Pre-certification stay

§ 89 codifies that 'if the Folketing decides that voting in a constituency is invalid, approval of the candidates' election in the storkreds is suspended (udsættes).' § 50 codifies polling-room order. § 61 codifies postal-vote ID. § 17 codifies Valgnævnet authority. Pre-certification stay mechanism codified.

§ 62 of the Referendum Act codifies a pre-certification stay — the National Electoral Committee may not approve the results before the complaint and appeal periods have expired and before final resolutions or judgments have been made on any pending complaints.

“not before the term for filing complaints or appeals with the National Electoral Committee and the Supreme Court has expired or before final resolutions or judgments have been made in respect of such complaints.”

§ 101.733 provides the election-emergency / contingency-plan framework, which functions as the statutory pre-certification stay mechanism. § 101.5605 (4911) certification-process timing also supports.

“Because of the existing and continuing possibility of an emergency or common disaster occurring before or during a regularly scheduled or special election, and in order to ensure maximum citizen participation”

§ 21-2-32 codifies institution of and intervention in court actions by State Election Board with procedure for presiding-judge compensation. § 21-2-33.1 codifies enforcement of chapter including suspension of superintendents. § 21-2-101 codifies certification program. Pre-certification stay via court order is codified through the enforcement framework.

Ind. Code § 3-12-10-17 directly provides a statutory mechanism to stay court action related to elections that are the subject of recount or contest proceedings. The statute explicitly establishes that such actions remain stayed pending final determination by the recount commission. This satisfies the criterion's requirement for a codified stay mechanism that preserves the ability to resolve disputes through administrative or judicial processes before certification becomes final. The stay operates automatically for both recount and contest proceedings, providing clear procedural clarity on timing.

Article 278 explicitly establishes that appeals to the Administrative Court (Cour administrative) in election disputes have suspensive effect ('Ce recours est suspensif'). This means that the appeal automatically stays the effect of the lower administrative tribunal's decision pending the appellate court's ruling. The statute further specifies that the appellate court must rule urgently and in any case within one month. This creates a statutory mechanism that prevents certification or implementation of the contested election result while the dispute is pending appellate review. The suspensive character of the appeal is the operative stay mechanism required by TIME.2.

“Ce recours est suspensif.”

Mississippi Code § 23-15-927 explicitly provides an automatic statutory stay mechanism. When a petition for judicial review is filed in circuit court challenging an executive committee's action (or inaction) on an election contest, the statute mandates that the filing 'shall automatically supersede and suspend the operation and effect of the order, ruling or judgment of the executive committee appealed from.' This directly satisfies TIME.2 by establishing a clear, codified mechanism that stays the effect of the committee's decision while the contest proceeds through judicial review. The stay is automatic upon filing, not discretionary, and operates at a specified procedural point—when the petition meeting the statutory requirements (attorney certificates and cost bond) is filed.

RSMo § 115.533(2) explicitly codifies a statutory stay mechanism that operates automatically upon notification of a filed petition. The statute mandates that election authorities 'immediately suspend all action on the office until the contest has been determined,' which directly addresses the criterion's requirement for a mechanism to stay certification while a contest is pending. This is a clear, mandatory stay provision triggered by petition filing and notification, not discretionary or subject to judicial determination. The provision satisfies the binary criterion by establishing a definite statutory obligation to halt certification proceedings.

“All officers and election authorities so notified shall immediately suspend all action on the office until the contest has been determined.”

Article 100(8) establishes an explicit statutory mechanism that stays certification pending resolution of appeals. The provision mandates that results confirmation and mandate validation occur only 'after the final settlement of the appeals,' creating a clear procedural linkage between dispute resolution completion and certification. This directly satisfies the criterion's requirement for a statutory stay mechanism. The statute also specifies examination deadlines for recounts (3 calendar days for submission, 5 calendar days for the recount procedure per subsection 5) and contests, ensuring disputes are resolved on defined timelines before certification proceeds. Article 100(1) and (4) further clarify that appeals lodged on election day are examined the same day, while post-vote appeals are examined 'simultaneously with the procedure for totalisation and confirmation of the results,' establishing procedural clarity on how pending disputes interact with the certification process.

