Electoral Integrity

Electoral Integrity Index

Electoral Integrity Quiz

This section considers the importance of integrity in the electoral process, the challenges associated with maintaining it and the mechanisms for protecting it. For more general information on this topic, go to Overview.

This section deals with issues of transparency, accountability and accuracy in electoral administration, as well as the ethical behaviour of key players able to contribute to maintaining integrity. Various mechanisms that could protect integrity are specified in the legal framework, supported by the institutional framework, and strengthened by national and international observation.

Finally, problems specific to integrity and some solutions for them are considered at each stage of administering the electoral process, including electoral management, voting procedure selection, boundary delimitation, voter education and registration, party/candidate and other registration, campaigns, media, financing, voting, vote counting, and results.

Overview of Electoral Integrity

Integrity is a difficult concept to define but an essential element of a democratic government system. Integrity is inherent to the principles of democracy. It contributes to the administration of free and fair elections, without which democracy would be compromised.

 

In this section, election integrity is defined as a set of standards based on democratic principles, measures and mechanisms for protecting free and fair elections.

 

An election is the outcome of a complex process requiring the participation of a multitude of players. There are winners and losers in every election. The stakes are high, and the temptation is great to ensure victory through illegal or morally questionable means. Election results can be rigged to predetermine who will win or lose. An election can be disrupted, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process. An election without integrity subverts the purpose of a democratic election, and cannot be considered fair and equitable.

Given socio-political rivalries and the threat of electoral corruption, integrity cannot be taken for granted. Mechanisms for maintaining and implementing integrity need to be established within the very organizations that administer elections. These mechanisms must make it possible to monitor actions of the electoral administration; they must ensure oversight of the electoral process by other government sectors or agencies, civil society, and the media; and they must provide for enforcement of rules and regulations through administrative or legal means.

Good systems expose and combat electoral corruption, and ensure integrity. The priority of most electoral agencies is to create an electoral system that imposes checks and balances on the activities of election administrators. The legal framework sets out integrity protection mechanisms and defines the institutional structure supporting integrity. Under the legal framework, the authority of each branch and each position within the election administration can be delegated and limited to ensure that checks are in place and abuse of the system is prevented.

Oversight of the election process by political parties, the media, individual citizens, and national and international observers is another important mechanism for protecting integrity. As a checks-and-balances mechanism, oversight helps detect and prevent problems. It ensures that players in the election process are accountable, promotes transparency, establishes the credibility of the process, and guarantees compliance with the legal framework.

The enforcement of rules of integrity is particularly important; without effective enforcement, the best rules and regulations are merely good intentions. A legal framework and good procedures are essential in combatting corruption. It is necessary to establish enforcement mechanisms so that anyone breaching election legislation is stopped and prosecuted in a timely, professional and non-partisan manner. Effective law enforcement will help not only to maintain the integrity of the process but also to prevent future problems.

International promotion of the value of democratic elections has been very successful. Nonetheless, despite the numerous measures that today guarantee free and fair elections, there are still cases of electoral fraud and corruption. Election integrity has often been perceived as a concern only for countries making the transition to democracy, but voter registration practices in the United States on the eve of the 2000 presidential election and the mail in vote fraud in Great Britain in 2005 raised awareness about problems of election integrity even in well established democracies. [1] In theory, the integrity of each step of the election process can be threatened; in practice, viable solutions exist and integrity can be maintained. To reduce the risk of fraudulent practices, it is essential for election policy makers and administrators to take into account the importance of election integrity when they develop a new system or make changes to an existing one. [2]

In short, election integrity requires:

• a set of standards based on generally accepted democratic principles;
• a legal framework that imposes checks-and-balances on the institutional structure;
• firmly entrenched protection mechanisms, including oversight of the election by independent observers, civil society and free media;
• enforcement measures; and
• fair, transparent and equitable election administration.
  
  

NOTES

[1] Birch, Sarah, “Explaining Confidence in the Conduct of Elections,” paper presented at the Public Opinion and Political Parties Conference, University of Essex, U.K., Sept. 9-11, 2005.

[2] For an interesting discussion on the historical development and institutionalization of election integrity in Australia, see Hughes, Colin, “Institutionalising Electoral Integrity,” in Sawer, Marian, ed., Elections Full, Free and Fair, Sydney: The Federation Press, 2001, p. 142 57.

Image:

lining up for elections by tutam is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License.

Guiding Principles of Electoral Integrity

Election integrity involves a set of standards based on democratic principles and a legal and institutional system that encourages and protects fair and equitable elections. These systems need to be adapted to the social and political context of each country, but the basic objectives are the same and stem from the need to ensure free and fair elections. The guiding principles essential to maintaining election integrity are:

• respect for principles of electoral democracy;
• ethical conduct;
• accuracy;
• institutional protections (a system of checks-and-balances);
• oversight and enforcement; and
• transparency.

Respect for Principles of Electoral Democracy

Under the principles of electoral democracy, all citizens have equal rights to participate as voters and candidates; all citizens must have equal voting power; the secrecy of the vote must be assured; voters must have access to political information; legislation must provide for fair and non-partisan election administration; and elections must be held regularly and decided by the freely cast votes of the majority.

These principles guarantee free and fair elections as an essential condition of election integrity. A free election depends on freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement, and freedom from fear. A fair election depends on a transparent electoral process, equitable electoral legislation and systems, equal opportunities for all participants, an independent and impartial elections commission, lack of intimidation, proper procedures, and acceptance of the electoral results. [1]

Election integrity depends on a commitment to abide by the democratic system of governance and the rule of law; channels for participation and complaints; an openness to change where it is needed; and acceptance of the official results of a free and fair election. The system protects the principles of electoral democracy and free and fair elections through its legal framework and institutional framework.

Ethical Conduct

Election integrity depends on ethical conduct by electoral administrators, election officers, candidates, parties and all participants in the electoral process. It implies that all participants should behave in a way that promotes a free and fair process, and that discourages conduct jeopardizing the integrity of the process. To achieve this, all participants must carry out their duties or roles in a professional, transparent and impartial manner. This means that public officials (including electoral administrators) must not use their position for personal or partisan benefit. It means that candidates and parties must not misuse campaign contributions. And it means that lobbyists must not use money or other incentives to improperly influence an electoral administrator or public official, and must disclose their funding and spending as required by law.

Ethical conduct also depends on respect for the political rights and activities of others; acceptance by citizens and electoral administrators that everyone has the right to freely debate political issues and promote different political viewpoints; and an understanding that no one has the right to interfere with political parties’ efforts to spread their message or with other citizens’ political activities.

Many systems have a code of conduct that sets out the behaviour required of all participants in an election.

Accuracy

Integrity problems are usually thought to result from dishonest or fraudulent practices, but they can also be the result of human error or an honest mistake. It is essential for election administration to be professional and accurate. Sloppy work or inaccuracies in totalling votes can raise serious integrity questions and compromise the validity of an election. The same checks-and-balances designed to limit power and ensure accountability can also help catch mistakes. Although a deliberate attempt to derail the process or manipulate election results would be treated as a criminal act, problems resulting from mistakes and inaccuracies usually remain an administrative or civil matter.

Integrity problems can also arise from weaknesses in the wording of laws or the design of systems. For example, laws and regulations delegate to election officers certain responsibilities for administering elections. Poorly worded provisions granting too much discretion to an individual officer would thereby create opportunities for abuse of power. By the same token, a poorly designed voter registration system could allow multiple registrations by dishonest persons or could raise barriers to registration for large segments of the eligible population. Outdated laws could also cause problems if they do not take into account modern technology and do not cover computer-based fraud.

Inaccuracies in defining legal and institutional frameworks, as well as in implementing and enforcing them, can inadvertently create many problems and encourage deliberate fraud.

Institutional Protections: Checks-and-Balances

Institutional protections based on checks-and-balances are widely used today to protect integrity and keep elections free and fair. To be effective, they must be part of the legal and institutional frameworks. They ensure that the various authorities inherent to the electoral process are divided among different bodies, providing a counterbalance to the electoral administration. The division of powers gives political parties, civil society and the media a role in the oversight of elections and the presentation of public reports.

Separation and limitation of powers are usually specified in the legal framework. For example, legal provisions can separate administration and enforcement of a law. They can also separate the powers of prosecuting authorities and courts that issue rulings. The powers associated with oversight responsibility can be delegated to a division of an inspector general’s department or an electoral court. These protections can also delegate authority for enforcing electoral law to the judicial system. Administrative regulations should clearly specify the delegation and limitation of authority for each division and staff position within the electoral system. This will ensure that electoral organizations are aware of the extent of their authority and know that a system is in place to keep election officers from exceeding their responsibilities.

When there is a division of electoral powers between several bodies, it is important to develop good coordination so that organizations work together without duplication of effort or conflicting approaches. It is also important to ensure that the public, politicians and parties are informed about the roles and responsibilities of each agency to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.

In New Zealand, for example, different institutions have responsibility for specific electoral tasks. The Chief Electoral Officer, an employee of the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for running the elections. The Electoral Enrolment Centre (part of the New Zealand Post Office) handles voter registration and voter list maintenance. The Electoral Commission is an independent body mandated to register political parties and their logos, inform the public about electoral matters, allocate public funds for campaign broadcasting, and receive campaign financing reports. The police are responsible for investigating breaches of electoral law and prosecuting offenders. The Representation Commission is an independent statutory body that determines electoral boundaries. A Parliamentary committee reviews election administration and recommends amendments to electoral legislation. [2]

In countries that are in transition or where there is no reliable judicial system, the only way to counter the influence of existing institutions may be by establishing an electoral commission with wide-ranging powers, similar to the Australian Electoral Commission.[3]

The Mexican electoral system, which underwent a series of reforms between 1990 and 1996, is a good example of effective electoral reform using separation of powers and a system of checks-and-balances. To limit the power of electoral administrators, the reformers set up a scheme of interlocking institutional constraints. Among other things, they drafted new electoral legislation, the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (COFIPE). They took the administration of elections out of the hands of the Ministry of the Interior and established a permanent, non-partisan and autonomous election management body, the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). They set up a judicial tribunal specifically to rule on electoral disputes. They drew up a list of electoral crimes and specified harsh penalties; a special prosecutor is responsible for enforcing the law. They revamped the register of electors and issued high-tech, high-security voter ID cards. And they established a party oversight regime, allowing political parties to monitor each step of the process. [4]

Oversight and Enforcement

To ensure a free and fair process, and to make administrators and participants accountable, the legal and institutional frameworks should provide for oversight and enforcement of election laws.

Continuous oversight of the process by internal and external mechanisms can locate problems in the system and identify the groups or individuals responsible.

Enforcement of legal and regulatory measures is essential to monitor the actions of personal and special interests, and to create the conditions for a free and fair election. Enforcement is a deterrent to those contemplating illegal or unethical behaviour, and it punishes those who have broken the law. An atmosphere of impunity and a lack of enforcement encourage a climate of corruption and mediocre performance. In a climate such as this, there is little incentive for electoral administrators, election officers or candidates to follow rules or play fair. Ongoing enforcement is an important priority in rooting out corruption from the election process, bringing those responsible to swift and sure justice, and maintaining a sense of trust in the system.

Transparency

Last, a system with integrity is transparent. Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood. It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption. Electoral administrators and election officers should be held accountable for decisions they make when administering elections; legislators should be held accountable for the content of the laws they pass and the level of funding allocated for elections; and candidates and political parties should be held accountable for their conduct and that of their supporters during the campaign.

Participants need to have access to all of the procedural information so that they can understand how the process works. Transparency, along with the public scrutiny that follows, usually requires electoral administrators and election officers to comply with the rules and be accountable for their actions.

Regular consultations between the policy-making bodies, the electoral management body and political players can help build a transparent electoral administration and a framework that is acceptable to the participants. Consultation is especially useful in countries that are in transition, where procedures are still being developed and candidates have concerns about the capacity of the electoral agency and policy bodies to organize and hold free and fair elections.

Transparency builds understanding of the process, the difficulties encountered, and why electoral administrators and election officers make certain decisions. Transparency increases the credibility of the process and the legitimacy of the results. If the electoral process is free and fair, accurate, transparent and monitored, and if laws and regulations are enforced, it is difficult for participants and voters not to accept the election results or the legitimacy of the newly elected representatives.

NOTES

[1] For more information on free, fair and democratic elections, see Elklit, Jorgen and Palle Svensson, “What Makes Elections Free and Fair?” Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997; Beetham, David, “Freedom as the Foundation,” Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 2004, p. 61-67; Inter-Parliamentary Union, Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections, 1994; European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report, 2002.

[2] Electoral Commission of New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Voting Under MMP, Wellington: GP Publications, 1996.

[3] Maley, Michael, Australian Electoral Commission, communication with Sue Nelson.

[4] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City: FLACSO, 1999.

Context of Electoral Integrity

General Context: Promotion of Free and Fair Elections

Globalization and advances in information technology have made it easier to observe elections. The rise of the media has made the entire world aware of questionable elections and has created a universal understanding of free and fair elections. New communications tools (e.g. the Internet, international television networks), trade and travel have enabled people in non democratic countries to learn about other political systems. Democracy has become a universal norm, and the principles of free and fair elections have become an international goal.

With moves toward democratization, elections have become an essential means of political participation for citizens. The downside is that the growing importance of elections has given rise to increasingly sophisticated and diversified electoral fraud. Some countries fight electoral fraud effectively; others are less successful. This is why the international community helps promote free and fair elections around the world.

A number of international organizations provide electoral assistance in many forms, including coordination of international observers and support for them, technical assistance and organization, holding of elections, and supervision and verification of the electoral process. The most important of these organizations are the United Nations (UN), the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

International election observation and technical assistance efforts have played a significant role in drawing international attention to the importance of electoral integrity. They have also contributed to increasing transparency and strengthening democratic norms.

Local Context: Social and Political Features

Even though the concept of free and fair elections has become an international norm, measures adopted to maintain electoral integrity need to be adapted to local conditions. What can be a serious problem requiring protective measures in one country might be insignificant in another and therefore not require the same degree of attention or protection. In particular, the type of governance and political culture will affect the nature and scope of election integrity issues, along with the effectiveness of the different measures for establishing and ensuring integrity.

• Type of governance

Each country has its own form of governance, shaped by its political, economic and cultural history. In a country with a history of governance based on the rule of law, where public officials are held accountable and procedures are transparent, the environment is usually conducive to the holding of free and fair elections. Breaches of electoral law can easily be identified and rectified, while criminal acts can be prosecuted through a working legal system.

In a country struggling with governance and rule of law issues, maintaining election integrity is much more difficult. The election management body and the political system will need to prove their institutional and administrative credibility. Keeping election policy and administration neutral, professional and transparent can be difficult and might require additional mechanisms, such as international technical assistance or the presence of long-term international observers. In the absence of credible legal and judicial systems, the election management body itself might have to be empowered to rule on complaints about the conduct of election officials, parties, candidates and others.

• Political culture

The political culture of a country can affect public perception of the electoral process and of what constitutes an integrity problem. Universal standards have been identified for free and fair elections, but the political culture can affect how the standards are interpreted. For example, ethical behaviour is a part of integrity, yet the definition of what is ethical may vary. In countries with deep social and political divisions, it may be difficult to agree on a national standard for integrity. This is why it is important to adopt an electoral policy suited to the political culture of the country when creating an electoral system. Ensuring election integrity is much easier when there is a national or general consensus on the rules of the game and the value of integrity.

The political culture also has an impact on the nature and intensity of citizen participation. Some countries have a history of mass action, such as demonstrations, requiring physical security measures to maintain integrity during campaign events or voting. In other countries public participation is peaceful, but the voter turnout is so low that it may cast doubts on the integrity of the election. In each case, the measures required to encourage and safeguard healthy participation need to be adjusted to fit the cultural circumstances.

Special Considerations in Countries in Transition

Special considerations are necessary in developing countries and countries undergoing a transition from authoritarian rule to a democratic system. In addition to security problems and a lack of trust connected with the transition, these countries often lack funds and require international assistance. Elections held under a peace agreement involve particular problems in maintaining integrity. Ensuring a transparent and honest electoral process in such circumstances can be more difficult than in countries where democracy has strong roots. However, several countries saw successful democratic transitions in the 1990s. A wave of democratization in Africa led to elections in Benin, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius and Senegal that observers pronounced free and fair. In Asia, Indonesia was a notable instance of a successful transition. In Latin America, Mexico instituted a major reform that laid the foundations for election integrity. East European countries adopted democratic practices in their transition from communism.

• Lack of funding and dependence on foreign aid

Some countries do not have sufficient resources to administer an election without foreign aid, and the result is that they may become dependent on this assistance. The percentage of donor funding for elections may vary according to the needs of the country and the degree of donor interest. A high percentage of foreign election funding, coupled with donor-imposed conditions on the use of the funds, may raise concerns about the integrity of the election process within a country.

Foreign donor funding may bring uncertainty, which can harm the integrity of the process. Even if donors pledge to cover the estimated costs, unexpected expenses can lead to shortfalls. Donor funding is also dependent on the funding cycles and regulations of each donor country. Funds may arrive late, forcing the electoral management body to scramble to cover start up and registration costs. If there are conditions that are not met, donor funds might never materialize.

• Possibility of conflict between stakeholders

The international community provides technical assistance to electoral management bodies in developing countries and countries in transition. Technical assistance plays a valuable role in helping inexperienced electoral officials understand what is required to maintain election integrity and transparency, and to ensure viable electoral systems. But if the different assistance groups disagree over procedures or choices to be made, technical assistance could create problems for new electoral administrators, fuelling conflicts and casting doubt on election integrity.

• Security

Security environment issues are another factor that can undermine election integrity. In developing countries and societies experiencing post-transition conflicts, physical safety can become a serious concern. Domestic observers who attempt independent monitoring may be threatened or, in extreme cases, injured or killed. In such cases, the presence of international observers may ensure greater safety for domestic observers.

• Lack of trust

Lack of trust is a major factor in countries where citizens have little confidence in government institutions or do not believe that political parties will follow the rules. The degree of distrust must be taken into account to determine what administrative and institutional structures are required for the elections, and what additional safeguards will be needed to protect the integrity of the process.

• Problems in keeping the peace

Elections held under a peace agreement usually follow a war and are part of the peace and reconciliation process. International assistance for the peace process is often generous. [1] If peacekeeping forces are required to maintain election integrity, other problems could arise. For example:

-  The electoral timetable, or at least the election date, is usually set in the peace accord after lengthy political negotiations. However, it is based on political demands rather than technical concerns, and it often specifies an unrealistically short time frame for election preparations.

-  In polarized societies, technical issues can turn into political standoffs, in some cases even freezing the process for months at a time.

-  Insecurity, including intimidation and human rights violations, discourages participation by voters and candidates. It also undermines electoral administration.

-  Displaced populations may not have time to return home to register and vote.

-  The second election after a transition can present challenges: international peacekeeping forces may have been withdrawn or scaled down, while insecurity and intimidation persist.

NOTES

[1] For more information, see Postconflict Elections, Democratization, and International Assistance, Kumar, Krishna, ed., Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998.

Cost Considerations

The cost of election integrity depends on the systems used and the extent of the safeguards required. The appropriateness of adopting certain integrity safeguards must be weighed against the potential risk to integrity at each stage of the electoral process. Elections lacking integrity will not be seen as credible, nor will the election results be viewed as legitimate. Sometimes candidates and voters are afraid to participate because of security threats. Sometimes apparent irregularities cast doubt on the election or on whether the outcome represented the will of the majority of voters. Having to organize re-run elections because of integrity problems can cost far more than adopting safeguards.

Electoral administrators and policy makers should determine whether it is worth the cost to adopt each of the mechanisms they are considering. They should ask themselves one question: How will the integrity of the electoral process be affected if we do not take this measure? [1]

Their assessment will differ according to the social and political context of the country concerned. In electoral systems characterized by high levels of distrust, extensive safeguards are usually adopted to ensure the integrity of the process and to reassure participants. The safeguards may involve high costs, but the extra expense can be justified if the result is a credible election accepted by the country. On the other hand, in established electoral systems where election procedures are routine and undisputed, the benefits of extra safeguards might not justify the additional cost.

Some integrity mechanisms may not require major outlays. For example, for effective planning and the development of good systems, all that is necessary is to make proper use of the time and skills of electoral professionals. The same is true for the internal control mechanisms that are part of any electoral management system.

Ensuring transparency and holding electoral administrators and election officers accountable for their actions are integrity safeguards that do not cost anything. Institutional protections based on a system of checks-and-balances are also crucial in maintaining integrity, and do not involve additional costs.

However, many election integrity safeguards are more expensive than these and require a cost-benefit analysis. What is the likelihood that the problem will actually occur and how would it affect the integrity of the election? How effective is the safeguard? Will it increase confidence in the integrity of the process? Will it increase the credibility of the process? Can we afford to adopt it and maintain it over time? Are there cheaper ways of achieving the same result? The following mechanisms are quite costly:

Suitable staff. Personnel costs are the largest expense in election administration. Risks mount if staff numbers are too low or if staff lack proper training.

Safeguards on electoral materials may also add to election costs. For example, it is more expensive to print serial numbers on ballot stubs, but they offer a simple and effective way of tracking ballots. Other mechanisms are more sophisticated but more expensive. It costs more to use watermarked security paper for ballots rather than ordinary paper. There may be fewer sources of supply for this kind of paper or other special materials, necessitating longer lead times.

The use of new technology can enhance integrity; examples are computerized inventories and registration lists with built in checking and control mechanisms. However, using new technology can sometimes create integrity risks; this could happen, for instance, if on-line voting becomes an option. New technology can be expensive, but the costs can be spread over a longer period if machines and software are used in subsequent elections. Technology suited to local conditions is usually cost-effective.

Equipment can be leased instead of purchased, reducing the risk of obsolescence. Equipment from other organizations can be used; in the 1999 election in Indonesia, a bank’s computer network was used for vote counting. In these circumstances, the integrity issues involved in using an outside system and staff must be considered. [2]

Adopting modern technology to improve integrity can be expensive in the short term because of the capital expenditure and training costs. In the long term, however, new technology can save money if it is effective.

Monitoring election integrity and enforcing legislation are key factors in maintaining integrity, and can also be costly. Nonetheless, monitoring can provide savings in the long run if it ensures acceptance of the election by all parties involved. Enforcement, investigation and prosecution can be costly, but they are effective in combatting corruption, ensuring the integrity of the process and helping to prevent future problems.

Voter education is another important integrity mechanism. But when funds are low, public education is one of the first programs to be dropped. Electoral administrators can find low-cost options for spreading information, such as negotiating free broadcasting time on radio or television, holding regular press conferences, and using non-governmental organizations to help convey critical messages to voters.

NOTES

[1] Harris, Paul, New Zealand Electoral Commission, communication with Sue Nelson.

[2] Ibid.

Principles of Electoral Integrity

The political and personal stakes are high in any election, and they can lead to many integrity problems, including unethical personal behaviour aimed at swaying the election result. Hence the need for a set of standards of good conduct—widely accepted ethical behaviour—to maintain election integrity. But standards of conduct alone are not enough. The process itself needs to be based on the principles and values inherent to a fair, equitable and competitive election. The most important value and principle is fairness; this fosters public trust in the electoral process and ensures that all electoral administrators, election officers and participants are held accountable for their actions.

Ethical Behaviour

Ethical behaviour is essential to election integrity. Ethics embodies the ideals we should strive for and how we should behave. Standards for ethical behaviour vary depending on the social and political context of each country. However, some common basic principles are required for free and fair elections.

Electoral administrators and others involved in election administration must adhere to their country’s constitution and laws, which provide the framework for their efforts. Electoral administrators and election officers must perform their duties for the public good, and must not use their position for personal or partisan gain.

