EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index
How robust are mechanisms to resolve election disputes?
Dimensions
Contest
60.0% · 3/5| 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% | 10 ILCS 5/22-9.1 enumerates two standing classes for petitions for discovery / recount: (a) candidates who received ≥95% of the winner's vote total, and (b) any 5 electors on a public-policy question where 5% could flip the result. “the following persons may file a petition for discovery: (a) any candidate who, in the entire area in which votes may be cast for the office for which he is a candidate, received votes equal in number to at least 95% of the number of votes cast for any successful candidate for the same office; and (b) any 5 electors of the same area within which votes may be cast on a question of public policy” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| CONT.EDRI.2Venue & jurisdictionIs the court of original jurisdiction for election contests specified by statute? | 1/1100.0% | 10 ILCS 5/23-1.1a expressly vests the Illinois Supreme Court with jurisdiction over statewide election contests for Article V offices. “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over contests of the results of any election, including a primary, for an elected officer provided for in Article V of the Constitution” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| 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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/23-1.6a deadlines (e.g. 30 days for record-examination request) are post-filing, not the contest-filing deadline itself. | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| CONT.EDRI.4Standard of proof & evidenceAre the standard of proof and admissibility rules for election-contest evidence codified in statute? | 1/250.0% | 10 ILCS 5/23-23 incorporates civil case standards by reference, so the preponderance-of-evidence standard applies; the section also codifies evidence preservation/production. The standard is not named explicitly, but the framework is codified. “The case shall be tried in like manner as other civil cases” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
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% | 10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a codifies statewide recount procedure (Supreme Court assigns Circuit Judge, presides over examination, takes evidence). § 24A-15 and § 24C-15 codify equipment-specific recount procedures for optical-scan and DRE systems. “Election contest - Statewide - Procedures for recount and initial hearing” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| 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 section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/23-50 defines 'a vote'; not a recount-trigger provision. (IL's 95%-candidate / 5%-ballot-question triggers are in § 22-9.1, which did not surface for this FTS query.) | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| RECT.3Recount cost allocationIs the cost of a petition-based recount allocated by statute (who pays under what outcome)? | 1/1100.0% | 10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a allocates recount/examination costs to the requesting party, capped at $50 per precinct. § 23-1.6a requires a bond ($50/precinct or $75,000 max) to secure cost payment. “the Circuit Judge shall make a recommendation as to the assessment of the costs of any examination of records and equipment of the election authority against the party requesting the examination” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| RECT.4Recount-finding effectAre the legal effects of a recount finding (binding, advisory, mandatory amendment) codified in statute? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/17-20 codifies canvass proclamation procedure ('prima facie evidence of the result'); not the legal effect of a post-recount finding. | § view source 2026-05-13 |
Timing
50.0% · 1/2| 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% | 10 ILCS 5/7-60.1 sets the 5-day post-canvass certification deadline for consolidated-election candidates. § 7-60 sets a 74-days-before-general-election deadline for State Board of Elections certification of candidates. § 7-56 codifies a 2-day post-canvass primary-tabulation deadline. “no later than 5 days following the canvass and proclamation of the results of the consolidated primary” | § view source 2026-05-13 |
| TIME.2Pre-certification stayDoes statute provide a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending? | 0/10.0% | No candidate sections returned by FTS. | no FTS match 2026-05-13 |