[sebastianz]

> Because it's legal. And what they did now is not legal.

I am not an expert on this, so I'm not saying you are wrong, but why would they not have the prerogative to do this? Do you have any sources for that?

I know at least that there is precedent in the EU - Austria cancelled a round of elections in 2016, also for some electoral law incongruities / technicalities (that at least superficially by my knowledge were less serious than this scandal), done also by their constitutional court.

[tsimionescu]

Romanian law also has provisions for ca celling the results of an election. The CCR followed the process, heard challenges to the validity of these results for the first round of elections, ordered a recount, and found based on the recount that all was well, and it certified the results.

What they found afterwards, on their own without any case brought before them, is that the campaign that preceded the first round of elections (which lasted for one month before the first round two weeks ago now) may have been influenced by outside forces, that a candidate may have flaunted campaign finance laws, and similar matters, and that because of this, the entire electoral process is invalid and annulled. The government has to restart this process from scratch, with anyone who wants to participate registering their candidacy again from scratch.

There is no procedure or standard in any law or in the Construction to specify such a process. The Court invented it from whole cloth, based only on a vague/broad power to oversee the election.

[sebastianz]

I still do not understand how it can be illegal for them to do this, if they do have the prerogative to cancel an election result. (In the sense that you can disagree with a judge's decision, he might even make an objectively wrong decision, but it does not make him taking that decision illegal, just perhaps wrong.)

I am curious to read more about this in the coming days. I do remember previous scandals related to the CCR and their (often said too close) relationship to the parties in power. But I guess in this case I just don't see why their decision would be illegal, and when compared to the alternatives I don't see why it would be wrong.

To also clarify, despite thinking this might be the correct decision, I actually think politically there is a higher probability now of yielding a worse president, since Ciolacu & Simion will probably end up in the secondary, the latter having chances, instead of Lasconi. Not that I think she's the greatest candidate either, but again... compared to the alternatives...