electorate”

§ 16-5 codifies standing to complain about election validity. § 16-2 / § 16-3 codify standing for Storting and county-election preparation/conduct complaints (any voter with voting right in the district, candidate-list affiliated parties, etc.). § 16-10 codifies the National Election Board's procedure to dismiss or accept complaints. Comprehensive standing-enumeration codified.

ORC 3515.08(A) names the categories with standing to contest (qualified electors of the state or political subdivision); § 3515.09 narrows to at-least-25 voters who voted in the election OR the defeated candidate. Both ends of the standing rule codified.

“may be contested by qualified electors of the state or a political subdivision”

Article 82 of the Polish Electoral Code explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to challenge election validity. Standing is granted to: (1) voters registered in the voter list on election day in any precinct (§2, §3, §4 with precinct-specific limitations by electoral district); (2) the chair of the competent electoral commission; and (3) an electoral proxy (§5). The statute clearly defines who may file protests and distinguishes between different types of contests (general election validity, district validity, individual candidate election) with corresponding standing requirements. This represents a precise, statutory enumeration of standing categories rather than discretionary or vague criteria.

Article 117.º, paragraph 2 of Lei n.º 14/79 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest election irregularities in contentious appeal: (1) the person who presented the claim or protest; (2) candidates; (3) their representatives (mandatários); and (4) political parties that compete in the electoral district (círculo). This enumeration is clear and specific, leaving no discretion regarding who may file a contentious appeal. The statute directly answers which actors may appeal decisions on claims and protests arising from voting and vote-counting irregularities.

“Da decisão sobre a reclamação ou protesto podem recorrer, além do apresentante da reclamação, de protesto ou do contraprotesto, os candidatos, os seus mandatários e os partidos políticos que, no círculo, concorrem à eleição.”

Art. 59 codifies standing for candidacy acceptance/rejection contestation: voting citizens, political parties, political alliances, electoral alliances, and national-minority organizations may contest within 48 hours.

“poate fi contestată de către cetățenii cu drept de vot, partidele politice, alianțele politice, alianțele electorale”

MP Election Law Article 97 codifies standing: an appeal against any Republic Election Commission decision on a complaint may be filed with the Supreme Court of Serbia. Article 55 of the Local Elections Law (4622) parallels at the municipal level — competent district court reviews commission decisions. Article 84 (4536) establishes standing for the candidate-list submitter.

“Против сваког решења Републичке изборне комисије донетог по приговору може се изјавити жалба Врховном суду Србије.”

Article 110 of LOREG explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to file electoral contest appeals (recursos contenciosos electorales). The statute names three categories: (a) proclaimed and non-proclaimed candidates; (b) representatives of candidacies in the district; and (c) political parties, associations, federations, and coalitions that presented candidacies in the district. This enumeration satisfies the criterion because standing is codified with specificity rather than left to judicial discretion. The statute uses a closed list of qualifying parties, which provides procedural clarity on who may initiate or defend against electoral contests.

“Están legitimados para interponer el recurso contencioso electoral o para oponerse a los que se interpongan: a) Los candidatos proclamados o no proclamados. b) Los representantes de las candidaturas concurrentes en la circunscripción. c) Los partidos políticos, asociaciones, federaciones y coaliciones que hayan presentado candidaturas en la circunscripción.”

15 kap. 4 § codifies standing: 'a decision referred to in 3 § 4 may be appealed by the person who, according to the electoral roll, had voting rights in the election, AND a party that participated in the election' (plus candidate not previously appointed). 15 kap. 5 § codifies submission. Comprehensive standing-enumeration codified.

Tennessee Code § 2-17-101 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections in statute. For office elections, standing is granted to: (1) the incumbent office holder, and (2) any candidate for the office. For ballot questions (referenda), standing is granted to: (3) any campaign committee or individual with charge of the campaign for adoption or rejection of the question. These categories are clearly codified in the statute rather than left to judicial discretion. While the enumeration is relatively narrow compared to some jurisdictions that grant standing to qualified voters generally, the statute satisfies the criterion by providing clear, express statutory enumeration of who may contest. The clarity and specificity of standing requirements—even if narrow—addresses the EDRI's focus on procedural clarity and statutory codification.

“The incumbent office holder and any candidate for the office may contest the outcome of an election for the office. Any campaign committee or individual which has charge of a campaign for the adoption or rejection of a question submitted to the people may contest the election on the question.”