Most electoral systems formalize principles of ethical behaviour in codes of conduct that spell out the details of the behaviour expected. Codes of conduct vary by system and country, but there are usually codes for political parties, lobbyists, the media and accredited observers.

The codes incorporated into the legal or regulatory framework have binding legal force. They specify penalties and sanctions for code violations. Other codes are standards of behaviour, which participants follow voluntarily. They are usually the outcome of negotiations between the stakeholders in the electoral process. The ethical conduct of voters is regulated by each country’s laws protecting persons and property; it is enforced through the justice system.

The following standards of ethical behaviour are usually expected during a free and fair election:

Standards for Electoral Administrators and Election Officers

• Uphold the constitution and abide by the legal framework, its rules and regulations.
• Maintain a neutral approach in performing the duties of office. This includes not giving any preferential treatment or displaying political party logos, symbols or colours.
• Do not accept anything of value (money, offers of employment, gifts, travel, etc.) in exchange for preferential treatment or access to official or non-public information.
• Do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, colour, religion, class, gender, national origin, age or disability.
• Hire staff for their professional skills, not their political affiliation.
• Use office facilities (time, space and equipment) to perform office duties, not for personal or partisan purposes.
• Do not pressure other officials or personnel to favour a particular candidate, and do not intimidate them from doing so.
• Disclose financial information on a regular basis, as required by law.
• Inform the appropriate authorities of cases of waste, fraud, abuse or corruption.

Standards for Political Parties and Candidates

• Abide by the legal framework and electoral regulations.
• Reject all violence, and do not incite supporters to violent or criminal behaviour.
• Respect the rights of other parties and avoid interfering with other campaigns. Refrain from negative campaigning and personal attacks on other candidates or their supporters.
• Respect the right of voters to obtain information. Do not pressure them to vote for a particular party or candidate, and do not intimidate them from doing so.
• Respect the right of the media to cover campaigns.
• Facilitate the work of domestic and international observers, and do not obstruct monitoring by other political parties.
• Abide by the official election results.

Standards for Lobbyists

• Abide by the legal framework and related regulations.
• Maintain a professional approach in dealings with other participants in the electoral process.
• Fully disclose funds spent during lobbying activities, as required by law.
• Reject all violence, harassment or intimidation directed toward other participants in the electoral process.
• Respect the right of voters to obtain political information. Do not pressure them to endorse or vote for a particular party or candidate, and do not intimidate them from doing so.
• Respect the right of the media to carry varied political reports on the campaign, and to present opposing opinions and advertisements.
• Accept the official election results.

Standards for Observers

• Respect the sovereignty of the country, its laws and its legal framework for elections.
• Obtain accreditation before entering electoral sites.
• Observe and monitor in a professional and neutral manner that will not disrupt the electoral process.
• Intervene only when a law or electoral procedure is being violated or ignored.
• Disclose the observation goals and objectives in reporting on all dealings with political actors, the public and the press.
• Report accurately and without exaggeration, after observing enough of the process and visiting sufficient electoral sites to ensure that the report is representative of the actual situation.
• Remain independent (non-partisan).

Standards for the Media

• Respect the laws of the country and the principles of freedom of the press.
• Ensure that voters have access to news about the electoral process.
• Provide accurate and balanced reports that substantiate published facts and figures, identify sources, and distinguish between fact and rumour.
• Label opinions as opinions, and limit them to the editorial or opinion pages.
• Avoid being manipulated by politicians, political parties or special interest groups.
• Do not accept gifts from newsmakers, politicians or others that might compromise journalistic integrity.
• Avoid bidding for stories or paying for information.
• Provide equal treatment to all political advertisers, including advertising access and rates.
• Clearly label advertising so that it is not confused with news.

Fair Process

Fairness is an essential component of election integrity. All participants must be treated equally, and integrity safeguards must apply to all participants and the entire process. This means following three basic standards:

• acceptable legal framework
• neutral administration
• equal treatment

Acceptable Legal Framework

A legal framework is the basis for the electoral system. To protect election integrity, the framework must safeguard the principles of a free, fair and competitive election. It must be non-partisan, and must fairly and impartially define the rights and authorities of all participants in the electoral process. It must provide for institutional mechanisms to protect electoral integrity (oversight, enforcement, and a system of checks-and-balances). The legal framework, with its laws and regulations, must guarantee equal treatment for all participants in the electoral process.

Clear and precise language helps ensure that the framework’s provisions are unambiguous and interpreted according to the spirit of the law. Many integrity problems can be avoided with an up-to-date legal framework that reflects current circumstances within a country—for example, a framework that requires electoral districts to be delineated according to the equality of votes principle.

Neutral Administration

The legal or institutional framework is only as good as its implementation. The electoral authorities are responsible for implementing the election process as prescribed by law. They must fulfill this responsibility impartially and objectively, without political interference.

A neutral administration treats all political parties and candidates equally without discrimination or favouritism. If the administration is seen as partisan, this perception can destroy public trust in the system.

Electoral systems may adopt various mechanisms to ensure a neutral administration. In countries where citizens trust the government to be impartial, it often administers elections itself. This is the case in France, Norway and Sweden, where electoral administration is entrusted to government officials at the national or local level. [1] Where there is a history of manipulation of the process, it may be appropriate to form an independent electoral commission, putting election administration beyond the ruling party’s influence. Several East European countries set up independent commissions in 1989-90, during their transition to democracy. [2] This approach helps build a sense of trust in the elections and confidence in their impartiality.

According to a number of election observation specialists, an independent electoral commission ensures a more accountable administration. Nonetheless, a commission cannot be protected from all political interference whatsoever. [3]

If persons recognized as impartial cannot be found, a solution is to ensure political balance by giving representatives of the different parties a role in administering the election. Their participation serves as one of the checks-and-balances on the government. Many systems combine the two approaches, that is, an independent commission and political balance. Some systems try to ensure the neutrality of the key electoral administrators by distancing them from politics. They may be appointed for a set number of years, with the government unable to remove them except through extraordinary measures, such as a judicial hearing. For example, the Election Commission of India is a permanent constitutional body. The President appoints the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Election Commissioners to serve six-year terms, or up to age 65. The Chief Electoral Commissioner can be removed from office only if impeached by Parliament.

Other systems bar the key electoral administrators from participating in politics. In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer are not allowed to vote in federal elections. Electoral administrators may also be required to give up political party positions while serving in an electoral management body.

Equal Treatment

Another component of a fair election is equal treatment, including equal opportunity and access. This means that all participants receive the same treatment from electoral administrators and election officers, and have the same opportunities to participate. All must have equal access to information, the media, electors, a genuine voter registration process, voting facilities and complaint mechanisms. A basic requirement for equality is that all parties must compete under equal conditions. Most countries have a number of major parties, and smaller ones must make extra efforts to get established and present their messages to voters. Larger and smaller parties have different levels of human and financial resources, as well as different organizational capacity and outreach strength. Even if there is equal opportunity, the inequality of resources may create a sense of unfairness.

NOTES

[1] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., Free and Fair Elections: International Law and Practice, Inter Parliamentary Union, 1994.

[2] Ibid.

[3] On the importance of independent electoral administration, see Elklit, Jorgen and Andrew Reynolds, “The Impact of Election Administration on the Legitimacy of Emerging Democracies,” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 40(2), 2002, p. 86-119; López-Pintor, Rafael, Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance, New York, New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2000; Mozaffar, Shaheen and Andreas Schedler, “The Comparative Study of Electoral Governance—Introduction,” International Political Science Review, 23(1), 2002, p. 5-27; Pastor, Robert A., “The Role of Electoral Administration in Democratic Transitions: Implications for Policy and Research,” Democratization, 6(4), 1999, p. 1-27.

Accountability

Accountability is another important aspect of election integrity. Elections are, after all, the means by which citizens hold their elected officials accountable. Electoral administrators and policy makers are accountable for the type of electoral process they design and administer.

The public needs to know whether government funds are being handled in accordance with laws and regulations, whether electoral agencies are achieving the expected results, and whether they are operating economically and efficiently.

Electoral administrators use public resources for public purposes and are accountable for the use of those funds. They are responsible for the decisions they make and the consequences of those decisions. They are responsible for election administration and the smooth functioning of elections. They must comply with all laws and regulations, and ensure that their systems are in compliance.

Accountability usually requires officers to report on their actions to official oversight agencies and the agency that provides funding. Accountability can be ensured by regular monitoring and through audits of financial and performance reports. Both help to assess the integrity and proper stewardship of the electoral management body.

Political parties, candidates and lobbyists are accountable for how they participate in the electoral process. Observers are accountable for how they observe and report.

A few countries grant immunity to elected or public officials. It may be advisable to review this approach in order to ensure that it does not conflict with accountability or undermine the integrity of the electoral process.

Legal Framework of Electoral Integrity

Election Integrity Legal Framework

The legal framework provides the foundation on which institutions are built. For election integrity issues, the legal framework is usually set out in a number of interrelated statutes supplemented by regulations.

In most cases the foundation is the constitution, that is, the supreme law of a country. Added to this is other legislation including electoral laws, penal codes and civil rights statutes, as well as regulations and codes of conduct/ethics issued by the different bodies responsible for elections.

The legal provisions contain guidelines for structuring the electoral administration and instructions for electoral administrators on managing elections. They specify the rights and responsibilities of political parties, the media, voters and other participants.

The legal framework authorizes the electoral management body to administer elections according to the structure specified in its provisions. It empowers political parties to raise funds and participate in elections in accordance with the legal provisions. It safeguards the political rights of voters and their right to elect their representatives within the government.

Foundations for Election Integrity

To ensure that election results accurately reflect the will of voters, the legal framework must protect the principles of free, fair and competitive elections. Constitutions entrench the political freedoms needed for competitive elections. Regulations ensure the fairness of the process, equality of opportunity and accountability of all participants. Codes of conduct help prevent unethical behaviour.

The legal framework can foster election integrity by creating safeguards along with enforcement measures. Among the safeguards are the separation and limitation of powers, systems of checks-and-balances, and enforcement of the law.

The legal framework may give powers to specific bodies for specific functions. It may, however, limit these powers by dividing them between different institutions subjected to a series of checks. For example, electoral administration may be separated from enforcement; or an electoral agency may be given the power to administer elections, and another body may be authorized to delineate the electoral districts or administer public funds for political parties. Checks may be provided by delegating to an oversight agency or office (e.g. an inspector general) responsibility for monitoring the administration of elections, identifying problems and recommending solutions.

It is important to carefully define delegated powers so that electoral authorities know the scope of their responsibilities. And to avoid abuse, it is essential to limit the delegated powers.

Enforcement is essential for protecting election integrity. The legal framework should establish mechanisms for imposing enforcement as needed, ensuring the accountability of electoral authorities and other participants in the electoral process, and deterring corrupt behaviour. Enforcement is usually the responsibility of the justice system, the police, the courts and the prisons.

In newer democracies, rules on holding free and fair elections are still evolving. In those cases, it is important to include the basic principles in the legal framework. In countries in transition from authoritarianism to democracy, “the challenge is to negotiate electoral rules that all parties can accept and respect.” [1] Once the basic legal framework setting out these rules is in place, work can start on developing the institutional and administrative frameworks for the electoral process.

A reform of the legal framework for other purposes can be used to bring integrity back into the electoral process. This was the case in Mexico, where legal reform led to genuine democratic change. A new institutional framework and new modes of participation were created. The institutions then established procedures and operating methods that reinforced the election integrity provisions in the new legislation. [2]

In most countries, the legal framework for elections has evolved into a complex combination of statutes, regulations, judicial rulings and actual practice. Some election laws may be new and up to date, while others are outmoded but still in force. For integrity purposes, it is important periodically to review the entire legal picture in order to understand the legal framework and determine whether changes are needed.

In every case, conflict must be avoided between the various provisions in statutes and regulations. Electoral policy makers and administrators must understand how the different legal and administrative pieces fit together, providing a consistent legal framework for promoting and protecting election integrity. For example, do the penal codes cover election fraud that is criminal in nature? In a federal system, who has jurisdiction over electoral corruption—the national or state governments? Could a crime go undetected or unpunished because of a gap in the legal or administrative framework? Whether designing a new system or revising an existing one, electoral administrators and policy makers need to take a comprehensive look at all of the different laws, regulations and procedures that work to protect election integrity. Gaps, errors and conflicts in statutes or regulations must be identified and corrected.

NOTES

[1] Pastor, Robert A., “Mediating Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 9(1), 1998, p. 160. [2] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City: FLACSO, 1999.

Constitution

A constitution is the supreme law of any country. It provides the legal framework for the government, designates the powers and duties of the branches of government or governmental agencies, and establishes the relationship between the people and the government. It enunciates the basic rights and obligations of citizens, and usually sets out the framework for the country’s electoral system.

To promote election integrity, the constitution may entrench the principle of universal suffrage, set the frequency of elections and specify the basic eligibility criteria for the major elected offices. The drafters of the constitution should take into consideration the capacity and conditions of the country. For example, an overly short interval between elections can be burdensome for some less developed countries. In countries emerging from internal conflict, a proportional representation system might allow for better power-sharing than a winner-take-all system. A constitution may entrench the basic political freedoms needed for competitive elections, such as freedom of speech, assembly, movement and the press. It may enable political actors to organize for the purpose of running for office, or to support interest groups.

A constitution may authorize institutions to undertake specific electoral functions. For example, it may authorize a government institution or an independent commission to administer elections, and may assign enforcement powers to the judicial system or a specific electoral court.

Legislation

Laws are usually enacted by the legislative branch of government, and are enforced by the police and the courts. A number of interrelated laws may support election integrity. There may be a specific election statute, along with legislation to enforce the law. There may be criminal codes for punishing illegal activity, and civil laws that deal with defamation of character and other acts causing personal harm.

In countries with a federal system of government, an added complication is that there are both local and national laws. The end result can be a maze of legislation with perhaps conflicting provisions. Laws must not be vague or too broad, or open to differing interpretations. Disputes arising out of conflicting laws can be settled only in court.

The legislative branch of government is usually responsible for establishing all the institutions and passing the laws required to implement the country’s constitution. For example, the constitution may provide for a system of local government. Legislative provisions must be adopted authorizing the electoral administration to hold elections for these offices. Other provisions are needed to govern local bodies; otherwise, the elected officials will have no authority.

For election integrity, laws must be adopted safeguarding the principles of free, fair and competitive elections. The laws must be updated regularly to keep pace with political and technological changes in the country.

In New Zealand, the Electoral Law Committee provides the needed flexibility. The committee is appointed by each new Parliament to consider electoral matters. After a general election, the committee examines administrative and legal aspects of the election. It reviews reports from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Ministry of Justice and the Electoral Enrolment Centre, as well as public comments. It then makes recommendations to Parliament, proposing revisions to the electoral law. [1]

Electoral Law

In place of a series of statutes, many countries have adopted a comprehensive national election law, which covers most aspects of the electoral process. Among these are: the mandates of the electoral policy and management bodies; the timetable for elections; voter eligibility criteria; candidate and political party registration; principles for polling and vote counting; oversight mechanisms; and penalties for violations of the law. The legislation also sets out the procedures and mechanisms for dealing with complaints and disputes regarding the electoral process.

Systems that have a single, comprehensive election law minimize the risk of integrity issues stemming from possible conflicts between different pieces of legislation. If there is a single statute, the enforcement mechanisms for upholding the law can be set out within that law, specifying the responsibilities of the electoral policy or management bodies, the courts, and other enforcement agencies.

Applicable Penal Laws

Election integrity issues that involve fraud, corruption or violence usually fall under the criminal codes of each country. The codes cover actions that go beyond election-specific problems and instead have to do with maintaining law and order, or fighting fraud and corruption in general. Some criminal codes may contain laws that deal directly with electoral fraud and corruption; examples are provisions regulating campaign financing, barring efforts to bribe voters, or limiting financial contributions to campaigns.

It is important to see that penal codes have provisions dealing with electoral law violations and that criminal offences do not go unpunished because of omissions in a code. This need was recognized in the recent electoral reforms in Mexico: a special prosecutor’s office was created, with responsibility for ensuring that the country’s penal codes cover criminal acts related to elections. [2]

Civil Rights Laws

Some countries have adopted civil rights laws to protect voter rights and prevent discrimination. Supplementing provisions that safeguard political rights, these laws target specific areas of discrimination, or arbitrary treatment of minorities or other groups by government or individuals.

In the United States, for example, Congress passed a series of civil rights acts to eliminate racial discrimination. The legislation outlawed arbitrary discrimination in voter registration and created a commission to investigate civil rights issues. In addition, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act; this banned restrictions that had been used to prevent electors belonging to certain minority groups from exercising their right to vote. [3]

NOTES

[1] Electoral Commission of New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Voting Under MMP, Wellington: GP Publications, 1996.

[2] Saldana, Agustin Ricoy, “Electoral Offenses (Mexico),” paper presented to the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, Washington, D.C., May 8-10, 1996, published by International Foundation for Election Systems, p. 10.

[3] Plano, Jack and Milton Greenburg, The American Political Dictionary, 8th edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1989, p. 108.

Regulations

Regulations are sets of procedures and rules that institutions adopt to carry out the responsibilities given to them by the legal framework. Generally, executive agencies or ministries have the power to issue regulations without legislative action. The regulations describe how election administration operates.

Electoral policy and management bodies are authorized by the constitution or applicable electoral laws to issue electoral regulations. The regulations govern how elections should be conducted and how political parties competing in the elections should behave. Regulations, issued by these or other election-related bodies, also apply to other aspects of an election, such as the media, campaign financing and lobbyist registration.

For free and fair elections, regulations should follow the same principles of integrity found in the Principles and Guiding Principles. To be effective, regulations must be clear and equitable, and must minimize restrictions on the political freedoms of candidates and voters. Good regulations can help ensure a fair process, equality of opportunity and the accountability of all participants. Since regulations are issued by an agency, they are easier to change than legislation and provide electoral administrators with tools for dealing with integrity problems as they arise.

Regulations are similar to legislation. They authorize election officers to act with complete independence in performing certain tasks, but they also limit the officers’ freedom of action. It is necessary to monitor compliance with regulations and their enforcement. This helps ensure the accountability of election officers and others involved in administering the electoral process. The penalties and sanctions for non-compliance are usually set by the regulations. They may range from fines to imprisonment, depending on the offence.

Decrees

Some systems allow the government to issue decrees on electoral matters. Decrees are similar to regulations in that they are executive branch orders having the force of law. In Argentina, for example, a presidential decree in 1997 created a National Office of Public Ethics within the Office of the President. The office was mandated to develop national rules of public ethics and to monitor their enforcement. [1]

NOTES

[1] Office of the President, Official Bulletin, No. 28,590, 1st Section, February 20, 1997, Argentina.

Codes of Conduct

A code of conduct is usually a set of written rules that govern the conduct of public officials, such as election officers. Some electoral systems have codes of conduct for political parties, candidates and lobby groups. Codes are designed to prevent unethical behaviour; if binding, they can hold individuals and entities legally accountable for their actions.

A code of conduct can be a stand-alone document or part of broader legislation. For example, in the U.S. state of Wyoming, the Ethics and Disclosure Act is part of legislation on public service, and Wyoming public officials and election officers are required to comply with it. In South Africa, the code of conduct for election officers is a regulation designed specifically for elections.

Codes of conduct that are entrenched in legislation or regulations are enforced and may set sanctions and penalties for violations—for example, a fine, suspension from office or disqualification as a candidate. Violations of the code that involve criminal acts are referred to the criminal justice system.

In India, political parties and candidates are required to abide by a code of conduct that was issued by the Election Commission, based on a consensus of the political parties. The code sets out broad guidelines on how political parties and candidates should conduct themselves during a campaign:

It is intended to maintain the election campaign on healthy lines, avoid clashes and conflicts between political parties or their supporters and to ensure peace and order during the campaign period and thereafter, until the results are declared. The model code also prescribes guidelines for the ruling party, either at the Centre or in the State, to ensure that a level field is maintained and that no cause is given for any complaint that the ruling party has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign. [1]

NOTES

[1] Election Commission of India, The Electoral System of India.

Institutional Framework of Electoral Integrity

Election Integrity Institutional Framework

The election integrity framework is built on the institutional foundations set out in the legal framework. It is composed of a number of agencies and organizations.

The main institutional players in an election are:

• those responsible for election policy and administration – that is, the electoral policy body and the electoral management body
• oversight agencies
• political party organizations and candidates competing in elections
• groups that attempt to influence the election outcome
• independent observers of the process
• the press
• enforcement agencies, including investigating agencies, prosecutors and the courts

The roles of these institutions in maintaining election integrity are discussed in each of the following subsections.

It is important for the roles of each institution to be clearly defined in the legal framework. In addition, separation of powers and a rational checks-and-balances system can help maintain integrity. As discussed in Guiding Principles, for instance, if an electoral management body is given too many roles—such as drafting electoral legislation, applying and enforcing the law, and then acting as a court of last resort for electoral matters—there are few institutional checks on its actions.

Institutional arrangements and agreement on these structures are important factors contributing to election integrity. One of the primary institutional questions is whether or not to have independent electoral policy and management bodies. In countries in transition with a history of one-party domination or authoritarian government, the creation of an independent electoral commission today is widely viewed as a vital measure to ensure impartial administration of elections and to win the trust of voters and parties. [1]

If the main political and civil society players agree on the type of institutional framework to be adopted, the result will be a more credible election body. Without agreement, discontent and distrust can at once spring up and continue to fester throughout the process.

Whether the institutional system adopted is “balanced” through inclusion of political party representatives, or whether it is officially independent or part of a government institution, it must have the political and financial autonomy necessary to administer a free, fair and competitive election. It must also be capable of ensuring that all political parties and candidates can participate equally and fairly.

NOTES

[1] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. Free and Fair Elections: International Law and Practice, Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1994.

Electoral Policy Body

An electoral policy body is responsible for developing both policies of principle and decision-making policies regarding the conduct of elections. The scope of its mandate will vary in different countries, but each must make policy decisions relating to the administration of elections. In some cases, an electoral policy body is also responsible for drafting electoral legislation and providing electoral oversight.

Various players may be involved in the policy- and decision-making process. For instance, if the mandate lies with Parliament, the electoral policy body may recommend legislative provisions and may help draft legislation. Electors, the media and other participants in the electoral process may also contribute by making known the values and principles that matter to them.

The electoral policy body’s role in protecting election integrity includes:

Adopting policies that protect election integrity

The electoral policy body must be able to fulfill its primary role in an independent and non-partisan manner. It must deal with questions concerning integrity policy.

• Are the elections competitive and free?
• Are the dates set by the electoral calendar reasonable?
• Do the legal and institutional frameworks guarantee equal treatment and equal opportunity?
• Are electors able to register and vote freely without problem?
• Are all the votes that have been cast counted correctly and reflected in the official results?
• Are political parties able to register and participate in elections? Are they free to campaign and get their message out?
• Do all parties and candidates have equal access to the media?
• Are electoral districts delineated fairly?
• Is the formula for distributing public resources (e.g. free broadcasting time or public funding for campaigns) fair and implemented honestly?

Drafting electoral legislation that protects election integrity

If the electoral policy body is also responsible for drafting laws, it must ensure that any legislation includes provisions for protecting election integrity. Among other things, legislation should specify the role and mandate of each institution involved, the powers it will have to fulfill its role, and the control mechanisms to which it is subject at each stage of the process.

Providing oversight to ensure that integrity mechanisms function correctly

When the electoral policy body is also responsible for acting as an oversight body, it must ensure that the election process is conducted in a neutral and transparent manner, and that the results are an accurate and faithful expression of the will of the voters. It may also ensure that public resources provided for the holding of elections are sufficient and used properly, and that election officers are held accountable for the way they manage funds, conduct the election and administer the process.

Electoral Management Body

The electoral management body is responsible for administering elections. It must honestly and impartially implement the procedures specified in the legal framework. This involves dealing with technical issues and making decisions. In some cases, it must also draft electoral regulations, and it usually develops procedures for voter and candidate registration, voting, and vote counting.

