Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201
ISSN 2303- 0089

e-ISSN 2656-9949

DINAMIKA GOVERNANCE
JURNAL ILMU ADMINISTRASI NEGARA
http://ejournal.upnjatim.ac.id/index.php/jdg/index

ANALYSIS OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS
(CASE STUDY: RE-VOTING IN THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION IN TEGAL CITY)
Septio Fathurohman1, Arif Zainudin2, Agus Setio Widodo3
Program Studi Ilmu Pemerintahan, Universitas Pancasakti Tegal1,2,3
*
Email Corresponding : crazyxon@gmail.com

ARTICLE

INFORMATION

Article history:
Received date: 28 Mei 2025
Revised date: 5 Juni 2025
Accepted date: 6 Juli 2025

ABSTRACT
Administrative violations are problems that often occur in every election from the 2019
General Election to the 2024 General Election, one of which occurred in Tegal City. This
paper aims to analyze administrative violations that occurred at TPS 28 Debong Tengah
Village, Tegal Selatan Subdistrict, Tegal City. This research uses literature review
analysis with archives of the Tegal City Bawaslu report and previous researchers' studies
in the form of scientific articles as data. The results showed that the occurrence of
administrative violations at polling station 28 Debong Tengah Village, South Tegal
Subdistrict, Tegal City was due to the opening of the ballot box which was not in
accordance with the regulations by KPPS as the election organizer at the lowest level,
causing re-voting. In addition, KPPS was considered to lack integrity because it still
needed to be reminded by supervisors regarding the procedures for implementing voting.
This shows that the quality of election organizers at the lowest level is still weak and an
evaluation is needed so that in the next election it does not happen again. In addition, the
occurrence of re-voting brings several impacts, such as a decrease in public participation
and also changes in the vote count.
Keyword: Administrative Violation; General Election; Re-voting

ABSTRAKSI
Pelanggaran administratif merupakan permasalahan yang sering terjadi pada setiap
penyelenggaraan pemilu mulai dari Pemilu 2019 hingga Pemilu 2024, salah satunya yang
terjadi di Kota Tegal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pelanggaran
administratif yang terjadi di TPS 28 Kelurahan Debong Tengah, Kecamatan Tegal
Selatan, Kota Tegal. Penelitian ini menggunakan analisis kajian pustaka dengan arsip
laporan Bawaslu Kota Tegal dan kajian peneliti terdahulu berupa artikel ilmiah sebagai
data. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terjadinya pelanggaran administratif di TPS
28 Kelurahan Debong Tengah, Kecamatan Tegal Selatan, Kota Tegal disebabkan oleh
pembukaan kotak suara yang tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan oleh KPPS sebagai
penyelenggara pemilu di tingkat paling bawah sehingga menyebabkan terjadinya
pemungutan suara ulang. Selain itu, KPPS dinilai kurang berintegritas karena masih perlu
diingatkan oleh pengawas terkait tata cara pelaksanaan pemungutan suara. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa kualitas penyelenggara pemilu di tingkat terendah masih lemah dan
perlu dilakukannya evaluasi agar pada pemilu berikutnya tidak terjadi lagi. Selain itu,
dengan terjadinya pemungutan suara ulang membawa beberapa dampak, seperti
penurunan partisipasi publik dan juga perubahan dalam perolehan suara.
Kata Kunci: Pelanggaran Administratif, Pemilihan Umum, Pemungutan Suara Ulang

191

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

INTRODUCTION
Elections are a symbol or sign that
characterizes the implementation of democracy in a
country. Elections are one of the instruments used by
the state to realize the sovereignty of the people
though direct elections. In this concept, the people
have the power to determine who deserves to be a
leader (Tosalenda et al., 2021). However, elections
have another definition where elections are an
attempt to influence people to gain power
persuasively or not by force bye carrying out various
political activities (Sugiharto & Riyanti, 2020). With
the involvement of the people in a political process
in a country, it can be said that the country adheres to
a democratic system.
Indonesia is one of the democratic countries,
seen from the way leaders are directly elected by the
people using the election system every five years
(Khairunnisa, 2023). The realization of this
democracy is an effort to empower the role and
participation of the people in realizing their rights
and is constitutionally guaranteed (Jasi et al., 2023).
Based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of
Indonesia Article 1 paragraph 2, it is said that
sovereignty is in the hands of the people and its
implementation must be in accordance with the
provisions stipulated in the 1945 Constitution.
Elections in Indonesia are carried out by upholding
the principles of fairness, participation, and integrity
in accordance with Law No. 7 of 2017 related to
elections (Hurasan et al., 2021). Law No. 7 Year
2017 is a merger of several laws, namely Law No. 8
Year 2012 on the General Election of Members of the
DPR, DPD, and DPRD, law No. 15 Year 2011 on the
Implementation of General Elections, and Law 42
Year 2008 on the General Election of President and
Vice President (Febriansyah, 2024).
In this case, those who determine the
direction and goals of the government both in the
long and short term are the representatives of the
people who have been directly elected by the people
through elections. These people's representatives are
the key or the brain that will make changes in
Indonesia, whether it will get better or vice versa.
Indonesia itself has conducted elections from 1955

