EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No matching sections in corpus.

UCA § 20A-4-403 explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests. For general elections, subsection (1)(a) designates 'the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides' as the venue. For primary elections, subsection (2)(a) provides two options: district court of the county (for single-county nominations) or the Utah Supreme Court (for multi-county nominations). For bond elections, subsection (3)(a) specifies 'the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides.' The statute clearly codifies jurisdictional rules without ambiguity or discretion.

“a registered voter may contest the right of an individual declared elected to office by filing a verified written complaint with the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides within 40 days after the day on which the canvass concludes”

UCA § 20A-4-403 clearly specifies filing deadlines for election contests across three distinct categories: (1) General elections (40 days after canvass concludes per subsection 1(a)); (2) Primary elections (10 days after canvass concludes per subsection 2(a)); and (3) Bond elections (40 days after official finding per subsection 3(a)). Each deadline is tied to a defined statutory event (canvass conclusion or official finding), providing clear temporal boundaries for contesting election results. The statute uses precise, measurable language ("40 days", "10 days") and defines the triggering event with reference to statutory procedures. This satisfies the criterion by codifying specific deadlines tied to defined events.

“a registered voter may contest the right of an individual declared elected to office by filing a verified written complaint with the district court of the county in which the registered voter resides within 40 days after the day on which the canvass concludes”

Section 20A-4-403 codifies evidentiary rules governing election-contest evidence with specificity. For general elections, subsection (1)(d) establishes that: (i) the court may not receive evidence of contested votes unless the contesting voter provides written notice to the respondent at least three days before trial specifying the number and identity of allegedly illegal/rejected votes; and (ii) the court may only receive evidence of votes actually listed in that written notice. Parallel rules appear in subsection (2)(d) for primary elections. Additionally, subsections (1)(c) and (2)(c) allow plaintiffs to plead illegal/rejected votes generically (without naming every individual) if they establish that the allegedly illegal/rejected votes would be outcome-determinative. The statute thus sets both a notice requirement (procedural gatekeeping) and an admissibility rule (votes outside the list are barred). While the statute does not explicitly codify a burden of proof standard (e.g., preponderance vs. clear and convincing), it does establish concrete, judicially-enforceable evidentiary rules limiting what evidence courts may receive. This satisfies the criterion's requirement for 'evidentiary rules codified in statute' and achieves the maximum score of 2.

Utah Code § 20A-4-401 comprehensively codifies recount procedures in statute. It specifies: (1) who conducts the recount (the election officer); (2) how it is conducted (supervise the recount, recount all ballots, reexamine uncounted ballots); (3) what evidence is used (all ballots cast in the race, compliance with ballot disposition rules); (4) the timeline for completion (10 calendar days for mandatory recounts, 7 calendar days for requested recounts); (5) how the results are determined (highest number of votes wins; ties are declared). The statute does not delegate these procedural elements to regulation or administrative discretion but sets them forth directly in statutory text.

Utah Code § 20A-4-401 enumerates recount triggers with precision across multiple categories. For candidate races, automatic recounts are triggered when: (1) two or more candidates tie for the highest vote total in a single office, or (2) in at-large races, multiple candidates tie and one must be eliminated. Petition-based recounts are triggered when the margin between the winning and losing candidate is ≤.25% of total votes cast, or when the total vote count is ≤400 and the margin is exactly one vote. For ballot propositions, similar triggers apply (Subsection 7): ≤.25% margin or one-vote difference when total votes ≤400. The statute specifies distinct filing deadlines and procedures for each trigger type. This satisfies the criterion because the triggers are explicitly enumerated in statutory language with quantified thresholds, not left to administrative discretion or case-by-case determination.

Section 20A-4-401(6) explicitly allocates recount costs by statute. For petition-based recounts (those initiated under Subsection 3(a) or (b)), the statute clearly specifies that costs are paid by the state for statewide or multi-county races, and by the conducting political subdivision for all other races. There is no outcome-contingent allocation (the statute does not condition cost payment on recount results), but the statute does definitively specify who bears costs in all circumstances. This satisfies the criterion's requirement that cost allocation be codified by statute.

UCA § 20A-4-401(5)(b)(iv) explicitly codifies the binding legal effect of recount findings. The statute mandates that the election officer 'declare elected' the candidate with the highest vote count following the recount, establishing that recount results are determinative and binding, not advisory. The provision covers single-office races, at-large races, and tie scenarios, with clear direction that the recount result triggers a binding declaration of election. This satisfies the criterion by establishing in statutory text that recount findings have mandatory, binding effect on the election outcome.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: UCA § 20A-6-106 establishes a deadline for SUBMISSION of ballot titles to the election officer, not a deadline for when election RESULTS become officially certified. The criterion TIME.1 asks whether the certification deadline (when results become 'official') is set by statute. This statute addresses ballot title submission procedures in the pre-election phase, which is procedurally distinct from result certification occurring after voting concludes. While the statute does establish a specific, codified deadline, it does not address the statutory deadline for certification of election results—the substantive question the criterion targets. This appears to regulate ballot measure title preparation rather than election result certification timing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: UCA § 20A-4-406 explicitly prohibits the district court from staying execution or proceedings when an appeal is taken, with only costs as an exception. This section addresses the appeal phase of election contests, not the pre-certification stage. The statute does not establish a mechanism to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending in the trial court or appellate court. The provision actually restricts the court's power to impose a stay, which is the opposite of what the criterion requires. A statute satisfying TIME.2 would codify that certification may be stayed pending resolution of a recount or contest; this statute instead removes that discretion.