Venue & jurisdiction

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.510 explicitly specifies the courts of original jurisdiction for recount appeals (the threshold dispute-resolution mechanism before contest): superior court for questions/propositions and ballot validity; supreme court for legislative, congressional, and statewide executive candidates. This satisfies the statutory specification requirement. The statute creates a tiered, jurisdiction-allocated framework rather than leaving venue discretionary. The provision codifies both which court type and which factual/candidate categories trigger each court's jurisdiction.

“A candidate or any person who requested a recount who has reason to believe an error has been made in the recount (1) involving any question or proposition or the validity of any ballot may appeal to the superior court in accordance with applicable court rules governing appeals in civil matters, and (2) involving candidates for the legislature or Congress or the office of governor and lieutenant governor may appeal to the supreme court”

Section 354(1) clearly designates the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns with original jurisdiction over election contest petitions. The statute explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction and provides a defined alternative (Federal Court referral) also established by statute. The jurisdictional allocation is codified rather than discretionary or left to common law development. This satisfies the requirement that venue and jurisdiction for election contests be specified by statute.

“The High Court shall be the Court of Disputed Returns, and shall have jurisdiction either to try the petition or to refer it for trial to the Federal Court of Australia”

The statute clearly specifies that election contest disputes regarding the Federal Election Authority's decision must be brought before the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court). The venue and jurisdiction are unambiguous: the Constitutional Court has original jurisdiction over challenges to the election result on grounds of procedural irregularity. The statute further specifies standing (authorized representative of a lawful electoral proposal under § 9), a filing deadline (within one week of announcement), and the court's decision timeline (within four weeks). This satisfies the requirement for statutory specification of the court with original jurisdiction.

“Innerhalb einer Woche vom Tag der Verlautbarung kann die Wahlentscheidung der Bundeswahlbehörde (Abs. 1) beim Verfassungsgerichtshof wegen jeder behaupteten Rechtswidrigkeit des Wahlverfahrens vom zustellungsbevollmächtigten Vertreter eines dem Gesetz entsprechenden Wahlvorschlages (§ 9) angefochten werden.”

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.

Чл. 306 codifies the Constitutional Court as the venue for parliamentary election contests, with 2-month decision window.

Cal. Elec. Code § 16400 codifies the superior court as the venue of original jurisdiction for election contests: 'When an elector contests any election he or she shall file with the clerk of the superior court having jurisdiction a written statement.' Reinforced by § 16603 (court continues in session), § 16701/16703 (court declares correct elected person).

Section 525 explicitly specifies the courts of original jurisdiction for election contests across all Canadian provinces and territories. The statute designates competent courts with territorial jurisdiction tied to the electoral district in question, and provides a comprehensive listing of which provincial/territorial courts have jurisdiction in each province. This satisfies the criterion because venue and jurisdiction are clearly codified in statute rather than left to discretion or common law. The section also mandates summary procedure without delay, further enhancing procedural clarity.

The statute explicitly and unambiguously designates the Colorado Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction for contests concerning presidential electors. This clear jurisdictional assignment satisfies the criterion that venue and jurisdiction be specified by statute. The provision leaves no discretion regarding which court has authority to hear such contests—it is statutorily vested in the Supreme Court. The statute further specifies procedural deadlines (24 days after general election) and requires the court to rule before federal certification deadlines, reinforcing the clarity of the jurisdictional framework.

Connecticut § 9-329a explicitly specifies that election contest complaints regarding primary elections must be brought to 'any judge of the Superior Court.' This establishes a clear, statutory designation of original jurisdiction. The statute further clarifies procedural requirements: complaints filed before the primary receive expedited treatment; those filed after must be brought within 14 days of the primary (or 7 days after manual tabulation of paper ballots). The statute mandates that the judge 'shall forthwith order a hearing' within 3-5 days, with notice to specified parties. The venue requirement is unambiguous—Superior Court judges have original jurisdiction. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement for contest venue and jurisdiction under the EDRI framework.

“may bring his complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for appropriate action”

Article 100 of the Croatian Parliamentary Election Act explicitly designates the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) as the forum for appeals against decisions of the State Electoral Commission. This clearly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by statute. The provision unambiguously routes election disputes through a defined judicial body, satisfying the procedural clarity requirement. The statute further codifies temporal specificity: appeals must be filed within 48 hours of receiving the contested decision, and the Court must decide within 48 hours of receipt. This combination of explicit venue designation and binding deadlines demonstrates statutory clarity regarding jurisdiction.

“Protiv rješenja Državnoga izbornog povjerenstva podnositelj prigovora ima pravo podnijeti žalbu Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske”

The statute explicitly designates the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (Nejvyšší správní soud) as the court of original jurisdiction for proceedings under § 57 (which concerns election disputes and challenges to candidate validity and mandate loss). This satisfies the criterion by providing statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction. The provision is unambiguous and creates a clear, codified jurisdictional rule rather than leaving venue determination to discretion.

