Recount-finding effect

Section (e) explicitly codifies that recount findings are binding and mandatory — the canvassing board 'shall amend the initial certification' to reflect recount results. This creates a clear statutory mandate for the legal effect of a recount: the recount result becomes the new official certification. Section (f) further reinforces this by providing that the contest deadline is suspended until 'the vote is recertified, reflecting the results of the recount,' confirming the recount result is the controlling finding. The statute does not leave recount effect to discretion or case-by-case interpretation; it prescribes amendment of certification as mandatory and binding.

“If a recount is conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the appropriate canvassing board or authority shall amend the initial certification of the election to reflect the results of the recount. The results of the recount shall be posted as the initial count and transmitted to the Secretary of State within 24 hours.”

This statute codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: it is binding and mandatory. The statute uses mandatory language ('shall issue' and 'shall certify') that requires the director (or lieutenant governor) to issue a certificate of election/nomination or certification based on the recount determination. The effect is clear—recount findings directly trigger mandatory amendment of official results through certification. This satisfies the criterion because the binding nature of recount determinations and their effect on certification is explicitly codified in statutory language.

The statute codifies the legal effect of a recount finding with clear binding force. The court's determination is mandatory and results in immediate issuance of certificates of election by designated officials (governor, secretary of state, or county/city clerk) to the candidate "entitled thereto, as certified by the court." The use of "shall forthwith" establishes non-discretionary binding effect. The statute specifies the direct legal consequence: the court's recount determination triggers automatic distribution of the election certificate to the winner. This satisfies RECT.4 because the binding nature of the recount finding and its effect on certification are explicitly codified.

Section 7-5-319(d) explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding. It establishes that when a recount produces results differing from the original certification, the recount results are mandatory and binding—they 'shall be included in the canvass' as the official vote for the affected precinct. This creates a clear, statutorily-mandated amendment of the election results. The provision is unambiguous and leaves no discretion with election officials regarding whether to adopt the recount findings. This satisfies the criterion for codified recount-finding effect.

Article 50 makes recount finding effective — the recount mechanism alters the official result if a discrepancy is found. Article 73 codifies that district commissions amend protocols upon discovered errors. The Central Electoral Commission's Article 75 summarisation reflects amended results from recounts.

Section 282(3) explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding under this provision: the recount result is advisory only and does not binding modify the election outcome. This is a clear statutory statement of the recount-finding effect. While the effect is narrowing (non-binding rather than binding), the criterion asks whether effects are codified, not whether they are expansive. The statute leaves no discretion or ambiguity about what happens to the recount result—it is statutorily determined to be non-binding on the election result. This satisfies the requirement that recount-finding effects be established in statutory text rather than left to administrative or judicial interpretation.

Cal. Elec. Code § 16740 codifies the recount-finding effect: 'When the recount has been completed... all the judges who took part... shall assemble and make the decision of the court.' § 15633 mandates public posting of recount results. § 16701/16703 enable annulment of certificates and judicial declaration of correct winner if recount changes outcome. Recount findings are binding.

Section 316(3) explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding by stating that a substitute return (issued when the recount identifies a different winner) 'has the effect of cancelling the original return.' This creates a binding, mandatory amendment mechanism. Section 316(2) also establishes the mandatory duty of the returning officer to act on the recount result: if a recount shows a different person should be returned, a substitute return 'shall' be made; if the recount confirms the original return, the papers 'shall' be sent back without delay and no substitute return is made. The statutory language is clear and directive, leaving no discretion as to the effect of recount findings on the official return of the writ.

“A substitute return made under paragraph (2)(a) has the effect of cancelling the original return.”

The statute clearly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding. It establishes that: (1) if the recount changes the vote result, the canvass board must prepare and certify an amended official abstract (mandatory amendment), and (2) if the recount does not change the result, the canvass board must include a statement reflecting that fact in the official abstract. This creates binding, codified consequences tied to recount outcomes. The statutory language is mandatory ('shall') and unambiguous regarding the effect of recount findings on official certification documents.

Connecticut § 9-324 explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: the judge's certificate is 'final and conclusive upon all questions' and 'shall operate to correct the returns' to conform to the finding. The statute further specifies that the judge 'may order a new election or a change in the existing election schedule.' These provisions establish mandatory, binding effects—the judge's decision is not advisory but directly corrects official returns. The statute codifies both the binding nature of the finding and the remedial powers (certification, mandatory amendment of returns, or new election) available to the judge. The legal effect is clear and unambiguous: recount findings bind all parties and automatically correct returns unless appealed.

