Statutory recount procedure

Alabama Code § 17-16-21 codifies detailed recount procedures directly in statute. Subsection (b) specifies how the recount shall be conducted, including: (1) who counts (a trained and certified precinct election official under supervision, with sheriff present); (2) how (ballots delivered unopened, machine retested, ballots read through counter, hand-counting for disputed ballots, opposing representatives invited to participate); and (3) evidence/safeguards (sealed containers, signed seals, printout of results, chain of custody procedures). Subsection (a) establishes the trigger (petition by person with standing within 48 hours of canvass), cost allocation (petitioner pays, county bears cost if recount alters result), and notice requirements (24 hours to opposing interests). Subsection (c) addresses documentation and sealing. These procedural requirements are not delegated to regulation or administrative directive but are explicitly mandated by statute. The statute uses mandatory language ('shall') for core procedural elements.

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.480 statutorily defines the recount procedure with specificity: (1) the responsible actor (the director), (2) the scope of review (all ballots regardless of counting method), (3) the methodology (review ballots to determine proper marking and countability, check accuracy of original count and certificates), (4) the evidentiary standard (application of ballot-counting rules from AS 15.15.360, especially for voter intent challenges), (5) custody and care requirements (ballots remain in director's custody with highest degree of care), and (6) a binding timeline (10 days). The statute does not delegate these procedural elements to regulation or administrative directive but codifies them directly. This satisfies the binary criterion requiring statutory definition of recount procedures.

Article 101 of the Código Electoral Nacional (Ley 19.945) establishes detailed recount procedures within the statute itself, not through regulation or administrative directive. It specifies: (1) who counts (the poll president aided by alternates, under police/military surveillance); (2) how the process operates (specific sequential steps: opening the ballot box, counting envelopes, examining ballots, separating valid votes, null votes, blank votes, disputed votes, and impugned votes); and (3) what evidence is used (ballots, official ballots, party affiliation documentation, voter lists). The statute further defines evidentiary standards for vote classification with five explicit categories (I-V), including detailed criteria for validity, nullity, blank status, disputed status, and impugned status. Fiscal oversight and procedural transparency are codified. This satisfies the criterion because recount procedures are comprehensively defined at the statutory level.

Section 7-5-319(c) provides detailed statutory procedures for recounts that specify: (1) who counts (the county board of election commissioners); (2) how (paper ballots recounted in the manner prescribed for initial count, or alternative methods if malfunction detected; electronic devices subject to manual verification); and (3) what evidence is generated and preserved (certified results tapes, notification of affected candidates, sealing and storage of ballots). The statute codifies mandatory procedures at subsection (c)(2) with specific enumerated requirements (A)-(E) rather than delegating these details to regulation or administrative directive. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that recount procedures be defined in statute.

Article 50 codifies the recount procedure with named requesters (candidate/party/proxy present at summarisation), procedure steps, and observer rights. Article 73 codifies district commission's validity-check + arithmetic-error correction protocol. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure.

Section 274 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 codifies detailed recount procedures directly in statute. It specifies: (i) who counts (Assistant Returning Officers, Divisional Returning Officers); (ii) how counting proceeds (opening ballot-boxes, sorting, counting first preference and informal votes, bundling, transmitting information); (iii) what evidence is required (exhibits ballot-boxes for scrutineer inspection, makes statements signed by officials and optionally by scrutineers, records conditions of ballot-boxes); (iv) the fresh scrutiny process enabling the Divisional Returning Officer to reverse Assistant Returning Officer decisions. The procedures are established in the statutory text itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive. While subsection (2C) references 'directions' from the Australian Electoral Officer regarding preference vote counts, the foundational recount architecture—the initial scrutiny, the fresh scrutiny, the roles of officers, and the evidentiary requirements—are all defined in the Act.

Cal. Elec. Code § 15627 codifies the recount method-choice (manual or voting-system); § 15625 codifies the recount-board composition (4 individuals appointed by elections official); § 15629 mandates that 'The recount shall be conducted publicly.'; § 15601 directs SoS to adopt regulations; § 15631 codifies the ballot-challenge procedure during recount. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure.

Section 304 of the Canada Elections Act codifies recount procedures directly in statute. It specifies: (1) who conducts the recount (a judge), (2) what methods are used (adding votes from statements or counting ballots), (3) what envelopes may be opened and under what conditions (sealed envelopes containing ballots, but not those with other documents), and (4) evidentiary powers (judge has returning officer powers to summon witnesses and compel testimony on oath). While the section references Schedule 4 for certain procedural details, the core recount procedures are statutorily defined rather than delegated to regulation or administrative directive. The statutory framework establishes clear, binding rules for recount conduct.

Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 9-329a(b) codifies a statutory recount procedure with defined mechanics: a Superior Court judge may order recounts when sufficient reason is shown; the procedure covers voting tabulators and ballot boxes; it explicitly includes absentee ballots. The statute specifies the triggering mechanism (hearing before judge with sufficient reason shown), the agent (Superior Court judge ordering it), and the scope (votes cast, including absentee ballots). While the statute does not prescribe granular procedural details (e.g., chain of custody, verification protocols, sealing procedures), it establishes the core procedural framework in statute rather than deferring to regulation or administrative directive. This satisfies the EDRI criterion for statutory codification of recount procedures.

“If, after hearing, sufficient reason is shown, such judge may order any voting tabulators to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened and a recount of the votes cast, including absentee ballots, to be made.”

§ 72 codifies the fintælling: 'no later than the day after voting, the valgbestyrelse meets for the final result determination (fintælling).' § 73 codifies that every ballot is re-counted by district. § 71 codifies result aggregation. § 52 codifies pre-count ballot accounting. § 74a codifies candidate participation restrictions. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure codified.