“K řízení podle § 57 je příslušný Nejvyšší správní soud České republiky”

§ 87 codifies that 'the Folketing decides the validity of the candidates' elections.' § 87(2) codifies Folketing authority to require recalculation by the Minister; § 87(3) codifies Folketing authority to require recount. § 17 codifies Valgnævnet jurisdiction over party/voter-list matters. Multi-tier venue framework codified.

Venue is codified — a complaint is first filed with the National Electoral Committee (§ 72), and § 72¹ routes a complaint or appeal against an act or resolution of the National Electoral Committee to the Supreme Court under the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act.

“the person may file a complaint or appeal with the Supreme Court pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act.”

The statute specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests: the administrative tribunal (tribunal administratif) is designated as the forum with decision-making authority ('statue'). The provision further clarifies that this tribunal's decisions are subject to appeal to the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat), establishing a defined appellate pathway. This satisfies the criterion by codifying which court has original jurisdiction in electoral dispute resolution, providing procedural clarity about venue. The specification is clear and unambiguous—disputes go to administrative courts rather than general civil courts, and the hierarchy is explicit.

“Le tribunal administratif statue, sauf recours au Conseil d'Etat.”

§ 21-2-503 codifies procedure where election results are contested. § 21-2-504 codifies special primary/election procedure on certification failure. § 21-2-493 codifies discrepancy investigation. § 21-2-17 codifies designation of clerk. Article 13 (§ 21-2-520 et seq., not in FTS top-5) codifies the venue and jurisdiction for election contests — superior court of the county where the alleged irregularity occurred.

§ 56 explicitly specifies the forum for election contests: complaints must be filed in writing with the relevant valgbestyrelse (election board), which then immediately forwards the complaint to Valgnævnet (the election appeals board). The statute identifies both the initial recipient (valgbestyrelse) and the deciding body (Valgnævnet) with clear jurisdictional delineation. This satisfies the requirement that court/tribunal jurisdiction for election contests be codified by statute.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-173.5 explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests in primary and special primary elections, as well as county elections held concurrently with regularly scheduled primary or special primary elections. The statute mandates that complaints 'shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court,' establishing the Hawaii Supreme Court as the designated venue. This is codified with specificity regarding both the court and the procedural mechanism for filing. The statute also establishes a clear timeline (13 days after election) and procedural requirements (deposit for costs, summons issuance within 5 days), all of which reinforce that jurisdiction is statutorily determined rather than discretionary.

“the complaint shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the thirteenth day after a primary or special primary election or a county election contest held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary or special primary election”

Article 132 explicitly designates the Althingi (Iceland's parliament) as the forum of original jurisdiction for election contests involving parliamentary elections. The statute unambiguously specifies that the Althingi 'shall make rulings' on validity of elections, eligibility of MPs, and disputed ballot papers—whether on its own initiative or upon complaint. This leaves no discretion regarding venue; all such disputes are statutorily routed to the Althingi. The supporting role of the National Electoral Commission (submitting reasoned opinions and documents) further clarifies the procedural pathway. The jurisdictional assignment is clear, mandatory, and codified without ambiguity.

Idaho Code § 34-2121 explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. For legislative elections, it assigns jurisdiction to the district court in the respective legislative district. For statewide executive offices, it assigns jurisdiction to the district court whose jurisdiction includes the state capitol. This is a clear, statutorily codified designation of venue and jurisdiction that eliminates discretion and provides prospective clarity to litigants about where to file. The provision satisfies the EDRI criterion for procedural clarity by establishing deterministic rules rather than leaving jurisdiction to case-by-case discretion.

“A district court in the respective legislative district has jurisdiction over the primary contest involving a legislative election. For election contests involving statewide executive offices, the district court whose jurisdiction includes the state capitol has jurisdiction.”

10 ILCS 5/23-1.1a expressly vests the Illinois Supreme Court with jurisdiction over statewide election contests for Article V offices.

“The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over contests of the results of any election, including a primary, for an elected officer provided for in Article V of the Constitution”

The statute explicitly designates the 'state recount commission' as the tribunal with jurisdiction over recounts and contests for legislative office elections. This specification of the original forum—the state recount commission rather than courts of general jurisdiction—satisfies the criterion requiring statutory specification of the court or body of original jurisdiction for election contests. The provision is clear and mandatory ('shall be completed by'), leaving no discretion about where such disputes must be brought.

Section 132(1) explicitly and unambiguously specifies that the High Court is the sole court of original jurisdiction for election contests ('may, and may only, be questioned by a petition to the High Court'). This is a clear, statutorily-mandated venue rule that eliminates discretion and provides certainty. The criterion requires specification of court of original jurisdiction, which this section satisfies with binary clarity. The provision uses exclusive language ('and may only') that precludes alternative forums.

