Recount triggers enumerated

A.R.S. § 16-661(A) explicitly enumerates a clear, quantitative trigger for automatic recount: a margin of one-half of one percent or less of total votes cast. The statute specifies the exact threshold (≤0.5%), identifies the categories of elections subject to the trigger (primary and general elections for offices and ballot measures), and expressly states that a recount 'is required' when this condition is met. The statutory language provides no discretion and leaves no ambiguity regarding when recounts must occur. Subsection (B) further clarifies exceptions by carving out specified election types. This satisfies the criterion because the recount trigger is enumerated with specificity and statutory force.

“A recount of the vote is required when the canvass of returns in a primary or general election shows that the margin between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a particular office, or between the number of votes cast for and against initiated or referred measures or proposals to amend the Constitution of Arizona, is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the number of votes cast for both such candidates or on such measures or proposals.”

Cal. Elec. Code § 15640(a) codifies the DA-petition-based recount mechanism on request of board of supervisors or grand jury — a sworn-challenge trigger. § 15645 codifies governor-ordered state-funded recount triggers for statewide office/measures meeting specified conditions. Petition-based and state-initiated recount triggers are both statutorily codified.

Section 300(1) of the Canada Elections Act explicitly enumerates a clear, quantifiable trigger for automatic recount: when the margin between the leading candidate and any other candidate is less than 1/1000 (0.1%) of votes cast. This is a bright-line threshold that operates automatically—the returning officer 'shall' request a recount, with no discretion. The trigger is mathematically precise and requires no interpretation. The statute further specifies temporal requirements (within four days after validation) and procedural steps (notification, judge fixing date within four days, supply of materials). This satisfies RECT.2 because the trigger is enumerated, objective, and statutory.

“If the difference between the number of votes cast for the candidate with the most votes and the number cast for any other candidate is less than 1/1000 of the votes cast, the returning officer shall make a request to a judge for a recount within four days after the results are validated.”

Colorado's statute clearly enumerates the trigger for automatic recount: a margin of 0.5% or less between the highest and next-highest vote totals (or for multi-seat contests, between the winning candidate with fewest votes and losing candidate with most votes). The statute also specifies that a recount shall occur only after canvass board certification. The provision further establishes that the Secretary of State has discretion to determine recount method based on testing procedures outlined in subsection (3), with clear procedural requirements. The trigger is bright-line, mathematically defined, and does not rely on discretionary factors or external petitions for the mandatory recount. This satisfies the enumeration requirement for automatic recount triggers.

§ 60 of the Riigikogu Election Act codifies an automatic recount trigger — every result reported by the voting-district committees is checked by recounting the ballot papers at the rural-municipality/city level; a complaint alleging a procedure violation is a second, petition-based trigger.

“The result obtained is checked by recounting the ballot papers.”

§ 21-2-495 codifies recount triggers: superintendent motion + candidate/party petition. § 21-2-495(c) (not in FTS top-5) codifies losing-candidate automatic-recount right if margin is ≤0.5%.

KRS 120.157 enumerates the automatic-recount trigger: in any regular or special election for the General Assembly, Congress, or a statewide constitutional office, a recount 'shall be required when a candidate is defeated by a margin of not more than one-half of one percent (0.5%).' KRS 120.185 and KRS 120.095 codify the petition-recount trigger (a candidate may petition where the automatic recount does not apply). Recount triggers enumerated.

§ 37¹ enumerates the recount trigger — a recount is ordered where a court, on an application, finds violations of law that have affected the distribution of seats; the trigger is an outcome-affecting violation rather than a margin threshold.

“such violations of law have been committed which have affected the distribution of the seats”

The statute enumerates a clear trigger for petition-based recount: a margin of 5% or less between votes cast for and against a ballot question. This establishes an explicit threshold that must be met before a registered voter can petition for a recount. The statute does not address automatic recount triggers, but it does clearly enumerate the petition-based trigger with a specific numerical margin threshold. This satisfies the requirement for enumerated recount triggers under RECT.2.