Recount is codified — § 12 of the President of the Republic Election Act requires the electoral committee to recount the votes where the ascertainment procedure was violated; under the Riigikogu Election Act the rural-municipality/city vote-counting committees additionally check every result by recounting the ballot papers (§ 60).

“Where the procedure for ascertaining of voting results has been violated, the electoral committee recounts the votes.”

§ 87 codifies the verification count (äänten tarkastuslaskenta): on the day after the election at 09:00 the constituency committee must re-examine all election-day ballots and the polling committees' tallies and decide which count for candidates and which are invalid. § 86 codifies the advance-vote count. § 89 codifies the result-calculation method. § 96 codifies application to the presidential and EP elections. § 99 codifies secure custody of ballots during any interruption. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure codified.

§ 102.166 codifies the manual recount procedure (overvotes / undervotes) triggered by the 0.25% threshold. § 102.141 (4976) operationalizes the canvassing board's role in initiating the machine recount.

“If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office”

§ 21-2-495 codifies statutory recount/recanvass procedure: superintendent may order recount on motion or candidate/party petition. § 21-2-498 codifies precertification audit. § 21-2-493 codifies discrepancy investigation. § 21-2-504 codifies special-election trigger. Comprehensive statutory recount framework.

10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a codifies statewide recount procedure (Supreme Court assigns Circuit Judge, presides over examination, takes evidence). § 24A-15 and § 24C-15 codify equipment-specific recount procedures for optical-scan and DRE systems.

“Election contest - Statewide - Procedures for recount and initial hearing”

Iowa Code § 50.48 comprehensively codifies recount procedures directly in statute. It specifies: (1) who counts—the commissioner and staff, with equal party representation for partisan offices (§ 50.48(2)); (2) how—using automatic tabulating equipment unless flawed, with manual recount authority for certain officials (§ 50.48(3)); (3) timing—board convened within 7 days of request, completion as expeditiously as reasonably possible (§ 50.48(2)(b), (3)(a)); (4) evidence—all voted ballots for the office including disputed ballots (§ 50.48(3)(a)); (5) observer rights—up to five observers per candidate per county (§ 50.48(2)(c)); (6) ballot handling standards—supervisor ensures protection from alteration or damage (§ 50.48(3)(a)). These procedural elements are prescribed in the statute itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive, satisfying the criterion's requirement for statutory definition.

K.S.A. 25-1447(d) codifies the core recount procedure in statute: (1) WHO counts—three inspectors appointed by the judge or selected by parties; (2) HOW—presence of the legal custodian, recanvass conducted in accordance with Kansas election laws, written report required; (3) EVIDENCE—inspectors report votes cast for each party/precinct and any disputed votes. The statute specifies the procedural framework, inspector selection mechanism, documentation requirements, and dispute-reporting obligation. While subsection (d) references "applicable Kansas election laws" for counting rules, the operative recount procedure itself—inspector appointment, recanvass methodology, written reporting, and dispute notation—is codified in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

“The inspectors in a state contest shall be selected in the manner provided in subsection (a). (d) The inspection shall be made in the presence of the legal custodian of the ballots or voting machines, and the inspectors shall recanvass the votes cast for the parties to the contest or the question submitted in accordance with the rules for counting votes provided in the applicable Kansas election laws. The inspectors shall make a written report of such recanvass and report the number of votes cast for each of the parties to the contest, or for and against a question submitted, for each precinct that is recounted and report any disputed votes upon which the inspectors cannot agree.”

KRS 120.185 codifies the statutory recount procedure: a candidate who does not qualify for an automatic recount may petition the Circuit Court, which secures the equipment and ballots, fixes a day for the recount, and the county board of elections — after confirming ballot integrity — conducts the recount with party and candidate representatives and the news media present. KRS 120.157 codifies the automatic-recount procedure and KRS 120.260/120.290 codify recounts of public-question elections.

§ 37¹ of the Local Government Council Election Law codifies a recount procedure — where a court finds outcome-affecting violations it revokes the result-approval and may assign the election commission to re-count the votes; § 45³ provides the parallel at the municipal-results level.

“to assign the local government election commission to re-count the votes”

§ 71 codifies the recount-and-result-establishment procedure — the CEC establishes the referendum result only after receiving all vote-counting records and investigating all complaints, with § 75/§ 77 of the Seimas Election Law providing the parallel polling-district recount procedure.

“shall investigate all the complaints regarding the vote counting records of the city and regional referendum committees”

La. R.S. 18:1453 codifies recount procedures directly in statute. The section specifies: (1) who counts (counters appointed by the trial judge); (2) how (in open court or other location determined by the trial judge, with notice to interested parties and parties/representatives permitted to attend, but not as an adversary proceeding); (3) what evidence is produced (registrars and clerks of court are ordered to produce absentee by mail ballots, early voting ballots, vote count records, and other relevant documents); and (4) the public announcement and delivery of results to the secretary of state. These procedural elements are established directly in statutory text rather than delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

LGIPE Art. 311 codifies detailed recount procedures directly in statute at the highest legislative level (Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales). The section specifies: (1) who counts (secretario del consejo, with party representatives and electoral counselors verifying); (2) how (en voz alta/aloud, by ballot type, in numerical order of precincts); (3) triggers for recounts (mismatched tallies, evident alterations, specific numerical thresholds); (4) documentation (actas circunstanciadas). Subsection 2 further codifies automatic full recount when margin is ≤1 percentage point. These are not delegated to regulations or administrative directives—they are statutory mandates. The procedure is prospective and binding on district councils.

The statute codifies who conducts the recount (board of canvassers), the manner of counting (one recount clerk calls votes, two tally clerks simultaneously record), observer rights, challenge procedures, and handling of challenged ballots. These are substantive procedural rules in statute, not delegated to regulation.

§ 204C.361 codifies that 'the secretary of state shall adopt rules… establishing UNIFORM RECOUNT PROCEDURES' applicable to all recounts under §§ 204C.35, 204C.36, and 206.88, with ballot-segregation-by-precinct requirements. § 204C.36 / § 204C.35 codify the substantive recount triggers. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure codified.