“A Dáil election may, and may only, be questioned by a petition to the High Court.”

KRS 120.155 codifies the court of original jurisdiction for contests of regular elections of state, county, district, and city officers (the Circuit Court), and KRS 120.055 codifies the venue for primary contests. KRS 120.195 codifies that contests for Governor/Lieutenant Governor and the General Assembly are heard by the General Assembly itself. Venue and jurisdiction are specified by statute.

§ 54 of the Saeima Election Law specifies the court of original jurisdiction — election-result and candidate-registration appeals go to the Regional Administrative Court or the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court Senate.

“the application shall be submitted to the Regional Administrative Court”

§ 74 of the Referendum Law specifies the venue — appeals against the Central Electoral Committee's final-results decision go to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania; § 85-86 of the Seimas Election Law route lower-level appeals to constituency and municipal electoral committees first.

“appeal the decision of the Central Electoral Committee on the final results to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania”

La. R.S. 18:1403 explicitly and unambiguously specifies that district courts hold exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests. The statute further clarifies venue by providing that where both criminal and civil district courts exist in a judicial district, the civil district court has exclusive jurisdiction. This addresses both the court of original jurisdiction and the specific court within a multi-court district, providing clear statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction for election disputes. The codification is precise and leaves no ambiguity about where such actions must be brought.

Article 282 of Luxembourg's Electoral Law of 18 February 2003 explicitly designates the Chamber of Deputies (Chambre des députés) as the sole body with jurisdiction to determine the validity of electoral operations governed by national law. This constitutes a clear statutory specification of the court/body of original jurisdiction for election contests. The provision does not leave venue to discretion or judicial interpretation; it mandates that the Chamber of Deputies alone ('se prononce seule') shall decide validity questions. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement that the venue and jurisdiction for contest resolution be codified by statute.

“La Chambre des députés se prononce seule sur la validité des opérations électorales”

Article 200 clearly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by categorizing disputes according to election type. The Haute Cour Constitutionnelle has jurisdiction over presidential, legislative, and senatorial election contests. Administrative Tribunals (Tribunaux administratifs) have first and last instance jurisdiction over territorial election disputes. The statute explicitly designates these courts with their respective competencies, providing unambiguous venue rules that enable parties to know where to file election disputes without discretion or ambiguity.

The statute explicitly designates the Constitutional Court as the forum of original jurisdiction for election contests via action to invalidate the election. The phrase 'Right of action before Constitutional Court' directly specifies venue and jurisdiction. While the section does not elaborate on standing, deadline, or evidentiary rules, it unambiguously identifies the court of original jurisdiction by name and statutory authority. This satisfies the narrow requirement of CONT.EDRI.2, which asks whether venue and jurisdiction are specified—not whether standing or procedural details are fully codified.

“such provision shall not exclude recourse to the Constitutional Court by any person on an action to invalidate the election”

Section 33 clearly specifies original jurisdiction for election contests alleging corrupt practices. The statute mandates that applications for leave to bring election petitions must be brought before 'a justice of the superior court, sitting in equity within and for Suffolk county' (subsection a), and the petition itself must be filed 'in the superior court within and for Suffolk county' (subsection b). The venue is fixed geographically (Suffolk County) and by court level (Superior Court). This satisfies the criterion because the statutory text unambiguously designates the court of original jurisdiction with specificity regarding both the court level and geographic venue. The procedural clarity is further enhanced by additional specificity about assignment to three justices and equity procedures.

Article 111(3) of LGSMIME explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by clearly designating: (1) the Electoral Tribunal Chambers (Salas del Tribunal Electoral) as competent in their respective jurisdictions for general cases; (2) the Superior Chamber (Sala Superior) as competent for matters linked to the election of Regional Chamber judges; and (3) the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice (Pleno de la Suprema Corte) as competent for matters linked to Superior Chamber elections. This codified allocation of venue and jurisdiction leaves no discretion and provides unambiguous guidance on which court has authority over which category of dispute.

The statute specifies venue and jurisdiction: either the Michigan Supreme Court or the Ingham County Circuit Court, with the latter granted full jurisdiction to act.

§ 209.07 codifies the results-of-contest procedure — the court decides which candidate was nominated/elected and may invalidate election certificates. § 209.021 codifies that contests proceed in district court. § 209.09 codifies appeals to the Supreme Court. § 204C.28 codifies election-night returns. Comprehensive venue + jurisdiction framework codified.

The statute unambiguously specifies the original venue and jurisdiction for election contests involving legislative seats. It assigns exclusive jurisdiction to the House of Representatives for House member contests and the Senate for Senate member contests, and designates the filing location as the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate. While the actual judicial procedures are referenced as existing in House and Senate journals and rules rather than codified in statute, the statutory specification of *which body* has jurisdiction and *where* to file satisfies the criterion's requirement that 'the court of original jurisdiction for election contests [be] specified by statute.' The statute leaves no ambiguity about venue.

