50 UIJRT | United International Journal for Research & Technology | Volume 02, Issue 10, 2021 | ISSN: 2582-6832 All rights are reserved by UIJRT.COM. Election Political Law Dispute Settlement in Indonesia Dr. Hary Wahyudi Senior Expert Widyaiswara at Human Resource Development Institution of East Java Province Government Email: hary_wahyudi2003@yahoo.com Abstract— Normative and theoretical problems related to norms governing disputes in state administrative law, specifically regarding electoral dispute problems empirically, or currently known as election disputes are handled by different judicial institutions, namely State Administrative Courts for KPU administrative decision dispute. Outcome decisions of elections are within the competence of the Constitutional Court, and the general court for dispute over criminal offenses. Also, the Honorary Board of the KPU Organizers as a non-justisia institution for resolving ethical violations and dispute organizers who adjudicate the decisions of the election organizers and their comittees (Panwas). Therefore, conceptually normative studies need to be carried out to realize an integrated reconciliation of electoral disputes. Keywords— State Administrative Law, Election dispute, Administrative courts. 1. BACKGROUND Normative and theoretical problems related to norms governing disputes in state administrative law, specifically regarding electoral dispute problems empirically, or currently known as election disputes are handled by different judicial institutions, namely State Administrative Court for competency in KPU administrative decisions. Outcome decisions of elections are within the competence of the Constitutional Court and the general court for criminal offense disputes. In addition, an Honorary Board of the KPU Organizers as a non-justisia institution for resolving ethical violations and dispute organizers who adjudicate the decisions of the election organizers and their comittees (Panwas). Therefore, conceptually normative studies need to be carried out to realize the integrated reconciliation of electoral disputes in particular. Elections are a means of popular sovereignty, and as one of the prerequisites of the Democratic State. It would be nice if a special election court be the most important part in guarding the democratic process since electoral special justice iss an ius constituendum (legal ideal) aiming to protect the constitutional rights of citizens and electoral participants. Besides, to provide legal space to parties who are disadvantaged in organizing elections, to obtain legal certainty in the life of a Democratic State, as well as efforts to speed up the resolution of disputes or cases during the general election processes. The idea of a special electoral court is actually one of the most important components in the principles of holding an election including "legal certainty." In the context of legal certainty, election administrators, election supervisors, election observers and election participants must accept the stages of the process, the program, and the time schedule for holding the election. If there are parties who are not satisfied with the work provided by the General Election Commission as the organizer of the election, they can submit their dispute in the Election Special Court. The results of the general election in the form of a final determination of the results of the vote count followed by the distribution of seats contested, which are officially announced by the election organizing agency often do not satisfy the general election participants, who do not disagreement the general election results to the Constitutional Court. The types of disputes or disputes regarding the results of this general election must be distinguished from disputes arising in campaign activities, or in the technical implementation of voting. This type of dispute over the results of the general election must also be distinguished from criminal cases related to legal subjects in the holding of the general election. Anyone who is proven guilty of violating criminal law is threatened with a criminal offense and must be held criminally responsible according to the provisions in force in the criminal justice field. For example, A steals a ballot, then it is classified as a violation of criminal law which is tried according to criminal procedure. Whereas B violates the campaign schedule, which is the right of other candidates, then such violations must be administratively resolved by the election management agency responsible for that field. Likewise, if C submitted a successful application win the case. Sometimes disputes over election results to the court are due to differences of opinion in the results of the calculation between the general election participant and the organizer of the election, either because of deliberate or because of negligence, either because of technical errors or weaknesses that are administrative in the calculation or caused by human factors error. If such differences of opinion result in losses for participants in