EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly and unambiguously designates the Colorado Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction for contests concerning presidential electors. This clear jurisdictional assignment satisfies the criterion that venue and jurisdiction be specified by statute. The provision leaves no discretion regarding which court has authority to hear such contests—it is statutorily vested in the Supreme Court. The statute further specifies procedural deadlines (24 days after general election) and requires the court to rule before federal certification deadlines, reinforcing the clarity of the jurisdictional framework.

The statute explicitly specifies a filing deadline for presidential elector contests: twenty-four days after the general election. This is a clear, definite, and measurable deadline tied to a defined event (the general election), meeting the criterion's requirement for a statutorily specified deadline. The deadline is not discretionary or subject to case-by-case interpretation.

The statute codifies a clear standard of proof: 'preponderance of the evidence' (subsection 6(a)). This satisfies the first component of the criterion—the standard of proof is explicitly set in statute. However, the statute does not codify detailed evidentiary rules or admissibility standards. Subsection (3) permits the administrative law judge to 'take and consider such additional evidence' but provides no statutory codification of what evidence is admissible, how it must be presented, what weight it receives, or other procedural evidentiary rules. The focus is on limiting the ALJ's findings to 'questions certified,' but this is a jurisdictional boundary, not an evidentiary standard. The statute establishes the standard of proof but lacks the evidentiary rules component needed for a score of 2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section C.R.S. § 1-13-104 contains only definitions relevant to Colorado election law, including terms such as 'special election,' 'statewide abstract of votes cast,' 'voter-verified paper record,' and 'voting system.' The section does not contain any substantive procedural rules governing recounts, including who counts ballots, the mechanism for conducting recounts, evidentiary standards, cost allocation, or the legal effect of recount findings. While the section defines 'voter-verified paper record' and 'voting system,' these are definitional provisions that support recount procedures rather than codifying recount procedures themselves. Recount procedures, if addressed in Colorado law, would be found in other sections of Title 1, Article 13 (such as sections addressing election contests or certification), but they are not present in this definitional section. The section does not satisfy RECT.1 because it lacks any procedural codification of recount mechanics.

Colorado's statute clearly enumerates the trigger for automatic recount: a margin of 0.5% or less between the highest and next-highest vote totals (or for multi-seat contests, between the winning candidate with fewest votes and losing candidate with most votes). The statute also specifies that a recount shall occur only after canvass board certification. The provision further establishes that the Secretary of State has discretion to determine recount method based on testing procedures outlined in subsection (3), with clear procedural requirements. The trigger is bright-line, mathematically defined, and does not rely on discretionary factors or external petitions for the mandatory recount. This satisfies the enumeration requirement for automatic recount triggers.

C.R.S. § 1-10.5-205(2) clearly allocates recount costs by statute. The rule is unambiguous: the entity that certified the candidate, ballot question, or ballot issue bears the cost of conducting the recount. This is a codified, outcome-independent allocation mechanism that applies to all recounts under the statutory framework. The statute also specifies fees for canvass board members assisting in recounts by cross-reference to counting judge fees. The allocation rule is general and covers petition-based recounts as part of the comprehensive recount procedures in Article 10.5.

The statute clearly codifies the legal effect of a recount finding. It establishes that: (1) if the recount changes the vote result, the canvass board must prepare and certify an amended official abstract (mandatory amendment), and (2) if the recount does not change the result, the canvass board must include a statement reflecting that fact in the official abstract. This creates binding, codified consequences tied to recount outcomes. The statutory language is mandatory ('shall') and unambiguous regarding the effect of recount findings on official certification documents.

C.R.S. § 1-4-1406(1)(b) establishes a clear, binding certification deadline of the eighteenth day after the election. The language 'No later than' creates a mandatory, non-discretionary duty for the county clerk and recorder. This deadline is codified in statute rather than left to administrative discretion. The statute further requires the secretary of state to compile results and certify them 'in the manner provided by law,' establishing a statutory framework for the certification process. The deadline is explicit, measurable, and leaves no room for administrative interpretation or delay.

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.