“Such judge shall thereupon, in case such judge finds any error in the rulings of the election official, any mistake in the count of the votes or any violation of said sections, certify the result of such judge's finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the fifteenth day of the next succeeding December. Such judge may order a new election or a change in the existing election schedule. Such certificate of such judge of such judge's finding or decision shall be final and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the rulings of such election officials, to the correctness of such count, and, for the purposes of this section only, such claimed violations, and shall operate to correct the returns of the moderators or presiding officers, so as to conform to such finding or decision”

§ 70 codifies that the count result is entered in the polling book signed by valgstyrere and immediately communicated to the valgbestyrelse chair. § 102 codifies Minister publication of referendum results. § 73 codifies fintælling result entry. § 72 codifies authoritative recount. § 28 codifies majority decision. Recount-finding effect (binding on official result) codified.

§ 60 gives the recount binding effect — where the recount figures differ from the voting-district records the recount controls (the original records may not be amended), and the vote counting committee adopts a resolution on the final voting results.

“The vote counting committee adopts a resolution concerning the final voting results.”

§ 94 codifies that the constituency committee, having completed the § 87 verification count, 'confirms the election result' at its meeting on the 3rd day after election day — the verification count's findings are thus binding on the official result it confirms. § 95 codifies the parallel for municipal elections. § 181 codifies result publication. The recount-finding's effect on certification is codified.

§ 102.141 + § 102.166 codify the recount-finding effect: the canvassing board's recount results are incorporated into the official certification. § 101.591 (4927) audit findings have binding influence on certification.

“The county canvassing board shall be composed of the supervisor of elections; a county court judge, who shall act as chair; and the chair of the board of county commissioners.”

§ 21-2-495 codifies that 'If upon such recount, it shall appear that the original count by the poll officers was incorrect, such returns and all papers being prepared by the superintendent shall be corrected accordingly.' § 21-2-498 codifies precertification-audit results. § 21-2-524 codifies contest-finding effect. Recount-finding effect (binding) clearly codified.

Section 125(4) of the Electoral Act 1992 explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: where an error is discovered during a recount, the returning officer has a mandatory duty (signaled by 'shall') to amend any previously announced results as necessary. This creates a binding, statutory effect for recount findings. The provision establishes that recount discoveries are not merely advisory but trigger an affirmative obligation to correct the record. Combined with subsection (3)(c), which requires a complete fresh count from the point of error if a 'significant error' is found, the statute prescribes both the trigger for amendment and the procedural consequence. This satisfies the criterion because the legal effect—mandatory amendment of announced results—is expressly codified rather than left to discretion or case-by-case interpretation.

“Where an error is discovered, the returning officer shall, where necessary, amend any results previously announced by him.”

The statute codifies the binding legal effect of recount findings. When a recount is completed, the county board of canvassers must complete its canvass based on the recount results. The statute explicitly establishes that if a recount declares a different winner, that result is binding—the candidate becomes the election winner and costs are shifted to the county. Additionally, the statute specifies that recount results for constitutional amendments are similarly binding (if an amendment is overturned by recount, that result stands). The provision that the canvassers 'shall complete its canvass' upon recount completion makes mandatory amendment of the original canvass results a statutory requirement. This satisfies the criterion because the legal consequence of a recount finding is not discretionary or advisory but statutorily mandated as binding and determinative.

KRS 120.185(1)(j)-(k) codifies the binding effect of a recount finding: on receiving the recount results the court enters judgment directing the State Board (or county board) to issue the certificate of election 'to the party entitled thereto as shown by the recount,' and 'no certificate of election shall be issued... while any recount proceeding is pending, and any certificate... issued before the final judgment... shall be null and void.' KRS 120.270 provides that a recount judgment 'shall supersede the official returns.'

§ 45³ (and § 45⁵) codify the effect of a recount/contest finding — a court judgment finding outcome-affecting violations revokes the result-approval decision, and the Central Election Commission must order a re-count, repeated voting or repeated elections.