The statute explicitly provides a statutory stay mechanism for pending disputes. It codifies: (1) the triggering condition (an aggrieved party appeals to Superior Court within 10 days of service), (2) the timing (stay must be obtained within 10 days after date of service), (3) the procedural vehicle (application to Superior Court of Wake County), and (4) the substantive standard for issuance (petitioner must show appeal has been filed, aggrieved party status, and likelihood of prevail). The statute further clarifies that certification shall not issue unless such a stay is obtained. For General Assembly and executive office contests, analogous protection is provided through the Article 3 Chapter 120 process. This is a clear, codified statutory mechanism that prevents automatic certification and allows disputes to be resolved pending appellate review.

“After the decision by the State Board of Elections has been served on the parties, the certification of nomination or election or the results of the referendum shall issue pursuant to G.S. 163-182.15 unless an appealing party obtains a stay of the certification from the Superior Court of Wake County within 10 days after the date of service. The court shall not issue a stay of certification unless the petitioner shows the court that the petitioner has appealed the decision of the State Board of Elections, that the petitioner is an aggrieved party, and that the petitioner is likely to prevail in the appeal.”

§ 18-2 codifies extended/postponed county or municipal elections, or re-elections, in extraordinary circumstances — the Cabinet (Kongen i statsråd) may extend or postpone the election day. § 18-1 codifies parallel for Storting elections. § 18-4 codifies counting timing during extension. § 15-1 codifies Storting validity decisions — Storting cannot decide validity before complaint resolution. Pre-certification stay mechanism explicitly codified.

§ 1407(b) codifies a clear pre-certification stay: 'Pending such appeal, the county board shall suspend any official certification of the votes cast in such election district.'

“ppeal, the county board shall suspend any official certification”

West Virginia Code § 3-7-3(a)(4) explicitly provides a statutory stay mechanism for pending election disputes. The statute codifies that upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the court or justice may 'suspend the final decision' of the special court. While this addresses suspension of the special court's decision rather than pre-certification in the strictest sense, the statutory framework contemplates that contests proceed through a special court with the ability to stay the effects of that court's determination pending appellate review. The provision for suspension of the final decision operates as a mechanism to prevent finalization of disputed election results during the pendency of appellate proceedings, thereby satisfying the criterion's requirement for a statutory stay mechanism.

Section 17-16-20(f) provides a mechanism to suspend the time limit for contesting an election during a pending recount, but it suspends the contest deadline rather than explicitly staying certification itself. The statute requires the canvassing board to amend certification to reflect recount results (§17-16-20(e)) and mandates recertification within 24 hours of recount completion. While the recount process delays the contest period, the statute does not explicitly provide for staying the initial certification pending a recount decision. The mechanism partially addresses the underlying concern (preventing premature finality of initial results) but through deadline suspension rather than through an explicit statutory stay of certification. This satisfies the functional purpose of TIME.2 (preventing a lock-in of results while disputes are pending) but lacks clear statutory language establishing a formal stay on the certification itself.

“If a recount is conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the time limit for contesting the election shall be suspended until the vote is recertified, reflecting the results of the recount.”

The statute addresses preservation and destruction of materials contingent on recount status, and contemplates court-ordered stays of destruction. However, the section does not directly codify a mechanism to stay certification itself while a recount or contest is pending. It only preserves materials and allows court-ordered stays of destruction. The statute provides an implicit mechanism (court authority to stay) but does not affirmatively codify certification stays as part of the dispute-resolution framework. This is a tangential rather than direct response to the stay-certification requirement under TIME.2. The statute shows procedural clarity on material preservation but not on certification timing stays.

“All ballots and stubs for elections other than national elections may be destroyed 30 days after the certification of the state ballot counting review unless an application for recount has been filed and not completed, or unless their destruction is stayed by an order of the court.”

Section 318 addresses only the narrow scenario of an exact tie in votes, where no candidate can be declared elected. It implicitly stays certification by requiring the CEO to report that 'no candidate was declared elected' and triggers a by-election instead. However, the section does not provide a general statutory mechanism to stay certification during OTHER types of disputes—recounts initiated by candidates, election contests, or other challenges. The tie scenario is not a 'pending dispute' in the traditional sense; it is an inherent vacancy that prevents any declaration. The statute lacks codified procedures for staying certification when a recount or election contest is actually pending (e.g., after a candidate requests a recount but before its completion, or after an election contest is filed). The EDRI criterion TIME.2 seeks a broad stay mechanism for disputes in progress. This section satisfies that only for the specific circumstance of equality of votes, not for general pending disputes.

