EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Tennessee Code § 2-17-101 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections in statute. For office elections, standing is granted to: (1) the incumbent office holder, and (2) any candidate for the office. For ballot questions (referenda), standing is granted to: (3) any campaign committee or individual with charge of the campaign for adoption or rejection of the question. These categories are clearly codified in the statute rather than left to judicial discretion. While the enumeration is relatively narrow compared to some jurisdictions that grant standing to qualified voters generally, the statute satisfies the criterion by providing clear, express statutory enumeration of who may contest. The clarity and specificity of standing requirements—even if narrow—addresses the EDRI's focus on procedural clarity and statutory codification.

“The incumbent office holder and any candidate for the office may contest the outcome of an election for the office. Any campaign committee or individual which has charge of a campaign for the adoption or rejection of a question submitted to the people may contest the election on the question.”

The statute explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. It designates chancery court as the forum and identifies the division based on defendant residence as the venue rule. It also provides a special assignment mechanism for chancellor election contests to avoid conflicts of interest. This is a clear, codified statement of jurisdictional venue that removes discretion and provides definitive guidance on where disputes must be filed.

“election contests shall be tried in the chancery court of the division in which the defendant resides”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses the disposition and filing of registration records after an election and provides a procedural exception when an election contest has been initiated. However, it does not specify a deadline for filing an election contest itself. The statute merely references that an election contest may be initiated but does not codify when such a contest must be filed relative to certification or any other defined event. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.3, the statute must explicitly specify the deadline (measured in days after certification or after a defined triggering event) for filing an election contest. This section provides no such specification.

This section codifies admissibility rules for specific categories of election-contest evidence (poll books, voter signature lists, ballot applications), establishing that certified versions are official records receivable as evidence, and that uncertified versions may be proved by other credible evidence. However, it does not codify a clear standard of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt) for resolving election contests. The statute addresses which evidence types are admissible and their evidentiary status, but stops short of establishing the burden or quantum of proof required to prevail in a contest. Under the scoring rule (0=none; 1=standard set; 2=standard + evidentiary rules), this section provides evidentiary rules without a statutory standard of proof, warranting a score of 1.

“Poll books, voter signature lists and ballot applications, or copies of them, certified by the officer having custody of them, are official records and shall be received as evidence in any case arising out of the election. They may be impeached by other evidence. If the poll books, voter signature lists and ballot applications or copies of them are not certified, they may nonetheless be proved by other credible evidence and received as evidence in an election contest.”

The statute codifies recount *triggers* (tie vote, fraud indication, machine malfunction, discretionary finding) and the *scope* (complete recount of all ballots). It also specifies who orders recounts (court, primary board, legislative body, tribunal with jurisdiction) and grants discretion over the *method* (hand or automated). However, the statute does not define WHO COUNTS (e.g., election officials, observers, appointed persons), CHAIN OF CUSTODY procedures, VERIFICATION or VALIDATION protocols, CHALLENGE procedures, or REPORTING requirements. The statute delegates the actual procedural implementation—the granular mechanics of conducting the recount—to the discretion of the ordering authority ('shall determine...'), leaving critical procedural details to regulation, administrative directive, or case-by-case determination rather than statutory specification.

“Any recount ordered by this section shall be a complete recount of all ballots cast in such election. The court or body with jurisdiction of a contested election shall determine if the recount shall be conducted by hand or with automated tabulators.”

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: § 2-17-114 prescribes WHERE judgments must be certified (to the secretary of state, tribunal, deciding body, or vacancy-filling authority) but does NOT establish a statutory deadline for when certification must occur or when the result becomes official. The statute addresses the routing and recipients of certification, not the timing constraint. This is a procedural routing rule, not a timing requirement. To satisfy TIME.1, the statute would need to specify that certification must occur within a defined period (e.g., 'within 5 days' or 'immediately upon judgment'). Without such a deadline, certification timing remains subject to administrative discretion or court practice.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section (Tenn. Code § 2-2-108) addresses election commission office hours, location, and accessibility for voter registration and routine electoral functions. It contains no provisions regarding certification, recounts, election contests, or stay mechanisms. The criterion TIME.2 requires a statutory mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending. This section is purely administrative and operational in nature and does not address the procedural mechanisms necessary for dispute resolution or certification timing.