EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index
How robust are mechanisms to resolve election disputes?
Dimensions
Contest
100.0% · 5/5| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONT.EDRI.1Standing enumeratedAre the parties with standing to contest an election (candidate, party, qualified voters of the precinct, AG, etc.) enumerated in statute? | 1/1100.0% | 15 kap. 4 § codifies standing: 'a decision referred to in 3 § 4 may be appealed by the person who, according to the electoral roll, had voting rights in the election, AND a party that participated in the election' (plus candidate not previously appointed). 15 kap. 5 § codifies submission. Comprehensive standing-enumeration codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| CONT.EDRI.2Venue & jurisdictionIs the court of original jurisdiction for election contests specified by statute? | 1/1100.0% | 15 kap. 12 § codifies that 'authorities and others who have assisted in the election shall provide the Valprövningsnämnden with information and statements that the Board requests.' 14 kap. 31 § codifies internal review delegation. 14 kap. 30 § codifies the Valprövningsnämnden's competence to review elections. 15 kap. 10 § codifies enforceability of decisions pending appeal. Valprövningsnämnden is the codified venue — multi-tier framework codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| CONT.EDRI.3Filing deadlineIs the deadline for filing an election contest (days after certification, or after a defined event) specified by statute? | 1/1100.0% | 15 kap. 6 § codifies filing deadlines: appeal must arrive at the decision authority (or at the Valprövningsnämnden for results-establishment appeals) within the statutory appeal period. 15 kap. 7 § codifies misdirected-filing acceptance. 2 kap. 17 § codifies the 30-day participation-notice deadline. Statutory filing deadlines codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| CONT.EDRI.4Standard of proof & evidenceAre the standard of proof and admissibility rules for election-contest evidence codified in statute? | 2/2100.0% | 14 kap. 30 § codifies that 'the Valprövningsnämnden shall examine evidence for Riksdag members or European Parliament members and substitutes to determine whether these have been properly elected.' 14 kap. 28-29 § codify evidence form. 14 kap. 31 § codifies internal review. 15 kap. 12 § codifies that authorities must provide information requested by the Board. Standard of proof + evidence rules statutorily codified. “Valprövningsnämnden skall granska bevis för riksdagsledamöter eller ledamöter i Europaparlamentet och ersättare för att pröva om dessa blivit” | § view source 2026-05-19 |
Recount
75.0% · 3/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| RECT.1Statutory recount procedureAre recount procedures (who counts, how, with what evidence) defined in statute, not regulation or administrative directive? | 1/1100.0% | 12 kap. 1 § codifies the municipal-commission re-count of ballots not counted at the polling station, in a public meeting on Wednesday after election day. 11 kap. 5 § codifies envelope opening restrictions. 12 kap. 6 § codifies protocol-keeping. 12 kap. 8 § codifies secure storage during interruption. 9 kap. 5 § codifies envelope-verification procedure. Comprehensive triple-tier recount procedure codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| RECT.2Recount triggers enumeratedAre the triggers for an automatic or petition-based recount enumerated in statute (margin thresholds, sworn challenge, etc.)? | 1/1100.0% | 9 kap. 12 § codifies envelope-handling triggers at polling-station close (segregation of ballots requiring further review). 9 kap. 9 § / 9 kap. 10 § codify multi-stage envelope verification. 9 kap. 5 § / 9 kap. 6 § codify per-ballot eligibility verification. 15 kap. 13 § (not in FTS top-5 for this datapoint) codifies the Valprövningsnämnden's annulment + re-election trigger. Comprehensive trigger framework codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| RECT.3Recount cost allocationIs the cost of a petition-based recount allocated by statute (who pays under what outcome)? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-19 |
| RECT.4Recount-finding effectAre the legal effects of a recount finding (binding, advisory, mandatory amendment) codified in statute? | 1/1100.0% | 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. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
Timing
75.0% · 2/2| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| TIME.1Certification deadline in statuteIs the certification deadline (when the result becomes 'official') set by statute, not by administrative discretion? | 1/1100.0% | 14 kap. 1 § codifies that 'the central election authority shall, on the basis of the result of the final vote count, distribute mandates… and establish which candidates have been elected.' 14 kap. 13 § codifies application to other elections. 14 kap. 1a § codifies additional-mandate distribution. 15 kap. 5 § codifies certification-decision appeal venue. Certification deadlines tied to canvass completion codified. | § view source 2026-05-19 |
| TIME.2Pre-certification stayDoes statute provide a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending? | 0.5/150.0% | 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. | § view source 2026-05-19 |