Virginia Code § 24.2-803 explicitly enumerates the class of parties with standing to contest a General Assembly election. The statute clearly states that only an 'unsuccessful candidate in the election' may initiate a contest. This is unambiguous statutory enumeration of standing eligibility, establishing a narrow and well-defined category of contestants rather than leaving standing determination to judicial discretion. The statute does not delegate standing questions to case-by-case judicial determination; it codifies the eligible party category directly in the text.

“A contest of the election of any member to the General Assembly may be initiated by an unsuccessful candidate in the election, referred to hereafter as the contestant.”

The statute explicitly enumerates standing as a binary category: 'any five (5) qualified electors of the political subdivision' have standing to contest an election on indebtedness questions. The standing requirement is clearly codified with a specific numerical threshold (5 electors) and a defined eligibility class (qualified electors). This is a precise, enumerated standard rather than discretionary or vague language. While the enumeration is limited to this specific type of election (indebtedness creation), the criterion asks whether parties with standing are enumerated in statute, and they are.

“Any five (5) qualified electors of the political subdivision may contest an election on the question of the creation of an indebtedness upon filing in the district court of any county in which the political subdivision is wholly or partially located, within fourteen (14) days after the result of the election shall have been determined”

The statute identifies one category of standing with reasonable specificity: an elector of the party that held the primary. However, it is narrowly tailored to primary nomination contests only and does not enumerate standing for general election contests or establish standing for other potential parties (candidates, the opposing party, attorney general, precinct-qualified voters, etc.). The criterion asks whether 'parties with standing to contest an election' are enumerated—a plural suggesting multiple categories should be addressed. This section addresses only one narrow category (primary electors contesting their own party's nominee) and leaves undefined whether other contestants may contest primary or general elections under this chapter. The enumeration is thus partial: clear for the specific context addressed, but incomplete across the full range of election contests contemplated by the statute.

“Any elector of a party desiring to contest the nomination by his or her party of any candidate declared the nominee for any office”

Article 111 explicitly enumerates ONE category of standing: 'organismos directivos de los partidos' (party leadership bodies). However, the criterion requires enumeration of the full range of parties with standing to contest, which should include candidates, qualified voters, attorneys general, and other potential challengers. This section addresses only political parties' representatives ('apoderado del partido'), not other categories of potential contestants. The statute does specify the mechanism (written form, representative designation, evidentiary submission) but does not comprehensively enumerate all standing categories. Criterion CONT.EDRI.1 asks whether parties WITH STANDING are enumerated — this partially addresses that by naming one category but omits examination of whether other categories (individual voters, candidates, public officials) are granted standing elsewhere in the code or are excluded.

Section 16-957(C) explicitly enumerates one category of standing: candidates in a particular election contest may file complaints alleging violations by opposing candidates. However, this statute addresses only enforcement of campaign finance and conduct rules under Article 6, not general election contest standing (which would encompass disputes over vote counts, ballot validity, or election results). The section does not enumerate other potential parties with standing to contest elections generally—such as political parties, qualified voters, the Attorney General, or others. It is narrowly confined to a specific administrative complaint mechanism for campaign law violations. For purposes of measuring PROCEDURAL CLARITY under CONT.EDRI.1 (standing enumerated), the statute does provide clear, enumerated standing for one discrete category (candidates), but fails to address the broader election contest standing framework. This represents partial satisfaction: standing is enumerated within the narrow scope it addresses, but the statute does not serve as a comprehensive codification of election contest standing.

“Any candidate in a particular election contest who believes that any opposing candidate has violated this article for that election may file a complaint with the commission requesting that action be taken pursuant to this section.”

Article 121 enumerates specific parties with standing to file complaints regarding candidate admissibility: (1) those who submitted the candidate lists (déposants), and (2) failing them, one of the candidates on those lists. However, the provision addresses only challenges to candidate admissibility/eligibility (réclamation contre l'admission), not broader election contest standing. The criterion asks whether parties with standing to contest an election are enumerated. This section provides partial clarity: it clearly specifies who may challenge candidacies before the election (a narrow subset of potential contestants), but does not address post-election contest standing, the scope of eligible contestants generally, or other dispute triggers. The enumeration is precise for the pre-electoral complaint mechanism but incomplete for comprehensive election dispute resolution standing.

