Recount cost allocation

Section 17-16-20(d) explicitly allocates recount costs by statutory rule, distinguishing between state and county offices. State-level offices are charged to the state; county offices are charged to the county. The statute further clarifies personnel compensation methodology in subsection (c) and cost-minimization requirements in subsection (g). This is a clear, codified allocation rule that answers who pays and under what circumstances (type of office). While Alabama's recount is mandatory when margins fall below 0.5% rather than petition-based, the statute satisfies the criterion because cost allocation is unambiguously prescribed by statute tied to office type.

“The expenses of a recount conducted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be a state charge if the recount is held for an election for a federal, state, circuit, or district office, or the state Senate, state House of Representatives, or any other office that is not a county office. The expenses of a recount conducted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be a county charge if the recount is held for an election for county office.”

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.450 explicitly allocates recount costs by statute with clear, codified rules. The petitioner must deposit specified amounts ($1,000 per precinct, $2,000 per house district, $15,000 statewide) unless the election was sufficiently close (tie, ≤20 votes, or <0.5% margin), in which case the state bears the cost. Refund outcomes are also clearly defined: full refund if the recount changes the outcome or shows a ≥4% variance favoring the petitioner; otherwise the state retains amounts to cover recount costs. This statute comprehensively codifies cost allocation across all petition-based recount scenarios.

“The application must include a deposit in cash, by certified check, or by bond with a surety approved by the director. The amount of the deposit is $1,000 for each precinct, $2,000 for each house district, and $15,000 for the entire state. If the recount includes an office for which candidates received a tie vote, or the difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested office, or a question or proposition for which there was a tie vote on the issue, or the difference between the number of votes cast in favor of or opposed to the issue was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of the total votes cast in favor of or opposed to the issue, the application need not include a deposit, and the state shall bear the cost of the recount. If, on the recount, a candidate other than the candidate who received the original election certificate is declared elected, or if the vote on recount is determined to be four percent or more in excess of the vote reported by the state review for the candidate applying for the recount or in favor of or opposed to the question or proposition as stated in the application, the entire deposit shall be refunded.”

A.R.S. § 16-666 directly allocates recount expenses by statutory rule, establishing a clear mechanism that assigns costs based on the jurisdictional level of the office in dispute. The statute specifies that state-level recounts (state offices, initiatives, referenda, constitutional proposals) are a state charge; county-level or precinct recounts are a county charge; and city or town recounts are a city or town charge. This provides definite, codified cost allocation without discretion or case-by-case determination. The statute does not condition cost allocation on recount outcome, but the allocation mechanism itself is unambiguously prescribed by statute, meeting the core requirement of RECT.3 that cost allocation be 'allocated by statute.'

Ark. Code § 7-5-319(f)–(g) provides a clear statutory allocation of recount costs. The candidate requesting the recount bears the initial cost, paid in advance to the county board of election commissioners. However, subsection (f)(2) establishes a refund mechanism: if the recount alters the outcome of the election, costs are refunded to the petitioning candidate. Subsection (g) further codifies a cost cap—the lesser of 25¢ per vote cast in affected precincts or $2,500 countywide—based on actual costs incurred. This structure satisfies the criterion by specifying both who pays (the candidate) and under what outcome costs are allocated (refund if outcome changes), with statutory limits on the amount chargeable.

Cal. Elec. Code § 16503 codifies the default cost rule: contestant pays in the first instance, with daily deposits sufficient to cover accrued recount expenses. § 15624 mirrors this for voter-requested recounts. § 15645 carves out state-funded recounts for specific statewide triggers. § 16801 allows discretionary apportionment in joined contests.

“The contestant shall, in the first instance, be liable for the expenses involved in making any recount.”

Section 309 of the Canada Elections Act explicitly allocates recount costs by statute. It specifies that when a recount does not alter the election result, the applicant must pay the costs of the winning candidate. The statute further provides the mechanism for cost recovery through a security deposit, establishes how costs are taxed (following court tariffs), and addresses shortfalls through a right of action for the balance. This represents clear statutory codification of cost allocation rules tied to recount outcomes, satisfying the criterion that recount cost allocation be allocated by statute.

C.R.S. § 1-10.5-205(2) clearly allocates recount costs by statute. The rule is unambiguous: the entity that certified the candidate, ballot question, or ballot issue bears the cost of conducting the recount. This is a codified, outcome-independent allocation mechanism that applies to all recounts under the statutory framework. The statute also specifies fees for canvass board members assisting in recounts by cross-reference to counting judge fees. The allocation rule is general and covers petition-based recounts as part of the comprehensive recount procedures in Article 10.5.