To fulfill its primary role of holding free, fair and reliable elections, an electoral management body must carry out the following tasks.

Administer the process in accordance with the law

Electoral administrators are supposed to administer the process impartially and according to the legal requirements. Laws are designed to protect citizens’ rights and the basic principles of a free and fair election, as well as to limit the discretionary power of administrators. The laws must be upheld and the election body must be accountable for following them. If there is a problem with the law, the electoral management body must bring it to the attention of the proper authorities for correction rather than selectively implementing the law, which can lead to serious integrity problems. For example, in the 1998 election in Cambodia, [1] the country’s electoral management body did not comply with all legal provisions, thereby undermining many of the safeguards that had been built into the law (e.g. the complaints procedure).

Maintain a professional, neutral and transparent administration

Professional and transparent administration of the process is essential for free and fair elections. Decision making and operations should be as accurate and transparent as possible. The electoral management body must also be perceived as neutral; otherwise, it will have no credibility. To avoid the perception of favouring a particular outcome, the administration must be transparent and must provide as much information as possible in a timely fashion to political parties, the media and the public.

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has developed a model code of conduct for electoral administrators [2] to help them maintain election integrity.

Adopt procedures to protect the integrity of its operations

The internal management and operational procedures adopted by the electoral management body have a significant impact on the integrity of the process. The procedures must be written down and systematically made available to the public. The procedures usually cover every aspect of electoral administration, including election management, internal management, recruitment and supervision, and operating procedures, including rules for procurement. For a more detailed discussion of mechanisms to protect integrity at every stage of administering an election, see Integrity in Election Administration.

Identify and assess integrity risks, and take corrective action where necessary

Internal management and operational procedures should have mechanisms for identifying integrity risks, assessing the risks involved, and ensuring that the proper persons or oversight agencies are contacted and corrective action is taken at once. The electoral management body needs to ensure it also has a mechanism for receiving and dealing with complaints made by political parties, observers or oversight agencies. This is an important factor contributing to the integrity of the system and promoting accountability on the part of administrators and participants.

Promote voter awareness of electoral integrity issues

As far as possible, the electoral management body should provide information to citizens about the electoral system, the mechanisms safeguarding its integrity and the need for citizens to take an active role in the protection of their electoral process. Information may be distributed through press briefings, voter education programs and civic education programs in schools.

NOTES

[1] Neou, Kassie and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999, p. 152.

[2] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Code of Conduct for the Ethical and Professional Administration of Elections, 1997.

Oversight Agencies

Oversight of the electoral process is an important way of safeguarding integrity. In most electoral systems, a particular agency is mandated to oversee the electoral process. This agency may be located within the electoral management or policy body, or in a separate institution, such as an auditor general’s office or an independent commission. In Canada the Commissioner of Canada Elections bears this responsibility; in Mexico the Federal Electoral Tribunal has the same role. Official oversight plays an important part in checking that election integrity is maintained. However, it is important to ensure that oversight is non-partisan and is used only to enhance integrity, not to obstruct or manipulate the process.

Oversight agencies may look for integrity problems in:

• election administration and management;
• voter and candidate registration;
• election campaigns and candidates’ financing;
• voting and vote counting.

Oversight agencies may provide routine oversight of the electoral process or undertake investigations when formal complaints are made. To be effective, oversight agencies may need to have:

• freedom to decide what must be reviewed;
• access to information needed for reviews;
• the ability to publish review findings and recommendations without censorship or political interference;
• no personal or institutional stake in the outcome of the electoral oversight.

To protect election integrity, oversight agencies have the following tasks.

Provide independent oversight of the electoral process

This must be done through:

• ongoing, non-partisan monitoring of the electoral administration to check that objectives are met, resources are protected, laws and regulations are followed, and mechanisms are in place to safeguard the process and its assets;
• regular, independent and objective auditing of the electoral administration and financial operations—plus specific audits and investigations conducted as needed to deal with complaints or concerns identified during routine monitoring; and
• independent assessment of the performance of the electoral administration in order to obtain information needed for improving public accountability and facilitating decision making and corrective action.

Audit compliance with legislation and regulations

Oversight agencies review electoral and administrative policy to check compliance with legal requirements. They also check whether the administration complies with performance requirements and submits financial reports as stipulated by law. These measures promote accountability on the part of the electoral administration.

In Canada, for example, the objective of the oversight officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, is “to assist in maintaining the confidence of the public in the fairness of the electoral process by seeking compliance with the Act and the resolution of contraventions through remedial rather than punitive measures, where appropriate, and by enforcing the Act through injunctions or the authorization of prosecutions when that is in the public interest.” [1]

Detect and prevent problems, including corruption, abuse of power and discriminatory practices

Oversight agencies promote the effective and economic use of administrative assets and systems; they seek to detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse. They may review legislation and regulations, and make recommendations regarding the impact of these on economy and effectiveness in the electoral administration and operations. They may recommend policies to promote economy, or to detect and prevent fraud and abuse.

Depending on the agency’s mandate, oversight may deal with such issues as misconduct by election officers, vote buying, election fraud, obstruction of justice and other breaches of public trust related to elections.

Promote transparency and credibility of the election process

Public access to oversight reports makes the election process more transparent, and builds the credibility and legitimacy of the results. The public must be able to check whether the decisions made by the electoral management body comply with procedures and legislation, and whether they discourage discrimination, fraud and abuse.

Oversight reporting highlights problems stemming from programs and operations, and brings them to the attention of the electoral management body and principal electoral administrators, as well as all others with a need to know (such as Parliamentary oversight committees and parliamentarians).

In countries in transition, confidence in the process can be bolstered and voter turnout can be increased with the help of oversight by a neutral and professional mechanism that has gained the trust of political parties and electoral administrators through its objective work.

Ensure compliance with the legal framework

Oversight agencies may play the same role as enforcement agencies if they have the power to determine accountability for actions, as well as punitive powers. The actual enforcement power of an oversight agency depends on its mandate but may include imposing sanctions, such as fines or suspensions, on violators. In serious cases, the oversight agency may recommend termination of employment or refer the matter to the criminal justice system for prosecution.

Monitor compliance with codes of ethics

Some electoral systems have oversight committees that monitor the conduct of electoral administrators and candidates. These committees or agencies may be citizen bodies or a government office/inspector. They monitor the enforcement of codes of ethics included in the electoral system.

The U.S. city of Seattle, for example, has created an Ethics and Elections Commission. This citizen body interprets, administers and enforces the Seattle Elections Code, Code of Ethics and other related codes. It investigates complaints received about code violations, and can settle a complaint either directly with the employee or through a public hearing. The Commission can set sanctions for any violation but it has no disciplinary powers. It can only recommend disciplinary action to the employer, which may then report back on the action taken.

NOTES

[1] Elections Canada, Investigators' Manual, 2004, p. 5.

Political Party Organizations

Political parties set out their platforms and select candidates to represent them in elections. They compete in elections to win the support of voters. They provide balance in safeguarding election integrity by working to ensure that other parties or candidates do not abuse the process, manipulate the election results or receive preferential treatment. Their vigilance plays an important role in maintaining an honest electoral process.

Positive Effect on Integrity

To ensure that their political interests are protected, political parties and candidates can observe the electoral process. Most political parties closely monitor the entire process, including how the election management body is established, how candidate and voter registration is conducted, how other candidates and parties campaign, how voting and vote counting proceed, and how results are announced. This enables them to identify cheating, discrimination or other deviations from the regulations. Monitors usually have authority to intervene in the process if they believe laws or regulations are not being followed. Sometimes they may certify election documents (e.g. vote tallies) with their signatures. If they find they are not allowed equal access to the process, they can file a complaint with the electoral body; this helps electoral administrators or policy bodies to identify problems and increase the credibility and transparency of the process.

Through monitoring, political parties and candidates play a checks-and-balances role throughout the election process. Reports that bring to light a large number of irregularities may spark public debate and trigger public support for electoral reforms or corrective measures. Positive reports may allay public concerns about integrity issues and foster public trust in the system.

Negative Effect on Integrity

However, because they have a stake in the outcome of elections and compete with each other during campaigns, political parties and candidates may also give rise to integrity problems. They may attempt to bypass the system or use unethical methods to win an election or challenge the election results. For example, a dominant party may monopolize the media and receive preferential media treatment. A ruling party may misuse government resources for campaign purposes. Smaller parties might boycott the process, claiming it was not fair or above-board.

This is why some electoral systems use a code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of political parties, candidates and their supporters during an election. Codes of conduct should be adapted to the special circumstances of each electoral system. In older democracies, where campaign financing may be an issue, ethical codes contain detailed instructions on what should and should not be done during campaigns. In countries in transition, the codes focus mainly on ruling out the use of violence and promoting acceptance of election results.

Code of Conduct for Political Parties

Voluntary Code of Conduct

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has developed a model Code of Conduct for Political Parties Campaigning in Democratic Elections. This voluntary code establishes ground rules for ethical behaviour. It can be applied to political parties and candidates around the world.

Mandatory Code of Conduct

Some electoral systems adopt a mandatory code of conduct that all parties and candidates must follow if they are competing in elections. Such a code may form part of the legal or regulatory framework, and violators may be subject to administrative and legal sanctions. A candidate who fails to comply could be disqualified and face legal action.

An example of a code for a country in transition is the 1995 South African Electoral Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The Code is binding on any party, candidate or party representative submitting an application to compete in elections. The following is a summary of the Code:

• Publicly condemn violence and intimidation.
• Do not engage in violence or intimidation, or in language or action that might lead to violence or intimidation.
• Do not allow weapons to be carried at political meetings, marches, demonstrations, voting stations, etc.
• Do not publish or repeat false, defamatory or inflammatory allegations about political opponents.
• Cooperate with other political parties to avoid holding political activities at the same time and place.
• Do not prevent eligible voters from having access to political opponents.
• Do not destroy, disfigure or remove other political parties’ campaign materials.
• Do not plagiarize other political parties’ symbols, colours or acronyms.
• Do not try to bribe eligible voters.
• Do not abuse positions of power, influence or privilege.
• Do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, social class or religion.
• Facilitate equal participation for women, and their access to political activities and to voting.
• Cooperate with the electoral authorities in investigating issues and allegations in connection with the election.
• Take all reasonable steps to protect election officers, voter registration officers and their representatives from insult, hazard or threat in the course of their official duties.
• Reassure voters that the secrecy and integrity of the ballot will be maintained, and that no one will know how any other person has voted.
• Take necessary and reasonable steps to instill discipline in party/candidate representatives, employees or supporters, and guide them to follow the Code, comply with laws and regulations, commit no election irregularities, and adhere to election regulations.
• Establish and maintain communication with the government, voter registration officers, returning officers and election committees, and with parties and candidates at provincial and local level. This includes exchanging names, addresses and telephone/fax numbers of their agents, supervisors and representatives. [1]

NOTES

[1] Electoral Commission of South Africa, “Electoral Code of Conduct for Political Parties,” Election Administration Manual of South Africa, 1995, Ch. 5, p. 29.

Interest Group Organizations

Interest groups are not directly involved in electoral contests. Their purpose is to influence public policy and the election results. These groups may be interested in a particular election issue, or in a candidate or political party sharing their views. Groups vary in size, resources, power and objectives, but all use the same methods to influence public opinion and promote their position—including lobbying, campaigning, advertising through the mass media, and providing information to candidates, lawmakers and policy makers.

This section discusses interest groups that champion personal, economic or material interests. Public interest groups that act on behalf of the public are discussed in Non-Governmental Organizations.

Interest groups may play a positive role in maintaining election integrity since they monitor the process to ensure that opposing interests do not receive preferential treatment. However, the vast amount of money that interest groups today spend to sway public opinion raises many integrity issues. These are discussed in greater depth in Campaign Financing.

Most interest groups hire professional lobbyists who focus on promoting the priorities of the group that hired them; these do not necessarily coincide with the public interest. Lobbyists spend money to influence decision makers; they also help candidates and parties supporting their views to win election. Lobbyists may entertain candidates and policy makers at expensive restaurants or weekend getaways. They may use money to place advertisements in the media supporting a particular campaign or position.

The amount of money spent and how it is spent can raise concerns that interest groups are buying influence and special treatment. As a result, most countries require interest groups to register and disclose their activities and spending.

Although interest groups may be highly partisan and interested solely in promoting their own priorities, they must still abide by the same standards of ethical conduct as other participants in the electoral process.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Some interest groups are non-profit organizations—referred to here as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—that work on the public’s behalf to improve the quality of elections and the democratic process. NGOs act as independent observers.

During elections, these groups’ observation and reporting activities help make the process more transparent. NGOs may increase the transparency of campaign financing by closely monitoring and publicly reporting on contributions and spending. They may undertake voter education programs and help distribute election information. They may lobby policy makers and electoral administrators for better policies and electoral legislation protecting individual rights and freedoms, or for stricter legislation on campaign financing.

Independent Observers

Independent observers play an important part in maintaining election integrity. Whether domestic or international, these observers objectively monitor the process. Since their interest is to ensure that elections are fair and above-board, they must not take a position on election issues. As a matter of principle, they must provide objective reporting.

Observing an election involves closely monitoring the process, gathering information on how the event unfolds and making an overall assessment of the election. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has identified several roles for observers, including:

• legitimizing the election process;
• building confidence;
• improving the prospects for democratization;
• enhancing the electoral process; and
• reducing or preventing conflict. [1]

National Observation

A wide variety of non-governmental organizations and other organized civil society groups act as domestic monitors. Active monitoring by domestic observers provides feedback to electoral administrators and policy makers about problems encountered. This allows for corrections to be made during the process, when there is still time to act. As a result, active monitoring can be more effective in maintaining election integrity than passive monitoring, which simply produces a report after the process is over, without any interaction with electoral administrators. By highlighting an integrity issue when it is first observed, monitors allow for the problem to be corrected before it undermines the electoral process.

National observers can promote free and fair elections. They perform the following tasks:

• Detect and deter integrity problems by closely monitoring the process, and draw attention to any irregularity or integrity problem observed.
• Increase transparency by publicly reporting on the process, identifying problems and assessing their impact on the election results.
• Assess the integrity of the election. In newer democracies, this may mean assessing whether elections were “acceptable” or “free and fair,” and whether the results reflect the will of the voters. In older democracies, domestic monitoring tends to focus on how money from interest groups influences the quality of the electoral campaign, rather than how elections are conducted.
• Recommend procedural or policy changes to improve election integrity.

International Observation

International observers serve as monitors in countries that receive international donor assistance for elections, and countries undergoing a democratic transition. International observation is performed by many different organizations, particularly the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, IFES, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

International observation can perform the following tasks:

• Identify problems and bring them to the attention of the election management or policy-making body.
• Ensure action to rectify and follow up on problems, and see that this action is a condition for donor funding.
• Issue observation reports that contribute to the credibility and legitimacy of the process.
• Help bolster voter confidence, thereby increasing the number of eligible voters who register and cast ballots.
• Facilitate the work of domestic monitors by asking the hard questions that they hesitate to ask.
• Provide reassurance to domestic monitors facing intimidation or other security problems.
• Through their presence and attention, act as a deterrent to those wishing to subvert the system.

International observation that is not impartial or balanced can create integrity problems.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Code of Conduct for the Ethical and Professional Observation of Elections, 1997.

Media

The free flow of information is essential to a free and fair election. The media disseminate election information and play several roles that may affect election integrity. On one hand, journalists monitor elections. They may act as national or international election observers. They may uncover election-related fraud and corruption, and provide information to the public. Their work adds transparency to the process, thus helping to safeguard election integrity. On the other hand, incorrect or biased reporting may distort the truth, give the public an unfair perception of a candidate or the process, and thereby undermine election integrity. Such actions are inconsistent with the media’s primary responsibility to objectively inform the public.

Media Oversight of the Electoral Process

The media safeguard election integrity by uncovering fraud and corruption, and reporting irregularities in the electoral process. They help to ensure that decision-makers are accountable for their actions, and also help to deter unethical or illegal conduct.

Transparency works to improve the system since defects, problems or other weaknesses are detected and made public; this forces electoral administrators or policy makers to take correction action.

Responsibility to Provide Fair and Balanced Reporting

Voters learn about the electoral process from media coverage of elections, candidates and their platforms, as much as they do from political advertisements in the media. Given the power of the media to reach voters and citizens’ faith in what they read in the newspapers, hear on radio or see on television, the media have a responsibility to the public. They must offer fair and balanced reporting, and ensure that everyone is treated equally. If they do not, the media pose a serious threat to electoral integrity.

• Inaccurate reporting may give voters and policy makers the wrong impression. This may happen if the media carry false statements, use facts selectively or simply do not meet professional standards—for example, if they do not check information sources or report rumour as fact.
• Irresponsible reporting may be deliberate. The press may seek to sway public opinion through the stories it covers and the tone it uses. It may stir up nationalist sentiment by targeting recent immigrants or a particular political party. It may destroy a candidate’s credibility through unsubstantiated allegations of illegal or unethical activities.
• Biased media may give preferential treatment to large advertisers. Most political parties, candidates and interest groups use paid advertising in the media. The advertisements earn money for the media, and that can undermine the principle of equal treatment for all. Also, journalists may show their political preference by favouring a particular party.

To lessen the danger that inappropriate reporting will compromise the integrity of the electoral process, media practices may be regulated by law. For example, France, Italy, South Africa and Canada place various legal restrictions on the publication of election-related opinion polls. In addition, the media’s obligation to provide fair, accurate and balanced reporting is entrenched in law in a number of countries. Newspaper or broadcasting companies usually insert a code of conduct in the employment contract that their journalists sign.

Media Code of Conduct

The following are principles of ethical behaviour for the media, based on the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, [1] the Associated Press Managing Editors’ Statement of Ethical Principles [2] and Gannett Newspaper Division’s Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms. [3]

Report the truth

• Be a watchdog of the political and electoral process.
• Ensure accurate, balanced and impartial coverage of the news. Make sure the news content is substantiated, accurate, complete and in context.
• Do not make assumptions. Check facts, and make a good-faith effort before publication to get comments from the persons or organizations involved.
• Seek solutions along with exposing problems and corruption.
• Use neutral words to ensure impartial, dispassionate reporting. Be careful with technical terms, statistics, estimates and election results. Be careful with headlines and make sure they reflect the facts of the story.
• Avoid inflaming emotions over controversial issues.
• Label opinions and personal interpretations as such, and limit opinions and editorials to the editorial pages.
• Label advertising clearly so it is not confused with the news.
• Be honest and fair in the way the news is gathered, reported and presented. Do not lie or fabricate. Do not pretend to be a police officer, public official or anyone other than a journalist in pursuing a story. Do not plagiarize. Do not alter photographs or graphics to mislead the public.

Minimize harm

• Be transparent and honest with the reader.
• Act honourably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and colleagues.
• Do not expose the private life of a private citizen without reason.
• Be sensitive when interviewing, and recognize that gathering news can cause harm or discomfort.
• Respect the rights of persons involved in the news. Observe common standards of decency, and treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.
• Balance the right of an accused person to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.

Act independently

• Avoid conflict of interest by refusing to accept gifts, favours or other benefits from anyone being covered in an article or from newsmakers, politicians or other journalists.
• Avoid being influenced by advertisers on the content of your reporting.
• Do not give favourable rates to one political advertiser and not others.
• Do not give money for sources or stories.

Be accountable

• Be accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of what you write.
• Honour pledges of confidentiality to a news source; otherwise, identify sources.
• Be accountable for how you behave and collect news. Obey the laws and the standards of ethical journalism.

NOTES

[1] Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics for Journalists, 1996.

[2] Associated Press Managing Editors, Statement of Ethical Principles, 1994.

[3] Gannett Newspaper Division, Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms, 1999.

Enforcement Agencies

Agencies that enforce the law, including electoral legislation, play an important part in safeguarding election integrity. Enforcement deters those thinking of subverting the system, and it identifies and punishes those who have broken the law.

Different agencies usually share responsibility for enforcement, depending on the nature and severity of the problem. An investigation may be launched by an oversight agency but later entrusted to an enforcement agency. For example, criminal cases uncovered during a routine audit may be referred to the justice system. If the prosecuting authorities decide to pursue a case, they could charge and prosecute the alleged perpetrator, and the courts may pass sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

Effective enforcement requires a functioning legal system and respect for the law. To ensure the integrity of the enforcement system, its independence must be safeguarded. In countries where the criminal justice system is inadequate, an electoral court or similar body can be empowered to enforce election laws. Following are the principal institutions in enforcement to maintain election integrity.

Election Management and Policy Bodies

Election management and policy bodies may be given enforcement powers. In Mexico, for example, the Federal Electoral Institute and the Federal Electoral Tribunal are mandated to oversee the enforcement of election legislation, consider challenges and apply sanctions in cases of administrative error.

In South Africa, the Chief Electoral Officer may institute civil proceedings before a court, including the Electoral Court, to enforce provisions of the electoral law.

Regulatory Agencies

Regulatory agencies have the power to enforce the regulations they issue. They may sanction individuals found guilty of violating the regulations and, depending on the circumstances, may levy fines or recommend criminal prosecution.

Investigative Agencies

Each country has institutions and procedures for investigating allegations of electoral wrongdoing or other misconduct. Investigators:

• investigate incidents and complaints to determine the facts and collect evidence against individuals or organizations; and
• report on facts found, evidence collected and investigation results to the administrator responsible for election investigations.

Prosecuting agencies use the investigation report, evidence and findings to determine whether to initiate civil or criminal proceedings against a person or group of persons. This task may be entrusted to a law enforcement agency or a specialized election investigation body. In Canada, for example, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, while in New Zealand it is the responsibility of the police.

Security Forces

Election security is the responsibility of the government and is usually handled by the police. Good security is essential for safeguarding election integrity. It assures voters and candidates that the campaign will be conducted in an open climate free of fear or intimidation. Good security can support voter turnout and the exchange of information. The primary roles of security forces are to:

• protect the physical safety of individuals, electoral sites and materials involved in an election;
• investigate crimes and, where applicable, arrest the suspects; and
• deter anyone thinking of resorting to violence or fraud as an electoral tool.

Prosecution

Prosecution of electoral wrongdoing is an essential part of enforcement. It tells those interested in manipulating or subverting the process that such actions will not be tolerated and will be punished. To maintain election integrity, the prosecuting authorities:

• initiate investigations (depending on the system);
• determine whether the evidence warrants a prosecution, and who should be prosecuted;
• establish priorities among pending cases for prosecution; and
• on behalf of the government, prosecute individuals accused of having violated election-related laws.

In most countries, the prosecutor is a government employee or elected official. If elected, the prosecutor is more sensitive to public opinion and the political context of each case. The prosecutor has some discretion in determining which cases to prosecute. The potential for abuse of this discretion can raise questions about the integrity of the enforcement process.

Courts

The judiciary must ensure that laws are enforced on the basis of impartial standards rather than political bias, and that those found guilty are punished. The role of the courts in safeguarding integrity varies according to each country’s electoral system and level of trust. In countries where there is little trust in the electoral management body and the justice system, specialized courts may need to be established, as they were in Mexico and Kenya. The specialized courts may play an active role in adjudicating electoral disputes that might otherwise be settled by an electoral management body.

In general, to safeguard election integrity, the courts:

• provide a non-political forum to hear cases on election law violations, whether criminal or civil;
• help resolve electoral disputes through recounts or certifying who won;
• interpret the election laws and determine their constitutionality; and
• depending on the system, determine guilt and sentence those found guilty.

Monitors of Election Integrity

Monitoring the electoral process is an important integrity safeguard. It is one of the checks-and-balances that protect the viability and honesty of election administration, as well as the participation of political parties, candidates and interest groups.