The statute clearly enumerates standing for the list-head candidate (candidat tête de liste) or their representative to contest a refusal of registration. However, this section addresses only the narrow category of candidacy registration disputes, not general election contests. The criterion asks whether parties with standing to contest an election are enumerated in statute. This text enumerates standing for one specific procedural moment (registration refusal) but does not address standing for broader post-election disputes or recounts. The statute is precise about who may challenge registration rejections, which satisfies procedural clarity for that discrete issue. However, it does not appear to enumerate standing for other election contest scenarios that might arise after voting and tabulation. The binary nature of the criterion and the statute's partial application warrant a score between 0 and 1.

“Le candidat tête de liste ou son représentant peut contester devant le tribunal administratif compétent le refus d'enregistrement”

The statute enumerates one category of standing: 'a voter' may bring complaints about MP eligibility or unlawful candidate list nomination/election. However, the section does not enumerate other potential parties with standing (candidates themselves, parties, election officials, Attorney General, etc.). The provision is partially responsive to the criterion because it explicitly grants standing to at least one defined class (voters) but does not comprehensively enumerate all parties with standing to contest elections. The text identifies standing for voters on specific grounds (eligibility criteria and lawful nomination/election of lists) but leaves other potential contestants unaddressed in this section.

Section 50 addresses substitution of petitioners in referendum disputes, not initial standing. It incorporates by reference section 42's eligibility criteria but does not enumerate those criteria within the section itself. To determine whether standing is actually enumerated in statute, section 42 would need to be consulted. The current section assumes standing eligibility exists elsewhere in the statutory framework but does not itself enumerate the parties with standing. This represents a partial satisfaction because: (1) it confirms standing rules exist and are codified (reference to s. 42), yet (2) it does not independently state who may contest or their enumerated categories. For a comprehensive assessment of CONT.EDRI.1, section 42 must be reviewed.

Article 51 addresses nomination objections rather than comprehensive election contest standing. It explicitly permits: (1) any objector filing objections (with grounds enumerated in sub-article 3); (2) the Commission itself raising objections; and (3) any voter to examine nomination papers. However, this section deals specifically with objections to candidate nomination papers, not broader election contest procedures such as challenging results, certification, or conduct of the election itself. The standing categories enumerated are limited to those challenging nomination validity on specific grounds (voter registration status, insufficient description, procedural non-compliance, deposit failure, double nomination). The section does not enumerate standing for contesting election results, certification validity, or post-election disputes beyond nomination-phase objections. Sub-article (9) permits a rejected candidate to contest the Commission's objection decision via Court of Appeal application, but this is remedial appeal of an administrative decision rather than broader election contest standing. The statute clarifies procedural access for nomination objections but fails to enumerate standing parties for the full spectrum of election disputes contemplated by CONT.EDRI.1.

“Every objection shall be in writing and signed by the objector and shall specify the ground of the objection. The Commission itself shall raise an objection if it believes that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-article (3) exist. (5) For the purpose of this article, any voter may ask the Commissioners to be allowed to see and examine any nomination paper accepted by them.”

The statute delegates standing requirements to Article 3 of Chapter 120 rather than enumerating them directly in § 163-182.13A. While the section explicitly incorporates Article 3 of Chapter 120's standing rules by reference, the criterion requires enumeration within the statute itself or its explicitly cross-referenced provisions. The section does not independently specify which parties (candidates, parties, voters, etc.) possess standing; instead, it states that existing standing rules from Chapter 120 Article 3 'shall apply.' This indirect incorporation satisfies the functional goal of providing codified standing rules but technically does not enumerate standing within this section. The statute does clearly define 'contest' at the end and establishes that notice of intent must be filed 'as if it were a contested election for the House of Representatives as prescribed in Article 3 of Chapter 120,' which provides procedural clarity but still relies on external reference rather than internal enumeration.

“Except as provided by this section, the provisions of Article 3 of Chapter 120 shall apply to contested elections under this section and shall govern standing, notice of intent to contest, answers, service of process, evidence, the petition, procedures, grounds, and relief except as provided in this section.”

Section 55(1) uses the term 'interested party' without defining or enumerating which categories of persons qualify. The statute does not specify whether standing extends to candidates, parties, qualified voters, poll watchers, or the Attorney General. While the provision establishes a procedural framework (21-hour deadline, Commission decision, Electoral Court appeal), it fails to enumerate the specific classes of parties entitled to contest. The breadth is discretionary rather than codified, meaning eligibility depends on interpretation of 'interested party' by the Commission and Electoral Court rather than statutory definition. This contrasts with the EDRI criterion that requires enumeration in statute, not discretionary case-by-case determination. The provision codifies timing and procedure clearly but not standing eligibility.