Section § 5702(c) explicitly allocates the cost of petition-based recounts for statewide office to the state ("at state expense"). Section § 5702(e) similarly provides that "the Court shall recount the ballots cast in that election at state expense" for state senator, state representative, or county office when margin thresholds are met. The statute does not condition cost allocation on recount outcome or require petitioner payment regardless of result. Cost allocation is codified as a flat rule: the state bears the expense. This satisfies the criterion's requirement for statutory allocation of recount costs.

§ 105 codifies that 'the costs of Folketing elections and referendums are borne by the municipalities' with state reimbursement provisions. § 108 codifies MP compensation framework. § 109/§ 109a/§ 109c codify other expense items. Cost-allocation explicitly codified — municipalities bear local-recount costs.

§ 188 codifies cost allocation (kustannusten jako): the Ministry of Justice bears the costs of the voter register, the national candidate register, ballot papers, electoral envelopes, seals and ballot boxes, and — item 4 — 'the expenses of the constituency committees,' which conduct the § 87 verification count. The municipality bears the costs of the municipal central election committee, polling committees and home-voting. Comprehensive cost allocation for the count/recount apparatus codified.

Idaho I.C. § 34-2306 explicitly allocates recount costs by statute. The provision establishes a clear rule: if a recount would change the election outcome when projected across all precincts, the county or state bears the cost and refunds any amounts paid by the petitioning candidate. The statute also specifies precise thresholds (number of precincts and vote totals) that must be met to trigger cost relief eligibility, varying by office type (federal/state, state legislative, county, and city/district). This satisfies the criterion because cost allocation is codified with a deterministic trigger (whether the recount would change the result) and applies uniformly by statute rather than discretionary determination.

“If the results of the recount indicate a difference, which if projected across all the precincts of the office in question would change the result of the election in favor of the candidate requesting the recount or change in the measure being recounted, then the cost of such recount shall be borne by the county or state and the sums of money theretofore paid for the recount shall be returned to the candidate or person who requested the recount of a ballot measure.”

10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a allocates recount/examination costs to the requesting party, capped at $50 per precinct. § 23-1.6a requires a bond ($50/precinct or $75,000 max) to secure cost payment.

“the Circuit Judge shall make a recommendation as to the assessment of the costs of any examination of records and equipment of the election authority against the party requesting the examination”

K.S.A. § 25-1447(b) clearly allocates recount costs by statute. The initiating party must post a bond (minimum $250 for single-county contests, or court-discretionary amount for multi-county/state contests) and is statutorily conditioned to 'pay the costs and expenses thereof in case the party fails.' This establishes a clear cost-bearing rule: the party requesting inspection/recount pays if unsuccessful. The statute specifies both the bonding requirement and the outcome-based cost allocation mechanism. While the statute does not explicitly address cost allocation upon successful contest, it unambiguously codifies that the applicant bears costs upon failure. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement for cost allocation codification.

“The party applying for the inspection shall file with the clerk of the district court a bond in the sum of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) if the contest be within a single county; otherwise the bond shall be in a sum to be fixed by the court in its discretion, with such sureties as shall be approved by the court, and conditioned that such party will pay the costs and expenses thereof in case the party fails.”

KRS 120.157(8) codifies cost allocation for an automatic recount: 'the costs of any recount held pursuant to this section shall be paid by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.' KRS 120.185(1)(e) codifies that a party requesting a petition recount must execute a bond with surety for the costs of the recount. Recount cost allocation is codified.

Maine Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 738(2) codifies comprehensive cost allocation rules for statewide referendum recounts. The statute specifies: (1) when no deposit is required (margin ≤1% or ≤1,000 votes, with petitioners bearing no costs); (2) deposit amount when required ($5,000 or 10% of estimated cost, whichever is greater); (3) cost responsibility if recount does not change the result (petitioners pay full cost); (4) cost responsibility if recount reverses the result (deposit returned to petitioners); and (5) deposit forfeiture if petitioners withdraw after ballots are in custody. These provisions directly answer who pays under what outcome, satisfying the criterion's requirement that cost allocation be allocated by statute.