“the Chief Electoral Officer shall without delay (a) prepare and send to the Speaker of the House of Commons or, if none, two members of the House or two candidates who have been declared elected, as the case may be, a report stating that no candidate was declared elected in the electoral district because of the equality of votes”

Connecticut § 9-328 establishes a complaint mechanism with binding judicial review but does NOT explicitly codify a pre-certification stay mechanism. The statute permits contests to be brought up to 14 days after an election and requires the judge to hold a hearing 3-5 days after the complaint and render a decision 'without unnecessary delay,' with certification to the Secretary of State within 10 days of the hearing's conclusion. However, the statute is silent on whether certification of election results is automatically stayed pending the resolution of a pending complaint or contest. The language 'shall certify...before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hearing' addresses only the timing of the judge's certification to the Secretary after judgment, not whether the original certification is stayed. The statute creates temporal pressure (14-day filing window, expedited hearing) that functionally limits disputes, but does not explicitly mandate or authorize a statutory stay of result certification pending contest resolution. This represents procedural clarity about timing deadlines but ambiguity about the stay mechanism itself.

“Such judge shall thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulings of the election official or any mistake in the count of the votes, certify the result of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hearing.”

The statute establishes a 10-day deadline for court resolution of challenges to the issuance of certificates of election (osvědčení o zvolení) for MPs and senators. This timing rule implies that certification can be challenged before or at the point of issuance, and the court must decide within 10 days. However, the text does not explicitly codify a mechanism to 'stay' certification pending dispute resolution. The statute is silent on: (1) whether certification is automatically suspended upon filing a challenge; (2) the effect of a pending complaint on the validity or implementation of the certificate; (3) explicit procedural authority for a court to enjoin or defer certification. The 10-day resolution deadline suggests urgency and implied temporal protection, but does not clearly state that certification is stayed. A dual-scholar reading would note that the narrow language—focused on court decision timing rather than certification suspension—leaves the stay mechanism implicit rather than codified. This satisfies the criterion only partially: there is a clear pre-decision deadline, but no explicit statutory stay mechanism.

The statute explicitly requires preservation of election materials (voting files, source code, voting machines, ballot records, results) under seal and secure control until expiration of the dispute deadline or final court decision. This creates a de facto mechanism preventing certification finality while a contest is pending, as key materials must remain sealed and preserved during the litigation period. However, the text does not explicitly state that certification itself is stayed or suspended pending resolution. The provision addresses evidence preservation rather than an explicit statutory stay of certification proceedings. The mechanism is implicit in the preservation requirement but lacks direct language stating certification is stayed. This satisfies the underlying procedural goal (preventing certification from becoming final while disputes are pending) but with less clarity than an explicit stay provision would provide.

“Jusqu'à l'expiration du délai de recours contentieux ou, lorsqu'une action contentieuse a été engagée, jusqu'à la décision juridictionnelle devenue définitive, les fichiers supports comprenant la copie des programmes sources et des programmes exécutables, les matériels de vote, les fichiers d'émargement, de résultats et de sauvegarde ainsi que l'ensemble des données à caractère personnel enregistrées sur le traitement prévu à l'article R. 176-3 sont conservés sous scellés”

Article 73 provides a statutory stay mechanism that explicitly suspends 'registration of elected deputies of the Parliament' and 'the summing up of the results of the republican referendum' when an application is made to the Constitutional Court. This addresses certification-delay in limited contexts. However, the criterion asks specifically about recounts or contests pending before final certification. The text does not define what issues under Article 72(1)(1) trigger this suspension, nor does it clarify whether this applies to election contests in the usual sense (disputes over results before certification) or only to constitutional challenges to election law itself. The stay is automatic upon application to the Constitutional Court, which is procedurally clear, but the statute does not codify the grounds for invoking such a stay, the duration, or the relationship between this mechanism and recount or contest procedures elsewhere in Kazakhstani election law. The section addresses certification suspension but lacks clarity on the full procedural context required by EDRI standards.

“In case of applying to the Constitutional Court on the issues specified in subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 of Article 72 of the Constitution, the inauguration of the President, registration of elected deputies of the Parliament or the summing up of the results of the republican referendum shall be suspended.”

