With 38 seats, the Saxon AFD will move to the provisional official final result in the Dresden state parliament. That's one place less than it actually was after the two-vote result of 27.5 percent. But due to errors in the preparation of the electoral lists, a court had already cut the candidate field in advance. By contrast, the AfD's leading candidate Jörg Urban now wants to go to court.
The party wants to exhaust all legal remedies, Urban said in Berlin. This happens regardless of whether the party can fill all its seats in the state parliament or not. An unoccupied seat, however, would still be "one more argument" for the lawsuit, Urban said.
The abridged electoral list has been preoccupying the party and courts in Saxony for some time: before the state election, the right-wing populists at two separate party congresses 61 candidates. Initially, the provincial electoral commission allowed only 18 candidates to be admitted due to formal deficiencies. Against the decision, the AfD resisted. Thereupon, the right-wing populist party achieved a partial success. The Constitutional Court approved 30 candidates instead of 18 (read more here).
The 38 seats of the AfD are now composed of 23 list votes and 15 direct mandates. Since several of the direct applicants are also on the state list, these votes are not considered there. The result: the right-wing populists lack a seat.
The party tries to use the situation to present itself as a victim of state and courts, which they allegedly bring to their electoral success. A narrative that is heard by many of their constituents.
But what are the chances?
"An appeal will in all probability have no chance of success," said constitutional lawyer Jochen Rozek from the University of Leipzig SPIEGEL - and refers to the judgment of the Saxon Constitutional Court in mid-August.
At that time, the court justified its ruling on the admission of the AFD list up to and including list position 30 among other things with the fact that only the first 30 candidates on the list were determined according to the initially determined individual election procedure.
Equal opportunities affected
The places from number 31, however, were determined in the faster group election process at another party congress. This change in the electoral process during the list production affected equal opportunities and violated democratic criteria. The court made that clear in its August ruling, says Rozek.
Although it is possible to organize the list in principle, says Rozek, but this must be decided in advance - and not only after the beginning of the election process.
He also does not believe in a new election: "Since the elimination of the AFD country list proves to be lawful from the list 31 on the provincial election committee, there can be no electoral error in this respect, which could lead to a new election."