“The secretary of state shall adopt rules according to the Administrative Procedure Act establishing uniform recount procedures. All recounts provided for by sections 204C.35, 204C.36, and 206.88, shall be conducted in accordance with these rules.”

§ 13-16-412 codifies the recount procedure — the election administrator delivers the sealed ballot packages to the county recount board, which opens them and manually counts the votes on each ballot onto prepared tally sheets.

“the board shall count the votes on each ballot manually”

The statute codifies comprehensive recount procedures including: (1) who counts (county canvassing board per subsection 3); (2) how (same procedures as election day counting per subsection 7, with specific rules for vote counting devices); (3) with what evidence (abstract of votes establishes trigger per subsection 1, ballots are the evidence); (4) timing (fifth Wednesday after election for state candidates per subsection 4, as soon as possible for county candidates per subsection 5); (5) cost allocation (paid by political subdivisions involved per subsection 2); (6) notice and candidate presence (subsection 6 requires notification and allows candidate presence or representation). These substantive procedural rules are all embedded in the statutory text itself, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive. The statute provides sufficient specificity to enable prompt and accessible recount resolution based on statutory rules rather than case-by-case administrative discretion.

“The procedures for the recounting of ballots shall be the same as those used for the counting of ballots on election day. The recount shall be conducted at the county courthouse, except that if vote counting devices are used for the counting or recounting, such counting or recounting may be accomplished at the site of the devices. Counties counting ballots by using a vote counting device shall first recount the ballots by use of the device. If substantial changes are found, the ballots shall then be counted using such device in any precinct which might reflect a substantial change.”

Article V 4b of the Kieswet (Electoral Act) codifies the recount procedure in statutory law. It specifies: (1) who conducts the recount (the representative body/vertegenwoordigend orgaan); (2) the procedural steps (chairperson of central voting bureau transfers sealed packages, representative body opens packages immediately upon receipt, compares contents with voting bureau records); (3) the evidentiary basis (comparison with procès-verbaux of voting bureaus); and (4) incorporation by reference of Articles T 6–T 10, which establish handling and sealing procedures. The procedure is triggered by decision of the representative body under Article V 4(1). This satisfies the criterion because recount mechanics—who counts, how they count, with what evidence—are defined directly in statute rather than delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

NMSA 1978 § 1-14-23 comprehensively codifies recount procedures in statute. The section defines (1) who counts (county clerks, representatives of candidates, precinct boards), (2) how (hand tally of randomly selected ballots compared against electronic tabulation, with specific percentage thresholds: 2% for statewide/federal offices and 5% for other offices, minimum 100 ballots), and (3) with what evidence (comparison of hand tally results against electronic system results, with fallback procedures if discrepancies are discovered). The statute also specifies the mechanism for determining which electronic system to use based on accuracy validation. This is statutory law, not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's requirement that procedures be defined in statute rather than subordinate authority.

§ 9-208 codifies the statutory recanvass procedure: within 15 days after every general/special election (20 days after primary, 7 days after village), a bipartisan committee of the board shall recanvass tabulated result tapes from each ballot scanner by comparing to return of canvass, plus recanvass hand-counted ballots and write-in votes. Procedure is statutorily defined.

“the board of elections, or a bipartisan committee of or appointed by said board shall, in each county using ballot scanners, make a record of the serial number of each ballot scanner used in each election district in such general, special or primary election.”

§ 10-11 codifies the second-count procedure: ballots from the first count are counted anew, by manual or machine method as the election board decides. § 10-8 codifies the manual first count. § 10-12 codifies control during the second count. § 10-14 codifies counting/registration/control by district and county election boards. Comprehensive dual-count + recount procedure codified.

ORC 3515.04 codifies recount procedure: who handles ballots (board members + employees), observer rights, scope limitation to the contested race, and the request-to-stop mechanism. Procedure clearly in statute.

“the board of elections, in the presence of all observers who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall reco”

§ 26-8-114 codifies recount procedures in statute with specificity. The statute defines: (1) who counts (county election board for electronic devices; appointed counters for manual recounts, with qualifications tied to precinct inspector/judge/clerk standards); (2) how the process works (opening transfer cases by precinct, assigning ballots to devices or counter groups, county election board supervision); (3) evidentiary standards for ballot validity (county election board majority vote determines if ballot is valid and should be counted); (4) watcher rights and challenge procedures (written challenges made immediately to county election board, whose decision is final); and (5) compensation (counters paid on same basis as election workers). The procedures apply to both electronic and manual recounts. This is codified in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

§ 1404 codifies the canvass/computation procedure: county board commences at 9 a.m. on the third day after election, publicly canvasses with notice; codifies who counts (county board, organized into sections) and what evidence (returns from each district) is reviewed.

“at nine o'clock A. M. on the third day following the primary or election”

Article 69 codifies the procedure for processing voting results across the commission hierarchy with re-checks at each level. Article 68 codifies the open and transparent counting procedure. Article 77 (Cancellation of Decision on Voting Results) extends to recount-driven cancellation. Article 30 codifies observer access. Statutory recount-via-protocol-recheck framework codified.

12 kap. 1 § codifies the municipal-commission re-count of ballots not counted at the polling station, in a public meeting on Wednesday after election day. 11 kap. 5 § codifies envelope opening restrictions. 12 kap. 6 § codifies protocol-keeping. 12 kap. 8 § codifies secure storage during interruption. 9 kap. 5 § codifies envelope-verification procedure. Comprehensive triple-tier recount procedure codified.