W. Va. Code § 3-5-20 enumerates standing for PRIMARY election contests explicitly: (1) candidates for nomination or election to office, (2) candidates for party executive committee membership, (3) candidates, committeemen, or delegates adversely affected by actions of party committees, election boards, or canvassers. However, the statute explicitly states 'The procedure in such case shall be the same as that governing the contest of a general election by candidates for county offices or offices in magisterial districts,' creating a cross-reference to general election contest rules that are not provided here. This section partially satisfies the criterion because it enumerates standing for primary contests with specificity, but delegates general election standing rules to another provision not presented. The enumeration is clear for primary contests (candidate-centered, narrowly defined) but incomplete for general elections, which represent a substantial portion of election dispute scenarios. A jurisdiction score cannot be complete without knowing whether general election standing is similarly codified.

§ 9.10 codifies recall standing ('The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town... may petition'). § 9.01(1)(a) codifies recount standing more narrowly — 'Any candidate voted for at any election who is an aggrieved party' or 'any elector who voted upon any referendum question' (in EDRI/RECT cands). The two together enumerate contest standing across recall/recount procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7-10-103 addresses candidate filing requirements for nonpartisan offices, including filing fees, petition procedures, and ballot access rules. It does not enumerate the parties with standing to contest an election. The section does reference election contest procedures in subdivision (c)(1)(C)(ii), which states that 'The sufficiency of a petition filed under this section may be challenged in the same manner as provided by law for election contests under § 7-5-801 et seq.' However, this section itself contains no enumeration of standing parties for election contests. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the criterion requires that the statute explicitly enumerate which parties (candidates, parties, qualified voters, AG, etc.) have standing to bring an election contest. This section is limited to candidate filing mechanics and does not address contest standing.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 67 of the NRWO regulates voter identification and admission procedures at polling stations, not election contest standing. It addresses operational voting mechanics (presentation of identity documents, admission of voters without documents if known to poll officials) rather than the enumeration of parties with legal standing to file an election contest or dispute. The provision contains no language identifying categories of persons or entities entitled to challenge election results. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute would need to enumerate standing holders (e.g., candidates, parties, registered voters, state attorney) for post-election disputes or contests. This section predates and is logically distinct from contest procedures.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 29 of the PRC Electoral Law addresses procedures for challenging voter registration rolls (选民名单) — a pre-election administrative dispute mechanism — not post-election contest standing. The section permits complaints to the election committee and judicial review by people's courts, but does not enumerate parties with standing to contest the election result itself (候选人, 政党, 选民等). The provision establishes a recount/correction procedure for voter lists rather than defining statutory standing for election contest. The criterion requires enumeration of parties authorized to contest an election outcome; this section does not address that substantive question.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

§ 21-2-438 codifies grounds for declaring ballots void — not standing to contest. § 21-2-524 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies standing for election contests: any qualified elector who voted at the contested primary/election, plus aggrieved candidates. Standing is codified but the FTS query surfaced ballot-validity rather than contest-standing sections.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: I.C. § 34-2011 addresses only the timing of trial in election contests—specifying a 30-day window from service of summons and complaint. It contains no enumeration of parties with standing to contest elections. The section is procedural-temporal, not substantive regarding who may bring a contest. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute must enumerate standing categories (candidate, voter, party, AG, etc.). This section does not perform that function. Standing enumerations, if they exist in Idaho code, would appear elsewhere in Chapter 20 (e.g., earlier sections defining who may file).