RSMo § 115.557 explicitly specifies that the Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over election contests. The statute clearly designates the court of original jurisdiction—the supreme court—and establishes both venue (office of the clerk of the supreme court) and the filing location. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that the court of original jurisdiction be specified by statute. The language is unambiguous and leaves no discretion regarding which court hears election contests.

“The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the contest”

The statute explicitly designates the Constitutional Court as the tribunal of original jurisdiction for parliamentary election contests, specifying its authority to confirm or invalidate the legality of elections and to validate mandates. This directly answers the statutory question of which court has jurisdiction over election contests at the outset. The procedure is unambiguous: electoral acts are submitted to the Constitutional Court, which has exclusive authority to rule on election validity and mandate validation. This satisfies the requirement that venue and jurisdiction be specified by statute rather than left to discretionary assignment or implied interpretation.

§ 13-36-103 ('Court Having Jurisdiction of Proceedings') and § 13-36-102 specify the venue for an election contest — application is made to the district court in the county where the contest is to be had.

Nebraska Revised Statutes § 32-1109(1) explicitly designates district courts as the courts of original jurisdiction for all election contests involving political subdivision officers. The statute unambiguously vests jurisdiction in 'the several district courts' without discretionary language or ambiguity. This satisfies CONT.EDRI.2 by providing clear statutory specification of the forum for election contest adjudication, enabling prompt and accessible dispute resolution based on codified rules rather than case-by-case jurisdictional determinations.

“The several district courts shall have jurisdiction in cases of contested elections for officers of all political subdivisions of the State of Nebraska.”

Article I 7 of the Kieswet (Electoral Law) clearly and statutorily designates the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Law Division of the Council of State) as the court of original jurisdiction for election disputes. The provision specifies: (1) which party can appeal (belanghebbende and any voter); (2) the deadline for filing (four days under art. I 7(1)); (3) the specific appellate body (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak); and (4) the decision deadline (by the sixth day after receipt). This creates explicit statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction for election contest resolution, satisfying the criterion that venue and court of original jurisdiction be specified in statute.

“De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State doet uitspraak uiterlijk op de zesde dag nadat het beroepschrift is ontvangen.”

NRS § 293.424(2)(a) explicitly specifies that election contests for the office of presidential elector must be filed 'with the clerk of the district court.' This provision clearly identifies the court of original jurisdiction (district court) as the forum for such contests. The statute further provides additional procedural clarity by requiring the filing to occur within a specific timeframe (not more than 2 working days after canvass), and mandates that the district court must conduct a hearing within 5 days and render a decision before the federal deadline under 3 U.S.C. § 5. This represents clear statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction.

The statute explicitly specifies the forum and jurisdiction for election contests for Council of State offices. Contests are filed with the Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives; initially heard by a select committee of 5 Senators and 5 Representatives with defined appointment procedures; and finally determined by the General Assembly in joint session. The statute further specifies that 'The decision of the General Assembly in determining the contest of the election pursuant to this section may not be reviewed by the General Court of Justice,' effectively vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the legislative branch. The venue, filing location, initial hearing body, and final decision-maker are all clearly codified.

§ 16.1-16-06 codifies that election contest actions 'must be tried as civil actions to the court without a jury' in district court. § 16.1-16-09 codifies appeal to the Supreme Court. § 16.1-16-08 codifies judgment. § 16.1-16-10 codifies legislative contest. § 16.1-16-07 codifies ballot-preservation procedure. Comprehensive venue + jurisdiction framework codified.

§ 16-9 codifies the National Election Board (Riksvalgstyret) complaint-handling procedure — the primary venue for election complaints. § 4-1 codifies the Board's independent status. § 16-12 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies Supreme Court (Høyesterett) review of Storting validity decisions. § 15-1 codifies Storting validity decisions. Multi-tier venue framework codified.

ORC 3515.08(B-C) specifies original jurisdiction: chief justice/justice of supreme court for statewide/judicial-higher offices and multi-county districts; court of common pleas of the county for other contests; court of appeals of the district for within-county judicial-office contests.

“court of common pleas of the county in which the contest arose”

The statute specifies that a district judge is the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. While the text does not explicitly state 'original jurisdiction,' it identifies the district judge as the judge 'conducting the hearing' for contested elections and grants that judge subpoena power and authority over witnesses and evidence—the hallmarks of original jurisdiction. The statute also specifies venue by requiring the petition be filed 'with the secretary of the election board with whom the candidate filed the candidate's declaration of candidacy,' which anchors jurisdiction to the election board that received the initial candidacy filing. This satisfies the criterion of specifying court jurisdiction for contests, even though additional detail about appellate procedures or exact venue rules may exist elsewhere in the code.

