BEYOND LEGAL REASONING: RECONSTRUCTING ETHICAL REASONING IN THE EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION OF CASES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ELECTION ORGANIZERS

Election integrity depends not only on compliance with legal rules but also on the ethical quality of election administrators’ conduct. Against this background, this article examines the relationship between legal reasoning and ethical reasoning in the examination and adjudication of alleged violations of the Code of Ethics for Election Administrators by the Election Organizer Honorary Council (DKPP). Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the article analyzes DKPP decisions through Neil MacCormick’s theory of legal reasoning, Matthew Silverstein’s account of ethical reasoning, and John Rawls’s reflective equilibrium. The analysis shows that DKPP reasoning does not operate as a simple application of rules to facts. It involves the construction of relevant facts, identification and interpretation of legal norms, use of ethical principles, normative evaluation, and justification of sanctions. The article proposes an ethical-legal reasoning model that integrates legal boundaries, substantive ethical evaluation, and proportionality testing. The model is intended to strengthen the coherence, consistency, transparency, and accountability of DKPP decisions.