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 25 of the Luxembourg Electoral Law addresses procedures for recording appeals concerning voter registration and removal (inscription/radiation d'électeurs). It specifies administrative procedures for the district commissioner to compile records of such appeals and transmit them to municipal authorities with posting requirements. However, the section does not enumerate the parties with standing to contest an election itself. The text concerns voter registry appeals rather than election contest standing. It mentions 'tiers réclamants' (claiming third parties) without defining who has standing to file such claims. The criterion requires an enumeration of parties with standing to contest an election (candidates, parties, qualified voters, AG, etc.), which this administrative procedural provision does not provide.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses a procedural mechanism (petition to determine voter qualifications) available to 'either party' once a contest is already underway. It does not enumerate who has standing to bring an election contest in the first place.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 23-15-361 governs ballot access, candidate qualification determinations, and nomination procedures for municipal elections in Mississippi. It does not address election contest procedures, standing to challenge election results, or the parties authorized to file disputes. The section covers pre-election matters (petition filing deadlines, candidate qualification review by election commissions, ballot composition) but contains no enumeration of which parties may contest an election after it occurs. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute must identify who has standing to challenge election results—for example, candidates, political parties, qualified voters, or the Attorney General. This section is silent on post-election dispute resolution and contest standing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses procedures for circuit clerk duties upon petition filing, including summons service, mail notice to election authorities, and answer filing deadlines. It does not enumerate which parties have standing to contest an election. The section assumes a 'contestee' and 'contestant' exist but does not identify or specify which persons, candidates, parties, or qualified voters may initiate election contests. Standing enumeration would typically appear in a separate statutory section defining who may file a contest petition, not in this procedural provision governing post-filing clerk duties and respondent answer procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: NRS § 293B.155 governs the mechanics of logic and accuracy testing procedures for voting equipment and the handling of sealed test materials. It addresses access to test results in contested elections (subsection 4) but does not enumerate parties with standing to contest an election. The statute states that sealed containers are accessible 'in the case of a contested election' to 'the judge, body or board before whom the election is being contested, or by the parties to the contest, jointly' — it presupposes the existence of a contest and parties thereto but does not define who has standing to initiate a contest. Standing enumeration would appear in election contest statutes (likely NRS ch. 293 or related provisions), not in procedural rules for equipment testing.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 68 of the DPRK Socialist Constitution grants citizens a general right to petition and appeal (신소와청원), stating that the state shall handle petitions and appeals fairly according to law. However, the provision does not enumerate specific parties with standing to contest elections, nor does it differentiate between types of complainants (candidates, voters, parties, officials) in the context of electoral disputes. The clause refers broadly to 'citizens' without specifying which citizens may challenge election results, under what circumstances, or what their relationship to the election must be. This fails to meet the EDRI criterion requiring standing categories to be explicitly enumerated in statute. The provision is a general grievance mechanism, not a codified election-contest standing rule.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 1803-A (Omissions) was repealed/expired; surfaced section contains no current standing rule for election contests.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-25-11) addresses campaign finance reporting requirements for treasurers of candidates and committees. It concerns the timing, content, and procedures for filing financial disclosure reports during and after elections. The section does not enumerate parties with standing to contest elections, nor does it address election contest procedures, standing criteria, or dispute resolution mechanisms. It is exclusively focused on campaign finance transparency and reporting obligations. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute would need to explicitly identify who may bring an election contest (e.g., candidates, voters, party officials, the attorney general), which is not present in this section.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute provides a procedure for resolving gubernatorial election contests but does not enumerate who has standing to initiate such a contest. It specifies that the General Assembly 'shall entertain the same' only if it chooses to do so via concurrent resolution, but does not define which parties—candidates, voters, parties, the Attorney General, or other entities—may file a contest or trigger the process. The statute addresses adjudication procedures (bifurcated legislative review, tie-breaking election) but omits the threshold standing requirements that would answer the core question: who may contest? This represents a significant gap in procedural clarity under the EDRI framework, as prospective contestants cannot identify themselves from statutory text.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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: FTS only surfaces Law 2820 Article 12 (party membership criteria) — unrelated. Law 298 Article 110 codifies standing for challenges but was not surfaced for this datapoint.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses nomination paper validity and returning officer decisions, not enumeration of parties with standing to contest an election. While paragraph 6 references election petitions as a mechanism to question nomination validity, the text does not enumerate which parties (candidates, voters, parties, officials) possess standing to file an election petition or contest election results generally. The statute mentions that nomination decisions are 'final and shall not be questioned in any proceeding whatsoever' (para 5) except by election petition (para 6), but provides no statutory enumeration of who may bring such a petition. Standing rules for election contests would be found in other sections of RPA 1983 (such as those governing election petitions under Schedule 1 or elsewhere), not in this nomination-specific provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30104 codifies FECA campaign-finance reporting deadlines; not election-contest standing. Federal election contests for House/Senate are governed by Art. I § 5 (not in this corpus); presidential contests by 3 USC ch. 1 (not surfaced for this datapoint).

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No matching sections in corpus.