EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-25-11) addresses campaign finance reporting requirements for treasurers of candidates and committees. It concerns the timing, content, and procedures for filing financial disclosure reports during and after elections. The section does not enumerate parties with standing to contest elections, nor does it address election contest procedures, standing criteria, or dispute resolution mechanisms. It is exclusively focused on campaign finance transparency and reporting obligations. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute would need to explicitly identify who may bring an election contest (e.g., candidates, voters, party officials, the attorney general), which is not present in this section.

No matching sections in corpus.

Rhode Island General Laws § 17-19-36 clearly specifies a filing deadline for election contests. The statute explicitly provides that candidates may file a petition within 7 days after the election. The deadline is tied to a defined event (the election itself) and the timeframe is numerically specified in statute. This satisfies CONT.EDRI.3 by establishing a clear, codified filing deadline that is neither discretionary nor ambiguous.

“Any candidate at the election challenging the correctness of the declaration of result as applied to the candidate may, within seven (7) days after the election, petition the state board to conduct a recount of the votes cast”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Rhode Island General Laws § 17-19-37.4 addresses post-election audits, specifically risk-limiting audits after elections. It does not codify standards of proof or evidentiary rules for election contests. The statute defines what a risk-limiting audit is, prescribes the audit procedure (manual tallying, statistical methods, public notice), and specifies what happens if the audit reveals a discrepancy (manual tally results replace the original count). However, it contains no provisions governing the standard of proof required in an election contest proceeding, nor does it codify admissibility rules for evidence in such contests. The section is procedurally focused on audits themselves—timing, methodology, notice, and publication—rather than on the adjudication of disputes or the evidentiary burdens applicable to contestants challenging election results. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.4, the statute would need to specify (for example) the burden of proof (clear and convincing, preponderance, etc.) and rules governing what evidence is admissible in a contest action, neither of which appears in this section.

The statute defines SOME procedural elements: the trigger (200-vote or less margin), the entity responsible (state board of elections), and the basic methodology (re-reading programmed memory devices and comparing results). However, critical procedural details are delegated to regulation: 'The state board shall have the authority to adopt rules and regulations to implement and administer the provisions of this section.' This means the specific mechanics of the recount—including who physically counts, chain of custody, observation rights, verification procedures, and dispute resolution during the recount itself—are NOT codified in statute. Under EDRI's dual-scholar test, a statute that contains a broad regulatory delegation scores lower than one with procedural details fully statutory. The statute defines triggers and basic method but leaves 'implementation and administration' to rules not included here.

“Upon application, the state board of elections shall conduct a recount for a presidential candidate or delegate for a winning candidate when there is a two hundred (200) or less vote difference between the losing candidate or delegate and the winner. Said recount shall be conducted by re-reading the programmed memory device or devices and comparing the results and totals obtained at such recount with the results and totals obtained on election night. The state board shall have the authority to adopt rules and regulations to implement and administer the provisions of this section.”

The statute explicitly enumerates recount triggers tied to margin thresholds with mathematical precision. It sets clear numerical and percentage-based triggers for single-candidate races (tiered by total votes cast: ≤20,000 votes, 20,001–100,000 votes, >100,000 votes) and multi-candidate races (tiered by total votes: ≤5,000 votes, 5,001–20,000 votes, >20,000 votes). Additionally, subsection (3) creates a secondary petition-based mechanism for candidates trailing by 5% or less but exceeding the primary thresholds. The statute also specifies the method of recount (manual re-feeding of optical scan ballots or re-reading programmed memory devices). These enumerated triggers meet the criterion's requirement for clear statutory specification of recount eligibility conditions based on margin thresholds.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-15-35 explicitly allocates the cost of the recount petition process by statute. It specifies that notice costs are borne 'at the expense of the petitioner'—the party filing the protest or request. This is a clear, codified cost allocation rule that answers who pays (the petitioner) under the triggering circumstance (filing a protest or recount request). While the statute does not specify outcome-contingent cost shifting (e.g., loser pays or winner recovers), it does establish a definite statutory rule for initial cost allocation, which satisfies the criterion's requirement that cost allocation be 'allocated by statute.'

“the state board shall cause notice in writing to be served in any manner that it directs, at the expense of the petitioner”

This section codifies the legal effect of a recount finding with binding force. The statute specifies that upon completion of a recount, if the state board finds the candidate was elected, it 'shall direct' the local board to issue a certificate of election to that candidate. The mandatory language ('shall direct') and the conditional amendment of the certification result based on recount findings establish that recount outcomes are binding and automatically trigger mandatory amendment of the election result. The effect is clear, non-discretionary, and statutorily prescribed.

“After the completion of the recount, and if it finds that the candidate was elected, it shall direct the local board to issue to the candidate a certificate of election, but if it finds that the candidate declared to be elected by the local board was in fact elected, it shall direct the board to issue a certificate of election to the candidate previously declared elected.”

The statute prescribes that a certificate of election shall be issued, but does not establish a firm deadline for certification. The phrase 'as soon as it can do so consistent with its other duties' delegates timing to administrative discretion rather than codifying a specific deadline (e.g., days after recount completion or a fixed calendar date). The section does establish a 7-day deadline for petitioning for a recount, which satisfies procedural timing for that step, but fails to codify when the result becomes official via certificate issuance. This leaves the critical certification moment subject to administrative judgment rather than statutory clarity.

“After the completion of the recount, and as soon as it can do so consistent with its other duties, the state board shall issue a certificate of election”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 17-14-1 addresses declarations of candidacy, filing deadlines, signature requirements, and candidate eligibility certifications. It contains no provisions regarding certification stays, recounts, election contests, or any mechanism to delay or suspend election certification pending dispute resolution. This section is purely prospective and procedural for candidate qualification, not remedial or dispute-resolution oriented. It does not engage with the temporal relationship between pending disputes and certification deadlines—the core of the TIME.2 criterion.