The New York Times reported that election lawyers stated the vote should be annulled due to confusion over the late decision to extend voting hours.
Posted by The Benny Show, Checked
- Sources
- 2 contradict1 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 60%
The Benny ShowOct 26, 2026
Secondary quotations of the NYT live blog confirm that several electoral lawyers said the vote could be annulled over the late extension of voting hours, so the core reporting is supported.
A detail. The sources confirm the gist; the verdict faults a detail such as a date, number or wording.
The host relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
What was said
… That is what just happened in Brazil, and if that sounds like the shadiest, it sounds like Saddam Hussein has more legitimate elections, Fidel Castro has more legitimate elections. Even The New York Times is here saying, "Uhm, election lawyers say today's vote should be annulled due to confusion over late decision to extend voting hours." All four lawyers interviewed in the call, uh, said that this is totally unprecedented. "It's extremely serious and critical situation," says one Brazilian election lawyer. …
The Benny Show · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. The NYT wording is 'could be annulled', a possibility, not 'should be annulled', a recommendation, so the claim's characterization of the lawyers' position is stronger than the reporting.[3][4]
Supports. Quotations of the NYT live blog report that several electoral lawyers said today's vote could be annulled due to confusion over the late decision to extend voting hours, and that all four lawyers interviewed called the situation unprecedented.[3][4]
Supports. Collin Rugg's post quotes the NYT as reporting that electoral lawyers called the situation 'extremely serious' and that confusion over the last-minute extension could lead to annulment.[5]
Context. Professor Fernando Neisser said annulment was possible only if the margin were very narrow and polling stations stayed open longer in areas favoring one candidate; AP reports Lula won by nearly 4.4 million votes (51.8%), and Reuters and AP report Lula was declared the winner.[1][2][5]
Context. The NYT live blog itself (source 2) reports Bolsonaro calling for annulment after the court extended polling by two hours, but the excerpt provided does not include the lawyers' quotation.[6]
Sources
6 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 2 not rated, 1 rated low, 1 tier 2
- 1Lula declared winner of Brazil's election, Bolsonaro rejects ...apnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2Bolsonaro refuses to concede, says he will seek annulment of Brazil votereuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 3How You Know the Brazilian Election Was Loaded With Funny Businesstownhall.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 4Lula Leads After Last-Minute Voting Extension As "Bolsonaro Trade" Implodes; Trader Warns Of "Circuit Breaker" Chaoszerohedge.com · rated low for factual reporting by Iffy.news and Media Bias/Fact Check · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 5Brazil's election could be annulled, according ...x.com · not rated · cited for: supports, context
- 6The presidential election in Brazil is a test of Trump’s power as a kingmaker.nytimes.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin extended voting hours at polling stations by two hours minutes before polls closed.True
- The Brazilian election had a two-hour extension for voting.True
- 80% of polling stations in Brazil had already closed by the time the Supreme Court announced the extension of voting hours.Can’t tell
- In the Brazilian election, 36,000 votes were cast after a judge's order to keep polls open.True
- A judge ordered polls in Brazil to remain open for an additional two hours on October 25, 2026.True