which were then continued in 1971, 1977, 1982,
1987, 1992, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and
2024, counting up to now 13 elections have been held
(Tosalenda et al., 2021).
Based on the 1945 Constitution Article 22E
paragraph 5 which states that general elections are
held by a general election commission that is
national, unchanging, and independent. There are
three election organizing institutions listed in Law
No. 7 of 2017 concerning general elections, namely
the General Election Commission (KPU), the
Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), and the
Honorary Board of Election Organizers (DKPP). The
General Election Commission (KPU) is responsible
for all aspects related to organizing elections (Arsya
& Adawiyah, 2023). Bawaslu is tasked with
overseeing all stages of the election organizers and
the supervision carried out is more directed towards
prevention (Nasution et al., 2023). DKPP acts as an
institution that handles violations of the election code
of ethics, starting from receiving reports or
allegations
of
violations
and conducting
investigations to verification of violations of the code
of ethics committed by election organizers
(Arifatuzzahrah & Hasba, 2024).
However, in the implementation of elections
there are still frequent violations with various types
of violations (Riani et al., 2023). There are three
types of election violations that often occur, namely;
administrative violations, criminal offenses, and
violations of the code of ethics. Administrative
violations are violations of procedures or procedures
related to the implementation of the election stages,
criminal violations are violations that contain
criminal elements or crimes which will be handled by
the Gakkumdu (Integrated Law Enforcement)
consisting of Bawaslu, the Police, and the Attorney
General's Office, and finally violations of the code of
ethics are ethical violations committed by election
organizers against their oaths and promises before
carrying out their duties as election organizers.
Administrative violations can make it
possible to conduct a Re-Voting (PSU) because there
are discrepancies or errors in the implementation of
voting against existing procedures or rules. Revoting or often referred to as PSU is carried out with
192

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

the aim of improving voting procedures so as to
maintain the quality of general elections that are
legally valid and acceptable to general election
stakeholders (Arifin, 2022). The conduct of re-voting
also shows that election organizers are committed to
maintaining integrity and transparency in the
democratic process.
In the 2019 elections, there were around 594
polling stations that conducted re-voting from 32
provinces and the most were in West Sumatra with
72 polling stations based on Bawaslu RI data
(Afrimadona et al., 2020). Re-voting in the 2019
elections occurred due to administrative violations
caused by KPPS who were considered less
competent in carrying out their duties so that they
made several mistakes during the voting process
(Hurasan et al., 2021). In addition, there were other
problems such as KPPS officers who were
exhausted, sick, and died due to the high workload in
the 2019 elections so that this could disrupt the
electoral process.
In the next election, the 2024 General
Election, Re-voting again occurred in Tegal City. Revoting (PSU) in Tegal City occurred due to
administrative violations committed by KPPS. The
TPS supervisor found a violation in the voting
procedure which was then reported to Panwascam
and forwarded to Bawaslu Tegal City. The KPU of
Tegal City then decided to conduct a re-voting at TPS
28 Debong Tengah with a recommendation from
Bawaslu Tegal City which was then held on February
18, 2024.
Seeing the many cases of administrative
violations that still occur in every election, the author
will review the factors that cause administrative
violations in Tegal City using Gary S. Becker's
Rational Choice Theory which explains that
individuals make decisions to commit or not commit
violations based on a rational analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of the actions they
take. Researchers also used previous literature as a
reference in examining administrative violations that
had occurred previously, so that researchers could
find the right solution so that administrative
violations would no longer occur.

