EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index
How robust are mechanisms to resolve election disputes?
Dimensions
Contest
0.0% · 0/5| 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? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute provides a procedure for resolving gubernatorial election contests but does not enumerate who has standing to initiate such a contest. It specifies that the General Assembly 'shall entertain the same' only if it chooses to do so via concurrent resolution, but does not define which parties—candidates, voters, parties, the Attorney General, or other entities—may file a contest or trigger the process. The statute addresses adjudication procedures (bifurcated legislative review, tie-breaking election) but omits the threshold standing requirements that would answer the core question: who may contest? This represents a significant gap in procedural clarity under the EDRI framework, as prospective contestants cannot identify themselves from statutory text. | § view source 2026-06-15 |
| CONT.EDRI.2Venue & jurisdictionIs the court of original jurisdiction for election contests specified by statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
| 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 matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
| CONT.EDRI.4Standard of proof & evidenceAre the standard of proof and admissibility rules for election-contest evidence codified in statute? | 0/20.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
Recount
0.0% · 0/4| 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? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
| 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 matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
| RECT.3Recount cost allocationIs the cost of a petition-based recount allocated by statute (who pays under what outcome)? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |
| 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: § 7-17-280 specifies mandatory recount TRIGGERS (one percent margin threshold) and PROCEDURE (recount ordered 'forthwith'), but does not codify the legal EFFECTS of recount findings. The statute does not address whether a recount result is binding on election officials, whether it mandates certification changes, whether it is merely advisory, or what remedies follow a recount that shows a different outcome than the initial canvass. A jurisdiction scoring high on RECT.4 would explicitly state (e.g., 'the recount result shall be the official result' or 'certification shall be amended to reflect recount findings'). South Carolina's statute triggers recounts but leaves the determinative legal consequence of recount findings unstated in this section, requiring resort to common law, administrative practice, or other statutory provisions to ascertain binding effect. | § view source 2026-06-15 |
Timing
25.0% · 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? | 0.5/150.0% | The section provides a certification deadline relative to the hearing (immediately after conclusion), but does not establish an absolute statutory deadline for when certification must occur. The phrase 'forthwith certify' and 'the committee shall remain in session until a conclusion has been reached' indicate that certification happens promptly after the hearing, but the hearing itself is scheduled 'on Thursday following the deadline for filing' without specifying an outer deadline if the hearing extends beyond that date or circumstances delay resolution. The statute thus creates a procedural sequence requiring prompt action but lacks a fixed calendar deadline (e.g., 'by 5 p.m. on day X'). This satisfies the procedural clarity expectation partially—there is a clear trigger and directive to certify, but not an explicit statutory date that makes the result 'official' if the deadline is not met. “Upon the conclusion of the hearing of the protest the committee shall determine all issues by majority vote and forthwith certify the results of the election.” | § view source 2026-06-15 |
| TIME.2Pre-certification stayDoes statute provide a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-15 |