“A registered voter may not file a petition for a recount if the margin of difference between the number of votes cast for and the number of votes cast against the question is greater than 5%.”

The statute clearly enumerates petition-based recount triggers: (1) a sworn petition signed by at least ten voters (or more in larger jurisdictions) filed within specified deadlines (6 days for primaries, 10 days for elections); (2) a written request signed by the candidate; (3) a statement that the petitioners have reason to believe election records are erroneous, specifying wherein they are in error, or that challenged votes were improperly cast; and (4) a belief that recount will affect the nomination or election. These are explicit, statutory enumerated conditions that must be satisfied to trigger a recount. The statute does not rely on judicial discretion or administrative interpretation—the triggers are codified with specificity regarding who may petition, when, how, and on what grounds.

LGIPE art. 311(2) explicitly enumerates a petition-based recount trigger: when (a) the margin between the first and second-place candidates is ≤1 percentage point AND (b) an express petition is filed by the representative of the party that nominated the second-place candidate. The statute also specifies in 311(1)(d) additional automatic recount triggers: (I) evident errors or inconsistencies in acta elements; (II) the number of null votes exceeds the margin between first and second place; (III) all votes cast for a single party. These are codified, enumerable conditions—not discretionary standards. The threshold (1 percentage point margin) and the required procedural step (express petition at session opening) are both specified. This satisfies the statutory enumeration requirement for recount triggers.

The statute enumerates petition-based recount triggers: candidate's sworn belief that error changed the outcome, plus specific margin thresholds (500 votes for state senate, 200 for state representative) allowing party chairperson petitions.

§ 13-16-201 enumerates the recount triggers — a recount must be conducted on a verified petition where the margin does not exceed 1/4 of 1% (or 10 votes for local offices); § 13-16-211 allows a bonded recount up to a 1/2 of 1% margin.

“is defeated by a margin not exceeding 1/4 of 1% of the total votes cast or by a margin not exceeding 10 votes”

The statute explicitly enumerates a specific trigger for automatic recount: a margin of one percent or less between votes for and against removal. This is a clear, numeric threshold that operates automatically upon satisfaction of the condition, unless the official affirmatively waives recount via written statement. The trigger is codified and non-discretionary, meeting the core requirement of criterion RECT.2 that recount triggers be enumerated in statute. The section does not address general election recounts outside the recall context, but within the recall election framework it establishes a precise margin-based trigger.

“If the election results show a margin of votes equal to one percent or less between the removal or retention of the official in question, the Secretary of State, election commissioner, or county clerk shall order a recount of the votes cast unless the official named on the ballot files a written statement with the filing officer that he or she does not want a recount.”

Article P 21(1) of the Kieswet enumerates recount triggers with sufficient statutory clarity. The statute specifies two distinct pathways: (1) automatic/ex officio recount ('ambtshalve') when the central election bureau has serious suspicion of material counting errors affecting seat allocation, and (2) petition-based recount ('naar aanleiding van een onderbouwd verzoek van een of meer personen') initiated by one or more persons on substantiated grounds. The trigger itself is defined as 'ernstig vermoeden' (serious suspicion) that counting errors in one or more polling stations 'van invloed kunnen zijn op de zetelverdeling' (may affect seat distribution). This provides statutory enumeration of both the procedural mechanism and the substantive trigger condition, satisfying the criterion that recount triggers be enumerated in statute.

“Indien een ernstig vermoeden bestaat dat een of meer gemeentelijk stembureaus of briefstembureaus bij de stemopneming zodanige fouten hebben gemaakt dat die van invloed kunnen zijn op de zetelverdeling, kan het centraal stembureau op de in artikel P 20 bedoelde zitting, voordat de uitslag van de verkiezing bekend wordt gemaakt, hetzij ambtshalve, hetzij naar aanleiding van een onderbouwd verzoek van een of meer personen, besluiten over te gaan tot een nieuwe opneming van stembiljetten”

NMSA 1978, § 1-14-24(A) clearly enumerates automatic recount triggers based on specified margin thresholds differentiated by office type and ballot question category. The statute establishes precise percentage-based thresholds (one-fourth percent, one-half percent, and one percent) and applies them to distinct categories of elections (federal/statewide offices, county offices, judicial retention elections, local ballot questions, and other offices). The triggering mechanism is objective and mathematically defined. Section 1-14-24(B) further specifies procedural initiation by the secretary of state and state canvassing board. This satisfies the criterion because recount triggers are explicitly enumerated in statute with clear margin thresholds rather than left to discretionary determination.