RESEARCH METHODS
To analyze cases of administrative violations
that cause re-voting to occur, the author uses
literature review analysis to examine more deeply the
factors that cause administrative violations and find
the best solution to evaluate the implementation of
future elections. According to Creswell, literature
review is used to understand the latest developments
and identify research gaps that can be filled. The
author uses literature review because it has
advantages, namely helping researchers see a broader
context by connecting it with theories from previous
research results so that they can find the right
conclusions.
As data, the author categorized the data used
in the form of previous research studies, namely
scientific articles and archives of the Tegal City
Bawaslu report. The author used Dimensions as a
search engine to access scientific articles, by limiting
the data obtained using the keyword “re-voting” and
also limiting the publication year of the article from
2019 to 2024 with the language used in Indonesian
and English. The results of the data search obtained
amounted to 507 articles which were then further
specified so that the metadata found amounted to 130
terms. The metadata is then processed using
vosviewer software to visualize the relationship
between topics from the metadata that has been
obtained.
Figure 1. Data Visualization Results by using
Vosviewer

Source: Secondary data, 2024

193

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

Figure 1 shows the visualization results using
the keyword “re voting”, “election” is the main topic
that is most frequently reviewed from 2021 to 2022.
The topic “election” appears to be correlated with “re
voting” which began to be studied in 2022. The topic
“re voting” is in cluster 3 and has links with “election
organizer”, “kpps”, and “integrity”. This shows the
relationship between election organizers, kpps, and
integrity in a re-vote. With this topic, the author will
examine and connect it with administrative
violations in Tegal City that caused Re-voting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Legal Basis for Re-voting
Re-voting or called PSU is the process of
repeating voting at polling stations (TPS). Re-voting
aims to correct voting procedures that are wrong or
not in accordance with existing regulations and also
as a form of responsibility for the integrity of the
general election so that it can be accepted by the
public and election participants. The legal basis
governing re-voting is:
Article 372 of Law No. 7 Year 2017

Re-voting is divided into two categories,
namely the recommendation of the Election
Supervisor which is then decided by the
Regency/City KPU and Re-voting after the
Constitutional Court (MK) Decision based on the
Court's decision according to KPU Regulation No. 3
of 2019 concerning Voting and Vote Counting in
General Elections. Furthermore, there are also
regulations that explain the procedures for
implementing re-voting, namely:
Article 373 of Law No. 7 Year 2017
1) Re-voting is proposed by the KPPS by stating the
circumstances that cause the re-voting;
2) The KPPS proposal is forwarded to the PPK and
then submitted to the Regency/City KPU for a
decision to hold a re-vote;
3) Re-voting is no later than 10 (ten) days after the
voting day based on the decision of the
Regency/City KPU;
4) Re-voting as referred to in paragraph (1) shall
only be conducted for 1 (one) re-voting.
KPU Decision No. 66 of 2024

1) Voting at polling stations may be repeated in the
event of natural disasters and/or riots that result
in voting results that cannot be used or vote
counting cannot be carried out.

a. Re-voting is proposed by the KPPS after
deliberating with the TPS Supervisors and
Witnesses present by mentioning the
circumstances that cause the holding of Revoting;

2) Voting at polling stations must be repeated if the
results of the research and examination of polling
station supervisors prove that the following
conditions exist:

b. The KPPS proposal is forwarded to the PPK and
then submitted to the Regency/City KPU for a
decision to hold a Re-voting;

a. The opening of ballot boxes and/or voting
files is not carried out in accordance with the
procedures stipulated in the provisions of
laws and regulations;
b. KPPS officers ask voters to give special
marks, sign, or write their names or addresses
on the ballot papers that have been used;
c. KPPS officers spoil more than one ballot that
has been used by a voter so that the ballot
becomes invalid;
d. Voters who do not have an electronic identity
card and are not registered on the permanent
voters list and the additional voters list.

c. After receiving the Re-voting proposal from the
PPK, the Regency/City KPU immediately
decides in the plenary meeting of the
Regency/City KPU and states in the
Regency/City KPU Decree;
d. The Regency/City KPU submits a copy of the
KPU Decision as referred to in letter c to the
KPPS through the PPK and PPS, and must submit
to the KPU through the Provincial KPU;
e. The Regency/City KPU submits a request for
Witnesses to attend and witness the Re-Voting at
the polling station;
f. The Regency/City KPU notifies the head of the
region, the head of the vertical agency in the
194

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

region, the head of the company, or the head of
the education unit to provide an opportunity for
Voters to exercise their voting rights in the ReVoting at the polling station;
g. Re-voting at polling stations is carried out no
later than 10 (ten) days after the voting day, based
on the decision of the Regency/City KPU as
referred to in letter c;
h. Re-voting at polling stations is only carried out
for 1 (one) Re-voting;
i. Re-voting at polling stations can be carried out on
weekdays, holidays, or closed days.

matter by the TPS Supervisor so that it needed to be
reported to Bawaslu Tegal City.
3. Legal Review of the 2024 Re-voting Election in
Tegal City
a) Facts
Based on the results of supervision conducted
by the Supervisor of polling stations located at
polling station 28 Debong Tengah Village, Tegal
Selatan Subdistrict, Tegal City, there was an event
that occurred as follows:
-

That on February 14, 2024, the TPS Supervisor
came to polling station 28 at 06.45 WIB and
found that the ballots were neatly arranged on the
KPPS table;

-

That the KPPS did not show the Witnesses,
Polling Station Supervisors, and Voters who
were present that the ballot box was still sealed;

-

That the KPPS opened the ballot box and/or the
voting and vote counting files were not carried
out according to the procedures stipulated in the
laws and regulations, namely starting with the
Voting Meeting at 07.00 WIB based on KPU
Decree No. 66 of 2024 concerning Technical
Guidelines for the Implementation of Voting and
Vote Counting in General Elections.

