The analysis of each electoral appeal is a complex task. Such a state of affairs is derived from the confusion that prevails not only often in legislation but also in the academic realm (many times for instance, a clear differentiation between a mere appeal and a complete trial is not made). The naming process for reviews and appeals can be both anarchic and inaccurate (there are several examples which can be used to explain such an anarchic situation: sometimes appeals used to resolve similar disputes have different names, in other cases appeals do not have a name, the expression used in some countries to refer to an “administrative review” is used in other countries to designate a judicial process). Electoral appeals find in the vague regulation applied to them another conceptual weakness derived from the fact that many aspects of such appeals are regulated by different electoral or procedural legislation.

According to many opinions, electoral appeals are legal instruments which have to be used under the law to correct, modify, revoke or nullify executive orders or judicial resolutions that are deficient, mistaken or illegal.For illustrative purposes, the review of appeals and other challenges as well as the related section regarding election nullification will rely on essentially a case study of Latin America.  This approach will demonstrate trends but also the great diversity in specifics as well as terminology that may be applied.

Among the main characteristics distinguishing electoral appeals are:

1. Classes.

2. Reviewable resolutions.

3. Who can file electoral appeals.

4. Terms.

5. Evidence.