Monitoring promotes compliance with the legal framework and deters questionable activities. Public reporting by monitors increases transparency and helps ensure election officers’ accountability.

Monitoring includes official oversight by a government auditor or agency, as well as observation of the process by political parties, the media and individual electors, as well as non-governmental organizations and international groups.

Monitoring may be partisan (conducted by political parties) or non-partisan (conducted by national or international observation groups). Partisan monitoring focuses on protecting the interests of a particular candidate or party. It is important to have participation by monitors from different political parties throughout the process in order to ensure that incidents detrimental to any of the parties or candidates is reported.

Non-partisan monitoring is expected to be impartial and to provide objective reports. Since reporting on elections usually involves forming an opinion about the process, integrity in monitoring is itself important. Integrity issues related to monitoring are discussed in this section.

To be effective, monitoring should cover the entire electoral process, not just some aspects such as voter registration or polling. Among other things, monitors must examine:

• the appropriateness of the legal framework;
• the appropriateness of electoral procedures and preparations, including training of election staff;
• delimitation of electoral districts;
• elector registration;
• information and education programs;
• registration of political parties and candidates;
• freedom of assembly and movement;
• freedom from fear and intimidation;
• freedom of expression and equal access to the media;
• use of public resources for campaign purposes;
• activities on election day;
• vote counting and compilation of the results; and
• whether there are appropriate, impartial procedures for lodging complaints about election results, and legitimate procedures for resolving them. [1]

NOTES

[1] Boneo, Horacio, “Observation of Elections,” in Rose, Richard, ed., International Encyclopedia of Elections, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000, pp. 197-98.

Official Oversight

In every electoral system, there is at least one body responsible for the official oversight of election administration. This may be a separate office within the electoral policy or management body (such as an auditor or inspector general). It can also be a separate institution, including a legislative committee, a court or a statutory body; examples are the Commissioner of Canada Elections and Mexico’s Federal Electoral Tribunal.

Inspector general or auditor general offices provide oversight of the electoral process on a regular basis. In some systems, they work together with electoral administrators to improve management and the electoral process; this is part of their mandate to promote savings and curb waste and abuse. This type of oversight can help managers identify systemic deficiencies and make corrections to ensure compliance with all regulations and achievement of intended results.

An inspector general or an independent oversight commission may also investigate complaints made by employees or other participants in the electoral process. The complaints may be allegations of misconduct or mismanagement, illegal activities, waste, abuse of authority, or public health or safety threats. [1]

NOTES

[1] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.

Integrity Issues in Oversight

Certain conditions are required for official oversight to be effective and properly play its checks-and-balances role in maintaining integrity.

Independence

Oversight agencies and inspectors general should have enough independence to ensure their impartiality. This means they must have sufficient human and financial resources to do their job without having to depend on other institutions. Their staff members should be non-partisan and have no personal stake in the outcome of their oversight work. As organizations, they should have the independence to perform their duties without interference.

Auditors should be shielded from any political pressure to ensure their objectivity and enable them to report their findings and present their opinions/conclusions without fear of repercussions. As far as possible, the merit principle should apply in determining their salaries, training, job tenure and promotion. [1]

In Canada, for example, official oversight is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The Commissioner is independent, and is free to act without influence from political parties or the government. The Commissioner reports to Parliament through the Chief Electoral Officer. [2]

Lack of independence can give rise to various problems:

• interference or undue influence that limits or alters the scope of oversight, audit or investigative work;
• restrictions on the oversight procedures and mechanisms that can be selected for use;
• unreasonable restrictions on the amount of time allowed for completing an investigation or audit;
• interference in the selection of personnel for oversight, audit or investigation;
• restrictions on funds or other resources required for oversight, preventing the organization from carrying out its responsibilities;
• influence exerted to alter the content of audit or investigative reports; and
• threats to terminate the employment of oversight staff, auditors or investigators because of the content of their reports.

Access

For effective oversight, the agency responsible needs access, when requested, to election offices, persons and information. The oversight agency must be able to examine documents and computer files or databases. It needs physical access to verify the existence and condition of goods and services purchased with public funds.

Access is usually guaranteed by law and regulation. In addition, in most systems, official oversight agencies have the authority to compel election authorities, or others, to furnish documents.

Quality and Accuracy

Good oversight must be professional, impartial, accurate and timely. It is more easily achieved if the agencies responsible can count on properly trained staff who apply good practices, have sound judgment, and understand the electoral system and its legal context.

The findings of oversight agencies should be accurate and reflect the actual situation. Problems and instances of non-compliance are documented and reported in context. Oversight reports should not be editorials, or contain unsubstantiated or biased opinions. Factual reports containing all relevant information can help electoral administrators correct integrity problems.

Oversight agencies usually benefit from an internal quality control system that reviews investigative reports. Internal review can help ensure compliance with applicable standards, policies and procedures. Effective quality control depends on a number of factors, including the extent of the agency’s resources, the degree of autonomy allowed to it, and its organizational structure. [3]

Authority

Integrity will be enhanced if the oversight body can publish its findings and recommendations, without interference. A report or its findings should not be suppressed, censored or altered because it might embarrass or criticize the election administration or ruling party.

The ability to publish findings and recommendations is crucial to the independence of the oversight body. It is vital for the transparency of the process, and the accountability of electoral administrators and election participants.

Political Use of Oversight

Official oversight should not become a political tool. Instead, it should seek to provide routine, impartial audits of the electoral administration and the actions of election participants. However, politicians also have an oversight function, for instance, as members of legislative committees. Sometimes they may use their role for political ends. Political considerations may affect the timing of an investigation (e.g. initiated at a politically sensitive moment), its scope, or the timing of the release of a report (e.g. just before an election). All this can hamper the administration of elections—for example, by giving rise to funding freezes or calls for the resignation of senior executives of the electoral policy or management body.

Legislative oversight is a checks-and-balances function, but it can be difficult to separate politics from this type of oversight. One of the checks on overly partisan legislative oversight is public monitoring by the media and public interest groups.

Enforcement of Findings

Integrity problems identified by oversight bodies need in-depth attention. Most systems have mechanisms to ensure that oversight findings and recommendations are acted on by the election body or other affected organizations. These mechanisms are usually part of the legal framework, which may also ensure compliance by imposing sanctions, such as a freeze on public funds or the levying of fines. Illegal activities uncovered through oversight are usually handled by the justice system. Special investigators are mandated to determine the facts, gather evidence and, depending on the case, convince prosecutors to institute proceedings.

NOTES

[1] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.

[2] Commissioner of Canada Elections, *Investigators’ Manual*, 2004.

[3] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.

Monitoring by Political Parties

Political Party Monitors

Political parties are in the best position to assess the political environment, and to identify the obstacles to free campaigning as well as the implications of the choice of electoral system. This is especially true of parties that can establish a presence at all polling stations on election day. Political party monitors are therefore an essential component in maintaining election integrity. [1]

Political party monitors are agents of the political parties competing in an election. In most systems they are given the authority not only to monitor the electoral process but to intervene if they believe that legal requirements are not being respected. They can also contribute directly to the administrative process by signing ballots and tally sheets to validate them, and by participating in voting administration and vote counting. This is a voluntary role in most systems, and voting and the count go ahead even if no political party monitor is present.

The roles played by monitors and candidates differ. Candidates campaign, working to convince voters to support them. Monitors are observers and should not attempt to influence those they are observing. Monitoring must be performed in an impartial and professional manner. The very presence of candidates may create a danger of tension and conflict. Even if candidates do not behave in a threatening manner, voters may feel intimidated by their presence and lack confidence in the secrecy of their vote, particularly in areas characterized by inter-party conflict and violence. [2] For this reason, election regulations should prohibit the presence of candidates within polling stations, in keeping with international practice.

Party agents who are well trained in the various aspects of the election law and regulations will be best able to monitor the proceedings and protect the interests of their party. However, their role will be constructive only if they understand exactly what is expected of them, what their rights and responsibilities are, and what they are not permitted to do. Political parties must ensure that each of their agents is properly trained, and prepared to abide by the electoral code of conduct and all other applicable regulations.

To protect the integrity of the process and the interests of their party and candidates, monitors must perform the following tasks:

• Check the voter registration lists to make sure that they are accurate, that the voters really exist and are not registered more than once, and that no ineligible persons have been registered. Monitors may also verify whether their party’s supporters have been able to register without interference or other problems. * Ask questions as soon as something irregular or suspicious occurs during registration, voting or the counting of ballots. If an acceptable answer is not received from the election authorities, a complaint should be made in writing. This may be done through the official complaints process, using the proper forms and attaching all supporting documentation required. A copy of the complaint may also be sent to the monitor’s political party or candidate, domestic and international observers, and the media.
• Sign the records of votes cast and the tally sheets to certify the accuracy of the information in the reports. If there is a discrepancy between the official report and what the monitors have observed, the monitors are usually able to note their disagreement on the official form. Monitors should obtain a copy of any report they have signed.
• Undertake a parallel vote count using the copies of the tally sheets collected from each polling site monitored. The parallel count may be compared to the official results and monitors should report any discrepancy immediately through the official complaints mechanism. Copies of the disputed tally sheets should be attached to the complaint. Domestic and international observers, as well as the media, may be given a copy of the complaint.
• Validate electoral materials to certify that they are official and in order. This can be done by signing the back of a ballot before it is handed to a voter so as to certify that it is official and blank, and by ensuring that only ballots signed by the monitors are counted as valid ballots.
• Sign the official results to certify their accuracy.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, The Future of International Electoral Observation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, 1999.

[2] Electoral Commission of South Africa, “Code of Conduct for Political Parties,” Election Administration Manual of South Africa, Ch. 5, 1995, p. 28.

Monitoring by the Media

The media contribute to monitoring of the electoral process by keeping the public informed about electoral events and the political campaign. The media also play an important investigative role that helps to ferret out electoral fraud and corruption. Conditions Required for Media Effectiveness Several conditions must be met for the media to serve as an effective integrity mechanism. They must have access to the electoral process and its participants. They must have a safe environment enabling them to investigate and report news without fear of intimidation or retribution. And they must be able to publish their reports without censorship. Specifically, the media require the following:

• Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The media must be free to cover and report on election events without restriction or censorship. Anti-defamation laws should not be used to threaten journalists and force them to limit their coverage.
• Protection from intimidation and violence. The media must be able to investigate and report stories without intimidation or fear of violence.
• Freedom of movement. Journalists must be able to travel freely throughout the country in order to follow candidates’ national campaigns and check how election administration is working in outlying areas.
• Access. Journalists must have access to election officers, electoral sites, candidates and voters. They must have access to government information in order to investigate and ensure that their work is accurate.
• Equal treatment. The media should be treated equally, whether they are privately owned or government-controlled. Equal treatment is needed in access to persons, electoral sites, information, printers, and paper and printing supplies, as well as issues concerning licensing and radio/television broadcasting time.

Media Protection and Oversight

The media have gained a degree of protection as international monitors. For example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has appointed a Representative on Freedom of the Media. The Representative observes the state of media freedom in all 55 OSCE member countries, and promotes compliance with OSCE principles and commitments concerning freedom of expression and media freedom. [1]

Some non-governmental organizations focus on protection for journalists. National and international observers may also monitor press freedom and the accuracy of election reporting. In the first and second rounds of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine, government officials limited the media’s ability to report certain issues and events. The result was biased media coverage favouring the presidential candidate of the ruling party. It was only in the second runoff election, after challenges before the Supreme Court regarding the validity of earlier election results, that the censorship was discontinued and media coverage became more balanced. [2]

Impact on Election Integrity

Good media coverage of the electoral process can help in various ways:

• It increases transparency, which deters fraud and abuse of the process. Transparency also helps to improve the electoral process since inconsistencies, problems or other deficiencies are identified and publicized, forcing electoral administrators and policy makers to correct them. In India, for instance, the media are encouraged to cover elections as a way of helping to ensure transparency. The Election Commission of India provides the media with the facilities needed to cover the electoral process, and distributes passes allowing journalists to enter polling stations and vote counting stations.
• It makes the public more knowledgeable and better informed about elections, candidates and current issues. Election coverage in the press and its analysis of candidate platforms provide voters with the information they need to make an informed choice on election day. Press coverage also informs voters about the date of the election, voting hours and polling site locations.
• It exposes fraudulent or questionable conduct. The media act as an integrity watchdog, uncovering fraud and corruption. This helps to ensure that those responsible are held accountable for their actions. It also helps to deter those who might be tempted to behave in an unethical or illegal manner.

NOTES

[1] Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Representative on Freedom of the Media.

[2] Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ukraine, Presidential Election: 31 October, 21 November and 26 December 2004. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, Warsaw, May 2005.

Monitoring by Individuals

Individual citizens are the first line of defence. A well-informed voter who asks the right questions can expose, stop or deter an integrity problem. Even a voter who is not informed but who questions something that does not seem right or fair can be an effective integrity mechanism. A voter can challenge unfair or arbitrary actions by sending letters to the press, or by filing complaints with the election management or enforcement body.

On election day, voters usually spend anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes at the polling station, looking for their names, lining up, and marking and casting a ballot. In some cases voters may spend more time, depending on how large the crowds are at the polling place. During that time, voters can protect their own interests and those of their fellow citizens by keeping a protective eye on the electoral process and reporting irregularities.

A number of civil society groups and non-governmental organizations encourage voters to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Organized National Election Observation

Monitoring of the process by organized national groups acting as independent observers is an essential tool for promoting election integrity. These groups span a wide spectrum of non governmental organizations and other civil society groups, including national and local citizen groups, citizen networks, human rights groups, student associations, professional bodies and religious groups. [1]

They collect information from their observer teams, analyze the democratic conduct of the electoral process, assess the quality of the election and publish their findings. The groups can be effective guardians of election integrity, especially in countries undergoing a transition. Their activities foster transparency and accountability on the part of the electoral administration. They thus help to instill public confidence in the integrity of the process. Codes of conduct for observers set ethical and professional standards for observing elections.

An outstanding example of domestic monitoring can be found in the 1997 elections in Kenya, for which civil society organizations trained more than 28,000 national observers. These were posted at nearly 12,600 polling stations and each vote counting station. Their pervasive presence encouraged voter turnout. [2]

In Indonesia, more than 600,000 national observers covered the 1999 elections and helped ensure the integrity of the election results through their close monitoring of the count. However, in the 2004 presidential elections, Indonesia’s General Electoral Commission refused to accredit the Independent Monitoring Committee of the Election (KIPP) because that body had published an observation report on the previous legislative elections without approval from the election authorities. [3]

Some countries impose severe restrictions on the recognition of organized national observation. In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, the law limited national observation to candidates’ representatives. Ukraine’s Committee of Voters nonetheless deployed thousands of observers accredited as journalists. In that capacity, however, the observers were not entitled to receive copies of electoral documents or to demand that these documents be made public. [4]

In Ethiopia’s 2005 parliamentary elections, the country’s electoral management body limited the access of national observers, an action that was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against the electoral management body but the decision was not handed down until the day before the election, when it was too late for national observers to effectively carry out their monitoring activities on a large scale. [5]

Benefits of National Observation

In a few cases the presence of international observers is indispensable—for instance, elections in countries requiring a peacekeeping force or undergoing a difficult transition, or where non-partisan civil society groups are virtually non-existent or non-functional. In the long term, however, the forming of domestic groups that are able to monitor their own elections without external assistance is an essential part of democratic development.

National election observers have important advantages over international observers. They can more easily turn out in large numbers, even in the thousands. They know the political culture, language and territory. Consequently, they are capable of seeing many things that may pass unnoticed by foreign observers. [6]

National monitoring groups are often better equipped than international observers to carry out particular types of specialized monitoring efficiently. Examples include verifying the voter registry, monitoring the complaints process, documenting instances of intimidation and human rights violations, and media monitoring. And unlike international observers, national civic organizations have an important role to play in implementing civic education programs and promoting electoral law reform. [7]

Accrediting Observers

Observers and monitors can function more effectively if they are officially accredited by the electoral management or policy-making body. Accreditation gives them access to election sites. Integrity problems may arise if accreditation procedures or requirements are used to limit the number of observers, or to deny access to certain groups of observers or monitors. If the procedure is too time-consuming and cannot be completed before election day, or if accreditation is selective, the process will lose credibility and the election management body will be accused of having something to hide.

Most electoral systems establish eligibility requirements for observers and monitors in the election laws or procedures. Straightforward and objective requirements can help minimize problems such as discrimination or favouritism that might inadvertently result from subjective accreditation. Some election management bodies add behaviour conditions to the eligibility requirements. These are generally used to exclude persons considered to be anti-democratic. In South Africa, for example, accreditation is provided only to observers who will uphold conditions conducive to a free and fair election, including impartiality and independence from any political party or candidate contesting the election, competent and professional observation, and adherence to the code of conduct for observers.

Security Problems and National Observation

In countries undergoing a difficult transition or in post-conflict societies, national observers may be targets for intimidation or threats. This situation may affect the observers’ ability to travel, observe freely and report on the information collected without self-censorship or fear of retribution. For example, one report on the 1998 national elections in Cambodia states, “Threats, intimidation and violence were daunting challenges to the Cambodian observers during this year’s election process. None of the groups suggested that their ability to release public statements was compromised by the political environment. They noted, though, that intimidation affected their ability to gather information on the process and that threats coloured the reports … received from observers.” [8]

NOTES

[1] Bjornlund, Eric C., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

[2] Barkan, Joel and Ng’ethe, Njuguma, “Kenya Tries Again,” Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 1998.

[3] Carter Center, The Carter Center 2004 Indonesia Election Report, June 2005.

[4] Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ukraine, Presidential Election: 31 October, 21 November and 26 December 2004. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, Warsaw, May 2005.

[5] Carter Center, Final Statement on the Carter Center Observation of the Ethiopia 2005 National Elections, September 2005.

[6] Carothers, Thomas, “The Observers Observed,” Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997, p. 25.

[7] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, The Future of International Electoral Observation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, 1999.

[8] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Asian Monitoring Network Conference, October 1998.

Efficacy of National Observation

There are several prerequisites for national observation to be effective:

• Proper organization. National groups need to be able to recruit, train and field observers according to a detailed observation plan. They need to know where registration sites and polling stations will be, where to send observers, what reports should contain, and when they should report their findings. They have to be able to consolidate the information systematically, evaluate it, write it up accurately and disseminate it in timely fashion.
• Credibility. National observers and their efforts should be professional—in other words, well organized, accountable and transparent. Observation should be systematic and should cover enough of the electoral process to allow an informed assessment to be made. Analysis should be impartial, and the reports should be accurate and balanced.
• Accuracy. Groups may have varying ability to accurately observe and objectively report on observations. Some groups may not have the capacity to cover the entire process, and may extrapolate from limited observations. They may also report rumour or opinion as fact. For readers of observation reports to be able to judge the reliability of the findings, the reports should clearly state the number of observers, the steps of the process and the sites observed. National observers should substantiate the information they report and should provide support for their findings. Inaccurate or unreliable information can undermine trust in the electoral process and the observation process.
• Objectivity. Coverage and reports should be non-partisan, objective and balanced. In some societies it is very difficult to find independent observers. That is why national observation groups should convince all participants in the electoral process that they are neutral.
• Adequate equipment and staff. National observation groups need adequate financial and human resources to undertake comprehensive observation, hire qualified staff, and train and equip them. Some groups rely on volunteers, but they must still incur certain expenses, provide training and purchase equipment. A good communications network is essential to retrieve information from observers scattered across the country, and to convey the information to the public in an appropriate and timely manner.

International Election Observation

International election observation has become an important mechanism for ensuring election integrity in countries undergoing a transition to democracy or in post-conflict societies. International observation today enjoys almost universal acceptance, and helps in raising voter confidence and evaluating the legitimacy of an electoral process and outcome. [1] It has also become a learning opportunity for national electoral administrators and election participants. It promotes bilateral exchanges of knowledge and information on electoral practices, sometimes leading to lasting international relations.

Ordinarily, international observation is used when there are concerns about the freeness or fairness of an election. For international observation to be an effective detector and deterrent of integrity problems, it needs to be adapted to the type of electoral system and election it is covering. An election in a post-conflict society requires a far different kind of observation from an election in a country adopting electoral reforms.

Decision to Organize an International Observer Mission

Most international observers take on a mission by invitation. The question that arises is whether an electoral process must respect the basic criteria of a free and fair election to deserve being observed. Some organizations feel that a country must meet certain basic standards before they will decide to send an international observer mission. They take this stance because they are concerned that international observation might be perceived as conferring legitimacy on an illegitimate election. However, a country with an electoral process falling short of basic requirements may also need international observers to help it uncover illegal and dishonest practices.

Effectiveness of International Observation

To be effective in ensuring election integrity, international observation should cover the entire electoral process rather than a specific aspect, such as voting or counting of the ballots. Observers should have proper qualifications and training. One of the most common criticisms levelled at international observation is that it has become an opportunity for “electoral tourism”: observers are sometimes seen as lacking professional experience, and they arrive in a country only a few days before election day. To ensure that observer missions are effective and reliable, several conditions must be met:

• Adequate time period. Observer missions should have enough time to get organized and observe the pre-election steps (such as candidate and voter registration), and the post-election steps (counting of the ballots, consolidation of the results and enforcement of the law, if applicable).
• Adequate resources. Effective missions require enough qualified observers and the means (communications, transportation, interpreters) to help them perform their work properly.
• Qualified observers. To ensure that their work has credibility, observers should be qualified and trained.
• Comprehensive coverage. Observers should observe the electoral process as thoroughly as possible to be able to make a credible judgment. Most effective are large-scale checks covering the entire electoral process, performed nationally rather than regionally, and including all areas rather than only problem areas.

Accreditation

To be able to enter electoral sites and undertake credible observation, international observers must be accredited by the electoral management or policy-making body. Selective accreditation or no accreditation raises questions of integrity.

Security Problems

In countries with security problems, certain areas are off limits to observers if government security forces cannot guarantee their safety. How such restrictions affect election integrity and the quality of observation will depend largely on how much of the country is off limits to observers.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, The Future of International Electoral Observation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations, 1999.

Roles and Rules of International Observers

International observation plays an important role in safeguarding election integrity. This role may be compromised if election observers do not follow certain rules that should guide their conduct during their mission.

International Observers' Role in Maintaining Election Integrity

Serious and professional international observation can help maintain election integrity in many ways:

• Spreading good practices. Electoral administrators, politicians and national observers can learn to better understand international standards for free and fair elections by cooperating with the international observers and studying their reports. International observer missions provide electoral administrators the opportunity to exchange professional knowledge with other experts, particularly on integrity mechanisms used in other systems.
• Deterring integrity problems. The presence of international observers monitoring the election process may deter attempts to disrupt or tamper with the process. There is a public perception in most countries that international observers will be able to uncover fraud on election day. [1]
• Detecting integrity problems. Experienced observers can detect problems or questionable activities, and bring them to the attention of the election management body and the public. Early detection can allow a problem to be solved before it is too late.
• Holding a fragile process together. In situations of conflict or in countries in transition, the presence of international observers can to some extent deter the use of violence and intimidation. Their ongoing presence reassures candidates, monitors and voters that it is safe to participate. Their presence may also convince opposition politicians that competing in the election is preferable to engaging in civil disobedience or violence. [2]
• Increasing the credibility and legitimacy of the process. Through their reporting and analysis, observers can confirm or deny the legitimacy of the electoral process and its outcome. If their reports show that the election is proceeding within acceptable parameters, this finding reinforces the viability of the process and the legitimacy of the results.
• Developing the capacity of national observers. If international observation is linked with national observation, international observers can help develop and improve the capacity of local observation efforts. For example, they can provide guidance on setting up a nationwide election observation effort, conducting a parallel count and analyzing field observation reports.