Section 337 addresses challenges to primary petitions—a pre-election dispute mechanism—not post-election recounts or contests. While it provides a discretionary stay mechanism at paragraph D(6) (a justice may 'enjoin or stay the effect of the ruling upon the terms and conditions as the Chief Justice determines proper'), this applies only to challenges of petition validity, which are administrative determinations by the Secretary of State subject to Law Court appeal. The section does not codify a mechanism to stay certification of election results pending a recount or post-election contest. The discretionary stay language is permissive ('may enjoin or stay') rather than mandatory, and it applies to administrative petition disputes, not election certification disputes. For TIME.2, the criterion requires a statutory stay mechanism specifically for certification while recounts or contests are pending—a different procedural phase than petition challenges. This section satisfies the criterion only partially: it demonstrates that Maine law contemplates judicially-managed stays in election-related disputes, but does not directly address certification stays.

“An appeal under this paragraph does not automatically stay the ruling on appeal. The Chief Justice or, in the Chief Justice's absence, any other justice may enjoin or stay the effect of the ruling upon the terms and conditions as the Chief Justice determines proper.”

§ 3-104 codifies state board enforcement powers including issuance of orders. § 16-106(5) codifies temporary/preliminary injunctive relief and impound orders halting or altering the canvassing schedule when procedural irregularities are alleged. Pre-certification stay mechanism is codified.

Art. 144 codifies the Constitutional Court's role in overseeing presidential election procedure and confirming results — structural pre-certification verification by Constitutional Court (a stay-equivalent for results certification).

“veghează la respectarea procedurii pentru alegerea Președintelui României și confirmă rezultatele sufragiului”

§ 12-21-61 codifies procedure on appeal to Supreme Court with 'provisions to secure speedy determination.' § 12-22-21 (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies that judgment is WITHHELD while recount or certiorari pending — explicit pre-certification stay mechanism. Pre-certification stay codified.

15 kap. 10 § codifies that 'a decision appointing someone as a member of regional or municipal council or substitute applies even if the decision has been appealed' — i.e. the decision stands during appeal review (no automatic stay). However, 15 kap. 13 § codifies annulment power. The pre-certification stay default is no-stay; certification proceeds and Valprövningsnämnden may retrospectively annul.

Art. I-20 codifies the election-process phases including the certification window during which complaints may be filed. Art. I-72 codifies decisions on complaints including suspension of decisions of election commissions. Pre-certification stay via court order is codified through the complaint procedure.

Article 99 addresses district-level recount procedures and timing (mandatory 24-hour reconvening requirement), but does not explicitly establish a mechanism to STAY certification pending completion of recounts or disputes. The article prescribes how recounts proceed (based on polling station records and electoral rolls) and mandates resumption within 24 hours if documents are missing, but contains no statutory stay or injunction mechanism that would prevent or delay certification while recount or contest proceedings are ongoing. The criterion requires a codified mechanism to halt certification pending resolution of disputes; this section addresses recount procedure and timing only, not the relationship between recount completion and certification deadlines. A jurisdiction satisfying TIME.2 would explicitly state that certification is stayed or cannot occur until pending recounts/contests are resolved.

“Se faltarem os elementos de algumas das assembleias de voto, iniciar-se-á o apuramento com base nos elementos das assembleias que os enviarem, designando o presidente nova reunião, dentro das 24 horas seguintes, para se concluírem os trabalhos”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 22 of the Código Electoral Nacional (Ley 19.945) addresses the administrative procedure for removing deceased voters from the electoral register. It prescribes no certification stay mechanism, no recount procedures, and no contest framework. The section deals exclusively with the management of electoral rolls following death notifications—specifically the monthly reporting of deceased persons by the National Registry, removal from registers, document destruction procedures, and publication timelines. It contains no language establishing a statutory mechanism to stay or suspend certification pending dispute resolution, recount completion, or contest adjudication. The criterion (TIME.2) requires a pre-certification stay mechanism for disputes; this section is purely administrative and registers-management focused, with no bearing on certification suspension or dispute resolution procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: A.R.S. § 16-937 addresses campaign finance reporting, penalties for late filing, and committee suspension procedures. It contains no provision related to election certification, recounts, contests, or any mechanism to stay certification pending dispute resolution. The section is entirely within the domain of campaign finance compliance and enforcement, not procedural clarity for resolving election disputes. It does not satisfy the EDRI criterion TIME.2, which requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7-5-805 establishes procedures for contesting state legislative offices (Senate and House of Representatives), but it contains no mechanism to stay certification of election results while a recount or contest is pending. The statute addresses complaint filing deadlines, responsive pleading timelines, and commission procedures for reviewing evidence and making recommendations to the respective chambers. However, there is no statutory provision that suspends, delays, or stays the certification process during the pendency of these contests. The timing provisions focus on when complaints must be filed (15 days after county certification for House contests) and when recommendations must be submitted to the legislature (5 days before General Assembly convenes for House contests), but these do not constitute a stay of certification itself. The statute delegates final authority to the Senate's governing rules (for Senate contests) and to the House of Representatives as a body (for House contests), but does not codify a pre-certification stay mechanism.

