EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS only surfaces Law 2820 Article 12 (party membership criteria) — unrelated. Law 298 Article 110 codifies standing for challenges but was not surfaced for this datapoint.

Law 298 Article 109 sets provincial-board jurisdiction over consolidating district records. Reinforced by Madde 14 (YSK general powers including final appeal jurisdiction) and Madde 130 (provincial-board appeal procedure) — together establishing the 3-tier statutory venue ladder: sandık→ilçe seçim kurulu→il seçim kurulu→YSK.

Law 298 Article 128 codifies the challenge deadline: 'Bu itirazlar, sandık sonuç tutanağının düzenlenip başkan ve üyeler tarafından imzalanmasına kadar yapılır' (challenges must be made before the result-record is signed by chair and members). Reinforced by Article 119 (2-day deadline for district-formation challenges), Article 130 (3-day deadline for provincial-board appeals). Multiple statutory deadlines codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Article 112 codifies the FORM of challenges (written or oral with transcribed reasoning, signature/fingerprint required, identity proof, evidence and grounds must be submitted), but does NOT codify a defined standard-of-proof (preponderance/clear-and-convincing/etc.) for election contests. Election boards decide on the merits without a formal evidentiary standard.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Law 298 Ek Madde 9 (electronic result transmission to parties) and Ek Madde 1 (voter-education broadcasts) do not codify recount procedure. Recount falls under YSK's general power to review all challenges per Article 14(11), not surfaced here.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: No FTS candidate codifies margin-thresholds, sworn-challenge thresholds, or other recount triggers. Recounts are discretionary upon YSK granting a challenge.

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

No 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.

Law 2972 Article 25 codifies the certification-amendment procedure: if challenges result in record annulment, the new outcome determines who is certified ('yeni işlem sonucuna göre, seçilmiş oldukları anlaşılanlara'). Reinforced by Law 298 Article 130 (3-day appeal deadlines making timeline finality cascade). Certification timeline is statutory.

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.