Maryland Md. Election Law § 12-107 explicitly codifies recount cost allocation with clear statutory rules. The default rule is that the petitioner pays all recount costs and that liability attaches to the petitioner's bond. However, the statute then specifies three categorical exceptions under which the petitioner is relieved of cost liability: (1) if the election outcome changes; (2) if the petitioner gains 2% or more of total votes cast; or (3) if the initial margin was 0.25% or less. When the petitioner is not liable, the county is statutorily required to pay. This allocation framework is binary and outcome-determinative, providing clear procedural guidance without discretion or vagueness.

§ 204C.36 codifies PUBLICLY FUNDED recounts when margins fall below 0.25% (0.5% for some offices) — the state/jurisdiction bears the cost for close-margin recounts. § 204C.35 codifies parallel publicly-funded recounts for federal/state/judicial races. Discretionary recounts outside these thresholds are at requester expense. Recount cost allocation codified.

RSMo § 115.547 clearly allocates recount costs by statute. It provides that costs and expenses of an election contest, explicitly including the recount, may be adjudged against the unsuccessful party, with enforcement mechanisms parallel to civil cases. This establishes a codified cost-allocation rule: the losing party bears the cost. The statute further permits courts to require contestants to post bond before pursuing the contest, creating a gatekeeping mechanism. While the statute grants courts discretion ('may require' and 'may be adjudged'), the allocation rule itself is statutory and does not depend on case-by-case judicial determination—it is outcome-dependent (unsuccessful party pays), meeting the criterion for procedural clarity in cost allocation.

“The costs and expenses of any election contest, including the cost and expense of a recount, may be adjudged against the unsuccessful party with the payment of the costs and expenses enforceable as in civil cases.”

§ 13-16-307 allocates recount cost by outcome — the applicant deposits the estimated cost, which is returned if the recount shows the applicant was elected (or reverses a ballot issue) and forfeited toward the excess cost if it does not; § 13-16-205 makes a margin-triggered recount a county charge.

“If the recount shows that an applicant has been elected to office, the deposit of the applicant must be returned to the applicant.”

Section 32-1119(2) explicitly allocates recount costs by statute. The provision unambiguously states that all expenses of a recount shall be paid by the political subdivisions involved in the recount. This is a clear, mandatory cost-allocation rule that does not condition payment on outcome—the subdivisions bear the cost regardless of whether the recount changes the result. The statute thus satisfies the criterion by codifying cost allocation with precision and directness.

“All expenses of a recount under this section shall be paid by those political subdivisions involved in the recount.”

NRS § 293.405 clearly allocates recount costs by statute under both outcomes. When a recount petitioner prevails, costs are borne by the county or city for non-statewide elections, or paid from the Reserve for Statutory Contingency Account for statewide elections. When the petitioner does not prevail, the petitioner must pay any deficiency between the deposit and actual recount costs. This dual-outcome allocation is codified with specificity regarding which governmental entity pays under which scenario, satisfying the criterion for statutory cost allocation.

N.H. Rev. Stat. § 669:31 clearly codifies cost allocation for petition-based recounts. The statute establishes a tiered fee structure based on the vote margin between the applying candidate and the declared winner (ranging from $10 to $40, plus potential additional costs). Critically, it also specifies outcome-based refund mechanisms: fees are fully returned if the applicant wins the recount, and excess fees are returned if the applicant loses by less than one percent. This satisfies RECT.3 by establishing both the initial cost burden (applicant pays) and the allocation of costs contingent on recount results, all within statutory language.

NMSA 1978, § 1-14-15 clearly codifies cost allocation for petition-based recounts. Subsection C specifies that if error or fraud sufficient to change the election winner is found, the state or county bears the cost. Subsection D specifies that if no such error or fraud appears, the applicant bears the cost. The statute also defines what costs include (docket fees, mileage, witness fees), provides an exception for precinct board member fees when board error occurs, and requires an upfront deposit or surety bond (subsection A). This allocation mechanism is explicit and mandatory, leaving no discretionary gaps in the procedural rule.

ORC 3515.071 codifies recount cost allocation: county treasury for board-ordered automatic recounts; SOS appropriation for state-ordered automatic recounts. § 3515.07 details the petitioner deposit-and-refund rules (no charge if margin moves >4% or if applicant wins).