Title 13 (Ch. 211-216) codifies recount procedure in detail. § 212.005 codifies how concurrent recounts proceed and the counting-method hierarchy (a manual recount is conducted in preference to an electronic recount). § 213.001-213.059 codify who supervises and conducts a recount, the recount committee, and special procedures (e.g. § 213.059 for a gubernatorial recount); Ch. 214 codifies electronic-recount procedure. Recount procedure is set by statute, not administrative directive.

Art. IV-254 codifies the territorial commission's procedure for receipt + consideration of precinct election documents, including procedure when discrepancies are identified (hand-verification + protocol-correction). Art. IV-206 codifies territorial commission powers. Statutory recount/recanvass procedure codified.

Utah Code § 20A-4-401 comprehensively codifies recount procedures in statute. It specifies: (1) who conducts the recount (the election officer); (2) how it is conducted (supervise the recount, recount all ballots, reexamine uncounted ballots); (3) what evidence is used (all ballots cast in the race, compliance with ballot disposition rules); (4) the timeline for completion (10 calendar days for mandatory recounts, 7 calendar days for requested recounts); (5) how the results are determined (highest number of votes wins; ties are declared). The statute does not delegate these procedural elements to regulation or administrative discretion but sets them forth directly in statutory text.

§ 2685 ('Conduct of recount') and § 2685a ('Procedure for recount') codify the recount procedure: ballots are stored sealed in the town clerk's vault until the recount, the board of civil authority breaks the seal, opens the container, and recounts 'in the same manner as the votes were counted on the day of the election.' § 2602c-2602m codify the parallel procedure for federal, statewide, and county recounts. Statutory recount procedure codified.

This statute codifies recount procedures in substantial detail within statutory text rather than delegating to regulation or administrative directive. The procedures specify: (1) who counts (recount officials selected equally by parties, teams for ballot scanners with one representative from each party, coordinators from electoral boards); (2) how counting proceeds (at least one team per locality for scanner machines, uniform procedures across the election district, observers with unobstructed view); and (3) evidence handling (individual ballots examined after preliminary hearing, security measures supervised by chief judge). The statute mandates the court "fix any additional procedures" and ensure "uniform" recount procedures, but the core mechanisms—team composition, party selection rights, observer access, and ballot handling—are statutorily defined rather than left to administrative discretion or regulation.

RCW § 29A.64.041 codifies core procedural elements of recount administration directly in statute: (1) designation of who counts (canvassing board or duly authorized representatives), (2) procedural mechanism (opening sealed containers, tabulating votes in presence of witnesses), (3) scope limitation (only offices/issues for which recount was applied), (4) observer participation rights and restrictions (candidates may observe but not handle ballots or record voter information unless court-authorized), and (5) administrative discretion to limit observers to prevent undue delay. These substantive procedural rules are statutory, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive. The provision satisfies the criterion for procedurally clear recount mechanics codified in law.

Wis. Stat. § 9.01 codifies the recount procedure in extensive detail (one of the most-detailed in any state): petition rights, fees, who counts, evidence rules, hand-count vs. machine-count choice, observer access. § 5.90 governs electronic-system recounts. § 7.53 codifies municipal canvass. Comprehensive statutory recount procedure.

Section 109A defines a mandatory post-election audit procedure with substantial statutory clarity on mechanics: who conducts it (board of registrars or election commission), timing (within 2 business days), how (hand-counted, public, following sections 135 and 135A procedures), precinct selection (3% random draw), evidentiary standard (voter intent), and reporting (audit report forms within 14 days). However, this is framed as a mandatory post-election AUDIT, not a recount triggered by dispute or candidate request. The section does not address triggered recounts initiated by candidates or parties under section 135, which is the paradigm dispute-resolution recount. The statute cross-references sections 135 and 135A for hand-count procedures but does not themselves codify recount triggering conditions, cost allocation, or the effect of a recount finding on certification. The audit procedure is rigorous and statutory, but the criterion asks whether recount procedures (implicitly: triggered recounts in the context of election contests) are defined. This section provides procedural clarity for a compliance audit, not for the recount mechanism invoked to resolve disputed elections.

The statute codifies recount procedures with specificity on: (1) who counts (county clerk); (2) how (hand-tally of random sample, comparison with automated tabulation, conditional recount method based on variance threshold); and (3) sampling thresholds and variance thresholds with numeric specificity. However, the statute does not address several procedural dimensions: (a) evidence standards or documentation requirements for hand-tally validity; (b) chain of custody or ballot security during recount; (c) observer rights or notice requirements; (d) what constitutes a 'ballot' or resolution of ambiguous ballots; (e) cost allocation; (f) timeline or deadline for completion; (g) effect or finality of recount results; (h) who certifies the recount and under what conditions. The statute defines conditional triggers for full recount methodology but leaves the operational and evidentiary detail of the hand-tally process and its verification to administrative implementation. This is stronger than pure discretion but weaker than comprehensive statutory codification of all recount elements.

§ 16-663 establishes some procedural detail for court-ordered recounts, specifically: (1) the trigger (facts certified to superior court); (2) the actor (superior court); (3) a hand-count protocol for legislative, statewide, and federal races (random selection of 5% of precincts by party chairpersons); and (4) a margin-comparison threshold that determines whether full procedures under § 16-602 apply. However, the statute repeatedly delegates to other provisions (§ 16-664 for electronic voting equipment methodology; § 16-602 for full recount standards) and uses the directive "conducted in accordance with the laws pertaining to contests of elections," which indicates reliance on contest procedures defined elsewhere. While some specificity exists regarding hand-count triggering and the 5% sample protocol, the core operational details of how votes are physically recounted, what chain-of-custody rules apply, and evidentiary standards are not fully codified in this section itself. The statute provides a framework but outsources critical procedural detail to cross-referenced statutes and potentially administrative guidance.