§ 9-208 codifies the discrepancy-trigger for automatic escalation: where the recanvass identifies a discrepancy, additional procedures kick in. § 9-211(3) codifies the audit-discrepancy-escalation thresholds. § 16-113 codifies court-ordered manual audit on petition where discrepancy is material.

The statute enumerates specific numerical margin thresholds that trigger mandatory recount rights. For county-jurisdiction ballot items, the trigger is a margin of no more than 1% of total votes cast (or 1% of votes cast for the two candidates in multiseat contests). For state-jurisdiction nonstatewide items, the trigger is also 1%. For state-jurisdiction statewide items, the trigger is 0.5% or 10,000 votes, whichever is less. These thresholds are clearly codified and mechanically defined, making recount triggers enumerated rather than discretionary. The statute also permits discretionary recounts when necessary to complete the canvass, but the mandatory triggers are the focus of enumeration here.

§ 16.1-16-01 codifies explicit recount triggers: automatic recount at margin ≤0.5% (general/special election), ≤1% (primary), or ≤0.25% (measures/questions). Demand-recount available at margins between 1% and 2% (primary). Comprehensive trigger enumeration codified.

ORC 3515.011 enumerates the automatic-recount margin triggers: ½ of 1% for county/municipal and district elections; ¼ of 1% for statewide elections.

“shall order a recount which shall be conducted as provided in sections 3515.04 and 3515.05 of the Revised Code”

The statute enumerates specific recount triggers: (1) for candidate elections, a 10% margin threshold triggers an additional deposit requirement, and the statute establishes that any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot may petition for a recount; (2) for issue/question elections, specific margin thresholds are codified (150 votes or 1% depending on total votes cast), and recounts require a petition signed by eligible registered voters meeting specified numeric thresholds (150 voters or 1% of votes cast). These enumerated triggers provide clear statutory rules governing when recounts may be requested, satisfying the criterion's requirement that recount triggers be codified in statute.

ORS 254.529 clearly enumerates automatic recount triggers based on margin thresholds. The statute specifies three margin-of-victory thresholds that trigger mandatory hand count procedures: (1) less than 1% margin requires 10% precinct recount; (2) 1-2% margin requires 5% precinct recount; (3) 2% or greater margin requires 3% precinct recount. The triggers are mechanistic and based on objective vote margins rather than discretionary or petition-based processes. The statute further specifies the scope of required hand counts, the timeline (days 27-35 post-election), and the comparison standard (one-half of one percent threshold). These enumerated margin triggers satisfy the criterion's requirement that recount triggers be clearly codified.

The statute explicitly enumerates recount triggers tied to margin thresholds with mathematical precision. It sets clear numerical and percentage-based triggers for single-candidate races (tiered by total votes cast: ≤20,000 votes, 20,001–100,000 votes, >100,000 votes) and multi-candidate races (tiered by total votes: ≤5,000 votes, 5,001–20,000 votes, >20,000 votes). Additionally, subsection (3) creates a secondary petition-based mechanism for candidates trailing by 5% or less but exceeding the primary thresholds. The statute also specifies the method of recount (manual re-feeding of optical scan ballots or re-reading programmed memory devices). These enumerated triggers meet the criterion's requirement for clear statutory specification of recount eligibility conditions based on margin thresholds.

§ 12-21-16 codifies AUTOMATIC recount on tie vote: 'Whenever by reason of a tie vote found to exist upon the canvass of the original official returns…'. § 12-21-10 codifies petition-recount at ≤2% margin. Explicit trigger enumeration codified.