“the expense of the recount shall be paid from the county treasury in the same manner as other expenses of the board”

The statute clearly allocates recount costs by outcome. It specifies that: (1) initial deposits cover actual expenses including identified categories (salaries, mileage, court reporter fees, etc.); (2) any deposit balance is returned to the contestant; (3) if the contestant is successful in changing the outcome, the full deposit is refunded and the county or state bears the expense; (4) if unsuccessful, the deposit is not refundable. This creates a bright-line cost-allocation rule tied to recount success, satisfying the procedural clarity requirement for RECT.3.

ORS § 258.280(3) explicitly allocates recount costs by statute based on the type of office at issue. The statute clearly specifies which governmental unit bears the cost of the recount: the county pays for county offices, the city pays for city offices, the special district pays for special district offices, and the state pays for all other offices. This is a straightforward, codified cost allocation rule that eliminates discretion and provides clear guidance on who pays for automatic recounts triggered under subsections (1) and (2). The allocation is outcome-based (tied to the type of office) rather than conditioned on the recount results, which provides complete procedural clarity on cost responsibility.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-15-35 explicitly allocates the cost of the recount petition process by statute. It specifies that notice costs are borne 'at the expense of the petitioner'—the party filing the protest or request. This is a clear, codified cost allocation rule that answers who pays (the petitioner) under the triggering circumstance (filing a protest or recount request). While the statute does not specify outcome-contingent cost shifting (e.g., loser pays or winner recovers), it does establish a definite statutory rule for initial cost allocation, which satisfies the criterion's requirement that cost allocation be 'allocated by statute.'

“the state board shall cause notice in writing to be served in any manner that it directs, at the expense of the petitioner”

§ 212.111 codifies recount cost allocation: 'a deposit to cover the costs of a recount must accompany the submission of a recount document.' § 214.048 codifies cost statements and assessment of recount costs against the requesting person, § 212.137 makes a candidate liable for the full costs where votes the candidate sought to exclude are recounted, and § 211.007 codifies preservation of cost records and settlement of assessed costs. Cost allocation codified.

“A deposit to cover the costs of a recount must accompany the submission of a recount document.”

Section 20A-4-401(6) explicitly allocates recount costs by statute. For petition-based recounts (those initiated under Subsection 3(a) or (b)), the statute clearly specifies that costs are paid by the state for statewide or multi-county races, and by the conducting political subdivision for all other races. There is no outcome-contingent allocation (the statute does not condition cost payment on recount results), but the statute does definitively specify who bears costs in all circumstances. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that cost allocation be codified by statute.

§ 2602i codifies recount cost allocation: recount committee members and assistants are paid by the State at the juror per-diem rate, other necessary expenses are paid by the State through the Court Administrator's Office, and 'the Secretary of State shall bear the costs of recounts conducted under this subchapter.' Recount costs fall on the State, not the requesting candidate.

Virginia Code § 24.2-802.3 provides explicit statutory allocation of recount costs based on clearly defined outcomes. The statute specifies three scenarios where costs are borne by counties and cities (petitioner wins, petitioners win referendum, or margin is ≤0.5%), and designates the petitioner as cost-bearer in all other cases. The statute further details cost calculation limitations, bonding requirements ($10 per precinct), and forfeiture provisions. This represents codified, outcome-dependent cost allocation with no discretionary gap. The framework is sufficiently clear and specific to enable prompt administrative implementation without requiring case-by-case judicial interpretation of cost responsibility.

“Costs of the recount shall be assessed against the counties and cities comprising the election district when (i) the candidate petitioning for the recount is declared the winner; (ii) the petitioners in a recount of a referendum win the recount; or (iii) there was between the candidate apparently nominated or elected and the candidate petitioning for the recount a difference of not more than one-half of one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or electoral board prior to the recount. Otherwise the costs of the recount shall be assessed against the candidate petitioning for the recount or the petitioners in a recount of a referendum.”

RCW 29A.64.081 explicitly codifies cost allocation for petition-based recounts. The statute clearly specifies: (1) the applicant deposits funds upfront; (2) costs are deducted from that deposit; (3) if costs exceed the deposit, the applicant pays the difference; and critically, (4) if the recount changes the election result, no charges may be deducted from the applicant's deposit. This creates a clear statutory allocation rule tied to outcome: petitioner pays unless the recount succeeds. The statute also addresses state/federal office recounts with specific reimbursement mechanisms through the secretary of state. The cost allocation framework is unambiguous and outcome-dependent as required by the criterion.