This section establishes that the bureau counts votes ("le bureau procède aussitôt au recensement des voix") and that the president opens ballot envelopes in the presence of the bureau and witnesses. However, the text provides only skeletal procedural outline. It specifies WHO counts (the bureau/officials present) and establishes WHEN (immediately/aussitôt), but does not define HOW votes are counted, what methodology is used, standards of evidence for disputed ballots, or detailed recount triggers and procedures. The statute delegates significant operational detail to the Crown ("Le Roi") regarding personnel and logistics. The absence of detailed statutory rules on: (1) recount triggers beyond initial count, (2) recount methodology and standards, (3) evidentiary rules for ballot disputes, and (4) appeals from initial count results means that procedural clarity is incomplete. A jurisdiction scoring high on RECT.1 would codify not just that counting occurs but the detailed mechanics of HOW disputes within counts are resolved and what triggers a formal recount process.

The section provides detailed statutory procedures for the initial counting and tallying of absentee ballots, including team composition (odd number of electors, with one reader and two talliers), venue (municipality offices or election place), evidence requirements (matching serial numbers, verification against absentee voter list, rejection standards), and documentation (tally sheets, log sheets, carrier envelopes). However, this statute governs the initial count procedure on election day, not the recount procedure triggered after election results are contested or when a margin is close. The section does not address post-election recount triggers, cost allocation, or the effect of recount findings on certification. It therefore partially satisfies the criterion by establishing clear statutory procedures for the initial absentee ballot count process, but does not address statutory recount procedures for disputed elections.

This provision addresses recount authority and function (a commission examines ballot validity and count, makes necessary corrections, and proclaims results publicly). However, it defines WHO (the commission) and general WHAT (validity and counting) but does not codify specific procedural mechanics: no detail on triggering conditions, cost allocation, evidence standards for ballot challenges, or the precise methodology of recounting. The phrase 'sans préjudice du pouvoir d'appréciation du juge de l'élection' [without prejudice to the election judge's power of discretion] further delegates substantive standards to judicial discretion rather than statutory specification. As a recount provision in the Code électoral (legislative instrument), it satisfies the basic requirement that recount authority be statutory rather than purely administrative; but it fails to meet the full criterion of defining recount procedures comprehensively in statute. The provision is insufficiently precise to enable prompt, consistent recount resolution.

“La commission tranche les questions que peuvent poser, en dehors de toute réclamation, la validité et le décompte des bulletins et procède aux rectifications nécessaires”

Article 21 codifies DEC powers including 'verification of summary protocols' which functions as a layered recount. Article 73-74 (in REG.4 cands) codify complaints about counting and recount procedures. Statutory recount mechanism exists via complaint-driven verification.

§ 76 BWO establishes that the Kreiswahlleiter (district election official) clarifies doubts about election regularity and may conduct a recount (Nachzählung von Stimmzetteln) of ballot papers, with public notice required. However, the statute provides minimal procedural detail: it does not specify trigger thresholds for mandatory recounts, detailed counting procedures, evidentiary standards for when recounts must occur, cost allocation, or binding effect on final results. The text requires notification and references review of ballot bundles but lacks comprehensive codification of 'who counts, how, with what evidence.' The framework is skeletal rather than fully defined in statute. Administrative directives and regulations likely fill substantive gaps, placing portions of recount procedure outside statutory text.

“Ergeben sich aus der Wahlniederschrift oder aus sonstigen Gründen Bedenken gegen die Ordnungsmäßigkeit des Wahlgeschäfts, so klärt sie der Kreiswahlleiter soweit wie möglich auf. Im Falle einer Nachzählung von Stimmzetteln macht der Kreiswahlleiter die Nachzählung durch Aushang am oder im Eingang des Sitzungsgebäudes bekannt.”

Section 47 defines the initial count procedure clearly: the voting leader or designee opens ballot boxes publicly, organizes ballots by party/candidate, and counts votes with witnesses present. This satisfies the primary count mechanics. However, the statute does not address recount procedures specifically—i.e., triggers for recounting (when votes are disputed), procedures for requesting a recount, cost allocation, or the evidentiary standard that must be met before a recount is ordered. The section covers ballot handling and the mechanics of the initial tally but lacks statutory codification of the recount framework itself (who may request it, on what grounds, within what timeframe, and with what effect). This is procedurally clear for the initial count but incomplete for post-election disputes.

This section addresses the WHO (recount commission) and HOW (manually, not by automatic tabulating machines) of recount procedure, codifying them in statute. However, it delegates the detailed procedural requirements to IC 3-11-7 (another statutory section on ballot card handling), meaning the full procedural framework is not self-contained within this section. Additionally, the section does not codify what evidence or documentation is required during the manual count, burden of proof standards, or the evidentiary threshold for initiating a recount. It addresses the withdrawal mechanism but not the triggering mechanism, cost allocation, or what findings effect election outcome. The provision is procedurally clear on the METHOD of counting but incomplete on the broader recount framework required by RECT.1.

Article 43(7-1) establishes a statutory recount procedure with some defined elements: (1) who conducts it (precinct or territorial election commission), (2) the trigger (written request from authorized representative), (3) a limitation (once only), and (4) timing (within established periods). However, the statute does NOT codify critical procedural details including: who may request a recount (identity/standing of 'authorized representative'), cost allocation, detailed mechanics of how votes are recounted, what evidence/documentation must be preserved, what findings effect the certification process, or remedies available if recount reveals discrepancies. The provision is skeletal compared to comprehensive recount statutes that specify chain of custody, observer access, comparison procedures, and appeal mechanisms. The text delegates substantial procedural content to the unspecified 'periods' established in prior paragraphs, creating ambiguity about statutory versus administrative definition.

“The precinct election commission (territorial election commission for the election of deputies of the Senate), at the request of an authorized representative submitted in writing, shall conduct a recount of votes only once within the period established by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article.”