2. Re-voting for the 2024 General Election in
Tegal City
The implementation of the 2024 General
Election in Tegal City as a whole went well, but not
TPS 28 in Debong Tengah, South Tegal Subdistrict.
On the day of the 2024 elections, the polling station
supervisor found an alleged administrative violation
that had the potential for a re-voting at polling station
28. The polling station supervisor found that the
ballots were neatly arranged on the table when it was
not yet time for voting, namely at 06.45 WIB. This
shows that the opening of the ballot box was not
carried out in accordance with existing procedures or
regulations, namely at 07.00 WIB when voting
begins. The KPPS reasoned that opening the ballot
box and compiling the ballots early was done so that
the voting process could run more easily and
efficiently. The early opening of the ballot boxes
resulted in the absence of supervisors, witnesses, and
voters to see and ensure that the ballot boxes were
still securely sealed. Considering the violations that
occurred, the TPS Supervisor reported the violations
to Bawaslu Tegal City in stages through PKD
Debong Tengah and Panwascam Tegal Selatan. After
reporting the violations that occurred, Bawaslu Tegal
City gave instructions to make suggestions for
improvements to the Head of the KPPS on the
potential for re-voting.
This is in accordance with the Rational
Choice Theory where the KPPS chose to violate the
rules for the benefits obtained, namely facilitating the
implementation of voting and time efficiency by
considering the losses or risks accepted as small.
However, the violation was considered a serious

b) Regulatory requirements
The opening of ballot boxes and/or voting
and counting files carried out by KPPS at polling
station 28 Debong Tengah Urban Village, Tegal
Selatan Subdistrict, Tegal City is contrary to existing
regulations as follows:
-

KPU Decision No. 66 of 2024
Chapter II (Voting at polling stations)
c. KPPS Preparation
1) Explanation
of
procedures
for
implementing voting at polling stations
a. Day, date, and time of voting will be
held on Wednesday, February 14,
2024 starting at 07.00 to 13.00 local
time

-

Article 372 paragraph 2 letter a of Law No. 7
Year 2017

195

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

Voting at polling stations must be repeated if
the results of the research and examination of
polling station supervisors prove that the
following conditions exist:
a. The opening of ballot boxes and/or voting
files is not carried out in accordance with the
procedures stipulated in the provisions of
laws and regulations;
4. Implementation of Re-voting
On February 17, 2024 Bawaslu Tegal City
gave an appeal to the KPU of Tegal City to
coordinate to notify the head of the region, the head
of the vertical agency in the region, the head of the
company, or the head of the education unit in order
to provide an opportunity for voters to exercise their
voting rights at the re-voting. Then ensure that the
implementation of Re-voting at TPS 28 runs in
accordance with the procedures and procedures in the
laws and regulations. Bawaslu Tegal City also gave
an appeal related to the prohibition of money politics
to 18 Political Parties participating in the 2024
Election in Tegal City so that they did not conduct
campaigns and did not promise anything to voters so
that the implementation of the Re-voting remained
clean from fraud.
Re-voting at polling station 28 Debong
Tengah Village was held on Sunday, February 18,
2024 and experienced a change in polling station
location, which shifted to the former polling station
29 Debong Tengah Village because the place at
polling station 28 was being used for other events.
The re-voting was attended by the Head of KPU
Tegal City and its staff and security personnel from
the police and the TNI, then supervision from the
Head of the Provincial KPU and Bawaslu of Central
Java Province was also present. Before the re-voting
began, polling station supervisors conducted strict
supervision and ensured that the implementation of
the re-voting was in accordance with existing
procedures and procedures.
5. Constraints and Obstacles to Re-voting
In the process of conducting the re-voting in
polling station 28 Debong Tengah Village, Tegal
Selatan Subdistrict, Tegal City, there were several
problems that occurred both before and after the revoting, namely as follows:

1) Toward the implementation of the Re-voting,
Bawaslu Tegal City was quite difficult to
communicate with KPU Tegal City so that KPU
Tegal City seemed to close access to
communication and data related to the
preparation of the Re-voting.
2) There were also indications of intimidation
(indirectly) to polling station supervisors from
individuals suspected of the Central Java
Provincial KPU and the Tegal City KPU so that
Bawaslu Tegal City provided more intensive
assistance starting from before, during and after
the implementation of the Re-voting.
3) There was little dynamics outside TPS 28 at the
time of the re-voting, this was due to the presence
of PKB and PDIP candidates who were worried
that they could influence voters to be able to vote
for these candidates. In addition, the husband of
one of the candidates came wearing a t-shirt that
showed the identity of the party which wa then
reprimanded by members of Bawaslu Tegal City
becase the campaign period had expired
4) When the implementation of Re-Voting takes
place, KPPS often needs to be reminded by the
TPS Supervisor and the ranks of supervisors who
are present in carrying out their duties, giving rise
to the perspective that the understanding of
regulations and technical implementation of
voting and vote counting KPPS is still lacking.
5) After the Re-Voting, there are differences in
voter data and the use of ballots in the 2024
Election and the Re-Voting (PSU). In the 2024
elections, there were 287 DPT, which then
decreased to 286 DPT during the Re-voting
(PSU). This is due to the recollection of DPT,
DPTb, and voters with disabilities. The level of
voter participation has also decreased as seen
from the use of ballots, where in the 2024
elections there were 244 ballots, while in the Revoting (PSU) only 238 ballots were used. In
addition, the implementation of re-voting also
caused the vote acquisition of candidate pairs and
political parties to change.

196

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

Table 1. Comparison of Voter Data and Ballot
Usage in General Elections with PSU
No.

Description

Election

Revoting

1

Voter data in the DPT

287

286

2

Voting rights users

244

238

-

Voting rights users
in the DPT
- Voting rights users
in the DPTb
Number of ballot
papers
received,
including 2% DPT
reserve

242

237

2

1

293

294

4

Number of ballots used

244

238

5

Number of ballots
returned by voters (due
to damage or mistaken
voting)

3

0

6

Number of unused
ballots,
including
remaining
reserve
ballots

46

56

Number of voters with
disabilities
who
exercise their right to
vote

4

3

7

Source: Primary data, 2024

6

Source: Primary data, 2024

Table 2. Comparison of PPWP Vote Results
N
o

Name of Candidate

Anies Rasyid
1 Baswedan - Muhaimin
Iskandar
Prabowo Subianto 2
Gibran Rakabuming
Raka
Ganjar Pranowo 3
Mahfud MD
Total Valid Votes
Total Invalid Votes
Total Valid + Invalid Votes

Table 3. Comparison of DPR Vote Results
Name of Political
ReNo
Election
Party
voting
1
PKB
40
40
2
GERINDRA
36
15
3
PDIP
25
19
4
GOLKAR
10
5
5
NASDEM
5
2
6
BURUH
1
1
7
GELORA
1
2
8
PKS
24
32
9
PKN
0
0
10
HANURA
3
0
11
GARUDA
0
1
12
PAN
11
15
13
PBB
0
0
14
DEMOKRAT
5
3
15
PSI
3
36
16
PERINDO
0
1
17
PPP
29
28
18
UMMAT
2
0
Total Valid Votes
195
200
Total Invalid Votes
49
38
Total Valid + Invalid Votes
244
238

Electio
n

Revoting

53

44

125

143

56

34

234
10
244

221
17
238

Table 4. Comparison of DPD Vote Results
ReNo
Name of Candidate
Election
voting
1 Abdul Kholik
26
16
2 Agus Mujayanto
13
8
3 Ahmad Baligh Mu'aidi
9
6
4 Bambang Sutrisno
11
6
Casytha A.
5
12
12
Kathmandu
Denty Eka Widi
6
16
12
Pratiwi
7 Joko Dalmadyo
4
3
8 Kodirin
7
0
Lamaatus Shobah
9
5
4
Dimyati Rois
10 Muhdi
5
3
11 Taj Yasin
95
115
Total Valid Votes
203
185
Total Invalid Votes
41
53
Total Valid + Invalid Votes
244
238
Source: Primary data, 2024

Source: Primary data, 2024

197

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

Table 5. Comparison of Prov. DPRD Vote
Results
Name of Political
ReNo
Election
Party
voting
1
PKB
58
73
2
GERINDRA
33
20
3
PDIP
17
17
4
GOLKAR
28
12
5
NASDEM
0
1
6
BURUH
6
3
7
GELORA
0
1
8
PKS
20
29
9
PKN
0
0
10
HANURA
3
1
11
GARUDA
1
1
12
PAN
3
7
13
PBB
1
0
14
DEMOKRAT
4
2
15
PSI
5
6
16
PERINDO
1
3
17
PPP
4
3
18
UMMAT
1
1
Total Valid Votes
185
180
Total Invalid Votes
59
58
Todal Valid + Invalid
244
238
Votes
Source: Primary data, 2024

