EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 19:48-1 prescribes requirements for voting machines themselves—their construction, security features, and capacity for producing paper records. It does not define recount procedures, specify who conducts recounts, establish how recounts are performed, or detail the evidentiary basis for recount outcomes. While subsection b(1) mandates that 'In the event of a recount of the results of an election, the voter-verified paper record shall be the official tally,' this merely designates the source document in a recount without establishing the procedural framework for initiating, conducting, or concluding a recount. Recount procedures—including triggers, cost allocation, counting methodology, and verification protocols—are not codified in this section. The criterion requires that recount procedures be 'defined in statute,' and this section addresses only machine specifications, not dispute-resolution process.

No matching sections in corpus.

Section 19:6-4 references cost allocation for recounts ('sufficient to cause the costs of such recount to be paid by the State, county or municipality') and establishes a mechanism tying recount costs to board member dismissal upon error discovery. However, the statute does not codify the actual cost-allocation rules themselves—it only delegates to 'the provisions of this Title' without specifying in the cited section what those conditions are or which entity pays under which outcome. The section establishes consequences (dismissal) but not the substantive cost-allocation framework. To fully satisfy RECT.3, the triggering conditions and the cost-bearing allocations must be clearly codified in the statute itself, not incorporated by reference.

The statute explicitly codifies that upon a recount finding in a public question (referendum), the judge 'shall make an order that the result of such election be corrected.' This language establishes a mandatory legal effect: the recount finding requires correction of the election result. The use of 'shall' creates a binding obligation, not an advisory recommendation. The statute specifies the legal consequence (correction of the result) that flows from a recount determination, thereby codifying the finding-effect relationship. While the provision is brief and applies specifically to referenda, it clearly establishes that recount findings have a binding, mandatory effect on the official result.

“In case of public questions such judge shall make an order that the result of such election be corrected.”

Section 19:22-8 prescribes the ceremony and process of certification (preparation, gubernatorial signature, attestation, sealing, delivery to elector college president) and references 'the day and at the time and place appointed for the meeting of such college.' However, the statute does not specify an absolute deadline date for certification independent of the Electoral College meeting schedule. The phrase 'on the day and at the time and place appointed for the meeting of such college' anchors certification timing to a federally determined event (the Electoral College meeting, set by federal law for the second Tuesday after the second Monday in December), not to a state-specific statutory deadline. This creates temporal clarity for purposes of federal proceedings but does not establish a state-law certification deadline that could govern prompt dispute resolution or trigger statutory stay mechanisms for pending contests. The provision satisfies procedural clarity regarding the certification process itself but fails to establish an independent statutory deadline that would answer TIME.1 completely. The reference to the National Popular Vote agreement (subsection c) adds conditional language but does not clarify state-law certification timing.

“The secretary shall prepare a general certificate of the election of such electors, and lay the same before the Governor, who shall sign his name thereto, in the presence of such secretary, which the secretary shall attest by signing his name thereto, and shall thereupon affix the seal of the State thereto, and deliver the same to the president of the college of electors of this State, on the day and at the time and place appointed for the meeting of such college”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: N.J. Rev. Stat. § 19:48-1 addresses voting machine requirements, specifications, and technical standards. It does not contain any provisions regarding certification timing, stays on certification, recount procedures, or mechanisms to pause certification pending dispute resolution. The section is purely technical/mechanical in nature, establishing what voting machines must do (secure secrecy, prevent double-voting, produce paper records, etc.). It is entirely silent on the procedural framework for staying certification during a pending recount or election contest, which is what TIME.2 measures. This is a jurisdictional procedural question that would be addressed in different statutory sections governing election certification deadlines and contest procedures.