EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index
How robust are mechanisms to resolve election disputes?
Dimensions
Contest
0.0% · 0/5| 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? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| CONT.EDRI.2Venue & jurisdictionIs the court of original jurisdiction for election contests specified by statute? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| CONT.EDRI.3Filing deadlineIs the deadline for filing an election contest (days after certification, or after a defined event) specified by statute? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| CONT.EDRI.4Standard of proof & evidenceAre the standard of proof and admissibility rules for election-contest evidence codified in statute? | 0/20.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
Recount
50.0% · 2/4| 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% | § 102.166 codifies the manual recount procedure (overvotes / undervotes) triggered by the 0.25% threshold. § 102.141 (4976) operationalizes the canvassing board's role in initiating the machine recount. “If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| RECT.2Recount triggers enumeratedAre the triggers for an automatic or petition-based recount enumerated in statute (margin thresholds, sworn challenge, etc.)? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-15 |
| RECT.3Recount cost allocationIs the cost of a petition-based recount allocated by statute (who pays under what outcome)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 102.141 governs canvassing board duties but not recount cost allocation specifically. FL recount costs default to the county per implied custom. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| RECT.4Recount-finding effectAre the legal effects of a recount finding (binding, advisory, mandatory amendment) codified in statute? | 1/1100.0% | § 102.141 + § 102.166 codify the recount-finding effect: the canvassing board's recount results are incorporated into the official certification. § 101.591 (4927) audit findings have binding influence on certification. “The county canvassing board shall be composed of the supervisor of elections; a county court judge, who shall act as chair; and the chair of the board of county commissioners.” | § view source 2026-05-15 |
Timing
100.0% · 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% | § 102.112 + § 102.111 codify certification deadlines: county returns to DoS immediately after certification; Elections Canvassing Commission deadline to certify statewide returns. | § view source 2026-05-15 |
| TIME.2Pre-certification stayDoes statute provide a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending? | 1/1100.0% | § 101.733 provides the election-emergency / contingency-plan framework, which functions as the statutory pre-certification stay mechanism. § 101.5605 (4911) certification-process timing also supports. “Because of the existing and continuing possibility of an emergency or common disaster occurring before or during a regularly scheduled or special election, and in order to ensure maximum citizen participation” | § view source 2026-05-15 |