Table 6. Comparison of City DPRD Vote Results
Name of Political
ReNo
Election
Party
voting
1
PKB
76
185
2
GERINDRA
61
5
3
PDIP
16
23
4
GOLKAR
16
10
5
NASDEM
1
0
6
BURUH
0
0
7
GELORA
2
0
8
PKS
29
0
9
PKN
0
0
10
HANURA
14
0
11
GARUDA
0
0
12
PAN
6
8
13
PBB
0
0
14
DEMOKRAT
3
0
15
PSI
0
0
16
PERINDO
1
0
17
PPP
0
0
18
UMMAT
0
0
Total Valid Votes
225
231

Total Invalid Votes
Total Valid + Invalid Votes

19
244

7
238

Source: Primary data, 2024

6. Finding form Previous Literature
Re-voting has often occurred from the
implementation of previous elections and has been
studied by several researchers with several findings,
namely: First, Arifin's research (2022) entitled “Revoting in the 2019 Simultaneous General Election by
the General Election Commission of Padang City”.
This study explains that the Re-voting that occurred
in Padang City in the 2019 Election was due to an
administrative violation, namely the KPPS allowed
voters outside the area who did not take care of
moving to vote to be able to exercise their voting
rights outside the original polling station. This
happened because during the implementation of the
2019 Election, there was hoax information spread on
social media which stated that voters could exercise
their voting rights at any polling station only by
bringing an electronic KTP based on the decision of
the Constitutional Court. With this information, outof-area voters who did not take care of moving to
vote argued with KPPS and TPS Supervisors,
making KPPS provide an opportunity to allow outof-area voters who did not take care of moving to
vote to vote outside their original polling stations
(Arifin, 2022).
The violations committed by the KPPS fulfill
the requirements for Re-voting in accordance with
Article 372 paragraph 2 letter (d) of Law No. 7 of
2017 concerning General Elections, namely there are
voters who do not have electronic ID cards and are
not registered in DPT and DPTb using voting rights
in the voting process. After research and examination
of the violation by the KPU of Padang City, Revoting was carried out at 46 polling stations on April
27, 2019 and only carried out on problematic ballots.
Second, Regina Zetia & Wiratno's research
(2024) entitled “Re-voting in the Regent Election of
Indragiri Hulu Regency, Riau Province (Study of the
Constitutional
Court
Decision
Number
93/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021)”. This study explains that
there were a number of violations in the Indragiri
Hulu Regency Pilkada based on the Constitutional
Court Decision which became the basis for the Re198

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

voting. After further analysis, several violations were
identified, namely manipulation of the vote count
recapitulation process, negligence in the delivery of
Model C notification letters to voters, ballot
destruction, and non-neutral candidate pairs. The
Constitutional Court made a decision to conduct a revote at polling station 03 in Ringin Village, Gansal
District, which must be carried out within 30 working
days after the issuance of the Constitutional Court's
decision. The Constitutional Court also asked to
replace the chairman and members of the KPPS at
TPS 03 under the supervision of Bawaslu (Regina
Zetia & Wiratno, 2024).
Third, Irsyedha Alfara Reginantis' research
(2024) entitled “Analysis of the Causes of the
Organizing of Re-voting (PSU) in East Java Province
in 2024”. This study explains that there are several
problems that cause the implementation of the Revoting (PSU) in the implementation of general
elections in East Java. There are at least five
regencies / cities that have been decided to carry out
re-voting, namely Surabaya, Madura, Jombang,
Tuban, and Madiun with a total of 32 polling stations.
This re-voting was caused by several factors, among
others: First, there were voters from outside the area
who exercised their voting rights at the wrong polling
station because the voters did not take care of moving
to vote so that their names were not registered in the
Permanent Voters List/Additional Permanent Voters
List of the polling station. Second, on the voting day
there were companies that did not dismiss their
employees, resulting in many invalid ballots. Third,
findings from Bawaslu found the use of ballots for
residents who had moved, died, or were in detention,
resulting in the number of votes not synchronizing
with the DPT. Fourth, the occurrence of ballots that
were confused with other Electoral Regions (Dapil)
in one of the polling stations in Surabaya (Irsyedha
Alfara Reginantis et al., 2024).
Fourth, Gemilang's research (2024) entitled
“Case Study of Re-voting at Polling Station 14 and
Polling Station 16 of Darullughah Wadda'wah
Islamic Boarding School, Pasuruan Regency in the
2019 General Election”. This study explains the
occurrence of administrative violations at polling
station 14 and polling station 16 of Raci Village,
Bangil District, Pasuruan Regency. Administrative

