Some of these automatisms could be avoided by establishing the following provisions in the law:
(1) The deadlines for all elements of the dispute resolution mechanism pertaining to the legality and legitimacy of elections or the election results on the polling stations level (including the processes launched on the basis of Articles 111, 114, 115, 116, 148, 150, 154, 156 of the LEMP), as well as recounts and the LECs’ ex officio decisions on annulments of voting in a given polling station (Article 116 of the LEMP) should be made uniform and finalised by a set date.
(2) The decision on repeat voting on the polling station level shall be validated by the REC for all annulled polling stations simultaneously. This would require amendments to Article 117 to ensure that the process is triggered for all the polling stations at once. The decision on repeating elections should be made only after the entire dispute resolution cycle is completed nationwide (as described above). The conduct of repeat voting should be required only in cases when the scope of violations, as established during the dispute resolution process, could influence the election results in the nationwide constituency, i.e. if it could in any way impact the allocation of MP seats.
(3) In case it is established that the final results cannot be affected by the annulled voting in selected polling stations, the consolidated reports of the LECs should be accepted by the REC, excluding the affected polling station, and the REC should proceed with establishing the final result.
(4) The law could be amended to allow the REC to fully take charge and responsibility from the LEC in case it decides to do so (for example, in the case election is annulled in a single polling station due to repeated violations of the same character).