Rules of Conduct for International Observers

To ensure the legitimacy of their work, international observers have to follow internationally recognized standards of conduct. Several organizations that specialize in international observation have developed codes of conduct to guide observers’ behaviour. The main requirements for ethical and professional observation3 are as follows:

• Respect the sovereignty of the host country. To maintain the credibility and effectiveness of their election observation mission, international observers must respect the laws of the host country and the rules of its election management body. They must not give instructions to electoral administrators or interfere with the internal government or the business of the country being observed. They must also respect accreditation rules during their mission.
• Objectivity. To be effective, international observation must be objective and non-partisan, and must provide balanced reports. Objectivity protects the credibility of the mission and helps maintain the integrity of the electoral process. When observers do their work, they must be very careful not to show a preference for any particular party or candidate lest they compromise the objectivity required for preparing impartial reports.
• Non-interference in the election process. International observers must not interfere with the work of electoral administrators. Their mandate is not to supervise, correct mistakes or resolve local conflicts, but to observe.
• Accuracy. The reliability of the observation and assessment depends on the accuracy with which international observers report the facts. Many of the observers do not have an opportunity to observe the entire electoral process; accordingly, they must avoid generalizing on the basis of limited observations. Observation reports should clearly indicate the basis for the information presented, and should provide support for the findings.
• Avoid conflicts of interest. Election observation should be kept strictly separate from technical assistance for elections. International observers should not be engaged in electoral assistance activities in the country where they are observing (for example, assisting electoral administrators, developing electoral legislation or training election staff). Professional and credible assessment of an electoral process requires reasonable distance from the administration being observed.

NOTES

[1] Carothers, Thomas, “The Observers Observed,” Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 1997, p. 19.

[2] Ibid., p. 20.

[3] Bjornlund, Eric C., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

Standards to Evaluate Elections

The issue of common standards for evaluating elections poses many difficulties. There is a generally agreed upon set of principles that define free and fair elections, including: equal voting power for all citizens; freedom to organize for political purposes and the right to campaign; the right of access to political information; and regular holding of elections that are decided by the freely cast vote of the majority. Applying the concept of free and fair elections can be difficult in practice, however, especially in a transitional election when parts of the process may go well but other parts are seriously flawed. If one candidate is denied media access but the rest of the process goes smoothly, is the election free and fair? If the process goes well but a prominent politician boycotts the election, are the results acceptable?

Experience shows that these concerns are warranted and that it is not always easy to reach consensus. International observation reports may disagree because different observer groups use different criteria. The problem is that inconsistencies may give rise to confusion in the countries being observed. What’s more, contradictory reports undermine the credibility and purpose of observation. For example, during the 1998 election in Cambodia, the election observers’ statements sowed confusion and resentment. Many groups seemed to give a passing grade to the election, based on their observation of the voting and the count; a few others took emphatic exception, citing the unhealthy political atmosphere that had existed since long before the election. [1] Similarly, during Zimbabwe’s legislative elections in 2000 and its presidential elections in 2002, contradictory evaluations were issued by various international and national observation groups. [2] Once again, the reports were greeted with some bitterness by local participants.

This is why adoption of common observation standards is becoming essential to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of missions. The criteria [3] are as follows:

1) The observation should cover a broad range of issues:

• the administration and functioning of the election process;
• the legal and institutional framework for the process;
• the political circumstances and climate in which the election is held (extent of political rights).

2) The observation should cover the entire process from beginning to end, including:

• the pre-election period of the official and non-official campaign;
• election day and the beginning of vote counting;
• the post-election period with the announcement of the official results, dealing with complaints and the forming of the new government.

3) Coverage should be as broad as possible:

• sufficient observers stationed throughout the country;
• candidates, national observers and public officials.

NOTES

[1] Neou, Kassie and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999.

[2] Bjornlund, Eric C., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

[3] The criteria are taken from Beyond Free and Fair.

Enforcement of Electoral Integrity

Subverting the electoral process is a breach of public trust and an illegal act. Enforcing the law is essential in order to maintain electoral integrity. Without enforcement, the best legislation can be bypassed or ignored.

Enforcement is a deterrent to fraud and a guard against problems that threaten electoral integrity. Dishonest or fraudulent practices are not the only source of integrity problems. They may also result from human error or unintentional omissions. Even when there is no ill intent, these mistakes also need to be subject to corrective measures. Different institutions and mechanisms may be responsible for enforcing election integrity and legislation, as specified by each country’s legal framework.

In some systems, enforcement agencies have complete institutional independence, especially the institutions dealing with criminal justice. Others work under a common institutional umbrella with the electoral policy-making or management bodies. In all cases, enforcement requires:

• clear definition of the types of offences;
• the opportunity to make a complaint;
• a decision to investigate;
• a decision to initiate proceedings in order to determine facts and obtain evidence;
• prosecution and judicial proceedings that make offenders accountable for their actions, and provide for a ruling and the opportunity to appeal; and
• penalties and sanctions for those found guilty.

To be effective, enforcement must be active, impartial and timely. Investigative agencies and their investigators must have enough independence to examine allegations of election fraud or other illegal activities, and to initiate legal proceedings. Investigators must be objective and professional, and shielded from any political interference with their work.

Integrity also requires that the rights of whistle-blowers, witnesses and the accused be protected. Defendants must have access to legal representation and to the information that has been gathered against them. They must also be able to present an adequate defence. These protections are discussed in Rights of the Accused and Rights of Individuals in Investigations.

Prosecutors are usually government employees or elected officials, who may be sensitive to public opinion and the politics involved in the problem being investigated. Prosecutors often have discretion in determining whether the evidence warrants a prosecution and, if so, who will be prosecuted. Subjective or unlimited discretion may have an impact on integrity.

Courts and (where applicable) juries determine guilt or innocence. They must be impartial. An objective judgment is based on factual evidence and the legal context, not on political affiliation, discrimination or unsubstantiated rumour. Usually, an independent judiciary is required for a hearing to be fair.

The enforcement process may be subject to internal and external pressure and difficulties. A transparent system with checks and balances can protect the integrity of the enforcement process. These issues are discussed in Monitoring of Enforcement and Investigating in Difficult Circumstances.

Image:

Afghan Elections 2009 (Kandahar) / Élections afghanes 2009 (Kandahar) by Canada in Afghanistan / Canada en Afghanistan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License.

Types of Offences

Electoral legislation regulates a number of electoral processes, including not only voting procedures but also election financing, registration of candidates and political parties, the election campaign, election advertising, the media, and lobby groups. With this broad range of areas covered by legislation and regulations, there is an equally wide array of possible offences.

For instance, offences may involve exerting undue influence on the vote and election results, obstructing election operations, failing to observe prescribed limits on expenses or contributions, showing partiality as an electoral administrator, running election ads during blackout periods, or using lists of electors for personal ends. The possibilities for offences are as diverse as the election activities themselves.

Legislation may make distinctions according to the nature and seriousness of an offence, and may establish the degree of intent required to find someone guilty. It thus treats some offences as minor and others as serious infractions. Another distinction is between hard and fast offences, where the simple fact that an act occurred is enough to determine guilt, and offences committed with intent.

Penalties are usually applied to reflect the nature and seriousness of an offence.

Making a Complaint

Most investigations are undertaken in response to a complaint from an individual or findings of the oversight mechanism. In systems where investigations are not conducted by the police, investigators might not be empowered to initiate an investigation without a sworn complaint or other authorization. This is the case in Canada, where special investigators cannot start an investigation without the approval of the Commissioner of Canada Elections or the Counsel to the Commissioner. [1]

A complaints process that is non-threatening and easily accessible to the average citizen can facilitate the reporting of integrity problems. Citizens should not be afraid of making a valid complaint, or be deterred from doing so because of cumbersome or intimidating procedures. In general, integrity requires the following:

• Any person should be able to file a complaint if he or she believes a law has been broken or a violation is about to occur. This helps authorities to uncover and deter crimes.
• Complaints should be made in writing, signed and dated, and sent to the appropriate office. To avoid frivolous or anonymous complaints, some systems require official complaints to be notarized. However, some persons may be afraid to make a complaint if they have to identify themselves. Each system should have a mechanism to deal with such situations.
• Complaints should be made in a timely manner, show that a violation has occurred and, if possible, identify the persons involved. Complainants must differentiate between statements based on their personal knowledge and second-hand information or rumour. Sources of information must be identified; this helps ensure that law enforcement officers have enough information to evaluate the complaint and decide whether it warrants investigation.

Making Complaints Public

Making a complaint public, or keeping it secret, may raise integrity questions. Does the public have a right to know about violations of the electoral process? If so, to what extent? If a complaint is made public, suspects may realize that they are under investigation and destroy evidence. Complainants may also be at risk for making a complaint and may want their identity protected.

Whether a complaint will be made public during the investigation phase depends chiefly on the system and the nature of the complaint. In Canada, the policy is to “neither confirm nor deny the existence of a complaint and investigation and to not comment publicly on the identity of a complainant.” [2] Other systems may confirm the existence of a complaint but not comment on the ongoing investigation.

Whichever approach is used, a balance needs to be found between ensuring transparency of the enforcement process and ensuring the integrity of the investigation.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Ibid.

Investigations

There are many types of investigations. The media often undertake their own investigations when reporting on allegations of voting fraud or other electoral problems. Non-governmental organizations and national election observers may also investigate problems that they encounter and may gather evidence. They then publicize the problem or hand the evidence to a government prosecutor.

Citizen groups and the media can play an effective role in ensuring that integrity issues are unofficially investigated if lack of political will or resources prevents the holding of an official investigation. Unofficial investigations must respect the rights and privacy of individuals, and must not interfere with official investigations.

Official Investigations

Each country has its own system for investigating complaints about electoral violations. The details of the system are usually set out in legislation and regulations, which mandate a specific agency or agencies to handle these issues.

In many systems, the official investigative mechanism is the police department, working with the electoral management body or oversight agency. In other systems, investigation is the responsibility of a specific office within the electoral management body—for instance, the Commissioner of Canada Elections in Canada.

In federal systems, the investigative body that will handle a case is decided by which law has been broken. For example, in the United States there is an office within the Department of Justice for federal election crimes but individual states handle violations of state law. The national-level Federal Elections Commission investigates violations of campaign financing legislation.

An official investigation seeks to determine whether a crime has been committed, uncover the relevant facts and consider whether the facts indicate who is responsible. If the investigation leads to a reasonable assumption of guilt, the information must be handed to the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor usually determines whether the evidence warrants further action, and who should be charged with what crime.

Investigating with Integrity

Election-related investigations must be conducted to the same high standards of integrity that are expected of electoral administrators and participants. In general, maintaining integrity in an investigation requires:

• Independence. An investigation must be objective and impartial. This is difficult when political pressure is placed on investigators to arrive at a certain outcome. It is easier to maintain objectivity if the investigative agency is not dependent on another agency for direction, resources or personnel.
• Neutrality. The investigative agency should be neutral, as should its investigators. Neutrality may be easier to maintain if the agency is politically independent, and if staff members are public service employees rather than political appointees. Neutrality can also be promoted by requiring individual investigators to disclose potential conflicts of interest in cases under investigation and by ensuring that they do not participate in investigating those cases. In Canada, for example, to maintain public confidence in the neutrality of the Office of the Commissioner, special investigators must not engage in politically partisan activity at the federal level. Special investigators must not work for or on behalf of any federal political party or candidate for federal office, or be associated with any person, body, agency or institution with partisan or political purposes; they must not support or oppose the election of any political party or candidate in a federal election. During a referendum, they must not sit on any referendum committee, or publicly support or oppose any referendum option. [1]
• Jurisdiction. An investigative agency’s jurisdiction over a particular case is determined primarily by which laws have been broken. This can be an issue in a federal system where there are national, regional and local jurisdictions.
• Qualified investigators. Investigators should be professionals who know how to investigate and gather evidence that will be protected and admissible in court, and how to protect the rights of witnesses. Otherwise the investigation could be inadequate or the integrity of the investigation could be compromised.
• Effective procedures. The integrity problems discussed in this section can be prevented through development of effective operating procedures for investigation and information collection, with the aim of protecting/analyzing evidence and safeguarding the rights of witnesses and suspects.
• Respect for the political and civil rights of witnesses and suspects.
• Timing. The timing of an investigation may have a significant impact on its integrity. If it is initiated in the middle of an election campaign, the investigation may be used as political ammunition by some candidates. Not proceeding when an investigation is warranted could undermine the integrity of the process. The consensus seems to be that the investigation should be undertaken promptly enough so that evidence and witnesses are still available, but without disturbing the electoral process.

According to Craig Donsanto of the U.S. Department of Justice, “Most voting fraud investigations require that individual voters be interviewed concerning the circumstances under which they voted or didn’t vote. … Such interviews should generally not be conducted immediately prior to an election or while voting is taking place. This is because having federal agents interview citizens about the circumstances under which they voted (or did not vote) can easily ‘chill’ lawful voting activity by the interviewees, as well as voters similarly situated. This is not an appropriate result.” [2]

It is important that an investigation not interfere with the conduct of an election or the election results. For instance, U.S. investigators are told that any evidence of election fraud should be protected until the election is over. Once a federal investigation is conducted openly in a matter concerning an election then under way, the investigation will inevitably have a major impact on the election outcome. [3]

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Donsanto, Craig, “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, May 8–10, 1996, p. 9.

[3] Ibid.

Duties and Ethical Conduct of Investigators

Investigators’ mandates are usually based on those of their organization and their duties within that organization. If the duties of investigators are clearly defined in the organization’s personnel and procedures manuals, some of the integrity problems associated with under- or over-zealous investigators can be avoided. Most systems have written codes of ethics for investigators since their conduct is an essential part of ensuring integrity in enforcement.

Protecting Integrity in the Performance of Duties

Investigators must ensure that they perform their duties with honour and integrity. To do this, they must:

• Have the necessary jurisdiction to conduct an investigation. If facts are uncovered indicating that the investigation falls under the jurisdiction of another agency, most systems require that agency to be informed and the complainant to be asked to contact the appropriate agency.
• Use only lawful means to collect evidence and information relevant to the investigation. This is required to protect the rights of witnesses or the accused, and the admissibility of evidence.
• Exercise careful judgment in deciding on the most appropriate and effective interviewing methods, keeping in mind the “ethical obligations to act with dignity, fairness, moderation, thoroughness and political impartiality.” [1]
• Protect the civil and political rights of individuals involved in the investigation. This includes informing them of their rights.
• Be respectful when interviewing individuals. With witnesses and others, avoid personal or private discussions that could bring into disrepute the administration of justice. Refrain from asking embarrassing, insulting or abusive questions. [2]
• Respect the privacy rights of individuals by ensuring that all personal information collected about them is relevant to the investigation.
• Inspect election documents relevant to the investigation without tampering with them.
• Investigate within the policy framework of the investigative office, and report findings and concerns objectively to supervisors in a timely fashion.
• Assess the facts objectively to determine whether the alleged offence occurred. Make objective recommendations on what action, including prosecution, should be taken.
• Protect the confidentiality of the investigation. Ensure that personal information, correspondence and other documents related to a case remain confidential and are discussed only with authorized persons. This approach also protects the privacy rights of individuals.

Supervision

Investigators usually work within the chain of command of their organization. A head investigator manages the investigative resources of the agency and is responsible for the planning, organization, execution and monitoring of the investigative process within the agency. [3]

Adequate supervision is essential to ensure integrity in conducting investigations. It also ensures that investigators follow the procedures and work in accordance with the requirements of the system.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Decision to Investigate

When a complaint is received or an alleged offence reported, a decision must be made whether to investigate. Important integrity issues are raised by the possibility of an investigation launched in response to a complaint that might be unsubstantiated or pursued solely for political ends.

To ensure integrity in the complaint review process and in the decision on whether to investigate, complaints need to be reviewed in an objective and timely manner. Reviewing means examining whether a complaint is credible, whether there are grounds to think that a law has been broken and whether an investigation is likely to identify the offender.

Most systems have standard procedures and criteria for determining whether a complaint is valid and should be investigated. Integrity issues arise if the review procedures are discriminatory or allow too much individual discretion.

Valid Complaint

For enforcement to work as a safeguard of electoral integrity, the review process must be able to identify valid complaints and determine whether they merit investigation. Following are some of the factors used to determine whether a complaint is valid and which agency has jurisdiction over the investigation.

• Substance. Does the substance of the complaint suggest that an offence has been committed and that it is serious enough to warrant an investigation?
• Violation. Has a law been broken and, if so, which one? Is it a civil or criminal matter? Has a national law been broken, warranting a central or federal investigation, or is it a regional or local issue?
• Scope. Is the violation an isolated act or is it the outcome of an organized effort to subvert the electoral process? Widespread systemic problems usually fall under national jurisdiction. [1]
• Evidence. Is there enough factual information in the complaint to provide leads for investigators to pursue? Is it reasonable to think that these facts could be verified through an investigation? Are the witnesses credible and willing to cooperate?

Most systems have developed detailed procedures for evaluating a complaint, including a timeline for responding to the complainant. Following well-designed procedures can help ensure that integrity standards are met.

Reasons for Dismissing a Complaint

In most systems, complaints may be dismissed for the following reasons:

• The allegations are anonymous and the matter is not serious enough to warrant investigation.
• The allegations are vague or frivolous, and further investigation appears unlikely to provide more conclusive information.
• No laws or regulations appear to have been broken.
• The allegations appear to be well-founded but an investigation would not help to identify the offenders, or there is not enough evidence.
• The evidence indicates that there was no intent to violate the law.
• The complaint was filed after the stipulated deadline.

Instead of being prosecuted, mistakes are usually handled through the oversight procedures of the electoral management body. A mistake that had a significant impact on the outcome of an election is usually challenged by a losing candidate through the complaints and appeals process.

Policy Considerations

Electoral administration policy plays a large role in determining which cases to investigate and which to dismiss. Policy should therefore be fair and non-partisan.

For example, Canada has a standard for determining which cases merit investigation. The standard is set by policy and includes objective indicators. However, it also includes the subjective indicator of “public interest.” Among the public interest factors to be considered are:

• the circumstances, views, reliability and credibility of the complainant, and the specificity of the allegation raised;
• the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of the electoral process;
• the prevalence of the type of offence and the need for deterrence devolving from the investigative process or court proceedings;
• the length and expense of a potential investigation in relation to the seriousness of the offence; and
• the availability and efficacy of alternatives to investigation, such as administrative remedies and voluntary compliance measures undertaken by the alleged offender. [2]

Subjective indicators may give room for more discretion in the handling of complaints, allowing investigators to evaluate each case according to its circumstances. Nonetheless, some systems (e.g. Mexico’s) deliberately limit discretion and opt instead for checks-and-balances mechanisms.

Determining Case Priority

Policy also determines the priorities for investigation. It takes much time and effort to investigate allegations of voter fraud. Some investigative agencies do not have the human or financial resources to investigate every valid complaint. Integrity issues may arise if there are no objective criteria by which to set priorities for investigation, with the task left to the discretion of individual investigators or officials responsible for enforcement. These may be suspected of “burying” cases likely to have political ramifications or of giving priority to cases that are relatively unimportant.

These types of integrity issues can be addressed effectively through monitoring and oversight of the enforcement process, as discussed in Monitoring of Enforcement.

NOTES

[1] Donsanto, Craig, “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, May 8–10, 1996, p. 8.

[2] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

Procedures and Powers of Investigators

An investigation cannot be properly conducted if the investigator is denied access to witnesses, suspects and relevant documents. Investigators need to ensure that they investigate with integrity, that the rights of individuals are protected, and that evidence collected is untainted and admissible in a court of law.

Most systems use the following mechanisms to ensure integrity in the investigative process.

Standard Operating Procedures

Enforcement agencies usually follow standard procedures in conducting investigations. Developing good procedures that are followed by investigators helps ensure that integrity mechanisms are in place for each stage of the process.

Standard procedures also reduce the danger that investigators will make arbitrary or discriminatory decisions, which can give rise to integrity problems.

Accurate Written Reports

Accurate files and reports are essential for integrity. A written file is generally kept for each complaint, with all the information and documents collected. To handle a case, other players in the enforcement system (e.g. prosecutors) rely on the written report describing the evidence collected and the analysis performed by the investigative agency.

A comprehensive written report specifies the alleged offence, the name of the offender and other information gathered during the investigation. The report may also include: an outline of the objectives of any investigation; the scope and focus of the various phases of the investigation; the names of individuals interviewed; the information and evidence obtained, and their sources; and any follow-up measure that might be considered in the decision on how to deal with the alleged offence. [1]

It can be very difficult for a prosecutor to win a case if the information collected during the investigation is incomplete or inaccurately reported.

Appropriate Interviews

The purpose of interviewing witnesses or suspects is to obtain information and evidence. However, the information is admissible in a court of law only if investigators have complied with the procedural requirements that protect evidence and the rights of individuals. Successful interviews are usually prepared in advance. The tone of the interview must be professional, and the focus must be on the matter at issue. A good interview is an important step since it may ensure that the case is prosecuted and results in a conviction.

To avoid misunderstandings and ensure that interviewees know why they are being questioned and who is questioning them, investigators usually show proof of identity and explain the reasons for asking questions. Most systems require the consent of the person to be interviewed, unless he or she is a suspect. Many systems, such as Canada’s, recommend gentle persuasion to obtain the cooperation of witnesses. [2] Investigators are particularly advised to avoid conduct that could be perceived as threatening or as offering favours in exchange for cooperation.

Before questioning, most systems require suspects to be read their rights so that their statement will be admissible in court. Suspects usually have the right to be represented by an attorney during an interview.

Investigators must carefully assess the impartiality and credibility of individuals who may have a bias. As required, they should determine the basis of any bias and counter it through closer questioning. Whenever possible, investigators should obtain corroboration of information from independent sources. [3]

Sworn Statements

It is useful to make sure that critical witnesses (including voters who acted jointly) are questioned under oath and sign their statement before charges based on their testimony are filed. A signed statement protects against any misinterpretation of testimony. It also provides protection should witnesses change their testimony in court. In most trials a sworn statement can be submitted as evidence.

Accurate Interview Notes

It is essential to record in writing the information obtained during the interview, especially if a signed statement is not taken. The notes from the investigation may be used as evidence for what a person said. In court, the defence counsel usually has a right to examine the investigator's notes if the investigator refers to them when testifying.

The integrity of the interview also depends on the accuracy of the notes. Most investigators take word-for-word notes of the interview. In some cases, the interview may be recorded electronically; a recording is much more accurate than handwritten notes but can raise integrity questions. Some systems do not allow taping without prior permission or a warrant.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Rights of Individuals in Investigations

Individuals have political and civil rights that must be respected during an investigation. These rights are entrenched in each country’s constitution, legal framework or charter of rights. Although they may vary under different political and legal systems, the basic procedural rights of an individual usually include:

• the right to remain silent;
• the right to legal representation without unreasonable delay;
• the right to protection from unreasonable search or seizure;
• the right to protection from a requirement to furnish self-incriminating documents without court authorization;
• the right to a reasonable time period for deciding whether to waive any rights;
• the right to know the nature of the possible proceedings;
• the right to be informed of the extent and limits of the powers of a person in authority;

Because democratic countries value the rights and freedoms of individuals, infringements of procedural rights could cause any evidence thereby obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law or could even lead to dismissal of the case.

Search Warrants

A search warrant protects individuals from unreasonable search or seizure. Most systems require a warrant to be issued by a judge on reasonable grounds. The warrant describes the place to be searched and the items that may be seized.

To obtain a warrant, the investigator must first submit an application and swear that the information contained in it is accurate. The information must include a detailed description of the alleged offence and the items to be searched for and seized, as well as valid reasons for believing that the items are in the location to be searched. The investigator must also indicate whether there are other sources by which to obtain information or whether all other sources have been exhausted. [1]

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

Handling of Evidence

Protecting the integrity of evidence collected is vital in law enforcement. If the integrity of the evidence is in doubt, its use in legal proceedings could be jeopardized, possibly allowing a guilty person to escape prosecution.