9 kap. 12 § codifies envelope-handling triggers at polling-station close (segregation of ballots requiring further review). 9 kap. 9 § / 9 kap. 10 § codify multi-stage envelope verification. 9 kap. 5 § / 9 kap. 6 § codify per-ballot eligibility verification. 15 kap. 13 § (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies the Valprövningsnämnden's annulment + re-election trigger. Comprehensive trigger framework codified.

§ 2.002 codifies an enumerated automatic-recount trigger: a tie for the number of votes required to be elected triggers an automatic recount under Chapter 216; § 2.023 and § 2.028 codify the parallel triggers for ties affecting runoff candidates and runoff results. § 211.002 defines the 'automatic recount,' and Ch. 212 codifies the petition-based recount available to candidates and measure committees. Recount triggers enumerated.

Utah Code § 20A-4-401 enumerates recount triggers with precision across multiple categories. For candidate races, automatic recounts are triggered when: (1) two or more candidates tie for the highest vote total in a single office, or (2) in at-large races, multiple candidates tie and one must be eliminated. Petition-based recounts are triggered when the margin between the winning and losing candidate is ≤.25% of total votes cast, or when the total vote count is ≤400 and the margin is exactly one vote. For ballot propositions, similar triggers apply (Subsection 7): ≤.25% margin or one-vote difference when total votes ≤400. The statute specifies distinct filing deadlines and procedures for each trigger type. This satisfies the criterion because the triggers are explicitly enumerated in statutory language with quantified thresholds, not left to administrative discretion or case-by-case determination.

§ 2601 codifies an enumerated recount trigger: in an election for federal, statewide, county, or State Senate office, a losing candidate has the right to a recount 'if the difference between the number of votes cast for a winning candidate and the number of votes cast for a losing candidate is two percent or less of the total votes cast.' § 2688 codifies a parallel trigger — a registered voter may demand a recount on a public question decided by under a 5% margin.

“if the difference between the number of votes cast for a winning candidate and the number of votes cast for a losing candidate is two percent or less of the total votes cast for all the candidates for an office”

Wis. Stat. § 9.01(1)(ag) codifies recount-fee triggers based on margin: when 'difference between the votes cast for the leading candidate and those cast for the petitioner' falls within a defined band, fees waived. Margin-threshold trigger is statutorily enumerated.

The statute establishes a petition-based recount mechanism with a clear temporal trigger (within 48 hours of official canvass) and identifies who may petition (persons with standing under other sections). However, the statute does not enumerate substantive triggers or thresholds (e.g., margin-of-victory thresholds, percentage discrepancies, or specific grounds beyond general standing). It also does not address automatic recount triggers. The section cross-references Sections 17-16-40 and 17-16-47 for standing rules, but those are not provided in this instrument, making independent verification of recount eligibility criteria impossible. The procedural timing is clear, but the substantive grounds for triggering a recount—a core element of RECT.2—remain either undefined in this section or relegated to external statutory provisions.

“Any person with standing to contest the election under Sections 17-16-40 and 17-16-47 may petition the canvassing authority for a recount of any or all precinct returns.”

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

This section codifies the procedural deadline and filing mechanism for petition-based recounts (10-14 days post-election for candidates, 10-17 days for party chairs) and requires a 'verified petition,' establishing some procedural clarity. However, the text does not enumerate the substantive triggers or grounds for a recount—it does not specify margin thresholds, sworn challenge requirements, evidence standards, or other enumerated conditions that would justify granting a recount. The section addresses the 'when' and 'who' of filing but not the 'why' or 'on what grounds.' A complete satisfaction of RECT.2 would require statutory specification of margin thresholds, challenge mechanisms, or other enumerated triggers. The section partially satisfies by establishing clear filing deadlines and verified-petition requirement, but fails to enumerate recount triggers themselves.

