The local elections in North Rhine-Westphalia on 14 September 2025 attracted nationwide attention as the first mood test for the new federal government. In practical terms, however, this election was actually about giving around 13.7 million voters in Germany's most populous federal state the opportunity to decide who would be elected to their city councils, district councils and town halls. However, local elections are increasingly focussing not only on the result itself, but also on what happens afterwards: election results are being contested more and more frequently.

The election challenge is an instrument that can be used to retrospectively scrutinise the election preparation, the election process and the count. This tool, which is actually intended to safeguard democratic elections, is increasingly being used by enemies of the constitution to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election. However, a correctly conducted election review procedure can dispel doubts about the legitimacy of the election. The following should be noted:

In North Rhine-Westphalia, the provisions of the Local Elections Act (Sections 39 et seq. KWahlG NRW) govern this procedure. The law provides for a two-stage examination: Firstly, for an election to be successfully contested, there must be an electoral irregularity in the first place (Section 39 KWahlG NRW), which must also have been relevant to the mandate (Section 40 (1) (b) KWahlG NRW). In principle, all deviations from the election procedure provided for by law can be considered electoral errors.

In practice, however, some groups of cases of electoral challenges have emerged. Firstly, these include the assertion of calculation or drawing errors. However, these can usually be corrected by simple recounts by the electoral committees. Things become more complex, however, when the specific behaviour of individual election participants is contested. This could include, for example, unauthorised election interference by the candidates themselves, but also by state offices such as the election officer. A breach of the mayor's duty of neutrality can also be cited to contest local elections. It is often difficult to distinguish between a public official obliged to maintain political neutrality on the one hand and an active political campaigner on the other, although there is already a great deal of case law on this.

In practice, however, election challenges fail to a large extent due to the second requirement mentioned - the so-called mandate relevance of the electoral error. § Section 40(1)(b) KWahlG NRW requires that the irregularity identified must have „had a decisive influence on the election result in the constituency or the allocation of seats from the reserve list in the individual case in question“. The Federal Constitutional Court concretises these requirements to the effect that it must be a „concrete and not entirely remote possibility according to general life experience“ that the electoral error actually influenced the allocation of seats (BVerfGE 146, 327 para. 40). Most election challenges fail at this hurdle and are therefore rejected as unfounded by the newly elected representative body (cf. Section 40 Paragraph 1 lit. d KWahlG NRW).

This official decision is subject to judicial review. Complainants can bring an action against this decision before the competent administrative court within one month (Section 41 (1) sentence 1 KWahlG NRW). If, on the other hand, irregularities are found in the respective electoral district, including the corresponding relevance to the mandate, the election must be repeated in the entire electoral district in accordance with Section 42 Paragraph 1 KWahlG NRW. However, such cases are the absolute exception.

Ultimately, the competent authorities have a special responsibility when examining election challenges. It is important to carefully scrutinise any objections that are received and to resolve them competently - both to protect the democratic order and to maintain public confidence in fair elections. In view of the deliberate attempts described above to undermine the legitimacy of democratic processes through strategic electoral challenges, it is all the more important not only to master the legal framework for local elections, but also to communicate it clearly and comprehensibly to the public. This is the only way to decisively counter the bland flavour of an election challenge and prevent accusations of an „unfair election“ from catching on. In the long term, the continued existence of our democracy could even depend on it.