EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 11-403 addresses preservation and security of voting equipment and documentation following verification and through the recount and election contest periods. It does not specify the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. The section permits courts of 'competent jurisdiction' to order examination of voting system materials, but does not define which court has original jurisdiction to hear election contests themselves. This is a procedural rule about evidence preservation, not a rule establishing venue or jurisdictional allocation for contest litigation. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.2, the statute would need to explicitly designate (e.g., 'election contests shall be brought in circuit court' or similar language) the forum for original jurisdiction.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 12-308 addresses reporting requirements for contested election committees, specifically the timing and content of financial disclosures that must be filed by treasurers during election contests. The section does not establish or specify a deadline for filing an election contest itself. Instead, it presupposes that a contest has already been filed (referencing petitions for recount under Subtitle 1 or complaints in circuit court under Subtitle 2) and then regulates when financial reports must be submitted thereafter. The criterion requires statutory specification of the deadline for initiating an election contest (measured from certification or a defined triggering event). This section does not address contest filing deadlines; it addresses only the timing of financial reporting once a contest is underway. To satisfy this criterion, one would need to examine Subtitle 1 or Subtitle 2 of Title 12, which presumably contain the substantive contest procedures and filing deadlines.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute delegates the core procedural details of how recounts are conducted ('how') to regulations adopted by the State Board, not to the statute itself. While § 12-106 establishes that local boards conduct recounts and the State Board monitors them, the actual procedures governing who counts, how they count, and what evidence is required are explicitly deferred to administrative regulation ('In accordance with regulations adopted by the State Board'). The statute contains only skeletal procedural requirements: local board conducting authority, public observation rights, State Board monitoring, petitioner/counterpetitioner termination requests, and correction of returns. The criterion requires procedures to be 'defined in statute, not regulation or administrative directive,' and this section fails that test by delegating the substantive 'how' to regulation.

The statute enumerates a clear trigger for petition-based recount: a margin of 5% or less between votes cast for and against a ballot question. This establishes an explicit threshold that must be met before a registered voter can petition for a recount. The statute does not address automatic recount triggers, but it does clearly enumerate the petition-based trigger with a specific numerical margin threshold. This satisfies the requirement for enumerated recount triggers under RECT.2.

“A registered voter may not file a petition for a recount if the margin of difference between the number of votes cast for and the number of votes cast against the question is greater than 5%.”

Maryland Md. Election Law § 12-107 explicitly codifies recount cost allocation with clear statutory rules. The default rule is that the petitioner pays all recount costs and that liability attaches to the petitioner's bond. However, the statute then specifies three categorical exceptions under which the petitioner is relieved of cost liability: (1) if the election outcome changes; (2) if the petitioner gains 2% or more of total votes cast; or (3) if the initial margin was 0.25% or less. When the petitioner is not liable, the county is statutorily required to pay. This allocation framework is binary and outcome-determinative, providing clear procedural guidance without discretion or vagueness.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Maryland Election Law § 12-308 addresses reporting requirements for contested election committees, including timing of financial disclosure reports tied to recount petitions and circuit court complaints. However, the statute contains no substantive provisions regarding the legal effects of a recount finding—such as whether a recount result is binding on election officials, whether it mandates certification amendment, whether it is merely advisory, or what procedural consequences flow from recount findings. The section references Subtitle 1 (recount procedures) and Subtitle 2 (election contests) as triggers for reporting deadlines, but does not itself codify the substantive legal effect of recount outcomes. This is a procedural/administrative provision governing financial disclosure timelines, not a provision addressing the binding or advisory nature of recount determinations.

Section 11-501(a) establishes a clear statutory certification timeline. The State Board must convene within 2 days after receiving certified results from local boards, and within 1 day of convening, must review canvasser statements and prepare and certify statewide election results. This creates a binding statutory deadline (maximum 3 days from receipt of local results to final certification) that is not subject to administrative discretion. The statute specifies the procedural steps and timeframes with mandatory language ('shall'), making the certification deadline a matter of statutory requirement rather than agency choice.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 14-110 addresses civil penalties for campaign finance violations—specifically reporting failures and record-keeping deficiencies. It establishes procedures for citation issuance, payment deadlines, trial rights in District Court, and penalty adjudication. This statute is entirely disconnected from election dispute resolution, recounts, election contests, or certification procedures. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding certification timing, stay mechanisms for pending disputes, or any procedural mechanism to halt certification pending resolution of a recount or election contest. The statute operates in the domain of campaign finance enforcement, not post-election dispute resolution.