EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: K.S.A. 25-3002 addresses rules for canvassing ballots and determining voter intent—specifically ballot validity, write-in requirements, advance voting procedures, and identification rules. It does not address venue or jurisdiction for election contests. While subsection (a)(4) mentions that these canvassing rules apply to 'all election contests,' the statute does not specify which court has original jurisdiction over election contests, nor does it establish venue requirements. The section is purely substantive regarding ballot counting rules, not procedural regarding court access or jurisdiction. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute would need to explicitly designate a court of original jurisdiction (e.g., district court, supreme court) for election contests, which this section does not provide.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: K.S.A. 25-2020 governs candidacy nomination procedures—specifically the petition and declaration methods by which candidates file to run for school board positions. It addresses filing deadlines for becoming a candidate (referencing K.S.A. 25-205 as the deadline source) and validity determination procedures for nomination documents. This section does not address election contest procedures, filing deadlines for contesting election results, or post-certification dispute resolution timelines. The criterion requires specification of a deadline for filing an election contest measured against certification or a defined triggering event. This statute deals with pre-election candidate filing, not post-election dispute resolution. It therefore does not satisfy the criterion.

No matching sections in corpus.

K.S.A. 25-1447(d) codifies the core recount procedure in statute: (1) WHO counts—three inspectors appointed by the judge or selected by parties; (2) HOW—presence of the legal custodian, recanvass conducted in accordance with Kansas election laws, written report required; (3) EVIDENCE—inspectors report votes cast for each party/precinct and any disputed votes. The statute specifies the procedural framework, inspector selection mechanism, documentation requirements, and dispute-reporting obligation. While subsection (d) references "applicable Kansas election laws" for counting rules, the operative recount procedure itself—inspector appointment, recanvass methodology, written reporting, and dispute notation—is codified in statute, not delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

“The inspectors in a state contest shall be selected in the manner provided in subsection (a). (d) The inspection shall be made in the presence of the legal custodian of the ballots or voting machines, and the inspectors shall recanvass the votes cast for the parties to the contest or the question submitted in accordance with the rules for counting votes provided in the applicable Kansas election laws. The inspectors shall make a written report of such recanvass and report the number of votes cast for each of the parties to the contest, or for and against a question submitted, for each precinct that is recounted and report any disputed votes upon which the inspectors cannot agree.”

No matching sections in corpus.

K.S.A. § 25-1447(b) clearly allocates recount costs by statute. The initiating party must post a bond (minimum $250 for single-county contests, or court-discretionary amount for multi-county/state contests) and is statutorily conditioned to 'pay the costs and expenses thereof in case the party fails.' This establishes a clear cost-bearing rule: the party requesting inspection/recount pays if unsuccessful. The statute specifies both the bonding requirement and the outcome-based cost allocation mechanism. While the statute does not explicitly address cost allocation upon successful contest, it unambiguously codifies that the applicant bears costs upon failure. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement for cost allocation codification.

“The party applying for the inspection shall file with the clerk of the district court a bond in the sum of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) if the contest be within a single county; otherwise the bond shall be in a sum to be fixed by the court in its discretion, with such sureties as shall be approved by the court, and conditioned that such party will pay the costs and expenses thereof in case the party fails.”

The statute codifies the binding legal effect of recount findings. When a recount is completed, the county board of canvassers must complete its canvass based on the recount results. The statute explicitly establishes that if a recount declares a different winner, that result is binding—the candidate becomes the election winner and costs are shifted to the county. Additionally, the statute specifies that recount results for constitutional amendments are similarly binding (if an amendment is overturned by recount, that result stands). The provision that the canvassers 'shall complete its canvass' upon recount completion makes mandatory amendment of the original canvass results a statutory requirement. This satisfies the criterion because the legal consequence of a recount finding is not discretionary or advisory but statutorily mandated as binding and determinative.

K.S.A. 25-3206(b) establishes a mandatory statutory deadline for when the state board of canvassers must convene to conduct the final canvass—no later than December 1 following the election. This is a binding statutory deadline that does not rest on administrative discretion. Additionally, subsection (e) requires the board to 'determine what persons have been elected' and endorse and subscribe a certificate of determination to be delivered to the secretary of state, which constitutes the official certification. The statute thus codifies both the deadline for the canvass meeting (December 1) and the process by which results become certified and official, removing these critical timing determinations from discretionary authority.

“In the case of general elections, the meeting shall be called not later than December 1 next following the election, except when the date falls on Sunday, then not later than the following day, and may recess from time to time until the canvass is completed.”

No matching sections in corpus.