Paragraph 14 of Iran’s General Election Policies requires relative stability of electoral laws and conditions changes during a “reasonable period” upon necessity and a two-thirds parliamentary vote.Article 113 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, added in 2023, implements only part of that rule and leaves the protected period, the position of other election statutes, and the assessment of necessity unsettled.Using doctrinal analysis and functional comparison, this article examines Iranian law alongside Article 16 of the Brazilian Constitution, the case law of the SupremoTribunal Federal, and the Venice Commission’s standards. Brazil’s rule does not invalidate a new statute; it postpones its application to elections held within thefirst year. Brazilian jurisprudence determines the rule’s scope through the actual effect of change on equal competition, legal certainty, and the stages of the electoral process.In Iran, a single period for every amendment would not reflect the policy’s requirement of “relative” stability.The protected period turns on three factors: whether the rule is fundamental, when its effects begin, and the time required for adaptation. Documented necessity is a separate condition for departure from that temporal protection.A one-year period may serve as a rebuttable interpretive presumption for fundamental rules. Technical or rights-protective measures may take effect earlier after scrutiny of their competitive and operational consequences. Separating enactment from electoral application offers the soundest accommodation of reform and stability.