Constitution Article 168 grants the Constitutional Court authority to determine 'compliance of laws... with the Constitution' including pending election-related disputes — but no explicit pre-certification stay mechanism for ongoing contests. Article 47 (administrative proceedings) applies generally, not as an election-specific stay.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 181A addresses publication of nomination qualification checklists and supporting documents on the Electoral Commission website. It establishes transparency and public access rules for nomination materials, with provisions for discretionary non-publication on grounds of reasonableness, acceptability, appropriateness, or offense. The section does not establish any mechanism to stay certification of an election or return pending a recount or election contest. It contains no temporal constraints on certification, no suspension procedures, and no linkage to pending disputes. The section's temporal scope concerns only the duration documents must remain publicly available (until petitions can no longer be filed under section 355), not the timing or staying of certification itself. TIME.2 requires a statutory mechanism that delays or suspends election certification while disputes are pending—a substantive procedural safeguard entirely absent from this nomination-publication provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Austrian Parteiengesetz (Party Funding Act) deals exclusively with administrative penalties and sanctions for violations of party donation reporting and accounting requirements. It addresses enforcement of transparency rules through the independent Party Transparency Senate (unabhängiger Parteien-Transparenz-Senat) and prescribes fines for intentional breaches of donation disclosure and accounting obligations. The section contains no provisions whatsoever regarding election certification, recounts, election contests, or any mechanism to stay certification pending dispute resolution. It is not relevant to the EDRI criterion of procedural clarity in election dispute resolution.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 88 (replacement of retired deputies), Article 110 (Council member replacement), Article 81 (repeat elections) all codify post-certification procedural triggers — but none codify a pre-certification stay mechanism while a contest is pending. Article 155 defines terms; Article 48 covers expenses. No stay-pending-contest mechanic surfaced within the Electoral Code.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 211 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the procedure for designating senators to the Flemish Parliament following verification of powers. It establishes deadlines for submission of designation lists (five days after verification of powers) and requirements for their validity (majority signature by elected members of the same political formation). However, the section contains no provisions concerning: (1) stay mechanisms for certification pending disputes; (2) recount procedures; (3) election contests; or (4) certification timing or suspension. The article deals exclusively with post-election parliamentary procedures for designating senators, not with dispute resolution, certification delays, or mechanisms to suspend certification pending resolution of electoral challenges. It does not codify any statutory procedure to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses sanctions (registration cassation or diploma revocation) for violation of campaign finance or conduct rules, not certification timing or stay mechanisms. It does not establish or reference any procedure to stay certification pending a recount or election contest. The provision concerns post-election remedies through cassation rather than pre-certification procedural stays. To satisfy TIME.2, the statute must codify a mechanism that explicitly delays or stays certification while disputes are pending; this section does neither.

