EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.510 explicitly specifies the courts of original jurisdiction for recount appeals (the threshold dispute-resolution mechanism before contest): superior court for questions/propositions and ballot validity; supreme court for legislative, congressional, and statewide executive candidates. This satisfies the statutory specification requirement. The statute creates a tiered, jurisdiction-allocated framework rather than leaving venue discretionary. The provision codifies both which court type and which factual/candidate categories trigger each court's jurisdiction.

“A candidate or any person who requested a recount who has reason to believe an error has been made in the recount (1) involving any question or proposition or the validity of any ballot may appeal to the superior court in accordance with applicable court rules governing appeals in civil matters, and (2) involving candidates for the legislature or Congress or the office of governor and lieutenant governor may appeal to the supreme court”

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.510 specifies a filing deadline for appeals following a recount (five days after recount completion), which addresses temporal clarity. However, this provision is narrowly scoped: it governs appeals of recount results, not the broader election contest process. The statute does not codify deadlines for initiating a recount, for filing an election contest absent a recount, or for contesting election results generally before or after certification. The criterion asks whether the deadline for filing 'an election contest' is specified. This section addresses only the post-recount appeal mechanism, which is a subset of potential contest pathways. The five-day rule is clear and statutory, but it does not comprehensively address contest filing deadlines across all scenarios (e.g., contestation on grounds not involving recount errors, or initiation of the recount demand itself). The statute thus partially satisfies by providing a specific, codified deadline for one defined event (recount completion), but leaves gaps in the broader contest framework.

“Appeal shall be filed within five days of the completion of the recount.”

No matching sections in corpus.

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.480 statutorily defines the recount procedure with specificity: (1) the responsible actor (the director), (2) the scope of review (all ballots regardless of counting method), (3) the methodology (review ballots to determine proper marking and countability, check accuracy of original count and certificates), (4) the evidentiary standard (application of ballot-counting rules from AS 15.15.360, especially for voter intent challenges), (5) custody and care requirements (ballots remain in director's custody with highest degree of care), and (6) a binding timeline (10 days). The statute does not delegate these procedural elements to regulation or administrative directive but codifies them directly. This satisfies the binary criterion requiring statutory definition of recount procedures.

No matching sections in corpus.

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.450 explicitly allocates recount costs by statute with clear, codified rules. The petitioner must deposit specified amounts ($1,000 per precinct, $2,000 per house district, $15,000 statewide) unless the election was sufficiently close (tie, ≤20 votes, or <0.5% margin), in which case the state bears the cost. Refund outcomes are also clearly defined: full refund if the recount changes the outcome or shows a ≥4% variance favoring the petitioner; otherwise the state retains amounts to cover recount costs. This statute comprehensively codifies cost allocation across all petition-based recount scenarios.

“The application must include a deposit in cash, by certified check, or by bond with a surety approved by the director. The amount of the deposit is $1,000 for each precinct, $2,000 for each house district, and $15,000 for the entire state. If the recount includes an office for which candidates received a tie vote, or the difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested office, or a question or proposition for which there was a tie vote on the issue, or the difference between the number of votes cast in favor of or opposed to the issue was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of the total votes cast in favor of or opposed to the issue, the application need not include a deposit, and the state shall bear the cost of the recount. If, on the recount, a candidate other than the candidate who received the original election certificate is declared elected, or if the vote on recount is determined to be four percent or more in excess of the vote reported by the state review for the candidate applying for the recount or in favor of or opposed to the question or proposition as stated in the application, the entire deposit shall be refunded.”

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.

Alaska Stat. § 15.15.440 establishes a statutory deadline for the state ballot counting review process (16 days) and a hard deadline for receipt of missing precinct materials (15 days after election). However, the statute does not explicitly codify when the certification becomes 'official' or final. The section describes the recount/review process and when the director 'shall close the review,' but does not state that closure triggers official certification or specify a distinct certification deadline separate from completion of the counting review. The criterion requires a statutory deadline for when a result becomes 'official'—not merely when a procedural step concludes. The statute provides procedural timing but lacks clarity on the moment of official certification. A dual scholar would note that the 16-day limit on conducting the review is clear, but the statutory moment at which results are certified as official is ambiguous or implicit rather than explicit.

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.”