The statute enumerates petition-based recount triggers (candidate or election agent request at conclusion of count) with clear procedural rules. However, the automatic recount triggers are not enumerated—subsection (2) grants discretionary authority to the returning officer to recount 'in any case in which he is not satisfied as to the accuracy of any count' without defining what dissatisfaction triggers the obligation. The frivolous/vexatious exception in subsection (3)(d) introduces a subjective, non-enumerated standard that allows the returning officer discretionary rejection. The statute provides clarity on WHO may request a recount and WHEN (conclusion of count), but not enumerated objective thresholds or metrics (e.g., margin percentages, statistical standards) that would trigger either automatic or mandatory petition-based recounts. This satisfies the petition mechanism aspect but fails the enumerated-triggers aspect.

The statute provides a threshold-based trigger (margin of defeat) but only in the narrow context of vote validity disputes. It establishes that a prima facie case exists when questioned votes equal or exceed the margin of defeat. However, the broader recount trigger—'irregularities which place the result in doubt'—is not enumerated with specificity. The statute does not codify what constitutes irregularities, does not establish an automatic recount mechanism based on margin percentage, and does not enumerate other potential triggers (e.g., machine malfunction, procedural violations). The margin-of-defeat rule is enumerated but applies only to a subset of recount petitions. This represents partial codification of triggers rather than comprehensive enumeration.

“If the court finds there is a prima facie showing of irregularities which place the result of the primary election in doubt, the court shall order a recount of all votes brought in question by the petition or its answer. Where the issue is drawn over the validity of certain votes cast, a prima facie case is made if the validity of a number of votes equal to or greater than the margin of defeat is placed in doubt.”

The statute establishes that recounts may be initiated upon 'disagreement with the preliminary voting results' by electoral competitors or referendum participants, which provides a petition-based trigger. However, the trigger is stated in general terms ('disagreement') rather than through enumerated, specific criteria such as margin thresholds, specific irregularities, or sworn challenge procedures. The text explicitly defers substantive recount conditions to 'Chapter XIII,' meaning the operative triggers are not actually codified in this section. The statute specifies WHO may petition (competitors/participants) and TO WHOM (Constitutional Court for national elections, CEC for local), but the enumeration of WHEN and UNDER WHAT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS a recount will be granted is delegated to another chapter. This partial codification satisfies part of the criterion (petition-based access is identified) but fails the core requirement that triggers themselves be enumerated in statute rather than deferred to subordinate rules.

This section (§ 660:6) addresses the EFFECTS and PROCEDURE of a recount (declaration, certificate, fee refunds, appeal mechanism) but does not enumerate the triggers that initiate a recount. It presupposes a recount has already been requested or ordered, referencing prior procedural steps. The section does reference RSA 660:2 (fee requirements) and RSA 665:8, II (appeal to ballot law commission), suggesting triggers are codified elsewhere in the statute. To fully satisfy RECT.2, the triggers themselves—margin thresholds, sworn affidavits, timing windows, or other enumerated conditions—must appear in the statute. This section assumes a recount has been initiated but does not state what activates that initiation. Partial credit is appropriate because the statute does contain structured recount procedure and fee refund rules tied to margins (one percent threshold in § 660:6, III), but this section alone does not enumerate the initial triggers.

“If the recount shall show that some candidate other than the one declared elected upon the original canvass of votes has the greatest number of votes cast for the office, the secretary of state shall declare said candidate to be elected; and, unless the result is changed upon an appeal taken to the ballot law commission, as provided in RSA 665:8, II”

Section 49 establishes that an agent may object to alleged inaccuracies in counting and that the counting officer 'must decide whether to order a recount.' However, the statute does NOT enumerate specific triggers for recount—no margin thresholds, no sworn challenge requirements, no objective criteria for when a recount 'must' be ordered versus when it is discretionary. The decision criterion is left to the counting officer's judgment in 'prescribed manner' (delegated to regulations). Section 49(6) allows appeal to the Commission, but again with no enumerated standards. The objection must be made 'at any stage before the counting officer has completed the form' (s.49(2)), providing a temporal deadline but not substantive triggers. This represents a framework where recount access exists but lacks statutory enumeration of objective triggering conditions.