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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: C.R.S. § 1-5-617 and § 1-5-618 address voting system certification and modification procedures, establishing timelines for the Secretary of State to examine and certify electronic or electromechanical voting systems (120 days for initial certification, 45 days for modification review). However, these sections do not address or establish any mechanism to stay certification while a recount or election contest is pending. The statute regulates pre-election system approval and certification timelines, not post-election dispute resolution procedures or stays of certification pending dispute resolution. Criterion TIME.2 specifically requires a statutory stay mechanism for pending disputes related to election certification, which is absent from this provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section quoted (Article 8 of the Law on Financing Political Activities and Election Promotion) addresses financial reporting and asset management obligations for independent representatives and members of local/regional representative bodies. It does not contain any provisions regarding certification, recounts, contests, or mechanisms to stay certification pending dispute resolution. The statute regulates post-election financial accountability—requiring return of unused funds and closure of special accounts within specified timeframes—but contains no procedural rules governing election certification timing, stays, or dispute resolution procedures. This section is entirely outside the scope of procedural clarity for election dispute resolution.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Del. Code tit. 15, § 8044 addresses tardy campaign finance reporting penalties and appeals procedures. It contains no provisions regarding certification of election results, recounts, contests, or any stay mechanism for pending disputes over election outcomes. The statute governs administrative penalties for late filing of campaign finance reports by political committees and reporting parties, not the procedural framework for resolving election disputes or staying certification. This section is entirely outside the scope of pre-certification stay mechanisms required by TIME.2.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 130 covers MP-replacement procedure. Article 8 (commission rules). Article 21 (DEC powers). Article 57 (campaign reports). None codifies a pre-certification stay mechanism during pending contests.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 11 PartG addresses the composition, election, and internal governance of party boards (Vorstand) within German political parties under the Party Law (Parteiengesetz). It contains no provisions whatsoever concerning election certification, recounts, contests, or any mechanism to stay certification proceedings. The section is entirely focused on intra-party organizational structure—minimum board size, membership eligibility, board functions, and formation of executive committees. It has no application to the criterion TIME.2, which requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification while disputes are pending. This is a categorical mismatch between the subject matter of the statute and the criterion being evaluated.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Άρθρο 49 governs opinion-poll blackouts; not a pre-certification stay mechanism.

No matching sections in corpus.

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: Iowa Code § 68B.31 addresses legislative ethics complaints and the ethics committee structure within the general assembly. It governs the complaint process, investigation procedures, and disciplinary mechanisms for alleged ethical violations by legislators and lobbyists. This section is entirely unrelated to election dispute resolution, recounts, election contests, certification timing, or statutory stay mechanisms for pending election disputes. The criterion TIME.2 requires a statute to provide a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending. Section 68B.31 contains no provisions addressing election certification, recounts, contests, or stays thereof. It is a procedural governance statute for legislative ethics, not an election dispute resolution statute.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The pre-certification stay IS codified — KRS 120.157(7) and KRS 120.185(1)(k) bar issuance of a certificate of election while a recount is pending — but the FTS query surfaced only election-board composition and challenger-appointment provisions for this datapoint.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 51(2) of the Saeima Election Law expressly provides that submitting an appeal to court does not suspend the operation of the result-approval decision — Latvia has no pre-certification stay; a contested result stands pending the court's ruling.