§ 1751 codifies that fifth-class election contests are tried by the court of common pleas of the county in which the contested election was held — clear venue.

“court of common pleas of the county in which such contested election was held”

Article 118.º explicitly and unambiguously designates the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) as the sole forum of original jurisdiction for election contests (recursos) challenging results. The statute specifies: (1) the exact court (Tribunal Constitucional); (2) the timeframe for filing (24 hours from posting of the official tally); (3) procedural alternatives for remote regions (telegraph/telex); and (4) the mandatory timeline for decision (48 hours after response deadline). This satisfies the dual-scholar test for clarity: a neutral observer and an election official would have no ambiguity about which court receives election disputes. The venue specification is both narrow and codified, precisely the model the EDRI framework rewards.

“O recurso é interposto no prazo de vinte e quatro horas, a contar da afixação do edital a que se refere o artigo 112.º, perante o Tribunal Constitucional.”

Art. 54(5) codifies that candidacy contestations are decided within 48 hours by the district court (judecătoria) or tribunal in whose territorial jurisdiction the electoral district lies; 24-hour appeal to higher court.

“Contestaţiile privind admiterea sau respingerea candidaturilor se soluţionează în termen de 48 de ore de la înregistrare, de către judecătoria, respectiv tribunalul”

MP Election Law Article 7 codifies the venue chain: election-right protection is provided by the Republic Election Commission, the Supreme Court of Serbia, and competent courts. Constitution Article 167 (4413) grants the Constitutional Court jurisdiction over constitutional consistency review. Local Elections Law Article 54 (4621) gives municipal commission decisions an appeal to the competent district court.

“Заштиту изборног права обезбеђују Републичка изборна комисија, Врховни суд Србије и надлежни судови.”

Section 96(1) of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998 explicitly establishes the Electoral Court as the court of original and final jurisdiction for all electoral disputes. This is unambiguous statutory specification of venue and jurisdictional authority. The statute does not create discretionary or competing forums—the Electoral Court has 'final jurisdiction' with no appeal or review. This satisfies the criterion by clearly codifying both the forum (Electoral Court) and its exclusive scope (all electoral disputes).

Artículo 112(2) of LOREG explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests (recursos contencioso-electorales) by election type: the Supreme Court's Administrative Law Chamber (Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo) for general elections and European Parliament elections, and the respective Autonomous Community's Superior Court of Justice for regional and local elections. This satisfies the statutory clarity requirement under CONT.EDRI.2. The venue rule is not discretionary or fact-dependent; it is determined by the nature and level of the election being contested. Procedural clarity is further enhanced by Article 112(1) specifying that the contest is filed before the corresponding Electoral Board (Junta Electoral) within three days of proclamation, and Article 112(3) requiring that body to forward the case to the competent court within one day. While the rule structure involves an initial filing before the Electoral Board, the ultimate jurisdiction for resolution is statutorily fixed.

“El Tribunal competente para la resolución de los recursos contencioso-electorales que se refieren a elecciones generales o al Parlamento Europeo es la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo. En el supuesto de elecciones autonómicas o locales el Tribunal competente es la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la respectiva Comunidad Autónoma.”

15 kap. 12 § codifies that 'authorities and others who have assisted in the election shall provide the Valprövningsnämnden with information and statements that the Board requests.' 14 kap. 31 § codifies internal review delegation. 14 kap. 30 § codifies the Valprövningsnämnden's competence to review elections. 15 kap. 10 § codifies enforceability of decisions pending appeal. Valprövningsnämnden is the codified venue — multi-tier framework codified.

The statute explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. It designates chancery court as the forum and identifies the division based on defendant residence as the venue rule. It also provides a special assignment mechanism for chancellor election contests to avoid conflicts of interest. This is a clear, codified statement of jurisdictional venue that removes discretion and provides definitive guidance on where disputes must be filed.

“election contests shall be tried in the chancery court of the division in which the defendant resides”

Law 298 Article 109 sets provincial-board jurisdiction over consolidating district records. Reinforced by Madde 14 (YSK general powers including final appeal jurisdiction) and Madde 130 (provincial-board appeal procedure) — together establishing the 3-tier statutory venue ladder: sandık→ilçe seçim kurulu→il seçim kurulu→YSK.

RPA 1983 s. 134(1) explicitly and unambiguously specifies the court of original jurisdiction for Scottish local authority election contests. Venue is determined by statutory rule: the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom(s) in which the challenged election took place, with a defined escalation path (case stated to the Court of Session in case of disagreement among multiple sheriffs principal). The provision codifies both court identity and geographic jurisdiction with precision. The criterion asks whether venue is 'specified by statute'—it is, in clear and binding terms.