“shall revoke a decision on the approval of the election results of the relevant local government”

This section codifies the legal effect of a recount finding by establishing that recount results are binding and mandatory. The statute explicitly requires that 'records amended' follow from the recount, and the city clerk 'shall forthwith declare the result' based on the recounted ballots. This makes clear that recount findings have mandatory amendment effect — the clerk must update the official record and declaration based on the recount outcome. The binding nature is further reinforced by the provision that no person can act in office 'before his certificate of election has been issued,' which can only occur after recount completion and record amendment. The statute thus codifies that recounts produce binding, not advisory, determinations that must be reflected in official records and election certification.

“After the ballots have been recounted and the records amended, the city clerk shall forthwith declare the result of the election”

The statute explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: the recount returns are deemed correct and supersede the original returns. It also addresses the effect of withdrawal/discontinuance (original return stands) and mandates public reporting of the final result.

The statute explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: the secretary of state's declaration of the result is final, establishing that recount findings are binding. The statute further clarifies the only mechanism that can alter this binding effect—an appeal to the ballot law commission within 10 days. This unambiguously codifies that recount findings are mandatory and binding unless overturned through the specified appellate process, directly addressing the criterion's requirement that the effect of a recount finding be codified in statute.

“the secretary of state shall declare said result which shall be final unless the result is changed because of an appeal taken within 10 days to the ballot law commission”

The statute explicitly codifies that upon a recount finding in a public question (referendum), the judge 'shall make an order that the result of such election be corrected.' This language establishes a mandatory legal effect: the recount finding requires correction of the election result. The use of 'shall' creates a binding obligation, not an advisory recommendation. The statute specifies the legal consequence (correction of the result) that flows from a recount determination, thereby codifying the finding-effect relationship. While the provision is brief and applies specifically to referenda, it clearly establishes that recount findings have a binding, mandatory effect on the official result.

“In case of public questions such judge shall make an order that the result of such election be corrected.”

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.10 codifies the legal effect of recount findings by explicitly stating that the county board 'may order' vote recounts and that such findings result in mandatory actions including correction of vote totals and declaration of new results. The statute specifies the conclusions that trigger recount authority and the binding consequences: corrected vote totals 'as stated' in official returns and 'new results declared.' This creates a clear statutory rule linking recount findings to mandatory amendment of official election results, not merely advisory effect. The provision is procedurally codified with specific triggering language ('substantial evidence to believe that a violation of the election law or other irregularity or misconduct did occur') and binding remedial effect (mandatory correction and declaration of new results).

“If the county board makes this conclusion, it may order any of the following as appropriate: That the vote total as stated in the precinct return or result of the canvass be corrected and new results declared. That votes be recounted.”

§ 16.1-16-01 codifies that a recount must be conducted under SoS guidelines with results binding on certification. § 16.1-16-04 codifies that certification timing is tied to recount completion (5-day contest deadline runs from certification of recount). Recount-finding effect codified.

§ 10-11(5) codifies that 'the result of the second count shall be announced' (Resultatet av den andre opptellingen skal kunngjøres) — the second count is binding for the canvass. § 11-7 codifies the leveling-mandate calculation based on second-count results. § 10-8 codifies the first count. Recount-finding effect codified.

ORC 3515.05 codifies the board's duty after recount completion: prepare and certify an amended abstract, distribute to other boards/officials, and make an amended declaration of the result in the same manner as the original.

“promptly prepare and certify an amended abstract showing the votes cast in each precinct”

ORS § 258.241 directly codifies the legal effect of recount findings. Subsection (1) establishes that a full recount result becomes the binding official return of the election, creating a mandatory amendment effect. Subsection (2) clarifies the partial recount scenario, specifying that partial recount abstracts are not certified and the original count remains the official return. These provisions clearly establish that full recount findings have binding legal effect—they replace the original count as the official election return. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that recount-finding effects be codified in statute rather than left to discretion or case law.

§ 1703(a)(2) codifies the recount-finding effect: 'the court shall correct, compute and certify to the county board the votes justly, regardless of any fraudulent or erroneous entries... and the county board shall correct accordingly any entries previously made in the returns'. Mandatory amendment by court order.

“the court shall correct, compute and certify”

This section codifies the legal effect of a recount finding with binding force. The statute specifies that upon completion of a recount, if the state board finds the candidate was elected, it 'shall direct' the local board to issue a certificate of election to that candidate. The mandatory language ('shall direct') and the conditional amendment of the certification result based on recount findings establish that recount outcomes are binding and automatically trigger mandatory amendment of the election result. The effect is clear, non-discretionary, and statutorily prescribed.