“For a recount conducted under RCW 29A.64.011, the cost of the recount shall be deducted from the amount deposited by the applicant for the recount at the time of filing the request for the recount, and the balance shall be returned to the applicant. If the costs of the recount exceed the deposit, the applicant shall pay the difference. No charges may be deducted by the canvassing board from the deposit for a recount if the recount changes the result of the nomination or election for which the recount was ordered.”

Wis. Stat. § 9.01(1)(ag) codifies recount cost allocation: '(1) If the difference between the votes cast for the leading candidate and those cast for the petitioner... [is small], no fees [required].' Outside that margin, the petitioner pays per-ballot fees. § 9.01(1)(ad) requires advance estimate by the receiving clerk.

Wyoming Statute § 22-16-113 provides explicit statutory allocation of recount costs contingent on outcome. The statute codifies two clear scenarios: (1) if the recount reveals sufficient error to change the election result, the county pays all expenses and returns the deposit; (2) if the recount does not change the result, the applicant pays actual costs up to the deposited amount. Additionally, the statute specifies deposit amounts based on vote differential (§ 500 for 1-5% difference, $3,000 for 5%+ difference) and mandates that county clerks issue complete accounting with refund of any surplus. The statute further provides that county-initiated or statutorily-required recounts are paid by the county regardless of outcome. This satisfies RECT.3 because cost allocation is unambiguously codified by statute and is outcome-dependent, leaving no discretion to administrators or courts.

“If the recount shows sufficient error to change the result of the election, the county in which the recount is taken shall pay expenses of the recount and the deposit shall be returned. Otherwise the applicant or applicants seeking the recount shall be liable for the actual cost of conducting the recount up to a maximum of the amount deposited under subsection (a) of this section, per county recounted.”

This section addresses cost allocation for recount-related disputes, but only partially satisfies the criterion. It requires the complainant to post a bond and gives courts discretion to make cost orders 'as may be equitable.' The statute does allocate costs in a qualified way: the complainant bears the initial bonding burden, and courts have authority to order cost payment. However, the criterion requires allocation 'by statute'—meaning clear statutory rules about who pays under what outcome. The phrase 'as may be equitable' delegates substantive cost-allocation decisions to judicial discretion rather than specifying statutory rules (e.g., 'loser pays,' 'prevailing party recovers,' or 'cost split'). The bonding requirement is statutory, but the ultimate cost determination relies on case-by-case judicial equity determinations. This is insufficient for a score of 1 under EDRI standards, which prioritize codified rules over discretion. A dual scholar would note that while bonding requirements are clear, the post-judgment cost allocation lacks statutory specificity.

Section 11-158 clearly allocates cost for MANDATORY recounts: the state/county bears the cost, not candidates. This satisfies the criterion for mandatory recounts. However, the criterion asks about 'petition-based recount' cost allocation. While this statute addresses mandatory recounts triggered by vote margin thresholds, it does not explicitly address cost allocation for recounts initiated by candidate petition or other discretionary mechanisms. The statute does not clarify whether petition-based recount costs differ from mandatory recount costs, or whether candidates seeking discretionary recounts must pay. The scope is therefore incomplete—cost allocation is codified only for the automatic triggering mechanism, not for petition-based or discretionary recount requests that may exist elsewhere in chapter 11.

“No candidate shall be charged for the cost of a mandatory recount under this section.”

This section addresses cost allocation but only partially satisfies RECT.3. It specifies that recount costs are paid initially from a cash deposit or bond (referenced in § 3-12-6-10), with overflow costs covered by the county general fund. However, the statute does not codify the critical allocation rule: who bears cost responsibility based on recount outcome (e.g., does the petitioner pay if the recount does not change the result? does the county pay regardless?). The section addresses payment mechanics (from where funds come) but not the outcome-dependent allocation that defines cost-shifting regimes. To fully satisfy RECT.3, the statute would need to specify that costs are borne by the petitioner if the recount fails to change the result, or by the county if the recount succeeds, or some other outcome-based rule. This section establishes a default municipal-fund backstop but does not establish the triggering condition for cost responsibility allocation.

Iowa Code § 50.48 contains limited codified cost allocation for recounts. The statute explicitly addresses bonding requirements for statewide office recounts, requiring candidates to post a single bond rather than multiple bonds across counties. However, the statute does not clearly codify: (1) who pays for the recount under different outcome scenarios (e.g., if the recount confirms or reverses the original result); (2) the mechanism for cost recovery or allocation when a recount is initiated; (3) whether costs are borne by the requesting candidate, the county, or another party; or (4) any fee-shifting provisions based on the recount outcome. The bond requirement is mentioned but the broader cost allocation framework—particularly which party bears expenses and under what circumstances—is not comprehensively addressed in this section. This partial codification meets the minimum threshold for procedural clarity on one aspect (bonding for statewide races) but falls short of fully satisfying the criterion's requirement for complete cost allocation rules.