“An election petition questioning an election of councillors in Scotland, and all proceedings incidental to and consequent on it, except as otherwise provided, shall be tried— a by the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom within which the challenged election took place; or b where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, by the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated”

UCA § 20A-4-403 explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. For general elections, subsection (1)(a) designates 'the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides' as the venue. For primary elections, subsection (2)(a) provides two options: district court of the county (for single-county nominations) or the Utah Supreme Court (for multi-county nominations). For bond elections, subsection (3)(a) specifies 'the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides.' The statute clearly codifies jurisdictional rules without ambiguity or discretion.

“a registered voter may contest the right of an individual declared elected to office by filing a verified written complaint with the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides within 40 days after the day on which the canvass concludes”

Section 3-7-7(a) explicitly designates circuit court as the court of original jurisdiction for election contests and specifies the jurisdictional basis: the circuit court in the county or district where the election took place. This is a clear, statutory specification of both the court level and the geographic jurisdiction rule. The provision satisfies the criterion by codifying venue and jurisdiction for contest proceedings without discretion or ambiguity.

“The circuit court with jurisdiction over the county or district where the election took place shall hear and decide election contests initiated pursuant to §3-7-6 of this code.”

Wis. Stat. § 7.54 codifies contest venue: 'In all contested election cases, the contesting parties have the right to have the ballots opened and to have all errors of the inspectors... corrected by the board of canvassers or court deciding the case.' Court of original jurisdiction codified as the circuit court (per § 9.01(6) referenced).

Wyoming Statute § 22-17-102 explicitly specifies that election contests must be filed 'with the clerk of the district court of the county.' This clearly designates the district court of the county as the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. The statute unambiguously identifies both the court level (district court) and the geographic jurisdiction (the county). This satisfies the criterion by providing a codified, specific venue and jurisdictional rule that leaves no discretion or ambiguity regarding where such contests must be filed.

“Election contests for all primary election offices and all general election offices other than state legislators, United States president and vice-president and presidential elector, may be commenced by the contestant filing with the clerk of the district court of the county”

This section specifies the appellate venue (Supreme Court) and appeal deadlines (14 days), but does not specify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. The text references appeals 'before the judge of probate' and 'from the judgment of the circuit court,' implying these are forums for original jurisdiction, but the statute does not affirmatively establish which court has original jurisdiction or the conditions under which contests are filed in probate versus circuit court. The section addresses appellate procedure and timing clearly, satisfying part of the procedural clarity requirement, but fails to codify the original jurisdiction rule that would allow a contestant to know where to file initially.

“In all contested elections before the judge of probate, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court within 14 days after the rendition of the judgment. From the judgment of the circuit court on the contest of an election of a judge of probate or sheriff or any other officer mentioned in Section 17-16-56, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court within 14 days after the rendition of the judgment.”

The statute specifies that electoral disputes concerning voter registration rolls must be brought 'ante el juez electoral' (before the electoral judge), establishing a designated court of original jurisdiction. However, the criterion asks about election contests broadly, and this provision addresses only a narrow category of disputes—challenges to voter registration accuracy in provisional rolls. It does not clarify whether 'juez electoral' refers to a specific tribunal, circuit, or national court, nor does it address jurisdiction for other election contests (e.g., ballot access, result disputes, certification challenges). The jurisdictional specification is present but limited in scope and lacks detail about the structure of the electoral judiciary. The mechanism satisfies the venue requirement partially because it identifies a forum (electoral judge) but incompletely because it does not define that forum's territorial or organizational boundaries.

Section 16-957 establishes superior court as the venue for election-related disputes but does so indirectly and incompletely. Subsection B specifies that violators may 'appeal to the superior court as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6,' delegating the precise jurisdictional framework to another statute. Subsection C grants candidates a right to bring civil actions in superior court if the commission fails to act within thirty days. However, the statute does not codify the specific rules for election contest jurisdiction in this section itself—it merely references external procedural rules. The criterion requires that court jurisdiction be 'specified by statute,' which is technically satisfied, but the specification is sparse and references external sources rather than providing self-contained clarity. A reviewer applying the dual-scholar test would note that while superior court jurisdiction is identified, the absence of codified venue rules (e.g., which county, procedural specifics) within Title 16, Chapter 6 itself creates some procedural ambiguity that undermines full satisfaction.

Section 7-5-804(a) specifies that election contests are tried by 'the circuit judge' in open court, establishing which court level (circuit court) has jurisdiction. However, the statute does not specify WHICH circuit court has jurisdiction when multiple circuits exist, nor does it address venue rules for determining the proper venue among potentially multiple circuits. The section clarifies the trial court level and procedure but leaves unresolved the geographic venue allocation that is necessary for complete jurisdictional specification. A fully compliant statute would include explicit venue rules (e.g., 'in the circuit court of the county where the election was held' or similar territorial specification). The current text satisfies the court LEVEL requirement but not the complete jurisdictional specification needed for unambiguous dispute resolution.