Countries with a history of the rule of law have a framework of rules and procedures stipulating how evidence is to be collected, used and preserved. Evidence is admissible in court only if the rules have been followed. The accused have procedural rights, giving them protection from evidence tampering to manipulate the outcome of an investigation or trial.

To maintain the integrity of law enforcement, it is important that anyone who handles evidence during an investigation know and follow the rules concerning the admissibility of evidence.

Legal Seizure of Physical Evidence

Specific procedures must be followed for obtaining physical evidence. The investigator must first inform the suspect of his or her rights. Most legal systems give suspects the right not to incriminate themselves; they are therefore not required to provide to the investigators information or evidence that could be used against them. If a suspect voluntarily provides requested documents or information even though not required to do so, the investigators are required to make sure that the suspect signs a statement waiving this right. The requirement ensures that suspects understand their rights and cannot later claim to have been deprived of them.

If a person refuses to provide information, investigators may apply to a judge for a search warrant. The warrant allows investigators to search for evidence.

To safeguard their integrity, the documents gathered must usually be identified. In most systems an official receipt is issued to the owner of the documents; that person has the right to keep a copy of the seized papers.

Protection of Evidence

Proper procedures for handling and storing evidence can help ensure that it is not tampered with or lost. Following are procedures used to protect evidence:

• Identify evidence as soon as it is seized. Each piece of evidence is given a specific reference number and described. Also to be noted is the date and time when each piece was seized. A receipt is given to the person who provided the evidence and a copy is kept on file.
• Seal original documents and other evidence in boxes or containers, and use only photocopies for the investigation.
• Keep an inventory of the evidence. The inventory lists the reference number of each piece, the number of the box in which it is locked and the location where the box is stored. Evidence should be stored in a fireproof location with limited and controlled access.
• Keep written records of the handling and movement of evidence, and of the persons who have had access to it. A control sheet should be attached to each piece of evidence, and any activity should be recorded by the person in charge of the location where the evidence is stored. The control sheet should show the date and time when material was removed, the name of the person taking the material, and the reason for the removal. The record must be signed by the person in charge of the storage room and the person taking the material.
• Keep records on the handling of evidence separate from the complaint file.
• Return evidence to the owners at the end of the process. The owners sign a receipt certifying what was returned. They are given a copy of the receipt and the original is kept on file.

Seizure of Electoral Records

Electoral records include the voter registry, applications for absentee ballots, tally sheets or any other document used in an election. They may also include the personnel records of the electoral management body, time sheets, official vehicle logbooks, warehouse inventory books or other documents used for election administration.

The problem with seizing electoral records is that they are usually needed to hold elections. There could be a conflict between the need to collect evidence and the need to retain these documents in order to successfully complete the electoral process.

In the United States, for example, seizing electoral records may deprive state authorities of materials required to tabulate, collect and certify election results. The law prohibits any action that deprives the state of records it needs to perform these tasks. [1]

In other cases, the courts or other institutions may determine whether an allegation is serious enough to compromise the entire electoral process. In these cases, the need to ensure the integrity of the process through an immediate investigation might take priority over immediate election needs.

NOTES

[1] Donsanto, Craig, “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, 1996, p. 9.

Investigator's Analysis

The investigator must determine whether the information uncovered in the investigation substantiates the complaint and whether the file should be referred to the prosecutor. This is an important responsibility and the decision should be made objectively, on the basis of facts and the evidence obtained. A biased or sloppy analysis may have a serious impact on integrity, leading perhaps to prosecution of an innocent person or allowing a guilty person to escape justice.

Thorough and Objective Analysis

The evidence collected should undergo comprehensive analysis to determine the facts. During analysis, investigators generally check whether:

• the official records are in the specified format and meet stipulated requirements;
• the official records have been tampered with and, if so, by whom;
• financial statements are supported by receipts, invoices, cancelled cheques, accounting books and bank account statements; and all deposits, withdrawals and corrections are accounted for;
• there are explanations for omissions, discrepancies, anomalies or irregularities;
• the records seem to contain false or misleading information; and
• records were signed by authorized persons, or there seem to be grounds to believe that an unauthorized person provided recorded information (including signatures). [1]

For rejected ballots, investigators usually check whether:

• ballots that should have been cast and counted were rejected as a result of suspicious or illegal activity;
• there is sufficient, reliable and convincing evidence that someone committed an offence or was involved in an illegal activity; and
• further investigation or administrative action should be taken before closing the file or initiating legal proceedings. [2]

Substantiated Findings

In part, analyzing the evidence involves determining whether an offence was committed and whether prosecution should be recommended. The assessment requires an objective review of the facts but in some cases the investigator may have to make a subjective judgment.

Because the analysis will be used to determine whether to initiate legal proceedings, it is important for the investigator to record the findings in a written report. The report enables prosecutors and other enforcement officials to make an informed decision based on factual information. This type of report generally includes a summary of the allegation, details on the identity of the suspect and the complainant, the outcome of the investigation, a list of the events and evidence, and a summary of each offence and the link to the suspects.

The report also usually includes the investigator’s recommendation on whether the investigation should be continued or stopped, plus an assessment of the availability, credibility, competence and reliability of potential court witnesses, as well as mitigating circumstances if any. [3]

If the investigation shows that the allegations are unsubstantiated, generally the case is closed. If the investigation shows that the allegations are substantiated, generally the complaint is referred to the prosecutor’s office.

On reviewing the assessment before referring the case for prosecution, the investigator’s supervisor may find inaccurate or unsupported analysis. To ensure integrity and avoid the possibility that a supervisor might bury a case ready for prosecution, each system should have a mechanism for higher-level review if investigator and supervisor disagree on the recommendation.

Safeguarding the Secrecy of the Vote

When investigators examine electoral documents, including the voter registry, absentee ballots and tally sheets, they must take the measures necessary to maintain the secrecy of the vote. This is especially true in the case of an investigation of possible absentee voting fraud.

Confidentiality

Reports and information from ongoing investigations are usually kept confidential. This is to protect the privacy of witnesses and avoid the destruction of potential evidence, which would make the investigation less effective and weaken public confidence in the administration of justice. [4] Leaking information on an investigation during an election could also affect election results.

In particular, the following information should be kept confidential until the conclusion of an investigation:

• information on evidence collected that could be used in a trial;
• information that could sully the character or reputation of the accused or witness; and
• information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation or the safety of enforcement officials.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Decision to Prosecute

The decision to prosecute is generally made by the prosecution agency or office. This is usually a separate institution from the investigative agency; the separation is part of the checks-and-balances protecting citizens against arbitrary police action.

Enforcement of election integrity requires that the decision to prosecute be made objectively on the basis of a careful review of the case, the weight of evidence and the justification for prosecution.

Objective Review

In deciding whether to initiate proceedings, prosecutors usually undertake a thorough and objective review of the case. The review may consider the following questions:

• Which laws were broken?
• Are the allegations supported by facts, and are there credible, reliable witnesses willing to testify in court?
• Was the intent criminal in nature?
• What are the prospects of obtaining a conviction?

In some systems, prosecutors are elected officials. This can mean that they are sensitive to public opinion and the political implications of particular cases, especially election fraud cases that involve well-known personalities. Although public opinion may sway a prosecutor’s judgment, it may also make the prosecutor more accountable than police or investigators, who are public servants. If voters do not like a prosecutor’s style or work, they can vote him or her out of office at the next election.

Despite the need to satisfy public opinion, prosecutors should strive to be impartial and enforce the law fairly and uniformly. Their review of a complaint and the evidence is supposed to result in an objective assessment of whether prosecution is warranted. In the case of unfair or unwarranted prosecution, recourse is available through the mechanisms provided in the monitoring of enforcement process or through the appeals process.

Public Interest Factors

As discussed in Decision to Investigate, some systems use the criterion of “public interest” in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted. This may be a subjective decision influenced by a country’s social and political context.

For example, Elections Canada decides to prosecute taking into account factors such as the seriousness of the offence, mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the suspect’s degree of responsibility, effective alternatives to prosecution, a prosecution’s possible effect on public order or public confidence in the integrity of the law, the need for deterrence, the available resources, the time limit for initiating a prosecution, the sections of legislation that may be challenged, and the appropriateness of applying the same rules uniformly across the country. [1]

In the United States, prosecutors should keep in mind that society is willing to tolerate certain behaviour in election campaigns that it does not accept in commercial, personal or government dealings. Thus, as a general rule, the crime of “voter fraud” covers only organized efforts to subvert the election process itself —that is, voter registration, the casting of ballots, vote counting and the certification of election results. This definition excludes all activities connected with political campaigning unless those activities are illegal under a specific law (e.g. stealing opponents’ campaign property, breaking into opponents’ offices or violating campaign financing laws). Criminal proceedings are rarely undertaken in response to what candidates do or say during a campaign. [2]

Prosecutors must therefore consider whether administrative action or another approach might be preferable to prosecution.

Alternatives to Prosecution

Prosecution is a last resort in law enforcement. In Canada, the law provides other means, the most important of which are the authority to conclude compliance agreements and the ability to apply for an injunction during an election period. A compliance agreement is a voluntary arrangement between the enforcement agency and the person who has committed an offence, with the aim of achieving compliance with the law. These two measures are used to prevent as well as stop violations. [3]

National or Local Prosecution

Within the judicial system, case jurisdiction is determined primarily by which laws have been broken. In a federal system, where there are national, state and local laws, an election-related offence could involve a violation of both national and state law. Integrity issues may be involved in the decision about which court should handle the case. Will a politically sensitive case be treated more objectively at the national or local level? Will local prosecutors want to be involved in a politically sensitive case that could have major repercussions? Since voter fraud matters are always politically sensitive, local prosecutors (who are usually themselves elected) may hesitate to deal with them. [4]

According to the U.S. Federal Elections Commission, defendants in voter fraud cases are apt to be politicians, or agents of politicians, and it is often impossible for either the government or the defendant to obtain a fair trial in a case that is about politics and is tried before a locally drawn jury. The federal court system provides for juries to be drawn from a broader geographic base, thus often avoiding this problem. [5]

These issues need to be taken into consideration when determining which agency will prosecute the case and which is best placed to ensure that the proceedings are conducted with integrity.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Donsanto, Craig, “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, May 8–10, 1996, p. 1.

[3] Landry, Raymond, “Enforcement of the Canada Elections Act,” Electoral Insight, March 2003, Elections Canada.

[4] “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud,” p. 1.

[5] Federal Elections Commission (U.S.), Filing a Complaint, 1998.

Audits

Audits are valuable safeguards of integrity. They are part of the routine monitoring of the electoral process by the official oversight agency, as well as an investigative tool in suspicious cases or cases involving malfeasance or corruption. Audits help ensure that electoral administrators, political parties and organizations receiving public funds comply with the law and are accountable for their actions. Audits increase transparency of the electoral process by making records and audit reports available to the public. Audits may also facilitate the decision-making process for those responsible for taking corrective measures.

The principle underlying audits is that the persons and institutions entrusted with handling public resources must be held accountable for using those resources efficiently and economically.1 They must also comply with the applicable public funding laws and regulations.

Public officials and others managing public spending must establish and maintain effective controls to ensure that resources are safeguarded, that laws and regulations are followed, and that accurate, reliable data are obtained, maintained and disclosed. These persons must also be accountable to the public and to other levels and branches of government for their use of public resources, and must submit reports at the required time.

The type of audit depends on its objectives. It can be a performance audit, assessing how effective are electoral authorities; it can be a financial audit, examining the accounting books to see how funds were utilized. It can be a combination of the two, or look solely at internal control mechanisms.

Unless legal restrictions or ethical considerations prevent it, audit reports are usually made public.

Performance Audits

A performance audit is an objective and systematic examination with the purpose of providing an independent assessment of the performance of the electoral management or policy-making bodies, the agency that regulates campaign financing, or recipients of public financing, such as candidates and political parties.

Performance audits provide information on how the process functions, identify weaknesses and areas of non-compliance, and make recommendations on how to improve the process. The facts uncovered by an audit may require electoral administrators to take corrective measures and make the process more efficient.

Performance audits may check for efficiency and economic use of resources. The aim is to determine whether the electoral management body and other electoral agencies acquire, protect and use their resources (e.g. personnel, property, space) economically and efficiently. A performance audit is a powerful tool for combatting corruption and mismanagement.

Financial Audits

Economic corruption can become a major cause of integrity problems for an electoral management body, which usually has a large permanent staff, hires thousands of temporary workers, and procures large quantities of electoral equipment and materials. Lucrative contracts may attract offers of kickbacks or provide opportunities for misappropriation of funds. Financial audits, especially those performed on a regular basis, can detect and deter economic corruption and financial malfeasance.

Financial audits determine whether reports prepared by the institution or candidate accurately present the financial position, and whether the accounting is performed in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Financial audits look at financial statements, financial records and banking information. They refer to internal controls to check compliance with regulations governing procurement, bidding, accounting, and reporting on grants and contracts.

Objective and Accurate Audit Reports

To safeguard the integrity of the process, audits should be performed objectively and without interference by other agencies or persons. Audit reports must be accurate and fair, and must include sufficient information to help the organization being audited—as well as oversight agencies and policy makers—understand the situation and determine corrective actions to be taken.

Audits must be carefully documented. An audit report usually describes the objectives and scope of the audit, and the methodology used. It includes findings and recommendations for correcting problems and improving operations. It may also contain recommendations on how to improve administrative controls and enforcement. Supporting documentation is usually attached and available for public inspection. Some systems allow audit reports to be used as evidence in criminal cases, while others do not.

NOTES

[1] Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision.

Prosecution and Judicial Proceedings

Impunity fosters an atmosphere of unethical behaviour, fraud and corruption. Prosecution ensures that persons suspected of crimes are tried in a court of law and sentenced if found guilty. Prosecution leading to punishment holds offenders accountable for their actions and serves as a deterrent for those who might consider illegal acts.

In most legal systems prosecution is a matter for criminal law, which regulates conduct by individuals and defines crimes and punishments. Most systems treat criminal acts as violations of the public order, and so the government is responsible for prosecuting these acts. Where a case is to be prosecuted is determined by which law was broken and whether it was a national, provincial or local law. The court or judicial body that will hear and decide on the case must have the authority to do so.

Most criminal law systems recognize two types of offences: felonies and misdemeanours. Misdemeanours are lesser offences such as disorderly conduct, minor violations of codes of ethics and petty theft. Most cases of misdemeanour usually involve an appearance before a judge rather than a trial, with the punishment being a fine or a light jail sentence. Felonies are more serious offences, and usually involve arrest and trial.

Integrity in the Administration of Justice

Integrity in the administration of justice is very important for the entire electoral system. Integrity means that laws are equitable and fair. Procedures follow legal rules, and protect civil and political rights. Prosecutors, judges and juries must follow the procedures and maintain the highest level of professional and ethical behaviour. Accused persons must be afforded their procedural rights.

Integrity in the administration of justice ensures that police and other enforcement authorities will not act for political or personal ends, and that the accused have the opportunity to present a defence.

To safeguard integrity in prosecutions and the administration of justice, a number of conditions must be met.

Lawful Arrest and Arraignment

For a suspect to be arrested and charged, there must usually be evidence linking that individual to the offence. Unless the police catch someone in the act, an arrest generally requires an arrest warrant.

In most legal systems, arresting officers read accused persons their rights and ask whether they understand these rights. Within a reasonable time the accused are usually taken to a court to be charged, and may then enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. This process is called arraignment. Speedy arraignment protects against arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention or unethical police tactics.

The judge or court usually determines whether it is necessary for the accused to remain in custody until trial. In many legal systems an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the presumption of innocence is not a universal norm. Still, unless the case involves a serious felony or a violent offence, most defendants are freed on bail. Some systems have a separate safeguard mechanism that enables the suspect to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest or detention.

Pre-Trial Disclosure

To ensure a fair trial, most systems allow the defendants and their attorneys access to the evidence that will be used against them in court. In some systems, the defence has the right of access to all evidence collected, whether or not it will be used by the prosecution.

Usually the defence is not given access to the identity of confidential informants, information on confidential police techniques, government classified information, or information that would harm an ongoing investigation if disclosed. All other evidence is usually provided to the defence.

Witness Protection

The rights of the accused usually include the right to confront their accusers in court. This means that witnesses must appear in person and may be cross-examined in public. In countries with a history of violent conflict, some witnesses may be afraid to testify. In these circumstances they must be protected.

Different legal systems offer considerably varying options for protecting witnesses. In Canada, for instance, witness identity may be protected in some cases. In the United States, the witness protection system may include relocation of witnesses and identity changes. Other systems may provide witnesses with armed bodyguards during the trial. In countries with limited resources or where the administration of justice is weak, witness protection may be more problematic.

Avoiding Trial by Press

A delicate balance must be struck between the public’s right to know and the right of the accused to a fair trial. Most countries do not censor the press. Sensational media coverage of a crime may make it difficult to conduct an impartial trial. Some systems sequester the jury during a trial to shield it from influence.

Fair Trial

Due process in most judicial systems requires that serious crimes (felonies) be tried in open court before an impartial judge with jurisdiction in the case. Depending on the system, there may also be an impartial jury. Defendants usually have the right to a speedy and public trial conducted in accordance with established judicial procedures. A public trial increases public confidence and protects the accused (and the general public) from an abusive justice system.

For a criminal offence, the standard for determining guilt is usually that it be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Civil cases generally use the less strict standard of “preponderance of evidence”.) The standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is intended to protect the accused from wrongful conviction.

Appropriate Sentencing and Right of Appeal

The accused is usually sentenced upon being found guilty. To be fair, the sentence must fit the seriousness of the crime.

The right of appeal is part of the checks and balances within the judicial system. This mechanism protects the defendant from a biased or flawed judgment. The eligible grounds for appeal are set out in each country’s legal framework and the procedures established by its courts. An appeal can be heard only by a court authorized to review the decisions of a lower court. In some countries, a higher electoral court makes the final ruling on cases involving violations of election law. In other countries, the final ruling is made by a constitutional council or a supreme court.

Rights of the Accused

In addition to the rights of individuals in investigations, persons accused of a crime are entitled to procedural protections applicable to a trial. These usually include:

• The right to counsel. In criminal cases, the accused have a right to a competent lawyer. Some countries’ legal systems require a lawyer to be provided for defendants with low income, especially if charged with an offence that is serious and might entail severe punishment. The accused have the right to confer with their attorney before a police interrogation, during the trial and at any critical stage in the proceedings, such as a preliminary hearing, lineup or appeal. The accused may waive their right to counsel provided they recognize the consequences of this action.
• The right against self-incrimination. The burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution. The accused do not have to supply the police or prosecution with any evidence that could be used against them. The right against self-incrimination protects defendants from being forced to reveal incriminating facts. This deters the use of torture or other means to coerce confessions from the accused.
• The right to information. Accused persons have the right to know what charges have been made against them, to confront the witnesses testifying against them and to have access to the evidence collected against them.
• The right to a speedy and public trial with an impartial judge or jury, in the area where the crime was committed. Along with this, the accused must have enough time to prepare a defence.
• The right to present a defence. The accused must have the opportunity to present facts and evidence, and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses during a trial. The accused also have the right to call independent expert witnesses.
• The right of appeal if the applicable procedural rights were not respected.

Civil Litigation

Criminal law regulates conduct by individuals and is enforced by the government. Civil cases fall under civil codes, which regulate conduct between individuals or private parties. Civil litigation involves a dispute between private parties, with the government providing a forum for its settlement. This may be a hearing before a judge, or trial by jury.

In civil litigation cases, investigators may receive a subpoena and be required to give testimony. They must testify orally unless excused by the court, and they must answer questions to the best of their knowledge. Civil cases are usually decided on a “preponderance of evidence” standard, which is less strict than the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” applied to criminal cases.

In some systems, violations of election law are brought before a civil court by the electoral management or policy-making body. In South Africa, cases are brought by the Chief Electoral Officer. In other instances, civil suits may be brought by those harmed by the electoral process. For example, a disqualified candidate may sue the electoral management body. A non-governmental organization may sue on behalf of candidates who might have been prevented from running or who received unequal treatment. Political party members may sue their party if it prevented them from running as candidates.

Civil litigation is part of the checks-and-balances system. It provides a mechanism enabling individuals to assert their rights before a court.

Sentences and Penalties

A person found guilty of an offence must be punished in accordance with the law. To be fair, the ruling must fit the seriousness of the offence. Penalties are applied by law enforcement agencies, which often are the courts.

Penalties vary greatly from one electoral system to another. Usually the types of applicable penalties are based on the nature and seriousness of the offence. Penalties are therefore more severe for offences defined as criminal under the penal code and less strict for offences defined as minor under electoral law. The following penalties are typical of those that may be applied for minor offences:

• a warning;
• a prohibition order;
• disqualification of a candidate;
• cancellation of a party’s registration;
• a fine;
• performance of community service;
• performance of the obligation concerned in the offence.

Serious crimes may be punished by imprisonment. Depending on the offence, the convicted felon is generally kept in custody for a set time. Electoral crimes may be punished by the loss of voting rights for a specified time.

Monitoring of Enforcement

One of the issues involved in election integrity is determining who monitors those responsible for enforcing election integrity rules. As with other aspects of the process, enforcement may be tainted by partisan politics, subverted by money or power, rendered ineffective, or marred by errors. To ensure that enforcement plays its role in maintaining election integrity, it must be monitored and supervised, exactly like any other part of the process.

Most legal systems have a control mechanism to ensure that the administration of justice functions as intended. Police departments have an internal affairs office mandated to investigate complaints of police misconduct. Similar mechanisms operate in most prosecution agencies. Some legal systems have judicial inspectors and a mechanism for removing a judge from a case if needed.

Serious cases of judicial abuse or misconduct may result in a judge’s impeachment or removal from office. Impeachment proceedings are usually undertaken by the legislative branch; the power to impeach is one of its checks-and-balances on other branches of government. In cases of systemic abuse, where there is no credible mechanism to investigate complaints, an independent judicial commission may be established.

The control mechanism within a law enforcement agency must examine complaints made against investigators. A supervisor may monitor the number of complaints and analyze their content—for example, determining whether a complaint concerns the methods used by a particular person or is partisan in nature. Systemic problems are usually referred to the internal affairs office, the solicitor general or another official oversight mechanism.

Election observers and monitors also examine enforcement. Observers may be present at all stages of an activity where integrity is at issue. Their task is to ensure that:

• an official investigation is undertaken;
• investigators act impartially, and have the resources and ability to conduct a proper investigation;
• suspects are located, arrested and brought to trial;
• the rights of individuals are respected throughout the process.

Holding a public trial and monitoring the proceedings may promote judicial professionalism and impartiality. Lack of action by judicial authorities, particularly the courts, can be the subject of an investigation reported by an independent and responsible press. Monitoring may also cover the penalty phase to ensure that persons found guilty are punished and that the punishment fits the crime.

Investigating in Difficult Circumstances

Investigating electoral corruption is not easy. Cases may be highly politicized and may implicate well-known politicians; sometimes investigation may be dangerous. Access to witnesses and suspects may be difficult, some documents may disappear, or the investigation might target a high-ranking government official.

Difficulties vary with each country’s social and political context, but they usually involve political interference, physical safety issues, or the lack of legal and judicial infrastructure.

Political Interference

Investigations into electoral fraud may implicate very powerful individuals who seek protection through political interference. This may take the form of threats against investigators or prosecutors to dissuade them from pursuing their investigations. Threats include transferring investigators or prosecutors to another post; denying them professional advancement or even dismissing them from their job; transferring the investigation to another body; reducing government resources provided to the agency conducting the investigation or prosecution; and pressuring other agencies to refuse to cooperate with the investigator or prosecutor.

Proper monitoring of enforcement and a transparent enforcement process can help minimize the risk of political interference.