This statute provides explicit cost-allocation rules tied to recount outcomes: costs fall on the losing petitioner if no error occurred or error was immaterial; costs are borne by no party if a change-determinative error is found. However, the provision applies only to 'absentee by mail and early voting ballots,' not to all ballot types or recount scenarios. The statute leaves silent how costs are allocated for recounts of other ballot types (e.g., in-person voting machines, provisional ballots) or in other procedural contexts. While RECT.3 asks whether cost allocation is 'by statute,' this section satisfies that requirement only partially—it codifies allocation for a narrow category of ballots but does not comprehensively address recount cost allocation across all recount triggers or ballot types that Louisiana law permits.

Section 882 addresses cost allocation for the counter petitioner (refund if recount does not change result) and references the deposit requirements of section 881 for the original petitioner. While the full cost allocation scheme for the original petitioner is in §881, this section codifies the outcome-based refund rule for counter petitioners, satisfying the binary criterion that cost is allocated by statute based on outcome.

Section 19:6-4 references cost allocation for recounts ('sufficient to cause the costs of such recount to be paid by the State, county or municipality') and establishes a mechanism tying recount costs to board member dismissal upon error discovery. However, the statute does not codify the actual cost-allocation rules themselves—it only delegates to 'the provisions of this Title' without specifying in the cited section what those conditions are or which entity pays under which outcome. The section establishes consequences (dismissal) but not the substantive cost-allocation framework. To fully satisfy RECT.3, the triggering conditions and the cost-bearing allocations must be clearly codified in the statute itself, not incorporated by reference.

The statute addresses cost allocation for one specific scenario: hand-to-eye recounts of the entire jurisdiction ordered by the State Board of Elections are free to the candidate. However, the section does not comprehensively codify cost allocation for the full spectrum of petition-based recounts. It is silent on: (1) costs for the initial recount (before hand-to-eye stages); (2) costs for the first hand-to-eye sample recount (3% of precincts); (3) whether candidates or counties bear costs under different outcomes; (4) cost consequences if a recount reverses or fails to reverse results (except for the full statewide hand-to-eye recount). The statute delegates remaining recount rules to the State Board of Elections via G.S. 163-182.7(d), meaning critical cost allocation details are not codified in statute but reserved for administrative rule-making. For EDRI purposes, which requires procedural clarity through statutory codification, this partial and administratively-delegated approach falls short of the criterion.

“There shall be no cost to the candidate for that recount in the entire jurisdiction.”

§ 1701 codifies the ballot-box-opening petition by 3 electors with deposit/bond requirement: 'all of the following apply: (i) Three (3) qualified electors of a county must file a verified petition... [with] appropriate money or bond'. Partial cost allocation through bond mechanism — petitioners post bond, presumably forfeited on adverse outcome.

The section explicitly references recount procedures as applicable to primary elections and indicates they are governed by Article One of Chapter 3. However, this section is itself a reference provision that does not codify the actual cost allocation rules; it merely directs that other provisions shall apply. To satisfy RECT.3, the statute must allocate recount costs by statute (specifying who pays and under what circumstances or outcomes). This section acknowledges recount procedures exist elsewhere in the code but does not state the cost allocation itself. The statutory mechanism exists but is not transparent in this particular section—a reader would need to consult Article One to determine whether costs are actually allocated. For purposes of procedural clarity, this creates an indirect requirement rather than direct codification of cost allocation in an accessible location.

“Provisions of article one of this chapter relating to ballot commissioners, election commissioners and clerks, procedures for obtaining election supplies and conducting elections, loss and replacement of election supplies, challenge of voters, leaves of absence for voting, election expenses and recount procedures shall control and govern primary elections wherever applicable.”

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Austrian Federal Presidential Election Act (BPräsWG) concerns mail-in ballot (Briefwahl) procedures, including submission deadlines, validity requirements, and handling protocols. It does not address recount procedures, triggers, or cost allocation. The section establishes statutory rules for absentee voting administration but contains no provisions governing recount petitions, procedures, or the allocation of costs in the event a recount is requested. The criterion requires codified rules specifying who bears the cost of a petition-based recount under what outcomes—a topic entirely absent from this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 13 (transparency) is the only candidate surfaced; cost allocation for petition-based recount is not codified. Belarus has no statutory petition-based recount mechanism at the citizen level.