“After the completion of the recount, and if it finds that the candidate was elected, it shall direct the local board to issue to the candidate a certificate of election, but if it finds that the candidate declared to be elected by the local board was in fact elected, it shall direct the board to issue a certificate of election to the candidate previously declared elected.”

Article 77 codifies the binding effect of finding violations: 'In the event any violations of this Federal Law, other law governing the conduct of corresponding election, referendum were committed when voting was conducted or voting' — the commission/court may cancel results. Article 69 codifies result-processing protocols with binding effects across the commission hierarchy.

§ 12-22-21 codifies that 'judgment shall be withheld while recount or certiorari pending — judgment declaring election' — recount/certiorari findings binding on certification. § 12-21-45 codifies court order for second recount. § 12-21-47 codifies certiorari review. § 12-22-26 codifies legislative-contest notice. Recount-finding effect codified.

13 kap. 9 § codifies that 'when the proceeding has been concluded the county administrative board shall notify the central election authority of the result of the vote count.' 14 kap. 1 § codifies that mandate distribution is based on the final vote count. 12 kap. 1 § codifies the binding intermediate count. Recount-finding effect codified as binding on certification.

§ 213.057 codifies the binding effect of a recount finding: after a recount that changes the vote count, the final canvassing authority must re-canvass using the recount supervisor's report instead of the original returns, and 'an original final canvass for the office or measure is void, and the new final canvass is the official final canvass for the election.' A recount finding is mandatory and determinative of the official result.

“An original final canvass for the office or measure is void, and the new final canvass is the official final canvass for the election”

Art. IV-255 codifies tabulation of voting results in local elections — the result becomes official upon territorial commission protocol. Art. IV-254 codifies discrepancy handling. Recount-finding effect (binding) is codified.

UCA § 20A-4-401(5)(b)(iv) explicitly codifies the binding legal effect of recount findings. The statute mandates that the election officer 'declare elected' the candidate with the highest vote count following the recount, establishing that recount results are determinative and binding, not advisory. The provision covers single-office races, at-large races, and tie scenarios, with clear direction that the recount result triggers a binding declaration of election. This satisfies the criterion by establishing in statutory text that recount findings have mandatory, binding effect on the election outcome.

The statute codifies the legal effect of a recount finding with substantial clarity. The court is required to declare the person who received the higher number of votes to be 'nominated or elected' (making the recount outcome binding and mandatory). The statute further mandates that the Department post changes to previously certified results, and explicitly provides that 'The recount proceeding shall be final and not subject to appeal.' This language establishes that recount findings are binding, not advisory, and must result in amendment of the original election certification. The procedural effect is codified in statute rather than left to judicial discretion or common law.

RCW 29A.64.061(4) explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: the amended abstract from the recount 'supersedes any prior abstract.' This establishes that recount findings are binding and mandatory—they replace prior results with no discretionary gap. The statute further specifies the procedural chain (29A.64.061(1)-(3)) requiring canvassing boards to prepare amended abstracts and transmit them through established channels, with the secretary of state filing amended abstracts for state-level offices. The binding effect is unambiguous and clearly stated in statutory language.

“An amended abstract certified under this section supersedes any prior abstract of the results for the same offices or issues at the same primary or election.”

Wis. Stat. § 9.01 codifies that recount findings amend the canvass — the board of canvassers' protocols are amended per the recount, with court appeal available under § 9.01(6)–(11). Recount findings are binding on the certified result.

Wyoming Stat. § 22-16-112 explicitly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding: when a recount reveals a different vote count, that recount result becomes 'the official result.' This is a binding, mandatory legal effect that mandates amendment of the certified election result. The statute does not leave the recount's legal consequence to judicial discretion or canvassing board discretion—the statutory language 'shall be the official result' creates an automatic, binding obligation. The section also codifies the timing requirement (72-hour certification deadline), further clarifying the procedural framework. This satisfies the criterion because the effect of a recount finding is clearly defined in statutory text.

“If the recount indicates a different vote, the result of the recount shall be the official result.”

Article 112 establishes the definitive recount procedure and specifies what the Electoral National Board (Junta Electoral Nacional) must verify, including examination of records for signs of tampering, substantive defects, document completeness, protest consideration, and disputed vote validity. However, the statute does not explicitly codify the legal effect of recount findings—specifically whether findings are binding on final certification, whether they mandate amendment of official results, or what remedies follow from a recount that reveals discrepancies. The text states the Board 'shall limit itself to performing arithmetic operations' but does not state whether the recount result automatically supersedes prior tallies or requires further action. The binding nature and consequence of recount findings remain implicit rather than explicit. This represents partial satisfaction: the recount procedure is clearly defined, but the statutory effect of those findings on final election certification and result amendment is not codified with sufficient clarity.