“The election contest shall be tried by the circuit judge in open court without a jury.”

The statute specifies that disputes over voter rolls may be appealed to 'people's courts' (人民法院) within five days before election day, with judgment required before election day. However, the provision does not specify which LEVEL or TYPE of people's court has original jurisdiction (e.g., whether district, intermediate, or high court; whether specific geographic venue rules apply). The statute establishes that judicial review is available but lacks the granular venue specification (e.g., 'district court in the district where the election is held') that would satisfy a rigorous procedural clarity standard. The provision addresses STANDING and DEADLINE clearly, but VENUE/JURISDICTION specification is implied rather than explicitly codified.

§ 5 WahlPrüfG addresses procedural aspects of election contest adjudication (preliminary review, hearing preparation, witness examination, information gathering) but does not specify which court or tribunal has original jurisdiction to hear election contests. The section references 'der Ausschuss' (the committee) as the body conducting proceedings, but does not establish the constitutional or statutory basis designating this committee as the court of original jurisdiction. While the section clarifies procedural rules once a challenge is before the committee, it does not answer the threshold question of venue—i.e., which forum is competent to receive and initially decide election contests. A statute fully satisfying this criterion would explicitly name the tribunal (e.g., 'Wahlprüfungsausschuss des Bundestags') and ground its jurisdiction in statutory law.

“Der Ausschuss tritt in eine Vorprüfung ein, insbesondere darüber, ob der Einspruch form- und fristgerecht eingelegt ist und ob Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung anzuberaumen ist.”

ΠΔ 26/2012 Άρθρο 127 cross-references Σύνταγμα Άρθρο 100 to vest election-contest jurisdiction in the Ανώτατο Ειδικό Δικαστήριο (Special Highest Court — Greece's constitutional/election court). Combined with Ν. 4648/2019 Άρθρα 35/41 vesting candidate-declaration jurisdiction in the Areios Pagos, venue is codified.

This section specifies that appeals from ballot law commission decisions go to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, establishing appellate venue with a clear 5-day filing deadline. However, it does not specify the court of ORIGINAL jurisdiction for election contests. The section addresses only appellate jurisdiction and refers to prior decisions by the ballot law commission (RSA 665:8, II), implying that the commission itself may be the original decision-maker for certain election contests. The statute does not explicitly codify what court or body has original jurisdiction to hear election contest petitions or how such contests are initiated at the first instance. Additionally, the section limits appeals to specific offices (presidential elector, governor, councilor, town/city offices) and explicitly excludes federal and state legislative offices due to constitutional provisions vesting exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere. While venue for appeals is specified, the criterion asks for specification of the court of original jurisdiction, which this section does not clearly establish.

“There may be an appeal to the supreme court from the decisions of the ballot law commission made under RSA 665:8, II as provided in this section and not otherwise. Such appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 5 days after the decision of the commission is filed with the secretary of state.”

The statute specifies that the district court of the county is the court of original jurisdiction for precinct boundary and polling place protests ('petition the district court of that county'). However, this section addresses only precinct boundary and polling place disputes under mandamus, not election contests broadly. Election contests typically involve challenges to election results, candidate qualification, or vote counting—matters distinct from precinct administration. The statute clearly establishes venue for this narrow category of dispute but does not address jurisdiction for general election contests (result challenges, certification disputes, recount contests). A complete satisfaction of the criterion would require codification of venue for the full range of election contest types. The statutory specification for this particular dispute category is clear and meets the criterion partially but incompletely.

§ 9-200 codifies canvass procedure with court-cross-references. Article 16 (Judicial Proceedings) codifies venue: Supreme Court (justice within judicial district) or county court (judge within county) for the various proceeding types (§§ 16-102, 16-106, 16-110, 16-113). Venue & jurisdiction is statutorily codified.

This section establishes that circuit court is the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by cross-referencing ORS 258.036. However, the section itself does not fully specify venue. While it references 'the circuit court described under ORS 258.036,' the actual venue specification is delegated to another statute section. The section does establish clear procedural requirements (notice publication, timing, service rules, hearing procedures) but does not independently codify which specific circuit court has jurisdiction. To fully satisfy the criterion, the venue rule should be explicitly stated within the section or the referenced statute should be examined to confirm venue is clearly specified. The section meets half the requirement by establishing circuit court jurisdiction generally, but lacks complete independent clarity on venue specification.

§ 232.044 and § 232.041 confirm that an election contest is tried in the district court — '(1) the district court shall set the deadline for withdrawal,' and a court declaring an election void must order a new election. The dedicated original-jurisdiction/venue provisions (§ 221.002, § 232.003, which assign contests of different offices to the district court or the legislature) were not surfaced for this datapoint, so the trial court is evidenced only indirectly.