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: Section La. R.S. 18:177 addresses reinstatement of voter registration after suspension due to incarceration or mental incompetency. It governs the procedural requirements and documentation needed for a suspended voter to restore their registration status. This section contains no language, mechanism, or reference to certification stays, recounts, election contests, or any procedure to halt or delay certification while disputes are pending. The criterion TIME.2 specifically requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification during pending recount or contest proceedings. This section is entirely outside the scope of election dispute resolution framework and certification timing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 212 explicitly provides that cassation recourse (appeal to the Court of Cassation) has no suspensive effect ('n'a pas d'effet suspensif'). This means that pending cassation proceedings do not stay certification. The statute affirmatively negates a stay mechanism rather than establishing one. The section addresses timing and procedural deadlines (10 days for filing) but directly contradicts the requirement for a statutory stay mechanism for pending disputes. There is no codified mechanism to halt certification while a recount or election contest is pending.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 33 of Cap. 354 addresses Electoral Register publication procedures, timing, and format requirements. It establishes deadlines for publishing revised registers (twice yearly in April and October, and within five days of dissolution of Parliament) and specifies content and formatting rules. However, this section contains no provisions regarding certification stays, recounts, or dispute-resolution mechanisms. It does not establish any statutory mechanism to pause or delay certification pending a recount or election contest. The criterion requires a codified stay mechanism operative during pending disputes; this section addresses only register management and publication timing, which are antecedent to but distinct from certification and dispute resolution procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 14-110 addresses civil penalties for campaign finance violations—specifically reporting failures and record-keeping deficiencies. It establishes procedures for citation issuance, payment deadlines, trial rights in District Court, and penalty adjudication. This statute is entirely disconnected from election dispute resolution, recounts, election contests, or certification procedures. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding certification timing, stay mechanisms for pending disputes, or any procedural mechanism to halt certification pending resolution of a recount or election contest. The statute operates in the domain of campaign finance enforcement, not post-election dispute resolution.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 109A is a post-election audit provision triggered after presidential general elections. It does not address certification timing or mechanisms to stay certification while recounts or contests are pending. The statute describes the audit procedure (selection, conduct, reporting) but contains no language regarding certification deadlines, suspension of certification, or statutory stays applicable to pending disputes. The section references section 135 (recount procedures) but does not itself establish any stay mechanism. Section 109A operates as a parallel audit process independent of the dispute-resolution framework that would implicate TIME.2. To satisfy this criterion, the statute would need to codify when certification must occur and provide explicit authority to suspend or delay certification pending resolution of a recount petition or election contest—neither of which appears in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 6(2) of LGSMIME explicitly states that filing any challenge remedy under the law shall NOT produce suspensive effects on the challenged act or resolution. This is a direct prohibition on stays, meaning the statute does not provide a mechanism to stay certification while disputes are pending—it affirmatively prevents such stays. The criterion requires a statutory mechanism for staying certification during pending disputes. Mexico's framework explicitly forecloses this mechanism.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns prohibitions on materially deceptive media (deepfakes) and injunctive relief, not certification stays during recounts or contests.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Montana conducts recounts and election contests after the official canvass — a recount petition is filed 'within 5 days after the official canvass' (§ 13-16-201) and a contest within five days of certification (§ 13-36-102) — so there is no mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses suspension of council membership decisions pending appeal, not certification of election results. The statute provides for suspension (opschorting) of a council member's removal from office pending appeal rights expiration or appeal resolution. However, the criterion requires a statutory mechanism to stay CERTIFICATION of election results while a recount or contest is pending. This section concerns disciplinary action against sitting councillors for violation of municipal law duties, not the pre-certification stay of vote tabulation or electoral certification itself. The provision deals with post-election administrative removal, not with pausing official election certification pending dispute resolution. There is no codified mechanism here addressing when or whether electoral certification may be stayed pending recount or contest proceedings.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 660:5 regulates the CONDUCT of a recount—ballot collection, counting methods, visual inspection, participant rights, and dispute resolution during the recount itself. It does not address whether certification can or must be stayed pending completion of a recount or election contest. The section contains no language preventing or requiring certification to be delayed while a recount is underway. TIME.2 specifically requires 'a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending'—a procedural safeguard that presupposes certification authority and triggers for halting it. Section 660:5 addresses only how the recount is conducted, not temporal coordination between recount completion and certification deadlines. A separate statutory provision (likely in RSA 660:1-4 or another title addressing certification deadlines and prerequisites) would be needed to satisfy this criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: N.J. Rev. Stat. § 19:48-1 addresses voting machine requirements, specifications, and technical standards. It does not contain any provisions regarding certification timing, stays on certification, recount procedures, or mechanisms to pause certification pending dispute resolution. The section is purely technical/mechanical in nature, establishing what voting machines must do (secure secrecy, prevent double-voting, produce paper records, etc.). It is entirely silent on the procedural framework for staying certification during a pending recount or election contest, which is what TIME.2 measures. This is a jurisdictional procedural question that would be addressed in different statutory sections governing election certification deadlines and contest procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORC 3517.106 governs computerization of campaign-finance statements at the SOS; unrelated to a pre-certification stay during a contest or recount.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 47 of the Polish Electoral Code (Kodeks wyborczy) addresses procedures for interrupting, extending, or postponing voting due to extraordinary events. It establishes protocols for sealing ballot boxes and preserving ballots if voting is interrupted or postponed. However, this provision deals exclusively with voting-day procedures and the temporary suspension of voting operations—not with certification stay mechanisms during post-election recounts or contests. The statute contains no language establishing a stay of certification pending recount completion or election contest resolution. The section does not address certification timing, certification holds, or statutory stays applicable to the certification process itself. To satisfy TIME.2, a statute must provide an explicit mechanism to delay or stay certification while disputes are pending; this section does neither.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 17-14-1 addresses declarations of candidacy, filing deadlines, signature requirements, and candidate eligibility certifications. It contains no provisions regarding certification stays, recounts, election contests, or any mechanism to delay or suspend election certification pending dispute resolution. This section is purely prospective and procedural for candidate qualification, not remedial or dispute-resolution oriented. It does not engage with the temporal relationship between pending disputes and certification deadlines—the core of the TIME.2 criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 62 (absentee certificates), Article 17 (voter lists), Article 2 (definitions), Article 59 (electoral funds), Article 38 (candidate registration) — none codify a pre-certification stay mechanism during pending contests.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 24 — proclamation of candidate list within 24 hours of receipt. Not pre-certification stay.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 55(7) explicitly provides that election results are NOT suspended while the Electoral Court considers appeals of objections. This is a direct statutory prohibition on a stay mechanism. While the statute does create a procedural framework for objections and appeals (ss. 55(1)–(6)), it affirmatively states that certification/results are not halted during dispute resolution. The criterion requires a statutory mechanism to STAY certification pending disputes; this statute instead mandates that certification proceeds regardless of pending Electoral Court appeals. The framework provides procedural clarity for dispute resolution itself, but fails the specific requirement of a pre-certification stay.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Tenn. Code § 2-2-108) addresses election commission office hours, location, and accessibility for voter registration and routine electoral functions. It contains no provisions regarding certification, recounts, election contests, or stay mechanisms. The criterion TIME.2 requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending. This section is purely administrative and operational in nature and does not address the procedural mechanisms necessary for dispute resolution or certification timing.