Article 308 codifies the initial counting procedure and documentation requirements for the counting bureau (bureau de dépouillement), specifying what must be counted (voters, blank ballots, null ballots, valid ballots, list votes, and nominal votes) and that results must be recorded in a proces-verbal. This satisfies part of RECT.1 by establishing statutory procedures for the initial count. However, the section does not address recount procedures specifically—it concerns the primary count. It also lacks statutory specification of: (1) who may request a recount; (2) triggers for recount; (3) procedures for recounting ballots; (4) cost allocation; or (5) the effect/binding nature of recount findings. The statute codifies the initial count structure but does not comprehensively define recount mechanics, triggering conditions, or legal effect, which are core elements of the recount procedure criterion.

“Le bureau arrête le nombre des votants, celui des bulletins blancs et nuls et des bulletins valables, le nombre des suffrages de liste et celui des suffrages nominatifs. Il les fait inscrire au procès-verbal.”

Section 732 establishes a clear trigger for recount (apparent tie) and designates the Secretary of State as the responsible party. However, the statute is severely limited in procedural detail. It does not specify: (1) who physically conducts the recount (Secretary of State staff, election officials, bipartisan observers); (2) how the recount is conducted (machine vs. manual, county by county, statewide); (3) what evidence or documentation is required; (4) what burden of proof applies to determine 'apparent tie'; (5) notice and observation rights; or (6) timelines for completing the recount. The statute addresses only the tie-breaking mechanism (lot drawing for primaries, special election for general elections), not the recount process itself. This is a procedural framework for outcomes, not for the mechanics of counting.

“When there is an apparent tie vote, the Secretary of State shall automatically initiate a recount. If a recount confirms a tie vote, the following provisions apply.”

NRS § 293.424(1)(b) codifies timing and initiation procedures for recounts (commencement within 1 day, completion within 5 days), and establishes trigger requirements (demand by candidate within 13 days post-election). However, the statute does not specify who counts (election officials, judges, machines?), how the counting is conducted (manual, machine, mixed?), or what evidentiary standards apply during the recount process. The statute delegates substantive procedural details to Secretary of State regulations, particularly regarding cost definitions in subsection (1)(a)(2). For RECT.1 (statutory definition of recount procedures including 'who counts, how, with what evidence'), the statute provides partial statutory codification of triggering and timing rules but outsources the operational mechanics of the recount itself to administrative regulation, falling short of comprehensive statutory specification.

This section establishes TIMING and NOTICE requirements for recounts with statutory clarity: the secretary of state must begin recounting no later than the Wednesday following the recount request deadline, at a designated state facility in Concord, with notice to applicants and opposing candidates. However, the section explicitly delegates the substantive recount PROCEDURES themselves to administrative rules ('rules and procedures governing the recount') rather than codifying them in statute. The section does not define who physically counts ballots, the methodology for counting, chain-of-custody procedures, what evidence triggers invalidation of ballots, or how disputed ballots are resolved. While the procedural framework (timing, venue, notice) is statutory, the operational mechanics are left to administrative discretion. This represents partial satisfaction: strong statutory clarity on procedural triggers and deadlines, but substantive counting procedures are not statutorily defined.

“The secretary of state shall give a reasonable notice thereof to the applicant and to each of the opposing candidates. The secretary of state shall also prepare and distribute to the applicant and to each of the opposing candidates the rules and procedures governing the recount”

The statute codifies a recount trigger (tie votes in primary elections for certain offices) and designates the responsible body (county board of elections). However, the section provides minimal procedural detail on the mechanics of the recount itself—it does not specify who physically counts ballots, what equipment or methodology is used, what evidentiary standards apply (e.g., handling of provisional or disputed ballots), chain of custody protocols, or observer rights. The statute establishes the existence and triggering condition for recount but leaves the operational 'how' to administrative implementation. This is a partial satisfaction: the statute codifies the trigger and responsible actor but not the detailed procedural steps necessary to conduct a recount fairly and consistently.

“In the event of a tie for the highest number of votes in a first primary between two candidates for party nomination for a single county, or single-county legislative district office, the board of elections of the county in which the two candidates were voted for shall conduct a recount and declare the results. If the recount shows a tie vote, a second primary shall be held on the date prescribed in subsection (e) of this section between”

ORS § 254.485 codifies general recount procedural elements in statute: it specifies who counts (counting board members and county clerk), how the count proceeds (without adjournment, in presence of authorized persons, with audible announcement, using pen and ink), and establishes a 12-hour relief mechanism. However, the statute addresses ballot tallying generally rather than recounts specifically. The section does not codify recount-specific triggers (when a recount is mandated or requested), recount cost allocation, or the evidentiary standard for finding legal effect of recount results. The delegation to the Secretary of State to establish recount procedures by rule (subsection 7) indicates that material recount mechanics are reserved for administrative rulemaking rather than statutory specification. Thus the statute provides a partial framework: some procedural clarity on basic counting mechanics, but incomplete codification of recount-triggering conditions, cost rules, and result-effect provisions.

The statute defines SOME procedural elements: the trigger (200-vote or less margin), the entity responsible (state board of elections), and the basic methodology (re-reading programmed memory devices and comparing results). However, critical procedural details are delegated to regulation: 'The state board shall have the authority to adopt rules and regulations to implement and administer the provisions of this section.' This means the specific mechanics of the recount—including who physically counts, chain of custody, observation rights, verification procedures, and dispute resolution during the recount itself—are NOT codified in statute. Under EDRI's dual-scholar test, a statute that contains a broad regulatory delegation scores lower than one with procedural details fully statutory. The statute defines triggers and basic method but leaves 'implementation and administration' to rules not included here.

“Upon application, the state board of elections shall conduct a recount for a presidential candidate or delegate for a winning candidate when there is a two hundred (200) or less vote difference between the losing candidate or delegate and the winner. Said recount shall be conducted by re-reading the programmed memory device or devices and comparing the results and totals obtained at such recount with the results and totals obtained on election night. The state board shall have the authority to adopt rules and regulations to implement and administer the provisions of this section.”