violations at the two polling stations were caused by
voters who were not registered in the DPT or DPTB.
Based on the monitoring report, there was an excess
number of DPTb at polling stations 14 and 16,
making the data unsynchronized. Each polling
station has a maximum capacity of 500 people, while
at polling station 14 there were 505 voters and
polling station 16 there were 506 voters recorded in
the C1 copy. However, after further review,
Panwascam Bangil found that there was excessive
data at polling station 14, namely 9 voters who did
not have Form A.5 and were not registered in DPTb,
while at polling station 16 there were 15 voters who
did not have Form A.5 and were not registered in
DPTb. According to Panwascam Bangil, this is
because during the DPTb data collection there were
many voters who were not willing to provide their
data and there were also voters who were reluctant to
vote at the designated polling stations because the
location was too far away. With these violations,
Panwascam Bangil and Bawaslu Pasuruan Regency
then decided to recommend Re-voting (PSU) to PPK
(Gemilang & Pasuruan, 2024).
Fifth, Fadjri Habibillah’s research (2024)
entitled “Analysis of the Implementation of Revoting of Regional Head Elections Based on
Legislation”. This Study explains that Re-voting in
the Regional Head Election is caused by
administrative violations such as opening ballot
boxes that are not in accordance with the rules, giving
special marks on ballots, destroying ballots carried
out by KPPS either intentionally or unintentionally,
and allowing voters who are not registered in DPT,
DPTb, and do not have Electronic KTP to vote. In
addition, there was also an issue that Electronic KTP
owners could exercise their voting rights at any
polling station. This of course made KPPS and voters
argue so that it ended with the allowance of voters to
be able to vote with an Electronic KTP (Habibillah &
Syamsir, 2024).
Sixth, Bonefasius Bao’s research (2020)
entitled “Analysis of Re-voting in the 2017 Jayapura
Regency Regional Head Election”. In this study, it
was found that in the implementation of the 2017
Jayapura district regional head election, there were 4
unauthorized KPPS replacements. With the
replacement of KPPS, it caused other violations,
199

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

namely using the remaining ballots and additional
ballots. This also occurred in several district in
Jayapura Regency, causing a re-voting (Bao &
Padang, 2020).

CONCLUSION
Re-voting at polling station 28 Debong
Tengah Village, Tegal Selatan Subdistrict, Tegal
City occurred because there was an administrative
violation committed by the KPPS in opening the
ballot box which was not carried out at the time
specified in KPU Decree No. 66 of 2024 and also
violated Article 372 paragraph 2 letter a of Law No.
7 of 2017. KPPS is considered still lacking in
understanding the regulations and technicalities
related to the implementation of voting, which also
occurred in administrative violations in the previous
year. This shows that the quality of election
organizers at the lowest level is still weak and an
evaluation is needed so that in the next election it
does not happen again. Apart from the election
organizers, the supervision side must also be further
improved, because supervision is also very important
to determine the success of elections. Supervisors are
required to be more communicative and one step
ahead of the KPPS as a form of prevention so that
there are no mistakes or violations that can cause revoting.
The conduct of re-voting has a significant
impact on democracy, namely a decrease in the level
of voter participation where one vote is very
valuable. In addition, it can be seen that the vote
acquisition has changed significantly after the revoting, so this can cause protests from candidates and
political parties because they feel disadvantaged.
This also needs to be considered because it does not
rule out the possibility of money politics after the
announcement of a re-vote, so it is necessary to
conduct stricter supervision to maintain the quality of
elections that are fair and acceptable to everyone.

REFERENCES
Afrimadona, Hidayah, A., Tanjung, G. A., &
Panggar, I. P. (2020). Perihal Pemungutan dan
Penghitungan Suara (Masmulyadi (ed.); Serial
Eva, Issue December 2019). Bawaslu.