This provision establishes that the recount commission (commission de recensement général des votes) resolves questions of ballot validity and counting, and makes necessary corrections. However, the legal effect of recount findings is ambiguous. The text states the commission 'proceeds with necessary rectifications' but crucially reserves 'the power of appreciation of the election judge' without clarifying whether the judge's review is de novo, limited to legal questions, or deferential to the commission's findings. The statute does not codify whether recount findings are binding, advisory, or subject to complete judicial revision. While the commission's authority to make corrections suggests some binding effect on vote totals, the preservation of judicial discretion ('sans préjudice toutefois du pouvoir d'appréciation du juge') leaves the ultimate legal effect of recount findings unclear. The statute establishes the recount procedure and institutional role but fails to clearly define whether recount findings bind election officials, courts, or both.

“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, sans préjudice toutefois du pouvoir d'appréciation du juge de l'élection.”

Article 21 codifies DEC authority to amend summary protocols upon discovered errors. Recount findings amend protocols and bind the certified result by virtue of CEC summarisation per Article 76 (in v0 cands).

§ 76 BWO establishes a recount procedure (Nachzählung) with triggers (concerns about propriety of election procedures), notification requirements, and documentation. However, the statute does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding with precision. Subsection (2) grants the Kreiswahlausschuss authority to 'correct' (berichtigen) determinations by the Wahlvorstand and make binding decisions on vote validity, which implies that recount findings are binding and mandatory for amendment of the official result. Yet the statute does not explicitly state in a dedicated provision that recount findings shall: (a) be binding on subsequent certification; (b) mandate amendment of the official tally; or (c) trigger mandatory modifications to state-level reports. The effect is derivable from the correction authority granted, but not codified with the clarity required for RECT.4. A dual-scholar review would note that while the procedure is clear, the express statutory formulation of recount-finding effect (as binding, mandatory, or merely advisory) is underdeveloped.

“Der Kreiswahlausschuss ist berechtigt, Feststellungen des Wahlvorstandes zu berichtigen und dabei auch über die Gültigkeit abgegebener Stimmen abweichend zu beschließen.”

The statute codifies a recount TRIGGER (automatic recount immediately after initial count) and a PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT (two consecutive identical counts required before finalization). However, it does not explicitly codify the legal effect of the recount finding—i.e., whether the final count is binding on election officials, whether it mandates amendment of official results, or what dispute resolution mechanism applies if discrepancies emerge. The phrase 'opgør afstemningslederen endeligt resultatet' (the vote counter establishes the final result) implies finality, but does not specify whether this is conclusive for certification purposes or subject to further contest/appeal. The statute addresses recount procedure and trigger but leaves the legal binding effect of the recount-finding implicit rather than explicit.

This section addresses the temporal relationship between recount proceedings and court action (establishing a stay pending final determination by the recount commission), but it does not explicitly codify the legal effect of a recount finding itself. The statute mandates that courts must await the commission's 'final determination' but does not specify whether that determination is binding on courts, whether it mandates amendment of official results, or what standard of review applies post-determination. The stay mechanism implies some deference to the recount commission's authority, but the binding nature, enforceability, and precise legal consequences of the finding are not articulated in this section. To fully satisfy RECT.4, the statute would need to explicitly state the recount finding's effect (e.g., 'The recount commission's determination shall be binding on all parties and shall amend the official canvass'). This section provides procedural clarity on sequencing but leaves the substantive effect of the finding to inference or cross-reference to IC 3-12-11.

Lithuania codifies that the Supreme Administrative Court's decision on a final-results appeal 'shall come into force from its announcement' (§ 74) and that vote-counting-record appeals may compel correction (§ 85), but the discrete binding-effect of a recount finding on the certified result is not separately codified.

The statute codifies the trigger for recounts (apparent tie) and specifies what happens if a recount confirms a tie (tie-breaking procedures apply). However, the statute does not explicitly codify what effect a recount has when it DOES NOT confirm a tie—i.e., whether the recount finding is binding, replaces the original count, or is merely advisory in cases of discrepancy without a tie. The recount-finding effect is partially addressed (the recount is automatic and its confirmation triggers specific consequences), but the statute leaves ambiguous whether a recount that produces a different result than the original count mandatorily amends the certified result or requires further action. The effect is clear only in the tie scenario, not in the broader recount-result scenario.

