The electoral laws around the law establish different systems for the resolution of electoral disputes.  Such diverse systems can be classified according to the nature of the top institution in charge of undertaking the legal revision of electoral actions and electoral procedures alike.

Therefore, we can distinguish different systems as follows:

• Systems for the resolution of electoral disputes which are based on a system of judicial appeals (which can be used to challenge the planning, the undertaking and the results of both legislative and presidential elections);
• Systems for the resolution of electoral disputes which are carried out by political institutions (congresses or representatives which can undertake their duties by reviewing whether the elected officials’ history can be considered legal or not, and by ruling over electoral appeals), and
• Those which can be seen as alternative systems of resolution of electoral disputes.

Therefore, based on the methods and institutions established by modern electoral legislations, there are two distinguishable models of resolution of electoral disputes: political systems are those carried out by political assemblies, and judicial systems are those carried out by judicial institutions. Besides, there are alternative systems for the resolution of electoral disputes that have been usually adopted by emergent democracies. Such systems involve the intervention of international agencies empower to solve electoral disputes.  

The judicial systems can be also be distinguished from each other. To do so, the criteria is based on the nature of the Court empowered to sort out electoral disputes brought before it. There are, thus, systems in which ordinary courts (i.e. the judicial Branch of government) review electoral disputes. In some other places, specialized tribunals (external or internal to the Judicial Branch of Government) undertake such a responsibility (such is the case of so-called electoral courts or tribunals prevailing in Latin America). Finally, there are some places in which constitutional courts are empowered to sort out electoral disputes. Anyway, it is important to mention that the idea of vesting the powers to sort out electoral disputes in non-ordinary courts is aimed at preventing ordinary judges from getting involved in political disputes or being subject to political parties’ pressure as well.

Electoral Judicial Review must be generally seen as composed by the legal disputes derived from electoral actions or resolutions taken by executive officials. Such disputes are brought by two contesting parties before a court or before a tribunal that is empowered to act as a referee in order to sort out such disputes in an imperative and impartial way.

As it has been mentioned, there is a clear trend aimed at setting down different systems of judicial review on elections. Such systems can be distinguished according to the nature of the court that is empowered to sort them out. Electoral disputes can be brought before ordinary judges (as is the case for Canada and Great Britain); before an specialized area within the Judicial Branch of Government (as is the case for Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay and Venezuela); before specialized and independent courts (as is the prevailing case for so-called electoral courts in Latin America); or before constitutional courts (as is the case for Austria).