Section 49(3)–(5) establishes that a counting officer may order a recount and must redetermine the result, but the statute does NOT codify the procedural mechanics of how a recount is conducted—who performs the physical recount, what chain-of-custody rules apply, what evidence must be preserved, or what standard governs the counting officer's discretion to order one. The statute repeatedly delegates operative procedures to 'prescribed manner' language (s. 49(2), (3), (6)), which references regulations or administrative directives outside the statute itself. Section 41(5)–(7) are incorporated by cross-reference for objections under s. 48, but these sections are not provided in the excerpt. Without the full statutory text defining recount mechanics, this section satisfies only the threshold requirement that a recount mechanism exists—not the EDRI criterion that recount PROCEDURES are codified in statute rather than regulation.

§ 12-17B-17 codifies State Board of Elections rule-making promulgation including for recount procedures. § 12-21-54 codifies defenses to certiorari review of recount. The recount statutory framework is codified in §§ 12-21-1 through 12-21-65 (Chapter 12-21 Recounts).

Article 108 codifies scrutiny (escrutinio) procedures and the documentation requirements at the Electoral Board level, including what must be recorded in the scrutiny record. However, the statute does not detail the mechanics of the recount process itself—who physically counts votes, procedures for disputing individual ballot determinations, or standards for resolving ambiguous ballots. The article prescribes the written output (acta de escrutinio) and the complaint/protest mechanism (reclamaciones y protestas within one day, resolved by the Electoral Board within one day, appealable to the Central Electoral Board within one day), but recount procedure as a distinct remedial mechanism for recounting ballots after initial scrutiny is not explicitly addressed. The section addresses scrutiny completion and dispute resolution post-scrutiny, not the procedural mechanics of recounting votes if election results are challenged. The statutory text covers documentation standards and protest procedures but lacks detail on when, how, and by whom a true recount (as opposed to mere protest review) would be conducted.

The statute codifies recount *triggers* (tie vote, fraud indication, machine malfunction, discretionary finding) and the *scope* (complete recount of all ballots). It also specifies who orders recounts (court, primary board, legislative body, tribunal with jurisdiction) and grants discretion over the *method* (hand or automated). However, the statute does not define WHO COUNTS (e.g., election officials, observers, appointed persons), CHAIN OF CUSTODY procedures, VERIFICATION or VALIDATION protocols, CHALLENGE procedures, or REPORTING requirements. The statute delegates the actual procedural implementation—the granular mechanics of conducting the recount—to the discretion of the ordering authority ('shall determine...'), leaving critical procedural details to regulation, administrative directive, or case-by-case determination rather than statutory specification.

“Any recount ordered by this section shall be a complete recount of all ballots cast in such election. The court or body with jurisdiction of a contested election shall determine if the recount shall be conducted by hand or with automated tabulators.”

52 USC § 21083a codifies congressional election observer access to 'any area in which a ballot is cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, audited, or certified'. Observer access at recounts codified, but the recount procedure itself (who counts, how, with what evidence) is left to states.

The statute establishes WHO performs the recount (board of canvassers) and addresses recount procedures in contexts of mechanical error (recount ballots affected by device malfunction). However, the section is narrowly focused on recounts triggered by vote recording device errors, not general recount procedures. It does not codify: (1) the procedures for initiating a recount (e.g., threshold margins, petition requirements); (2) how counting is conducted in ordinary recounts; (3) evidentiary standards for initiating recounts; (4) cost allocation; or (5) the effect of recount findings on certification. The procedures defined here are limited to testing equipment accuracy and correcting device-caused errors. The statute specifies that the clerk of the county court shall conduct tests 'in the presence of the board of canvassers and of any candidate or his party representative,' which provides some procedural clarity for the testing phase. But this does not constitute a comprehensive recount procedure codification as would be required for full satisfaction of RECT.1.

“the board of canvassers shall proceed to determine whether an error has occurred in the vote recorded or counted on such device or equipment. If an error is found, the board of canvassers shall have the cause of the error corrected and the ballots affected recounted”

§ 11-108 addresses WHEN and WHAT ballots are recounted (initial recount includes only verified ballots; final tabulation recount 'as provided by law'), and establishes that the clerk validates ballots within five business days. However, the section does NOT define the substantive recount procedure—who physically conducts the recount, what method is used, what chain-of-custody or witnessing requirements apply, or what triggers a recount. The phrase 'as provided by law' is a delegation to other statutory provisions. While § 11-108(d) clarifies which ballots are included in a recount, it does not codify the procedural mechanics (counting method, observer roles, audit procedures, etc.). Standing alone, this section establishes only ballot eligibility and timing constraints, not the recount process itself. A complete recount procedure would specify counting method, observer access, and evidence standards in the same section or cross-reference a specific statute that does so.