Arifatuzzahrah, F., & Hasba, I. B. (2024). Kepastian
Hukum
Putusan
Dewan
Kehormatan
Penyelenggara Pemilu Terhadap Pelanggaran
Kode Etik Penyelenggara Pemilu. Jurnal Usm
Law
Review,
7(1),
70.
https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i1.7997
Arifin, M. D. (2022). Pemungutan Suara Ulang Pada
Pemilihan Umum Serentak Tahun 2019 Oleh
Komisi Pemilihan Umum Kota Padang. UNES
Journal of Swara Justisia, 6(3), 209.
https://doi.org/10.31933/ujsj.v6i3.263
Arsya, K., & Adawiyah, P. R. (2023). Strategi
Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) Kabupaten
Jember dalam Persiapan Pemilu Tahun 2024.
Buletin Antropologi Indonesia, 1(1), 14.
https://doi.org/10.47134/bai.v1i1.2049
Bao, B., & Padang, R. S. (2020). Analisis
Pemungutan Suara Ulang Pada Pemilihan
Kepala Daerah Kabupaten Jayapura Tahun
2017. Papua Review Jurnal, 4(1), 290–303.
http://www.jurnal.uniyap.ac.id/uyp/index.php/
prjiap/article/view/125
Febriansyah, R. (2024). Prosiding Seminar Hukum
Aktual Kewenangan KPU Dalam Menetapkan
Regulasi Pemilu Studi Pemutakhiran Data dan
Penyusunan Daftar Pemilih Pemilu Serentak
2024. 1, 12–34.
Gemilang, H. D., & Pasuruan, U. M. (2024). DAN
TPS
16
PONDOK
PESANTREN
DARULLUGHAH
WADDA
’
WAH
KABUPATEN
PASURUAN
PADA
PEMILIHAN UMUM TAHUN 2019. 6(1), 8–20.
Habibillah, F., & Syamsir, S. (2024). Analisis
Pelaksanaan Pemungutan Suara Ulang
Pemilihan Kepala Daerah Berdasarkan
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Limbago:
Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(1), 132–140.
https://doi.org/10.22437/limbago.v4i1.18155
Hurasan, D. H., Amin, M., & Ridho, H. (2021).
Kinerja Kelompok Penyelenggara Pemungutan
Suara Pemungutan Suara Ulang pada PEMILU
2019 di Kota Tebing Tinggi. Perspektif, 11(1),
214–230.
https://doi.org/10.31289/perspektif.v11i1.5503
Irsyedha Alfara Reginantis, Nadiah Aurahmadani
200

Fathurohman, S., Zainudin, A., Widodo A, S. /JDG Vol. 15 No. 02 (2025) 191-201

Priyambodo, & Adam Jamal. (2024). Analisis
Penyebab Diselenggarakannya Pemungutan
Suara Ulang (PSU) Di Provinsi Jawa Timur
Tahun 2024. Eksekusi : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan
Administrasi
Negara,
2(2),
368–376.
https://doi.org/10.55606/eksekusi.v2i2.1132
Jasi, A., Barthos, M., & Santiago, F. (2023).
Postponement Arrangements of Election From
The Perspective of The 1945 Constitution of
The Republic of Indonesia. Jurnal Indonesia
Sosial
Sains,
4(06),
531–535.
https://doi.org/10.59141/jiss.v4i06.818
Khairunnisa, B. W. (2023). Islamic Democracy or
Secular? Some Aspects of Democracy Practiced
in Indonesia. Athena: Journal of Social, Culture
and
Society,
1(4),
200–205.
https://doi.org/10.58905/athena.v1i4.108
Nasution, A. I., Azaria, D. P., Fauzan, M., Abidin, F.
R. M., & Alfarissa, T. (2023). Penguatan Fungsi
Pengawasan Bawaslu Republik Indonesia
dalam Penyelenggaraan Tahapan Kampanye
Pemilu Serentak 2024. Ajudikasi : Jurnal Ilmu
Hukum,
7(2),
229–256.
https://doi.org/10.30656/ajudikasi.v7i2.7666
Regina Zetia, & Wiratno. (2024). Pemungutan Suara
Ulang Dalam Pemilihan Bupati Kabupaten
Indragiri Hulu Provinsi Riau (Studi Putusan
Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/Php.BupXix/2021). Reformasi Hukum Trisakti, 6(1),
387–398.
https://doi.org/10.25105/refor.v6i1.19062
Riani, Y., Junaidi, A., Tina, S. A., Jasika, M., &
Melina, S. (2023). Sosialisasi Pelanggaran
Politik Dan Peran Masyarakat Dalam
Pengawasan Partisipatif Pemilu 2024. JPM :
Jurnal Pengabdian Mandiri, 2(6), 1211–1218.
Sugiharto, I., & Riyanti, R. (2020). The Problems
with Honest and Fairness Principles in General
Election in Indonesia. 429(Icasseth 2019), 171–
174.
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200402.038
Tosalenda, B., Niode, B., & Sampe, S. (2021).
Faktor-faktor Penyebab Pemungutan Suara
Ulang (PSU) Pada Penyelenggaraan Pemilu
Tahun 2019 Di Kota Manado. Pengelolaan
Sumberdaya Pembangunan, 1(1), 45–51.
201