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 matching sections in corpus.

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

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 102.141 governs canvassing board duties but not recount cost allocation specifically. FL recount costs default to the county per implied custom.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 21-2-504 codifies special-election procedure on certification failure. Recount cost allocation is not directly codified — cost typically borne by petitioner under State Election Board rules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 19a of the PartG (Parteiengesetz — German Party Financing Act) addresses the procedure for setting and allocating state funding to political parties based on election results and accounting reports. The section establishes deadlines, calculations of vote shares, and conditions for receiving public funding. However, it contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, petition-based recounts, cost allocation for recounts, or the effects of recount findings. This statute governs party financing mechanisms, not election dispute resolution or recount procedures. The criterion requires codification of recount cost allocation — who bears costs under various recount outcomes — which is entirely absent from this section.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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 (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

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 matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 18E addresses how candidates may finance recount costs through dedicated recount funds, but does not allocate or assign recount costs by statute. It permits candidates to create separate accounts to pay for recount expenses, but contains no statutory rule governing who bears the cost of a recount petition, under what conditions costs are borne by the petitioner vs. the state vs. the election official, or how costs are allocated based on recount outcome (e.g., whether petitioner pays if margin is not changed, or state pays if fraud is found). The section is about campaign finance disclosure and account segregation, not about cost allocation for recount procedures themselves. Statutory cost allocation rules would typically appear in the recount procedure statute itself, not in the campaign finance chapter.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 44 of the LGIPE describes the powers and functions of the Consejo General (General Council) of Mexico's electoral institute, covering administrative and regulatory authority over electoral processes, party registration, candidate qualification, and institutional governance. The section does not contain provisions regarding recount procedures, triggers, cost allocation mechanisms, or the financial responsibility for petition-based recounts. The criterion RECT.3 requires statutory specification of who bears the cost of a recount and under what outcome conditions (e.g., requester bears costs unless fraud is found). This provision is purely administrative and organizational in nature, addressing neither recount procedures nor cost allocation. The absence of any reference to recount mechanics, cost responsibility, or outcome-dependent fee structures means this section does not satisfy the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The cited section (Electoral Code art. 56) addresses the regime of bank accounts marked 'Electoral Fund' for electoral competitors, referendum participants, and initiative groups. It establishes requirements for opening, managing, and closing electoral fund accounts, including timing, bank procedures, financial reporting, and fund restrictions. The section contains no provisions addressing recount procedures, recount petition mechanisms, recount cost allocation, or any statutory rules governing who bears the financial burden of a recount under any particular outcome. RECT.3 specifically requires statutory allocation of recount petition costs (who pays, under what circumstances or outcomes). This section is entirely focused on campaign finance account management and does not touch the dispute-resolution or recount framework at all.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 17-102 codifies misdemeanors in connection with primary elections — unrelated to recount cost allocation. Recount cost allocation is not codified in ELN; petitioner-initiated court-ordered audits proceed via § 16-113 without explicit fee-shifting.

§ 16.1-16-04 codifies time-for-action. § 16.1-16-01 codifies recount procedure under SoS guidelines. § 16.1-16-08(5) codifies that 'in the discretion of the court, court costs may be awarded' in election-contest actions. Recount cost allocation is discretionary judicial under the contest framework rather than a fixed statutory schedule.

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 candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG regulates the exercise of voting by Spanish residents abroad—specifically the mechanics of ballot distribution, voting procedures, and ballot deposit timelines for overseas voters. The section addresses procedural clarity regarding when ballots must be sent (days 18–25 post-call), when official ballots arrive (days 29–33 or 29–39 depending on candidacy challenges), and voting deposit windows (8–3 days before election). However, this section contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, recount triggers, or cost allocation for recounts. It is purely concerned with overseas voting logistics and ballot access. The criterion explicitly asks whether recount cost allocation is codified by statute; this section does not address recounts at all. While LOREG may contain recount provisions elsewhere, this particular article does not satisfy the criterion.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: No FTS candidate addresses recount cost allocation. Election expenses (including recount costs) come from the YSK general budget per Article 181 of Law 298 — not allocated to petitioning parties.

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 § 30101 (definitions); not recount cost allocation.