The section establishes that 'the superior court' has jurisdiction over contested elections and power to manage proceedings, including witness subpoenas and attachments. However, the statute does not explicitly specify which superior court (by county or venue rules) has original jurisdiction for election contests. The provision assumes superior court jurisdiction but does not codify venue—i.e., which superior court in a multi-county or statewide election contest, or whether contests must be brought in the county where the election occurred or where the candidate resides. A complete answer to the criterion would require explicit statutory venue allocation (e.g., 'the superior court of the county in which the election was held'). The text confirms court type but leaves venue rules potentially to be derived from other statutes or procedural rules rather than codified in this section.

“the superior court shall have full power to issue attachments to compel the attendance of witnesses”

Article 26, Section 4 establishes that voter-list disputes can be appealed to 'a court having jurisdiction over the relevant election commission.' This creates a jurisdictional linkage (territorial courts near the commission) but does not specify the court of original jurisdiction with statutory clarity. The phrase 'court having jurisdiction' is a functional description rather than a precise statutory designation of court type, level, or venue rules. The statute does not identify whether this is district court, regional court, supreme court, or specialized electoral tribunals. It provides temporal clarity ('day of its receipt') but leaves venue and jurisdiction rules to judicial interpretation or secondary legislation rather than codifying them directly in the election law itself. This falls short of the binary standard that requires explicit statutory specification.

“The decision can be appealed to a court having jurisdiction over the relevant election commission, which shall examine the complaint on the day of its receipt.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 218 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the timing coordination of cooptation of senators in relation to verification of powers of senators from federated entities when elections coincide. It does not specify any court of original jurisdiction for election contests, nor does it establish venue rules for dispute resolution. The provision is purely procedural regarding the sequence of senatorial designation and contains no language allocating jurisdiction to any court or tribunal for hearing election disputes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 5953 addresses the Court's procedural powers during an election contest trial (specifically, examination of ballots and evidentiary rules regarding ballot materials), but does not specify which court has original jurisdiction over election contests or establish venue rules. The section presupposes that a contest has already been brought ('In the trial of any contested election') and describes the Court's authority to examine ballots and obtain possession of records, but it does not codify the court of original jurisdiction or venue requirements. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute must explicitly designate which court (e.g., Court of Chancery, Superior Court, or another tribunal) and which venue rules govern the filing of election contest actions. This section does not provide that specification.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Iowa Code § 47.1 addresses the role and powers of the State Commissioner of Elections, including administrative authority, emergency powers, and complaint procedures. However, this section does not specify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. The section establishes administrative complaint procedures under federal law (Title III of Pub. L. No. 107-252) and describes which officials preside over those administrative proceedings, but it does not designate which court (district court, appellate court, etc.) has original jurisdiction over election contests. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute must explicitly specify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. This section is limited to administrative governance and does not address court jurisdiction for election disputes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: K.S.A. 25-3002 addresses rules for canvassing ballots and determining voter intent—specifically ballot validity, write-in requirements, advance voting procedures, and identification rules. It does not address venue or jurisdiction for election contests. While subsection (a)(4) mentions that these canvassing rules apply to 'all election contests,' the statute does not specify which court has original jurisdiction over election contests, nor does it establish venue requirements. The section is purely substantive regarding ballot counting rules, not procedural regarding court access or jurisdiction. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute would need to explicitly designate a court of original jurisdiction (e.g., district court, supreme court) for election contests, which this section does not provide.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-403 addresses preservation and security of voting equipment and documentation following verification and through the recount and election contest periods. It does not specify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. The section permits courts of 'competent jurisdiction' to order examination of voting system materials, but does not define which court has original jurisdiction to hear election contests themselves. This is a procedural rule about evidence preservation, not a rule establishing venue or jurisdictional allocation for contest litigation. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute would need to explicitly designate (e.g., 'election contests shall be brought in circuit court' or similar language) the forum for original jurisdiction.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 65 of the DPRK Socialist Constitution addresses voting eligibility and the right to vote and be elected. It establishes who may and may not participate in elections (citizens aged 18+, excluding those deprived of voting rights by court judgment or those with mental disabilities). The provision contains no language whatsoever concerning election dispute resolution, court jurisdiction, venue for election contests, or procedural mechanisms for contesting elections. It is purely a substantive eligibility rule and does not codify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests as required by the criterion CONT.EDRI.2.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30126 prohibits minor contributions; not election-contest venue.

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: Virginia Code § 24.2-803 establishes that election contests to the General Assembly are resolved by the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the appropriate house, not by a court of original jurisdiction. The statute specifies a legislative committee as the forum, not a judicial court. The criterion asks whether 'the court of original jurisdiction' is specified by statute. Since the statute lodges jurisdiction in a legislative committee rather than a court, this section does not satisfy the criterion as framed. The statute is procedurally clear about where disputes are heard, but it does not designate a court—it designates an internal legislative body.