Lack of Legal and Judicial Infrastructure

Some countries undergoing a transition do not necessarily have the legal and judicial infrastructure required to support an investigation. There may be legislative gaps, with the result that investigators or prosecutors cannot show that a law has been broken even though it is evident that a crime has been committed. They may not have the means to conduct a proper investigation because of lack of personnel, resources or institutional experience. They may arrest an individual, only to find that the prison system cannot keep the person in custody until trial. The court system might be incapable of ensuring an impartial trial.

For instance, in the 1998 Cambodian elections, the National Elections Committee was unsuccessful in its efforts to deal with violence and election law violations. Because the Committee had no law enforcement powers, cases were referred to government authorities but not one was ever prosecuted. This was not surprising given the weak legal system, which previously had proved unable to handle human rights cases effectively. [1]

Building a national judicial system and the necessary infrastructure is a long-term process. Electoral authorities can start by ensuring that their election law and related legislation define the basis for free, fair and competitive elections, and contain provisions for enforcement of the law. In some countries in transition, where there is no history of an independent judiciary, the only way to compensate for gaps in the legal system may be by establishing an electoral commission with wide-ranging powers of the type normally exercised by judicial institutions.

Culture of Impunity

A culture of impunity may hold sway in countries that are in transition or emerging from a history of violent conflict. Such a culture takes root particularly when the law enforcement system is inoperative or virtually non-existent, when people lacking power or influence are arrested and charged while the powerful go free, and when officials have legal immunity.

A culture of impunity breeds corruption and unethical practices. Failure to enforce legislation weakens the integrity of the system and the rule of law. Breaking this cycle is extremely difficult; it requires determination from civil society and strong political will.

Physical Safety

In a culture of impunity without a strong judicial system, honest investigators looking into corruption and criminal activities may become targets for violence or intimidation. Protecting investigators requires not only political will but the support of civil society. Safety mechanisms, such as UN-sponsored international human rights observer missions, may offer temporary support but real change will have to come from within.

NOTES

[1] Neou, Kassie and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999, p. 157.

Integrity in Election Administration

This section covers integrity issues related to the administration of the electoral process. Potential integrity issues are identified for each step of the process, from organizing election management to publishing official results. Also covered are mechanisms that may be used to address these issues. The steps examined include: election management; voting system; districting; election calendar planning; voter education; voter registration; registration of parties, candidates and lobbyists; the electoral campaign, including problems related to political financing; voting; counting; complaints and appeals; and the announcement of official results.

Despite its technical nature, election administration can become politicized. Control and manipulation of the electoral apparatus are among the tools most often used by non democratic governments to ensure their continued success at the polls. In addition, electoral administrators themselves may be suspected of acting in the interests of the government, a particular party or a sector of society.

Inexperienced election commissions may also be suspect. Their members may be little known or untested. Seasoned politicians and parties may take advantage of this situation.

Distrust of the electoral apparatus persists in many countries and is one of the main reasons for instituting extra safeguards, particularly monitoring by political parties and civil society. Distrust may also justify changing the structure and management of an electoral administration, and has provided the impetus for creating independent commissions. In the words of one commentator:

This distrustful attitude towards leviathan controlling of the organization of elections explains today’s consensus on the need to have, at the core of election management, an independent election commission, as well as . . . independent election management bodies in new democracies. [1]

If participants see the electoral process as being administered by a partisan group or manipulated for partisan purposes, turnout will be low or the election results will be challenged.

For an election to be perceived as free and fair, it must be administered honestly and neutrally. A well-organized, credible electoral administration can dissuade those opposed to the process from undertaking fraudulent or discriminatory actions, and can in turn build trust in elections and electoral institutions.

NOTES

[1] Schedler, Andreas, “Democracy by Delegation: The Path-Dependent Logic of Electoral Reform in Mexico,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, September 2–5, 1999, p. 7.

Election Management

A critical element in maintaining election integrity is sound management of elections by a credible election management body. To be credible, the electoral administration has to be impartial and have the institutional capacity to hold free and fair elections.

In a well-entrenched democracy, the institution that administers elections is usually taken for granted. It has delivered elections for generations; if there are problems, they generally do not call into question the credibility or legitimacy of the institution. In such a country, the electoral management body often is part of the government, and electoral administrators are civil servants.

In a newer democracy, the electoral management body may still be developing and may face severe criticism and close scrutiny. In addition to the problems inherent in organizing an election, the body may have institutional problems—inadequate staffing, funding or experience. A viable solution to ensuring the impartiality required to earn voter trust is the creation of an electoral management body free of any political influence.

To safeguard integrity of the electoral institution and the election process, the following are essential.

Establish a credible and non-political management body

Election administration is a technical task. The administrative system adopted and the institution that manages the system should therefore be technical. This is true if the electoral management body is part of the government structure and electoral administrators are civil servants; it is equally true if the electoral management body is a separate, independent agency with its own personnel and policies.

However, it can be difficult to separate politics from technical administration. The politicization of election management can turn technical administration and problems into political issues. As political issues require political compromise and negotiation, reaching decisions may be time-consuming, making it impossible to stick to the electoral calendar. In extreme cases, politicization of decision making may paralyze the entire process.

A neutral and non-partisan administration enhances election integrity. Even when electoral administrators are selected for their political affiliation, they are still expected to fulfill their duties in a non-partisan, non-political manner. Almost every electoral law calls for neutral administration of elections. For example, South Africa’s electoral law requires all election officers to be impartial and to exercise their powers and duties independently.

Financial and institutional independence is another important factor that allows the electoral administration to work without political interference and without being beholden to special interest groups. In Mexico, the electoral reforms of the 1990s owed their success in part to rapid support for the principle of an independent electoral administration. [1]

In contrast, during the 2003 legislative elections in Cambodia, the National Elections Committee was part of the Ministry of the Interior and was dominated by members of the incumbent party. This dependence fostered a climate of distrust among opposition parties and created opportunities for dishonest practices, such as intimidating people trying to register to vote and blocking attempts to file complaints against the incumbent party. [2]

Create a good administrative, financial and operational system

Insecurity, fraud and corruption flourish in a chaotic environment. Sound management can remove many of the opportunities for subversion or graft. An electoral administration that ensures good planning, hires qualified personnel and provides proper oversight is better positioned to safeguard election integrity.

Proper financial management and audit mechanisms can contribute to maintaining financial integrity and deterring problems that might result from poor financial management. Sound and effective procurement management is also a part of maintaining election integrity when goods and resources are to be purchased.

Good operational systems—based on strategic planning—facilitate work and help avoid problems.

A good logistical system, for example, will help avoid problems that might arise when ballots arrive in a country but must sit at a port or air terminal because of a lack of transportation or storage. Such a system can also facilitate the tracking of sensitive materials, such as voter registration cards or ballots. Inadequate tracking will make it difficult to know whether ballots have been diverted or tampered with.

Operational systems usually include mechanisms for disseminating useful information to participants in a timely and systematic manner. Parties and candidates have to know when and how to register, and how to obtain funding that might be available for campaigning. Good procedures are easier to develop if there are feedback mechanisms for swiftly identifying problems, and for receiving and systematically addressing complaints from candidates and others.

Ensure effective information management

With the management tools and control mechanisms provided by modern technology, electoral administrators can develop and operate effective systems that protect election integrity. A computerized voters list can help identify duplicate registrations and underage voters. A printed list eliminates the problems created by illegible handwriting, and can be posted or distributed to political parties and observers.

However, for computers and other technology to be effective tools, the proper equipment and training must be available.

Use adequate control and oversight mechanisms

Electoral administrators are entrusted with public resources, which they are responsible for using efficiently and economically. These resources must be used in compliance with laws and regulations on the use of public assets, and with electoral legislation.

The electoral management body has to ensure that it has control systems in place, properly safeguarding financial and material resources. Public disclosure of the election budget and expenditures can increase the transparency of the process and in turn can help protect the integrity of the administration.

This involves ensuring that there are systems for inventorying and tracking public assets, that financial records are accurate and up to date, and that someone is mandated to enforce rules and regulations. Effectiveness will be enhanced if electoral administrators are held responsible for the actions of their staff, and if supervisors verify and certify their office’s compliance with all rules and regulations.

Oversight mechanisms also require a system for receiving and dealing with complaints. The electoral management body is usually responsible for ensuring that electoral legislation and related laws are followed, and that anyone who may have broken the law is reported to the proper authorities for investigation and prosecution if warranted.

Demonstrate transparency and accountability

Transparency lends credibility to electoral institutions and their activities, and confers legitimacy on the elections they administer. The electoral management body can achieve transparency in several ways, including:

• regular reporting to the public through the media by holding press conferences, releasing factual information, and identifying problems encountered and solutions;
• regular reporting to oversight bodies and parliamentarians on progress made, difficulties encountered and areas requiring additional effort, plus making the reports available to the public;
• regular meetings with political parties and candidates to provide information, answer procedural and other questions, and seek their input on draft protocols or regulations; and
• allowing the election decision-making process to be observed by representatives of political parties, civil society or the press.

Transparency is valuable because it makes clear who is responsible for what. Civil servants and others entrusted with handling public resources must be accountable to the public and to other levels and branches of government for their actions, and must report on how they used public resources to conduct elections.

NOTES

[1] Schedler, Andreas, “Democracy by Delegation: The Path-Dependent Logic of Electoral Reform in Mexico,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, September 2–5, 1999, p. 20.

[2] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions - A Post-Election Conference Report, February 2004.

Budget

Holding an election can be costly. Staff must be recruited, trained and equipped. Offices need to be rented and set up. Voters, parties and candidates need to be registered. Voters lists and ballots have to be printed and distributed to every polling site in the country. Polling stations need to be opened and staffed. Votes must be collected and counted. All these tasks require personnel, communications systems, transportation, equipment, supplies and operating funds.

Integrity Problems Caused by Lack of Funds

Having an adequate budget to administer electoral law is an important factor contributing to election integrity. Lack of funds may compromise all aspects of electoral administration. The independence of the electoral management body depends on the availability of sufficient funds at the right time. Integrity problems may result from delayed or insufficient funding.

• Security safeguards may be cut to save money. For example, the electoral management body may forgo using watermarked paper on ballots, or printing serial numbers on voter registration cards or ballot stubs.
• Electoral materials may be distributed via transportation methods that are less expensive but also less secure or reliable; examples are using employees’ own vehicles or hiring less reputable firms. Lower-quality materials may be used that will not last through the election period. Copy machines or printers may not have the capacity to handle the volume required.
• The performance of underpaid or unpaid election workers will be weaker. Underpaid workers may be forced to moonlight to make ends meet, lowering their productivity. They may also seek to make up their salary shortfall by accepting bribes.
• Physical security for the campaign, voting and other critical electoral events may be substandard. Election security costs are often covered under a different budget, such as the police budget. A lack of funds could mean that police forces do not have the transportation or communications systems needed, or that there are not enough security agents to ensure a safe election.

Good planning and systems can help overcome budget constraints. There are cost-effective solutions to all the problems. At the same time, elections cannot be conducted as required by law without good planning and the necessary funding.

Integrity Problems Caused by the Source of Funds

The source of funds may be an integrity issue. The election management body is usually funded in the government’s yearly budget. It should be allocated enough funds to hold elections as required. With an assured budget and funds available on a timely basis, the election management body will have the financial independence it needs to hold an election. In India, for example, the Election Commission’s secretariat has an independent budget set by agreement between the Commission and the Ministry of Finance. Unfortunately, some election management bodies, especially in less developed countries, have to compete for government resources and may end up with insufficient funding.

Sometimes the electoral management body is allocated enough funds in the government budget, but the funds are administered through a particular ministry or government agency. The result is that the election management body becomes dependent on that organization. For the 1998 Cambodian legislative elections, funds were allocated in the government budget but were released piecemeal by the Ministry of Finance, making it difficult for the National Elections Committee to get established. Committee members started the process using their salaries to cover running costs, such as electricity bills and purchases of paper for copy machines.

The international community may provide election funding to countries undergoing a transition to democracy or developing countries. Donor funding is usually conditioned on the holding of free and fair elections, and is tied to the funding cycle of each donor country. This may sometimes give rise to funding shortages at critical times.

In some systems, the election management body is allowed to receive funds from other sources, such as prominent citizens or groups. However, accepting private funding may lead to the perception that money buys influence. Electoral administrators can counter misperceptions by disclosing the names of donors and ensuring that they receive no special treatment. Private funding is prohibited by law in certain countries, such as Thailand. [1]

NOTES

[1] Noel, Theo, advisor in the 1999 Indonesian elections, communication with Sue Nelson.

Integrity Problems and Solutions

Avoiding Integrity Problems Related to Insufficient Funding

The following measures can help deal with problems caused by lack of funds.

• Better planning. Plan longer in advance. Set aside funds for contingencies and inflation. Set priorities. Study opportunities for streamlining systems to raise efficiency and lower costs.
• Give attention to cost-effectiveness. Find ways of minimizing cost while maintaining effectiveness. Electoral administrators should try to use locally produced materials rather than expensive imports.
• Consider what the country can afford. Elections organized in countries undergoing a transition often receive foreign aid. This can lead to the adoption of electoral procedures that are beyond the country’s means and that cannot be used in subsequent elections without continued substantial foreign support. These countries therefore need to seek alternatives to costly imported equipment and develop affordable systems.
• Diversify donor support. Countries that receive foreign aid should diversify their funding sources so that they are not dependent on only a few donors. This could help them avoid problems that might be created by the timing of donor funding and the different conditions that donors might impose on use of funds.
• Lobby for better funding. The electoral policy-making and management bodies could lobby the appropriate legislative offices and legislators for the support they need. Effective lobbying includes providing information on the problem—where the funds are needed, why they are needed and how they could make a difference. Information should be as specific as possible to justify the request for increased funding. The need for additional funding could be publicized in the media to garner public support. Public interest groups could be consulted and urged to join the lobbying activities.
• Streamline staff. Each employee should have a job description, come to work every day and be productive.

Staffing and Recruitment

The electoral administration must have the staff it needs. Otherwise it may encounter integrity problems resulting from ignorance or mistakes. Hiring the right person for a job will make the system work better, eliminating many potential integrity problems. The right person is usually someone with professional experience, attitude and training. The right person is also honest and upholds principles of professional conduct.

To create an election management body with a professional, honest and dedicated staff, the following factors should be taken into consideration.

Develop a strict staffing procedure

One of the first steps for an electoral management body should be to determine its internal structure and its staffing procedure. For this purpose, electoral administrators may draw up an organizational chart delineating the responsibilities of the different divisions and staff members.

Most divisions of an electoral management body are formed according to the function they perform and the responsibilities they fulfill—management, internal administration (including human resources), finance, operations, legal services, technical support and public relations. Charting of staffing and working procedures can facilitate the development of a rational staffing model. A statement of clear objectives for each division and each staff member may avert integrity problems that could arise if employees are unclear about their responsibilities, and may prevent duplication of tasks.

Distributing the organizational chart to all employees ensures that all know how they fit into the overall structure, how the chain of command works, what their responsibilities are, to whom they must report and how information flows through the system.

An organizational chart can help maintain integrity in recruitment since it tells human resources managers how many people they need to hire, what the job requirements are for a particular position and who is the supervisor for that position. Since a chart also ranks personnel according to responsibilities, it enables each position to be classified on a professional and salary scale. If this system is adhered to, it can help ensure that qualified people are hired for the right position and receive pay commensurate with their level of work.

An organizational chart may serve as a monitoring tool because it indicates the supervisor for each staff member. Staff supervision is another important element in safeguarding election integrity.

Recruit through competition

Integrity requires that staff be recruited on the basis of merit, not favouritism. Advertising open positions is a way of inviting applications from people with the appropriate qualifications. Enough time should be allowed for the information to circulate and for interested people to apply.

Establish written personnel policies

Integrity requires standardized personnel policies to ensure that all employees are treated equally and know their rights and responsibilities. Policies should be written down and distributed to all employees.

Most public sector employers, including electoral administrators, place standards of professional behaviour and a code of ethics in their personnel policies. The penalties for breach of the code are usually specified.

Offer competitive pay for professional staff

The payroll is a significant part of an election budget and is usually kept to a minimum when funds are low. However, low pay for electoral workers can create integrity problems, such as:

• lower productivity or strikes;
• the temptation for employees to use their position as a means of supplementing their income by demanding user fees or accepting bribes or gifts;
• employee theft of supplies or equipment needed to run an election;
• the possibility that employees will withhold voters lists, tally sheets or ballots to support demands for a pay raise;
• the danger that disgruntled employees will accept payoffs to tamper with the process or to close their eyes to irregularities.

Unhappy employees have been a major source of integrity problems in several elections. For example, in Haiti’s 2000 elections, election workers in northern districts refused to take training unless they received better pay. The result was that election materials could not be delivered to polling stations until the morning of the election. [1]

Provide training

Election workers must be properly trained so that they can act to promote integrity rather than cause integrity problems. In addition to understanding how to do their jobs, workers need to know about general integrity issues and the control mechanisms built into the system to safeguard integrity. The integrity of the process is reinforced if they can become familiar with the complaints process and are encouraged to make suggestions for improving the system. Good training can substantially reduce errors that are the cause of many integrity problems. It also helps deter attempts to subvert the system since it makes employees and employers aware of the control mechanisms in place and how to use them.

Ensure supervision

Effective supervision is another tool for promoting integrity and sound management. It can help ensure that employees do their jobs effectively and in the professional and ethical manner required for free, fair and credible elections. Supervisors can identify problem employees and areas, and ensure that necessary corrective measures are taken.

NOTES

[1] Noel, Theo, advisor in the 1999 Indonesian elections, communication with Sue Nelson.

Procurement

An election requires a great deal of equipment, materials and services. Communications and computer systems need to be acquired and installed. Millions of voter registration cards must be sent and ballots must be printed. A poorly designed purchasing system may cause many election integrity problems.

Integrity Problems Related to Procurement

• Graft. To win lucrative election contracts, dishonest firms may offer kickbacks or other financial incentives to purchasing officers.
• Purchase of substandard equipment, technology or services. Poorly defined specifications or the prospect of a kickback or other personal profit may result in an inappropriate purchase.
• Late delivery of goods or services. Without timely delivery, it may be difficult to stick to the election calendar.

Integrity Safeguards

Procurement problems that threaten election integrity may be avoided by using the following safeguards.

• Good planning. A procurement plan with detailed policies and procedures is critical. Before developing the plan, purchasing officers should know what is needed and when (see Supplies – Strategic Planning and Supplies – Procurement).
• Procurement through a competitive process. Most systems issue calls for tenders to ensure integrity in the purchasing process.
• Transparent procedures. Transparency in the procurement process can help reduce opportunities for graft. Managing a purchasing process to give it as much public exposure as possible promotes transparency. Bids should be made public if large sums are involved.
• Monitoring of the procurement process. Monitoring can be undertaken using the control and supervisory mechanisms of the election management body and oversight agencies.
• Regular review of the procurement plan to check whether all orders of goods and services are reasonable and justified. A review of the contract award process can show whether tendering is competitive. Checking of the equipment or services received can indicate whether they meet contract specifications and are being used as intended.

Standards

The items purchased should meet minimum standards. This is particularly important for equipment that could affect election integrity. For example, standards should cover security features for voter registration cards, ballots and voting machines, as well as technical specifications to ensure that the equipment will be reliable. The standards are set out in the call for tenders and are key factors in the decision to award a contract.

The electoral management body usually sets standards jointly with manufacturers of the type of equipment required plus government or independent evaluation agencies. The degree to which they work together depends on each country’s system.

Electoral System

Voting systems differ in type and their ability to safeguard electoral integrity. Each country has developed its own electoral system, based on its political history and culture. Each system has advantages and disadvantages.

Concerns about electoral integrity and the type of voting system chosen may arise when a system is used to exclude a portion of the eligible population, or to deny a seat to a candidate who has won a large share of the vote. Integrity issues may also arise in a system that remains static when changing social or political conditions make reform essential to ensure that the population is better represented. [1]

The Voting System Affects Election Results

There are a number of different voting systems, each with its own formula for translating votes into seats in the legislature. The choice of voting system may have an impact on government stability, the representation of various social interests and the level of accountability of elected representatives. Although government stability is beyond the scope of election integrity, it is an important issue to consider when selecting a voting system. Representation and accountability have a direct impact on electoral integrity. Representation implies that each political party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives, and that each vote counts. Accountability is crucial for ensuring voter confidence in the electoral process.

Equality of Votes, Government Stability and Confidence in the Electoral Process

In plurality-majority systems, the candidate who receives the most votes in an electoral district wins a seat in the legislature. This formula benefits bigger parties at the expense of smaller ones lacking a strong regional presence. The principle of one person, one vote is compromised if voters who support the smallest parties are less likely to be represented. Also, a party with a relatively low percentage of the national vote may obtain a large majority of seats.

At the same time, plurality-majority systems have the advantage of fostering stable governments that are less likely to be forced to depend on a coalition of parties.

In proportional representation (PR) systems, the seats are allocated to the parties based on the percentage of votes each won in the election. This formula promotes fairness over government stability. More parties may be able to have their candidates elected, a situation that encourages the proliferation of parties. Coalition government is more common, and this can have a negative impact on consistency and stability in government. On the positive side, in countries that have opted for proportional representation there is greater voter confidence in the electoral process since the election outcome is more transparent and more fair to the parties. [2]

PR systems use different mathematical formulas to allocate seats, and the choice of formula may have a significant impact on representation. For example, one formula may ensure a balance between urban and rural areas; another may guarantee representation for a minority or a traditionally under-represented sector of society. [3]

Proportional representation systems may impose electoral thresholds, requiring each party to receive a minimum percentage of votes in order to win a seat. The threshold intentionally seeks to increase the chances of electing a stable and effective government by reducing the number of parties needed to form or support a government. However, integrity becomes an issue if the threshold is used to prevent smaller parties from winning seats so as to restrict the representation of certain minority groups.

The voting system adopted is the result of a political evolution more often than a conscious legislative decision. Proportional representation is quite common, and several plurality-majority systems are considering adopting PR or an improved version known as “mixed member proportional.” Such a system offers the benefits of both better representation and stable government. New Zealand, for instance, has abandoned its majority system in favour of a mixed member proportional system.

NOTES

[1] Harris, Paul, New Zealand Electoral Commission, correspondence with Sue Nelson.

[2] Birch, Sarah, “Explaining Confidence in the Conduct of Elections,” paper presented to the Public Opinion and Political Parties Conference, University of Essex, U.K., September 9–11, 2005.

[3] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., Free and Fair Elections: International Law and Practice, Geneva: Inter Parliamentary Union, 1994, pp. 32–33.

Boundary Delimitation

Districting

Districting involves determining the number, size and boundaries of electoral districts. A district is a voting area with a predetermined number of seats up for election. Districting may have a significant impact on electoral integrity. To respect the principle of one person, one vote, representation from each district needs to be relatively equal. When districting is performed by a partisan body, it may become a political tool for marginalizing specific groups or ensuring that particular candidates or parties are elected. Districting should be performed regularly to ensure equal representation, taking into account population shifts.

One Person, One Vote

Representation from each district needs to be equal in terms of the ratio of seats to voters. This ensures that all voters, regardless of place of residence, are represented equally.

However, the context should be considered since a number of countries recognize that population equality is not the only important criterion for representation. Other factors may be considered to guarantee not only equal but also effective representation—for example, an electoral district’s cultural identity, history and geography (e.g. containing sparsely populated or isolated regions), and the presence of minorities.

