Voter Rights and Electoral Justice in Indonesia’s 2024 Concurrent Elections: System Design, Institutional Fragmentation, and Dispute Resolution

Sulistyowati (Universitas Nasional)
Erman I. Rahim (Universitas Negeri Gorontalo)
Dewi Nadya Maharani (Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta)
Mahda Rahman (Universitas Nasional)
Gusti Bintang Maharaja (Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta)

International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law
Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026)

The 2024 Indonesian general elections were the largest and most administratively complex democratic exercise in the country’s history, combining presidential, national legislative, and regional legislative contests on a single polling day and holding regional executive elections later in the same year. This article examines the causal relationship between the design of the concurrent election system and the protection of voters’ constitutional rights, and evaluates whether Indonesia’s dispute resolution architecture is capable of delivering electoral justice. Using normative-juridical research supported by secondary empirical data, and combining statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches, the article advances two arguments. First, the “five-ballot” concurrent design satisfies the formal dimension of the right to vote while eroding its substantive dimension: it imposes an extreme administrative and physical burden on polling station officials and a cognitive burden on voters, so that high turnout coexists with attenuated deliberative capacity, particularly in legislative contests displaced by presidential coattails. Second, the fragmentation of electoral adjudication among the Constitutional Court, the Election Supervisory Agency, the Honorary Council of Election Organisers, and the State Administrative Court generates divergent standards of proof, inconsistent characterisation of identical conduct, and gaps in remedial authority that are most consequential precisely where structured, systematic, and massive violations are alleged. Analysis of the 2024 election result disputes indicates a discernible movement toward substantive justice, but one constrained by evidentiary thresholds and procedural limits rather than by judicial willingness. The article contributes an integrated account linking concurrency, voter protection, and forum fragmentation, and argues that reconstructing the electoral calendar and unifying electoral jurisdiction are complementary rather than alternative reforms.