This section identifies one specific trigger for recount eligibility—a person who loses a tie-breaking determination by lot may petition for a recount. However, it does not enumerate the full range of recount triggers (e.g., margin thresholds, sworn challenge requirements, or other grounds for automatic/petition-based recounts). The section delegates the substantive recount framework to Article 1 (§ 24.2-800 et seq.), which this excerpt does not include. The statute codifies one narrow trigger but does not satisfy the criterion of enumerating recount triggers more broadly, as the section is limited to the tie-determination context and cross-references rather than enumerates triggers.

“Any person who loses the determination by lot may petition for a recount pursuant to Article 1 (§ 24.2-800 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of this title.”

Article 118 enumerates ONE trigger for recount authority: 'evident factual errors' in the tally documentation or missing documentation. However, this trigger is vaguely defined ('evidentes errores de hecho') and grants discretionary power ('podrá') to the National Electoral Board rather than establishing mandatory recount procedures. The statute names a condition (errors/omissions) but does not enumerate margin thresholds, petition-based mechanisms, cost allocation, or the effects of a recount finding. It addresses procedural authority but lacks specificity about what constitutes sufficient error magnitude, who may petition for recount, filing deadlines, or whether recount findings are binding. This satisfies the criterion only partially: one trigger is identified, but the enumeration is narrow, discretionary, and lacks supporting procedural rules.

The statute codifies recount *access* (candidate request or AEO discretion) and provides a two-tier appeals mechanism (AEO → Electoral Commissioner), but does NOT enumerate specific triggers such as margin thresholds, sworn challenge requirements, or other objective criteria. The phrase 'setting forth the reasons' is discretionary language that does not define what reasons are sufficient. The Electoral Commissioner's power is explicitly discretionary ('has a discretion either to direct a re‑count of the ballot papers or refuse'). The statute thus establishes procedural access but lacks the enumerated, objective triggers required for robust procedural clarity under RECT.2.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16 BPräsWG addresses objections to numerical determinations (ziffernmäßige Ermittlungen) by authorized representatives of published electoral proposals within 48 hours. However, it does not enumerate recount TRIGGERS. The statute establishes a procedure for challenging election result determinations and requires the Federal Election Authority to review them, but provides no enumerated thresholds (e.g., margin percentages), no automatic recount conditions, and no objective criteria triggering a mandatory recount. The mechanism is discretionary objection-based rather than threshold-based, and evidentiary standards are minimal ('hinreichend glaubhaft zu machen'—sufficiently credible). This addresses procedural clarity of objection-handling but does NOT enumerate recount triggers as required by RECT.2.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 150 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the random selection of polling stations whose ballots will be counted by particular counting offices, conducted twelve days before the election. This provision concerns the allocation of ballot-counting responsibilities through a lottery mechanism, not the triggers for recounts. The text does not enumerate any recount triggers, such as margin thresholds, sworn challenges, discrepancies between preliminary and final counts, or other conditions that would necessitate a recount or petition-based recount process. The provision is purely procedural regarding the organizational designation of counting bureaus and witness attendance, without addressing when or under what circumstances a recount may be initiated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 8 codifies polling-section formation; not recount triggers.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 76 BWO addresses the determination and establishment of election results at the district level, including verification of ballot protocols, correction of findings, and procedures for recounting ballots (Nachzählung). However, the section does not enumerate specific triggers for automatic or petition-based recounts. While subsection (1) mentions that recounts may occur 'aus sonstigen Gründen' (for other reasons) and references procedures for announcing recounts, it does not codify threshold margins, specific conditions requiring a recount, procedures for filing recount petitions, or evidentiary standards that would trigger a mandatory recount. The statute establishes procedural steps for conducting a recount once initiated but does not clearly delineate the substantive triggers that would activate those procedures. This falls short of the EDRI standard requiring enumerated recount triggers in statute.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 36 addresses advance voting procedures for voters unable to attend polling locations due to illness or lack of mobility. It does not address recount procedures, triggers, margins, thresholds, or petition-based mechanisms for initiating recounts. The section governs early/mail voting eligibility and request deadlines, which falls outside the scope of recount dispute resolution. To satisfy RECT.2, the statute would need to enumerate specific triggers for recount (such as margin thresholds, sworn challenges, or automatic recount conditions), none of which are present in this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 98 governs the procedural mechanics of initial vote counting in Icelandic elections — specifically where, when, and by which electoral commission counting occurs. It does not address recount triggers, thresholds, petition procedures, or the conditions under which a recount may be initiated or required. The section is purely procedural for first-instance counting, not dispute resolution. To satisfy RECT.2, the statute would need to enumerate specific triggers such as margin thresholds, sworn challenge procedures, or automatic recount conditions. This section contains none of those elements.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes a mandatory postelection audit procedure, but it does not enumerate triggers for recounts. The statute mandates audits of selected ballots after county canvasses are complete, with selection based on a random lottery of precincts limited to no more than 5% of precincts (or 1 precinct minimum). However, this is a routine audit triggered by completion of canvassing, not a recount with enumerated triggers such as margin thresholds, sworn challenges, or other petition-based mechanisms. The section addresses audit procedures, cost allocation, and observer rights, but does not codify the triggers (e.g., margin percentages, candidate requests, discrepancy findings) that would initiate an actual recount under Idaho law. A full assessment of recount triggers would require review of I.C. § 34-2301 et seq. (Chapter 23), which is cited but not provided here. This section alone does not satisfy the criterion because it governs audits, not recount triggers.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/23-50 defines 'a vote'; not a recount-trigger provision. (IL's 95%-candidate / 5%-ballot-question triggers are in § 22-9.1, which did not surface for this FTS query.)