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: FTS surfaces Anayasa Article 15 (emergency-state rights derogation), Article 119 (emergency-state proclamation), and Law 298 Ek Madde 9 (electronic results) — none codify a pre-certification stay mechanism. YSK proceeds to certify even while challenges pend; remedy is post-certification annulment.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 10101 (Voting Rights) codifies voting-rights non-discrimination; not pre-certification stay.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: UCA § 20A-4-406 explicitly prohibits the district court from staying execution or proceedings when an appeal is taken, with only costs as an exception. This section addresses the appeal phase of election contests, not the pre-certification stage. The statute does not establish a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending in the trial court or appellate court. The provision actually restricts the court's power to impose a stay, which is the opposite of what the criterion requires. A statute satisfying TIME.2 would codify that certification may be stayed pending resolution of a recount or contest; this statute instead removes that discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2645a concerns a municipality's vote to suspend charter authority — unrelated. No mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending was surfaced for this datapoint.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-953 addresses campaign finance disclosure violations and penalties. It contains no provisions regarding certification stays, recounts, or election contests. The section explicitly references § 24.2-946.3 for enforcement procedures, but those procedures concern financial reporting violations, not dispute-resolution timing or certification mechanics. To evaluate whether Virginia law satisfies TIME.2, one would need to examine statutes governing recount procedures and election contests (such as § 24.2-800 et seq. or § 24.2-952, which typically address certification timelines and stays). This section is categorically outside the scope of dispute-resolution procedure and does not codify or reference any stay mechanism for pending disputes.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.12.180 addresses security breach disclosure requirements for voting systems, manufacturers, counties, and voter registration systems. It establishes mandatory reporting timelines ('immediately following discovery') and defines malicious activity and security breaches. However, this section does not address certification timing, stay mechanisms, or procedures for staying certification while recounts or contests are pending. The criterion requires statutory language establishing a mechanism to delay or suspend certification pending dispute resolution. This section is entirely focused on cybersecurity incident notification and contains no provisions relating to election certification, recounts, contests, or judicial stays of certification. It therefore does not satisfy TIME.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Only § 9.10 (Recall) surfaced — not a pre-certification stay mechanism. Wisconsin's stay-of-certification during recount lives implicitly in § 9.01(11) (appeal procedure) — not directly codified as a stay.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This statute addresses referendum petitions and the suspension of ordinances following certification by a municipal clerk. It does not establish a mechanism to stay certification of election results while a recount or election contest is pending. The statute concerns the administrative sufficiency review of referendum petitions, not post-election dispute resolution procedures or certification stays. The section does not codify any process for suspending or staying the certification of election results during the pendency of a recount or contest challenge.