Page:Legal Processes for Contesting the Results of a Presidential Election.pdf/6

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Legal Processes for Contesting the Results of a Presidential Election


shown.[1] An academic analysis of contested federal elections concluded, for example, that “[D]emonstrated cases of actual fraud are relatively uncommon, given the frequency with which Americans vote and the number of races involved.”[2] One reported study showed that over the last few decades, out of more than one billion total votes cast in the United States there were credible allegations of 31 fraudulent votes given in person on election day (and these allegations were not necessarily proven).[3] The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a report to Congress, pointed out both the difficulty in quantifying and the scarcity of examples of voting fraud in the states. In that report GAO quoted the Department of Justice as noting that “… publicly available and related court records indicated that there were no apparent cases of in-person voter impersonation charged by DOJ’s Criminal Division or by U.S. Attorney’s offices anywhere in the United States, from 2004 through July 3, 2014.”[4]

Examples of State Procedures

As noted, the procedures, deadlines, and rules for election contests (as well as for petitions or “triggers” for recounts in the states) may vary greatly from state to state. A candidate and/or electors who seek to challenge the results of an election of presidential electors within a state must, therefore, follow those state statutes, procedures, and deadlines for filing such challenges and contests. Several state procedures are discussed below as examples of those rules:

Colorado law provides that the Colorado “supreme court has original jurisdiction for the adjudication of contests concerning presidential electors….”[5] The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure state that any “qualified elector” seeking to contest the election of presidential electors must, within 35 days after the canvass of the secretary of state, file in the office of the secretary of state a statement of an intent to contest.[6] Within 35 days after the filing of the statement of intent to contest, the person contesting the election must file a complaint in the office of the clerk of the supreme court.[7] The court will “hear and determine the [case] in a summary manner” without a jury.[8]

In Florida, an election may be contested by the filing of a complaint in the circuit court by an unsuccessful candidate, or by an elector or taxpayer, within 10 days after the date that the election


  1. See, e.g., Justin Levitt, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, The Truth About Voter Fraud (2007); News21, a project of the Carnegie Corporation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University. Exhaustive Database of Voter Fraud Cases Turns Up Scant Evidence That It Happens, August 12, 2012, http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud-explainer/index.html.
  2. Steven F. Huefner, Remedying Election Wrongs, 44 Harv. J. on Legis., 265, 272 (2007).
  3. See Washington Post, A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation Finds 31 Credible Incidents Out of One Billion Ballots Cast, August 6, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast.
  4. United States Government Accountability Office, ELECTIONS—Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws, at 70 (GAO-14-634, September 2014). In overturning North Carolina’s voter identification requirement as overly burdensome on minority voters, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that “the State has failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 235 (4th Cir. 2016).
  5. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-204.
  6. Colo. R. Civ. P., 100(a).
  7. Colo. R. Civ. P., 100(b).
  8. Id.

Congressional Research Service
3