Article 78 establishes observer rights to request recounts and defines certain specific reconciliation procedures (matching voter counts, names on voting documents, unused ballot papers). However, the statute does not codify a comprehensive recount procedure addressing: (1) formal triggering mechanism for recounts (who initiates, on what grounds, within what deadline); (2) the standard of review or threshold triggering a full recount; (3) cost allocation; (4) binding effect of recount findings; (5) appeal or challenge rights post-recount. The text grants "reasonable facilities" to request recounts but does not define what constitutes a valid recount request, the scope of mandatory recounting, or how recount results are certified and used to alter election results. This reflects a framework emphasizing reconciliation procedures and observer access rather than a statutory recount mechanism with clear procedural steps and consequences.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Article 13 codifies transparency in preparation and conduct of elections (observer presence at counting). Article 141 covers recall-voting procedure including counting. Neither codifies an enumerated recount procedure (who recounts, what evidence, what standard) — recounts in Belarus operate via Article 79 protocol-amendment by higher commissions but a formal statutory recount mechanic is not established.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 498 codifies application of Administrative Offences Act; not recount procedure. Bulgaria's recount mechanics (machine-vote/paper-ballot dual track) are in Чл. 213a et seq., not surfaced for this datapoint.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section C.R.S. § 1-13-104 contains only definitions relevant to Colorado election law, including terms such as 'special election,' 'statewide abstract of votes cast,' 'voter-verified paper record,' and 'voting system.' The section does not contain any substantive procedural rules governing recounts, including who counts ballots, the mechanism for conducting recounts, evidentiary standards, cost allocation, or the legal effect of recount findings. While the section defines 'voter-verified paper record' and 'voting system,' these are definitional provisions that support recount procedures rather than codifying recount procedures themselves. Recount procedures, if addressed in Colorado law, would be found in other sections of Title 1, Article 13 (such as sections addressing election contests or certification), but they are not present in this definitional section. The section does not satisfy RECT.1 because it lacks any procedural codification of recount mechanics.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 59 of Zákon č. 247/1995 Sb. addresses electoral district boundaries and territorial definitions for Senate elections. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, counting methods, evidence standards, or the mechanics of recounting ballots. The section is purely administrative-geographic in nature, defining how 81 Senate electoral districts are constituted and how municipal boundary changes affect district assignments. It does not codify who performs recounts, how they are conducted, what evidence is required, or what effects recount findings have. To satisfy RECT.1, a statute must define recount procedures directly; this section does neither directly nor by reference.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 157 of Madagascar's Loi organique 2018-008 addresses voting procedures and voter registration on the electoral roster (liste d'émargement), including signature verification and counterattesting by electoral bureau members. It does not establish recount procedures, triggers for recounts, cost allocation for recounts, or the effects of recount findings. The article is focused on the mechanics of casting and registering votes on election day, not post-election dispute resolution through recounting. The criterion RECT.1 requires statutory definition of who conducts recounts, how recounts are conducted, and what evidence triggers them — none of which appear in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute delegates the core procedural details of how recounts are conducted ('how') to regulations adopted by the State Board, not to the statute itself. While § 12-106 establishes that local boards conduct recounts and the State Board monitors them, the actual procedures governing who counts, how they count, and what evidence is required are explicitly deferred to administrative regulation ('In accordance with regulations adopted by the State Board'). The statute contains only skeletal procedural requirements: local board conducting authority, public observation rights, State Board monitoring, petitioner/counterpetitioner termination requests, and correction of returns. The criterion requires procedures to be 'defined in statute, not regulation or administrative directive,' and this section fails that test by delegating the substantive 'how' to regulation.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While § 115.600 grants authority to petition for a recount and establishes a general evidentiary standard ('irregularities sufficient to cast doubt on the outcome'), it does not define recount procedures themselves. The statute does not codify: who physically conducts the recount, the method or process for recounting ballots, chain-of-custody protocols, observation rights, reporting requirements, or time limits for completion. The provision delegates these procedural details implicitly to court discretion or to regulations/administrative directives not quoted here. The statute answers 'whether' a recount may occur but not 'how' it is to be conducted.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 153 addresses the procedure for repeated voting (i.e., holding new elections) after elections are declared invalid or null and void. It specifies that the Central Electoral Commission shall order repeated voting within 2 weeks using the same electoral roll, candidates, and electoral councils/bureaux. However, this section does not define recount procedures in the sense required by RECT.1. A recount involves recounting ballots already cast to verify or correct initial tallies; repeated voting is a distinct remedy involving a completely new electoral event. The statute does not codify who performs a recount, how ballots are physically recounted, what evidence is required during the recount process, or how recount findings are determined and applied. The section also does not address triggers for a recount, cost allocation, or the effects of recount findings on ballot validity or certification. It is therefore inapplicable to the specific statutory criterion measuring whether recount procedures—distinct from post-election remedies like annulment and re-voting—are procedurally defined.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 19:48-1 prescribes requirements for voting machines themselves—their construction, security features, and capacity for producing paper records. It does not define recount procedures, specify who conducts recounts, establish how recounts are performed, or detail the evidentiary basis for recount outcomes. While subsection b(1) mandates that 'In the event of a recount of the results of an election, the voter-verified paper record shall be the official tally,' this merely designates the source document in a recount without establishing the procedural framework for initiating, conducting, or concluding a recount. Recount procedures—including triggers, cost allocation, counting methodology, and verification protocols—are not codified in this section. The criterion requires that recount procedures be 'defined in statute,' and this section addresses only machine specifications, not dispute-resolution process.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Ek Madde 9 (electronic result transmission to parties) and Ek Madde 1 (voter-education broadcasts) do not codify recount procedure. Recount falls under YSK's general power to review all challenges per Article 14(11), not surfaced here.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: EAA 2006 s. 46 addresses remedial powers of returning officers for errors in conduct of the election but expressly prohibits recounts after result declaration. The section does not codify recount procedures—who counts, how counts are conducted, or what evidentiary standards apply. Instead, it creates a narrow power to remedy non-compliant acts or omissions before declaration. The prohibition on post-declaration recounts eliminates the section as a source of recount procedural rules. Recount procedures, if they exist in UK law, are not defined in this section and would need to be located in other statutory instruments or regulations (notably the Representation of the People Rules 1986). This section therefore does not satisfy the criterion of defining recount procedures in statute at this location.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses retabulation, not the recount procedure itself. It establishes that retabulation is discretionary with the county clerk and that a recount 'under W.S. 22-16-109(a) shall be conducted' if retabulation differences affect results, but the actual recount procedure—who counts, how the count is performed, what evidence or standards apply, chain of custody, observer rights, and other procedural details—is delegated to W.S. 22-16-109(a). The statutory text here does not codify recount procedures; it merely cross-references another statute. Without access to § 22-16-109(a), we cannot assess whether recount procedures are adequately defined in statute, but this specific section fails to define them and instead defers to another provision.