“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.”

The statute specifies the procedure for conducting recounts (random recount when margin ≤1 percentage point) and requires that district councils amend the acts based on recount results ('procederán a realizar en su caso la rectificación'). However, the binding legal effect of amended acts—specifically whether the corrected totals are mandatory, final, or subject to further challenge—is not explicitly codified. The provision mandates amendment and reporting procedures but does not clearly state that recount findings are binding on certification, conclusive, or insulated from further dispute. The statute establishes the mechanics of recount-triggered amendment but leaves the ultimate force and finality of recount findings implicit rather than explicit.

§ 204C.28 codifies election-night returns processing and county-auditor duties. § 204C.37 (not in FTS top-5) codifies certified canvassing-board reports to the Secretary of State. § 209.07 codifies that contest/recount findings can invalidate election certificates. Recount-finding effect (binding on certification) codified.

Article 95(10) establishes clear procedural triggers for recounts (3-day deadline post-results, infringements likely to influence results) and specifies evidentiary standards (10% difference threshold). It mandates that the CEC "shall order the recounting of votes" if criteria are met, indicating a binding trigger mechanism. However, the statute does not codify what happens after a recount is completed—specifically, whether recount findings are automatically binding on certification, whether they mandate result amendment, whether they are merely advisory, or what process follows the recount determination. The section addresses procedural clarity for initiating recounts but leaves the legal effect of recount findings to be inferred or determined elsewhere in the Code. This is a partial satisfaction: the mechanism is procedurally clear, but the binding/advisory/amendment effect is not explicitly codified in this provision.

§ 13-16-304 has the district court retain jurisdiction of a recount case 'until the cause is finally determined and the final count is made by the county recount board', and § 13-16-416 has the recount board enter the corrected result; the surfaced section addresses jurisdiction rather than squarely codifying the binding force of a recount finding.

The statute codifies that the district court's judgment on ballot preservation is 'final and conclusive,' establishing a binding legal effect for that preliminary determination. It also specifies that if ballots are found properly preserved, the recount shall be conducted 'immediately thereafter.' However, the section does not explicitly codify the legal effect of the recount's actual ballot count findings—i.e., whether the recount results are binding on certification, whether they mandate amendment of official results, or what happens if the recount produces a different outcome than the original count. The statute addresses the procedural effect (the recount shall occur) but leaves the substantive consequence of the recount count itself to other statutory provisions or case law. This is a partial satisfaction: the finding-effect on ballot preservation is codified, but the finding-effect on the actual recount count is not.

Section 49(5) establishes that when a recount is ordered, the counting officer 'must determine afresh the result,' which implies a binding effect at the counting-station level. However, the statute does not codify the precise legal effect of that recount determination—whether it is final, subject to override, or merely provisional pending Commission review. Section 49(6) permits an appeal to the Commission but provides no statutory detail on the evidentiary standard, timing, or whether the Commission's decision is final. The provision triggers a recount mechanism and mandates a fresh determination, satisfying part of the criterion, but fails to codify the downstream legal consequences and finality of the recount finding. Procedural clarity is therefore incomplete: the trigger and immediate effect are clear, but the binding or advisory status of the recount result in the broader dispute-resolution chain remains underspecified.

§ 2602d-2602e codify the recount's conduct — the county clerk reviews the official return, examines the checklist where the ballot and check-off counts differ, and counting teams hand-recount the ballots. The binding effect of the recount — a recount showing that a different candidate has the required votes results in that candidate being 'declared elected' (§ 2686) — is codified at the cross-referenced § 2686.