No matching sections in corpus.

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 matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 38 addresses voter list omissions and corrections during the voter registration phase, not recount procedures. It establishes a process for challenging omissions from provisional electoral lists through local election commissions and courts, with specific timelines (20 days to petition, 7 days for commission decision, 15 days for court appeal, 10 days for court ruling). However, this addresses registration disputes and corrections, not recounts of ballots cast. The statute does not enumerate triggers for recounts (such as margin thresholds, margin percentages, or sworn challenge procedures that would initiate a recount of votes already counted). The criterion seeks enumeration of recount triggers specifically—automatic or petition-based mechanisms that determine when votes must be recounted—which this section does not provide.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 99 of Cap. 354 addresses the mechanical process of ballot-box opening and initial counting procedures, contingent on the Electoral Commission's direction and absence of objections. It does not enumerate recount triggers—neither automatic triggers (such as margin thresholds) nor petition-based triggers (such as sworn challenge procedures). The section prescribes procedural mechanics (face-down placement, tray arrangement, supervisor duties) but contains no language defining when or under what conditions a recount shall be initiated. The phrase 'where the Commission...so directs' and reference to 'objections' in the prior article suggest triggers exist elsewhere in the statute, but this section itself does not enumerate them. RECT.2 requires explicit statutory enumeration of recount triggers in the operative section.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

§ 22-1 codifies entry into force. § 6-6 codifies order rules. Recount triggers (beyond the universal dual-count mandate) are not separately enumerated — every ballot is already counted twice under § 10-5, so 'trigger-based recount' is moot. Further recount triggers via complaint per § 16-11.

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Art. 17 (BEC powers); not recount triggers.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG addresses voting procedures for Spanish residents abroad (overseas voting mechanisms, documentation requirements, timing of ballot transmission, in-person deposit procedures, and identity verification). It contains no language enumerating recount triggers, automatic recount thresholds, margin-based recount conditions, petition-based recount procedures, or any mechanism for initiating recounts. The article is purely procedural regarding the exercise of the vote by residents abroad and does not address post-election dispute resolution, recount mechanics, or the conditions under which votes would be recounted. To satisfy RECT.2, a statute must specify what triggers a recount (e.g., margin thresholds, sworn challenges, percentage-based triggers). This section contains no such enumeration.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: No FTS candidate codifies margin-thresholds, sworn-challenge thresholds, or other recount triggers. Recounts are discretionary upon YSK granting a challenge.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30116 (contribution limits); not recount triggers.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.