From Vote Tabulation to Electoral Justice: Rethinking the Constitutional Court’s Authority in Electoral Dispute Cases

The meaning of the Constitutional Court’s authority in deciding disputes over election results has evolved significantly since its establishment, particularly in response to increasingly complex electoral violations. These disputes now involve not only quantitative issues, such as vote differences, but also qualitative concerns related to the integrity of the electoral process. Consequently, the Court’s authority is no longer interpreted narrowly as a matter of numerical calculation, but as encompassing broader considerations that affect the legitimacy of election outcomes. Departing from this issue, this research aims to examine changes in meaning and to reconstruct existing legal policies to address growing demands for electoral justice amid ongoing debates over the Court’s constitutional authority. This study employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches, and analyzes them through grammatical and systematic interpretation. The findings demonstrate a gradual evolution from an initially dominant quantitative approach toward a mixed approach that integrates disputes over results with process-related violations. This research also evaluates structured, systematic, and massive violations that may influence election outcomes. Despite this progressive interpretation, juridical problems remain in strengthening the Court’s authority. To address them, several reconstructive measures are proposed: redefining the concept of “disputes over election results”; establishing clear standards for structured, systematic, and massive violations; consolidating regulations governing elections and local elections; integrating the electoral law enforcement system; and advancing a transformation toward substantive electoral justice.