W. Va. Code § 3-6-9 establishes clear recount procedures, including who may demand a recount (candidates, within 48 hours), timing (set for no sooner than 3 days after notice), and procedural safeguards (notice to candidates, opportunity to preserve rights to additional precinct recounts, single recount per precinct). However, the statute does not explicitly codify the legal effect of a recount finding—i.e., whether the recount result is binding and automatically amends the certified election results, whether it is merely advisory, or what happens if a recount confirms or contradicts the original count. The provision requires the board to 'seal the ballots again' after a recount but contains no language stating that recount findings mandate recertification, override prior declarations, or are conclusive. The statute thus satisfies the procedural clarity requirement for recount mechanics but fails to codify the binding legal effect of recount outcomes, which is essential to full satisfaction of RECT.4.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 100 of the NRWO establishes procedural rules for the second ballot-allocation phase (zweites Ermittlungsverfahren), specifying which parties qualify to participate based on first-round performance thresholds. It does not address recount procedures, recount triggers, or the legal binding effect of recount findings. The section concerns seat-allocation methodology and notification procedures, not the consequences or mandatory effect of a recount determination. No statutory language codifies whether a recount finding is binding on certification, mandatory in amending official results, or merely advisory.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 174 addresses only the dissemination and public proclamation of vote tallies and elected names via electronic means. It does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding—whether such findings are binding on officials, whether they mandate result amendments, whether they are advisory only, or what procedural consequences follow from a recount. The section is purely procedural regarding communication/publication, not substantive regarding the normative force of recount determinations. RECT.4 requires codification of what happens when a recount is conducted and produces a finding; this article does not address that question.

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-finding effect.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the payment timing of compensation/reimbursement (naknada) within 60 days of the publication of final official election results. It pertains to campaign finance reimbursement, not to recount procedures or the legal effects of recount findings. The section contains no codification of recount triggers, procedures, cost allocation, or the binding or advisory status of recount findings. It does not specify whether a recount finding mandates amendment of official results, is merely advisory, or has other defined legal effect.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 47 of Law 491/2001 addresses only the announcement and publication of election results by the registration office on official boards. It specifies the procedural timing (without delay after approval and signing) and publication location, but contains no codified provisions regarding recount procedures, recount triggers, cost allocation, or—critically for this criterion—the legal effects of recount findings (whether binding, advisory, or requiring mandatory amendment of results). The section is procedurally narrow, addressing result announcement rather than dispute resolution or recount mechanics. A criterion-satisfying provision would explicitly state whether a recount finding mandates result amendment, is binding on officials, or operates in advisory capacity.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-108(e) contains only a procedural reference to recount authority ('shall be as provided by law') but does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding. The statute specifies *when* recounts occur (after final tabulation) and *what* ballots are included, but does not address whether recount findings are binding on certification, whether they mandate amendment of results, or what their legal effect is. The criterion requires that recount-finding effects be codified in statute itself, not delegated to other unspecified legal provisions. To satisfy RECT.4, the statute would need to explicitly state the binding or advisory nature of recount outcomes and their relationship to certification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 39 of Iceland's Elections Act No. 112/2021 addresses candidate list submission requirements, including confirmations, declarations, and nomination subscriber documentation. It does not contain any provisions regarding recount procedures, recount findings, or the legal effects of recount determinations (whether binding, advisory, or requiring mandatory amendment). The section is exclusively procedural in nature relating to candidate nomination and list composition. To satisfy RECT.4, the statute would need to codify the legal consequences and binding authority of recount findings, which is entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: I.C. § 34-2305 prescribes the procedural manner of conducting a recount—location, visibility, timing, and completion. It designates the Attorney General and county prosecuting attorney as final authorities on questions arising during the recount process. However, the statute does not codify the legal effect or binding force of a recount finding. There is no explicit statement that a recount result is binding on certification, that it mandates an amendment of the official canvass, or that it has any other specified legal consequence. The section addresses the mechanics of recounting but not the consequences of the recount outcome, leaving the legal effect of recount findings unclear and not fully codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/17-20 codifies canvass proclamation procedure ('prima facie evidence of the result'); not the legal effect of a post-recount finding.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The provided section is a table of contents or index for Iowa Code Chapter 43, which addresses partisan nominations and primary elections. It lists section headings but contains no substantive statutory text regarding recount procedures, recount findings, or the legal effects of recount determinations. The section labeled '43.89 - 43.90' appears to reference 'Primary election recount provisions' in the heading, but no actual statutory language defining the legal effects of recount findings (whether binding, advisory, or mandatory amendment) is provided in the text. To satisfy RECT.4, the statute must codify what happens when a recount is conducted and a discrepancy is found—what authority must act, whether the recount result is binding on certification, and what procedural consequences follow. This excerpt does not contain that codification.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 163 addresses only the procedural act of publicly proclaiming the results of a general recount and the names of elected candidates by the bureau president. It does not codify the legal effect of recount findings (whether binding, advisory, or mandatory for amendment of official results). The statute describes what happens after a recount occurs (public proclamation) but does not establish what bindingness or legal consequence that recount determination carries. This fails to satisfy RECT.4, which requires codification of the legal effects of recount findings.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 162 establishes observation rights and the ability to attach observations, protests, or contestations to official records before or after proclamation. However, it contains no codified language specifying the legal effect of recount findings—whether they are binding on election officials, merely advisory, trigger mandatory amendments to results, or carry other specific consequences. The provision addresses procedural access to observe and document irregularities but does not codify the binding force or mandatory consequences of a recount determination. The section explicitly cuts off mid-sentence ('Des dérogations') without completing the legal framework. This gap precludes satisfaction of RECT.4, which requires that the legal effects of recount findings be codified in statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 49 of Cap. 354 (General Elections Act) governs ballot paper printing, security features, candidate arrangement, and related procedural matters. It does not address recount procedures, triggers, mechanisms, or the legal effects of recount findings. The section is exclusively procedural in relation to ballot preparation and does not codify what happens after a recount is conducted—i.e., whether a recount finding is binding, advisory, or mandatory for amendment of results. RECT.4 requires statutory codification of the legal effect of recount findings. This section contains none of that content.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Maryland Election Law § 12-308 addresses reporting requirements for contested election committees, including timing of financial disclosure reports tied to recount petitions and circuit court complaints. However, the statute contains no substantive provisions regarding the legal effects of a recount finding—such as whether a recount result is binding on election officials, whether it mandates certification amendment, whether it is merely advisory, or what procedural consequences flow from recount findings. The section references Subtitle 1 (recount procedures) and Subtitle 2 (election contests) as triggers for reporting deadlines, but does not itself codify the substantive legal effect of recount outcomes. This is a procedural/administrative provision governing financial disclosure timelines, not a provision addressing the binding or advisory nature of recount determinations.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the destruction of candidate lists and related documents after determination of election results, with an exception for statements of consent. It describes a procedural requirement for record-keeping (preparation of a report of destruction) but does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding. The statute is silent on whether recount findings are binding, advisory, trigger mandatory amendment of results, or have any other specified legal consequence. The section concerns post-outcome document management rather than the substantive effects of recount determinations on election certification or result validity.

