EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Article 12 of LGSMIME explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to participate in electoral dispute procedures. The statute identifies three categories of parties: (a) the actor/plaintiff (legitimated party presenting the challenge); (b) the responsible authority or political party that issued the contested act; and (c) interested third parties, specifically enumerated as citizens, political parties, coalitions, candidates, and political organizations. The provision provides both categorical enumeration and a definitional standard (legitimate interest derived from an incompatible right). This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement by naming who may bring or participate in election contests, though the 'legitimate interest' standard adds some discretionary element. The enumeration is sufficiently specific and statutory to meet the binary threshold for standing enumeration.

Article 111(3) of LGSMIME explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by clearly designating: (1) the Electoral Tribunal Chambers (Salas del Tribunal Electoral) as competent in their respective jurisdictions for general cases; (2) the Superior Chamber (Sala Superior) as competent for matters linked to the election of Regional Chamber judges; and (3) the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice (Pleno de la Suprema Corte) as competent for matters linked to Superior Chamber elections. This codified allocation of venue and jurisdiction leaves no discretion and provides unambiguous guidance on which court has authority over which category of dispute.

LGSMIME art. 55 explicitly specifies filing deadlines for election contests (juicio de inconformidad) with clear temporal triggers. The statute provides: (1) a general four-day deadline counting from the day after conclusion of district vote counts (cómputos); (2) a specific four-day deadline after the report referenced in Article 326 of the General Electoral Institutions and Procedures Law for presidential election nullity challenges; and (3) a four-day deadline after the General Council's declaration of results for Supreme Court justice elections. These are defined statutory deadlines tied to specific, identifiable events (conclusion of counts, submission of reports, declaration of results). The dual-scholar test is satisfied: one scholar would recognize this as meeting procedural clarity because deadlines are numerically specified and event-triggered; another would confirm the rules are codified in statute with sufficient specificity for parties to calculate filing dates.

Article 77 Ter establishes a standard of proof—that grounds for nullity must be 'plenamente acreditadas' (fully substantiated) and shown to be 'determinantes para el resultado de la elección' (determinative of the election result). This codifies a clear burden: clear substantiation plus causation. However, the statute does not codify specific evidentiary rules governing what evidence is admissible, how it is presented, examined, or weighed. It sets the threshold but not the procedural mechanics of proof. Under the EDRI scoring rubric (0=none; 1=standard set; 2=standard + evidentiary rules), this satisfies the 'standard set' tier but falls short of tier 2 because admissibility and procedural rules for evidence are not detailed in statute.

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

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

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

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.

Article 534 establishes that the General Council (Consejo General) shall deliver certificates of majority and issue a declaration of election validity, creating a statutory mechanism for certification. However, the section does not specify a precise deadline for when this certification must occur—only that it happens and that results are subsequently communicated to the electoral courts. The provision addresses the *act* of certification but not the *timing* requirement. Paragraph 3 establishes a deadline for dispute resolution (three days before Senate convenes) but this is a post-certification deadline for challenging the validity declaration, not the certification deadline itself. The absence of an explicit statutory deadline (e.g., 'within X days of the election') means certification timing is not fully codified and may remain subject to administrative discretion regarding when the General Council acts.

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.