The disposal towards the renewal of elections can be in the form of an act of parliament or in the form of law. Yet there are examples of both with regard to the 1982 Constitution Act. Nonetheless, holding the renewal of the elections via a disposal in the form of an act of Parliament is the accurate and right way. Because when the renewal of the elections is forced via an act of Parliament, neither this decision has to be conveyed to the President for approval, nor could any applications be made to the Constitutional Court for cancellation demands. Thus the possibility of the returning or cancellation of the decision taken by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be abolished. Until 2017, no special majority was foreseen for the Assembly to take an election decision. Therefore the election decision could be taken in accordance with the general verdict quorum which based on the 96th article of the Constitution. However, after the amendments, it’s nearly impossible for the Assembly to make an election decision. The reason for this is the actions towards the renewal of elections or vice versa is desired to be focused on the President. Yet it is hard to imply correctness on this matter. The reason for this is to make the Executive Power the center of all powers, and by this way, to condemn the Legislative Power into a completely obscure position. In case the political Party of the President is the majority Party within the assembly, it is hard to take an election decision via an act of parliament or via an adjective law. In reverse situation, it is possible to renew the elections via a disposal within the form of a law and the special majority obstacle on taking an election decision could be surpassed. However, crisis in both situations are inevitable. The right choice is to make the necessary amendments without causing any crisis or unfavorable experiences.