No matching sections in corpus.

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: Article 111.º prescribes a procedural timeline (8 days) and publication mechanism for the official election results map. However, it does not codify recount procedures, triggers for recount, cost allocation, or critically, the legal effect of recount findings. The section addresses post-election reporting of aggregated results rather than dispute resolution, recount mechanics, or the binding/advisory status of recount determinations. It describes what information must be included in the official map but contains no language addressing whether a recount is mandatory, discretionary, or what authority determines recount necessity, and no specification of whether recount findings are binding on certification or merely advisory.

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

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 7-17-280 specifies mandatory recount TRIGGERS (one percent margin threshold) and PROCEDURE (recount ordered 'forthwith'), but does not codify the legal EFFECTS of recount findings. The statute does not address whether a recount result is binding on election officials, whether it mandates certification changes, whether it is merely advisory, or what remedies follow a recount that shows a different outcome than the initial canvass. A jurisdiction scoring high on RECT.4 would explicitly state (e.g., 'the recount result shall be the official result' or 'certification shall be amended to reflect recount findings'). South Carolina's statute triggers recounts but leaves the determinative legal consequence of recount findings unstated in this section, requiring resort to common law, administrative practice, or other statutory provisions to ascertain binding effect.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG addresses procedural mechanics for voting by Spanish residents abroad—specifically the documentation sent to voters, timing of ballot delivery, voting methods at diplomatic posts, and identity verification. The section is entirely focused on the mechanics of exercising the franchise (voto) by overseas voters, not on recount procedures, recount triggers, or the legal effects of recount findings. The criterion RECT.4 asks whether legal effects of a recount finding (binding, advisory, mandatory amendment to official results) are codified in statute. This section contains no language addressing recount procedures, what happens after a recount is conducted, whether recount findings are binding on election officials, or how recount results modify or confirm official tallies. This is a provision on electoral participation mechanics, not on dispute resolution or recount finality.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: No FTS candidate codifies the legal effect of a recount finding (binding vs. advisory). YSK decisions are final per Anayasa Article 79 — the recount outcome would be binding by virtue of YSK's final-authority status, but this is not codified as recount-specific effect.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 30126 (minor contributions); not recount effect.