These factors may conflict with the one person, one vote principle. As a solution, many countries define the acceptable deviation from absolute equality. Some countries also feel that public participation in districting is important. In Canada, for example, readjustments to electoral boundaries are preceded by a series of public hearings giving voters the opportunity to express their views, thereby making the process as fair as possible. [1]

Partisan Influences

An independent body or the electoral administrators may be given responsibility for districting, but in many countries it is a task for partisan majorities in the legislature. This allows politicians to set boundaries for partisan benefit, drawing the lines so that opposition support is concentrated in a few districts and the ruling party maintains an advantage in the remaining districts. Boundaries may also be manipulated by scattering support for the opposition across a number of electoral districts.

Drawing the lines to secure partisan advantage is called gerrymandering. It occurs in electoral systems having single-member constituencies. In developing countries, gerrymandering often takes the form of allocating more seats to regions where the incumbent party has strong support. This was the case in Kenya in 1997 and Nigeria in 1999. [2]

To prevent gerrymandering, some countries shelter the districting process from any political interference. In Canada, completely independent commissions readjust electoral boundaries. Each province has its own three-member commission: the chief justice of the province names a judge to head the commission, and the Speaker of the House of Commons appoints the other two members. [3] In New Zealand, readjustments are made by an independent statutory agency known as the Representation Commission, composed of the Government Statistician, the Surveyor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer.

Readjusting Electoral Boundaries

Populations change over time. Rural residents move to urban areas and the demographics of a country alter. Electoral boundaries need to be regularly reviewed to safeguard election integrity and the principle of one person, one vote. To take such changes into consideration without creating excessive administrative burdens, redistricting should be undertaken at reasonable intervals—usually every 5 to 10 years.

The timing of redistricting may affect the outcome of an election. For governments or politicians inclined toward gerrymandering, the ideal moment to redistrict is immediately before an election. This leaves too little time before election day to challenge the redistricting in court.

NOTES

[1] Sax, Herschell, “Readjustment of Federal Electoral Boundaries,” Electoral Insight, May 2002.

[2] Elklit, Jorgen, “Electoral Institutional Change and Democratic Transition: You Can Bring a Horse to Water, But You Can’t Make It Drink,” paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research, 1999.

[3] Sax, Herschell, “Readjustment of Federal Electoral Boundaries.”

Electoral Calendar

The electoral calendar can be a tool for keeping the process on track as well as a source of integrity problems. The calendar may be set in the constitution or electoral legislation, or determined by the electoral management body. If dates are fixed by the legal framework, electoral administrators have little flexibility or discretion. Dates that are set by the electoral policy-making or management bodies are not mandated by legislation and therefore are easier to change if needed. Some countries (India, South Africa) have provisions for changing the electoral calendar in time of crisis, and for postponing elections as needed to ensure that they are free and fair.

How much time is needed to prepare for election day? It all depends on the particular circumstances of a country. In a democracy with a well-established electoral system, the physical preparations for an election are familiar and routine. For newer democracies, especially in developing countries and countries undergoing a transition, preparing for an election can be a major undertaking and can require much more time.

Integrity Problems Arising from the Electoral Calendar

• Risk of excluding certain segments of the population

  To ensure the turnout of as many voters as possible, elections should be avoided at times of year that might exclude certain population segments. In countries where the climate is harsh, weather conditions are usually taken into account when setting the electoral calendar. Developing countries often need to take crop cycles into account. The 2003 legislative elections in Cambodia were held during the rainy season, which may have prevented farmers tending to their crops from voting. [1] If schools are used as polling stations, exam periods should be avoided. Dates of religious events, statutory holidays and vacation periods are other important times that should be avoided. If the date is set for the purpose of excluding certain population segments, election integrity may be compromised.

• Tight schedule

  Good planning should allow enough time to launch and manage an election, and to perform each task properly. Integrity may be jeopardized if there is not enough time for reviewing nomination papers, or for candidates to respond to resulting questions.

  Political parties need enough time to select their candidates. Candidates need enough time to file their nomination papers and prepare their electoral campaign. Candidates and parties need enough time to get their campaign message out to the voters.

• Lengthy calendar

  A lengthy calendar increases operating, staffing and other costs of the electoral management body. Cash-strapped election management bodies may find that they have to cut back on their safety and integrity measures.

  Observation and monitoring groups may also be affected since they have to keep observers in place for a longer time. They may therefore decide to observe only part of the process, possibly lowering the quality of observation reports.

  Sustaining an electoral campaign over a longer time is more expensive and might limit the participation of certain candidates. In U.S. presidential elections, for example, money is a major factor in determining which candidates can stay in the race until election day. Serious candidates may have to drop out for lack of funds.

  Last, a lengthy campaign may cause voter fatigue, which could lower turnout on election day.

Electoral Calendar as an Integrity Safeguard

• Gives legitimacy to power

  The electoral calendar indicates to participants when they can complete various formalities. It sets when political parties can register, campaign and appoint monitors to observe the process. It also indicates when voters can register and vote. Time limits give legitimacy to power. If the political parties, candidates or citizens do not exercise their rights within the legally prescribed time frame, they are responsible for loss of those rights. [2]

• Limits power

  The electoral calendar limits power by allowing certain events to be held on specific dates only. The calendar sets deadlines for certain actions to be taken by electoral administrators, political parties and candidates. The dates set for certain events are used as milestones to verify electoral operations and the conduct of campaigns. Participants must act within certain time limits and can be held accountable. For example, the law may impose deadlines for parties to nominate candidates, for campaign financing information to be disclosed or for election survey results to be announced.

NOTES

[1] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions - Post-Election Conference Report, February 2004.

[2] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), 1999, p. 14.

Voter Education

Voter education can have a major impact in supporting electoral integrity. Voter education programs disseminate balanced and objective information on what citizens need to know in order to exercise their right to vote. They provide information on voters’ rights and obligations in the electoral process. They also explain the importance of voting. In some countries voter education is an integral part of overall civic education programs.

Importance of a Democratic Culture

Building a democratic culture can play a key role in promoting and protecting free and fair elections. That is why in many democracies voter education starts in elementary school as a feature of basic civic education programs. This prepares students to understand the part they can fulfill in a democracy when they become eligible to vote. It also enables them to relay important information to their parents.

Education as a Means for Preventing Integrity Problems

Voters need to understand their rights and duties under the constitution and election law of their country so that they can meet their obligations in a responsible manner. Informed, responsible voters help safeguard electoral integrity. They do not make false statements that might disrupt or prevent an election. They do not act illegally, intimidate other voters or try to tamper with the election results. They turn out to vote in an election because they understand the importance of participating.

Without appropriate education, it can be hard to prevent vote buying or vote tampering through intimidating tactics, especially in countries with high unemployment, low incomes and security problems. Voters may not be aware of their rights or the mechanisms that are used to protect the secrecy of their vote, or of what motivates vote buyers.

A good education program will tell voters about their rights, how to exercise them and how the system works. It may also explain the effects of corruption and the need for integrity in the public service and the electoral process.

Neutrality in Education

Voter education should provide factual information so that voters can participate knowledgeably. In a neutral way, programs should explain when, where and how to register and vote; the documents that must be shown; and how to mark a ballot so that it is valid and will be counted. If voter education has a political content, it becomes propaganda that may sway opinion and is intended to build support for a specific candidate or platform.

In most democracies, electoral administrators are responsible for ensuring that all citizens receive this basic information and that it is presented in a non-partisan manner. In some systems, administrators may be assisted by civil society groups or non-governmental organizations. In South Africa, anyone wishing to provide voter education must be accredited by the Electoral Commission. During the 2005 elections in Iraq, military personnel appeared in the televised voter information campaign, and their participation may have created a false perception of education programs. Iraq’s Independent Electoral Commission was not aware of this initiative, but it had not set out specific instructions prohibiting the involvement of certain players in public information campaigns. [1]

NOTES

[1] International Mission for Iraqi Elections, Final Report: Assessment of the January 30, 2005, Election Process.

Voter Registration

In most electoral systems, voters must register before they can cast a ballot. Unless a civil registry is used as the basis for a voters list, registration is the responsibility of each voter and the electoral management body. The electoral agency provides the means for registration, but voters usually must take the initiative to register and must provide proof of their eligibility.

Integrity problems in voter registration occur in almost all systems, not only newly emerging democracies. Integrity in voter registration is critical to free and fair elections; it is facilitated by a well-designed process, monitored by political parties and civil society, and including enforcement measures.

To ensure integrity in voter registration, the electoral management body must develop a registration system that:

• does not unfairly exclude certain segments of the population through the eligibility requirements;
• enables any qualified person who wishes to register to do so; and
• produces an accurate, reliable and up-to-date voters list.

Defining Eligibility Requirements

The right to vote is one of the foundations of a democratic system of government. However, it is usually considered a privilege of citizenship and, as a result, every country has set eligibility requirements for voting. The requirements generally include citizenship status, a minimum age and sometimes a residence requirement. Voters residing abroad during elections are commonly placed in a separate category. Sometimes certain citizens may lose their right to vote—for example, residents of a psychiatric institution or convicted criminals, including those found guilty of electoral offences. Electoral integrity may be at risk if certain groups of citizens are prevented from registering by the addition of discriminatory eligibility conditions based on race, language or any other minority status. The legal framework must clearly define the eligibility requirements to safeguard fair and equal treatment for all citizens.

Ensuring that Eligible Citizens Can Register

Eligible citizens can vote only if they have registered. Ensuring that every citizen who wants to register is able to do so is another integrity challenge. In developing countries registration presents logistical problems, and in most systems there may be problems if eligible citizens try to register but cannot because of access difficulties.

There are different voter registration systems. Some systems use the civil registry as the basis for the voters list, with everyone being registered automatically. For example, Denmark uses its computerized national civil registry to produce a computerized voters list. Ireland uses a list of voters prepared annually by the county councils and county borough corporations. Using a civil registry can reduce problems arising from citizens’ varying ability to register and can help ensure that every eligible citizen is registered to vote.

Other systems place the responsibility for registration on citizens themselves. They register in either a permanent registry (requiring one-time enrolment) or a periodic registry (requiring re enrolment at fixed intervals). The permanent registry is less burdensome for voters but must be regularly updated by electoral administrators to drop the names of voters who have moved away or died. With new technology, Canada has found that keeping a permanent computerized list is less expensive, time-consuming and labour-intensive than the previous system of registering voters for each federal election.

Access to registration sites may be a problem for voters. To reduce the danger of fraudulent registration, some countries require voters to register in person. This requirement may prove disproportionately hard for residents of rural or remote areas, or persons with limited mobility.

That is why some countries have adopted special rules making voter registration easier. Provisions may allow persons with a physical disability to register by proxy. In New Zealand, for example, persons who have a physical disability or are sick can ask someone else to fill out, date and sign the voter registration application. The person providing this assistance must be a registered voter and have power of attorney. [1]

To make it easier for larger numbers of voters to register, some countries allow registration by mail and on-line. These methods involve their own integrity problems.

There is usually a fixed deadline for registration before election day; this enables electoral administrators to determine the number of ballots needed and plan election logistics. The deadline may also give rise to integrity issues. Voters with access problems may find it difficult to register on time. Some countries, such as Canada, have addressed this issue by allowing voters to register on election day. Others widely publicize the registration deadline to make citizens aware of it.

All these measures allow for the registration of as many eligible voters as possible. For voters lists to be accurate and reliable, other safeguards are needed to prevent fraud and guarantee that only eligible voters are registered.

The registration process produces voters lists that are usually available for public inspection. The publication of verifiable voters lists is a measure that helps maintain voter confidence in the integrity of the system. However, making private information public can raise privacy issues.

NOTES

[1] Elections New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote.

Registration Facilities: Registration by Mail and by Internet

In an effort to make the electoral process more accessible and facilitate voter registration, more and more countries—including Germany, Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States—are allowing mail-in voter registration. Some countries (Canada, Denmark, Australia, Britain) are looking into using new technology to provide on-line registration opportunities; in New Zealand electors were able to register on-line for the 2005 election. [1]

These methods can help increase the registration rate, but they raise concerns that an ineligible person might register or someone might register more than once either intentionally or by mistake. The risk of fraud is quite high since it is more difficult to authenticate the identity of the person registering. That is why registration by mail or on-line requires a verification system to ensure that the person seeking to register is eligible. To prevent duplicate registrations, new names must be verified before they are added to the voters list. Regular review of voters lists is an effective way of minimizing error and fraud.

NOTES

[1] Elections New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote.

Avoiding Voter Registration Fraud

Voter registration is one of the stages at which there are ample opportunities to manipulate election results. For this reason special efforts should be made to ensure that the voters list is accurate and reliable. Accuracy in this case means that all eligible voters are listed, they are listed only once, and only eligible persons are listed.

Creating and maintaining an accurate voters list requires safeguards and a system of checks and balances. It is vital to keep lists up to date, and to eliminate duplicate registrations and names of voters who have moved out of the electoral district. Equally critical to maintaining electoral integrity is close monitoring and enforcement of voter registration provisions in the legislation.

Ensuring Only Eligible Voters Register

Political parties and candidates often go to great lengths to ensure that their supporters register to vote. They may offer incentives, such as transportation to registration sites or promises of benefits for the area should they win the election. Some parties and candidates go so far as to encourage people to register in an electoral district where they do not reside, or to register even if they are not eligible to vote.

Some persons who are not citizens or are under age may try to register. Others may try to register more than once. Most systems deter and prevent such abuses by requiring proof of identity or citizenship; this is particularly common in countries with a lack of trust in the electoral process or a history of voter fraud. However, integrity may be at risk if the need to prove identity becomes so burdensome that it turns away potential voters. This happened during the 2003 legislative elections in Cambodia: people wishing to register had to produce several identification documents and pay fees to obtain them. [1]

These problems can be avoided by requiring voters to show documents that they may already have or that are easily available, such as a national ID card, birth certificate or passport. There should also be alternatives for people whose papers were destroyed in war or never issued by the government. For example, in the 2000 elections in Haiti, two registered voters could vouch for a third person without papers. The registration numbers of the two guarantors were noted on the voters list and they were held responsible for the truthfulness of their guarantee.

Voter Registration Cards and Accuracy of Lists

Most countries have a list of people registered to vote. Since it is used on election day to determine who can vote, the list must be accurate and protected against any tampering. Along with recording names on the list, some systems issue a card to each voter on registration. The card proves that the person has applied to register and that the application has been accepted. The voter must produce this card at the polls in order to vote.

Voter cards are an integrity safeguard. To be effective, they must have security features deterring unauthorized use or forgery. For example, serial numbers may enable electoral administrators to track cards. If registration fraud is a major problem, special paper may be used to make the cards more difficult to forge. In some systems, the card bears the voter’s digital fingerprints or photograph, and these also appear on the voters list.

Before electoral reform in Mexico, the voters list was largely used to manipulate election results. That is why one of the 1996 reforms sought to make the list accurate. For example, fingerprints were added to voter cards to eliminate the possibility of voting more than once. [2]

Voters lists should also be numbered in sequence so that electoral authorities can track them and check whether any are missing. Lists may be produced in duplicate or triplicate, with one copy for the local election office, another for the regional office and a third for the national office, as applicable. This practice can deter internal tampering, such as unlawfully adding or removing names, since it would be hard to make the same changes to each copy of the list. A voters list is usually posted in a public place so that citizens, political parties and monitors can check the names it contains. The electoral calendar may set a time frame for making corrections to the lists in order to rectify mistakes or remove the names of ineligible persons.

Monitoring

Monitoring of voter registration by a large number of domestic and international observers as well as political party monitors is an effective deterrent to the types of fraud and manipulation most common during this phase of the electoral process. Individual citizens may also act as monitors, helping to ensure accurate registration. They can look at the posted lists and challenge the registration of persons they believe are not eligible. In New Zealand, for instance, every office of the Registrar of Electors has a copy of the entire national voters list, and each post office has a copy of the local list. [3] The lists are open for public inspection. These methods are used in most countries.

Enforcing Registration Law

Enforcement of registration rules and anti-fraud provisions helps maintain a clean and accurate voters list. In almost every electoral system, it is illegal to falsify voters lists. Offenders usually face prosecution.

NOTES

[1] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions - Post-Election Conference Report, February 2004.

[2] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), 1999, p. 10.

[3] Elections New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote.

Privacy Rights about Voter Information

Voters lists prepared after the registration process are made available to political parties and may be inspected by the public. This increases public confidence in election integrity and ensures that the process is transparent. However, making personal information public may raise issues concerning privacy rights. Different countries have adopted various solutions.

For example, New Zealand has an “unpublished roll.” This is a special list of persons whose safety may be jeopardized by public disclosure of their address. These individuals need to submit a special application and furnish supporting documentation, such as a court order, a restraining order or an official statement by a police officer. [1]

When Canada created a National Register of Electors, it limited use of any information contained in it through provisions in the Canada Elections Act and the Privacy Act. Register information may be used only for electoral purposes and any other use is illegal. The Privacy Commissioner has the right to verify how information in the National Register of Electors is collected, stored, updated and used. Only registered political parties, members of Parliament and candidates have access to the names and addresses of electors, which they may use only to send campaign information, recruit new members and seek campaign contributions. The legislation also allows any elector in Canada to request that his or her name be removed from the Register or to prohibit transfer of contact information to a province or territory. Electors who choose not to be on the National Register of Electors retain the right to vote but they must register before voting.

Finally, one way to deal with the privacy issue is not to release the voters list. This is the approach chosen in Denmark, where the electoral register is not published or accessible to the public or political parties. [2]

NOTES

[1] Elections New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote.

[2] Folketing (Danish Parliament), “Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark.”

Registration of Political Entities

In most electoral systems, political parties, candidates and interest groups are required to register. In some systems, a candidate cannot run for office as an independent and must be affiliated with a registered party. Registration helps make the electoral process more transparent and holds these political entities accountable by requiring them to provide information on their activities and funding. Registration procedures and requirements may become integrity issues if they are used to exclude particular parties or players from the election process. The following subsections examine Political Party Registration, Candidate Registration and Lobbyist Registration, and their impact on election integrity.

Registration of Political Parties

Election integrity depends on a fair, impartial and transparent process for registering parties. There must be reasonable eligibility criteria, consistent procedures and workable deadlines. A party should be notified in writing whether its application for registration has been accepted or rejected, and the notification should give the reasons for a rejection, as well as information on how to appeal the decision.

Most electoral systems require that political parties seeking to register provide information on their activities, membership and funding sources. This helps ensure the integrity of the process by making it transparent. However, if there are doubts about what information is needed or why, the requirement may raise integrity as well as privacy issues. The task of preparing complex reports may be burdensome, deterring some parties from registering.

Eligibility Requirements

Most electoral systems have established eligibility criteria for party registration. These usually require a party to have enrolled a minimum number of voters as members, or a minimum number of dues-paying members. If the minimum is set too high, it will exclude smaller or newer parties from the process. If it is set too low, it allows registration by parties with frivolous purposes. Other criteria may include a party’s obligation to field a stipulated proportion of women candidates (as in Nepal), or to submit a declaration by the party leader stating that the party’s main goal is to participate in and contribute to the public affairs of the country (as in Canada).

Registration applications usually are accepted only within a specified period. Some registration rules require a deposit; sometimes this is returned to the party if it receives a minimum percentage of the vote in the election. The deposit is required chiefly to ensure that parties applying for registration are serious, but if the amount is set too high it could bar smaller or less affluent parties from participating in an election.

Protecting Personal Information

To register, parties must submit a list of members’ names. The list is checked to make sure that the persons exist and are dues-paying members. In post-conflict or transition countries, supporters—especially of opposition parties—may fear being publicly identified with a particular party for security reasons. Members may also not want to be publicly identified for career, social or other reasons.

In New Zealand, privacy issues are taken very seriously by the Electoral Commission. A party may request the Commission to keep membership information confidential. In general, the Commission does not release this information unless it judges doing so to be in the public interest, in view of its responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the registration process. [1]

Categorizing Political Parties

Some countries categorize political parties when they register or later, when they apply for public funding. They may be categorized by membership size, election success or geographic representation. To maintain integrity, there should be valid reasons for the categorization, such as for the purpose of determining each party’s share of free airtime or public funds for campaigning.

In India, for instance, the Election Commission categorizes each party by how long it has been active and how successful it has been in past elections. The classification determines whether a party is entitled to certain privileges, such as access to electoral lists and free airtime on government-run media outlets, as well as a party symbol. Symbols enable illiterate voters to identify candidates of the party they wish to vote for.

Registering Political Party Logos

Electoral authorities may register party logos, which are printed on the ballot in some countries. There are rules as well for registering logos; usually a party must submit its application before the set deadline and meet formatting requirements (e.g. concerning colour or size).

Logos are important in countries with low literacy rates because they enable voters to identify their candidate or party. For integrity purposes, standards for logos are usually included in the registration guidelines. The standards are intended to prevent discrimination against any party. As with party registration, the electoral authorities must give written notification of rejection of a logo, clearly stating the reasons for the rejection and explaining how to file an appeal.

NOTES

[1] Elections New Zealand, Guide to the Registration of Political Parties and Party Logos, Wellington, 1997, p 7.

Registration of Candidates

A fair and equitable candidate registration process that guarantees equal treatment for all candidates is vital to election integrity. The registration process has to be transparent; the electoral calendar must allow enough time for candidates to prepare their applications, and for electoral administrators to review the applications and notify candidates of their decision.

As with Political Party Registration, to maintain integrity it is necessary to set reasonable eligibility requirements, review applications in a fair and transparent manner, give timely notice of acceptance or rejection, and offer information about the right to appeal if applicable.

Eligibility Requirements

The basic eligibility requirements for candidates in an election are usually set out in a country’s constitution or other legislation. They may include citizenship, age and residence criteria. To these may be added specific requirements, such as the deadline for filing an application, the support of a set number of registered voters, or payment of a deposit. For integrity purposes, the requirements must be reasonable and made public, and must not exclude any particular group or individual without good reason. During Indonesia’s 2004 presidential election, electoral legislation set educational requirements. This restriction was discriminatory, particularly against women, and was harshly criticized by international observers. [1]

One of the basic requirements for a free, fair and credible election is that it be competitive. Candidate requirements may affect the number of candidates. In general, the fewer requirements there are, the more candidates there will be. What is the right number of candidates? Too few will limit choice but too many will confuse voters. In India, for example, it was far too easy for candidates to stand for election and this situation confused the electorate. Certain measures were taken to reduce the number of candidates, such as increasing the amount of the deposit and the number of signatures required.

Reviewing and Rejecting Applications

The electoral management body checks candidates’ eligibility against recognized eligibility criteria. Establishing review procedures and standards can ensure consistency in the review process. Rejections are given in writing. The reasons must be clearly stated, providing the information required to ensure transparency. The necessary information must also be offered to candidates who wish to contest the rejection of their application; in other words, the appeals procedures should be explained in the rejection letter.

In Ireland, the process is as follows: “The returning officer, accompanied by a judicial assessor, who is either the President of the High Court or another judge of the Court nominated by the President of the Court, rules on the validity of the nominations received. Every prospective candidate or his/her representative must attend the ruling on nominations, and must furnish all relevant information required by the presidential returning officer or the judicial assessor.” [2]

Decisions to reject candidates who did not fill out the form properly or did not meet the basic requirements are usually straightforward, provided the rules are applied consistently to all candidates.

Right to Appeal

Candidates are protected against arbitrary rejection if they can appeal the decision and be heard. The appeals mechanism varies according to the system. In South Africa appeals are heard by the Commission to the Electoral Court, on dates set in the electoral calendar. The appeals process must be expeditious enough so that a candidate rejected by error still has an opportunity to run in the election.

Right to Withdraw

For candidates who wish to withdraw from the race, electoral administrators need to establish procedures allowing them to do so within a reasonable time frame. Since ballots must be printed early enough to be distributed nationwide before election day, a candidate who withdraws late may find that his or her name remains on the ballot. In many systems the deadline for withdrawal coincides with the date for final approval of ballots.

Specifying the applicable rules and deadlines in electoral law or procedures will help avoid integrity problems connected with a candidate’s withdrawal after the ballots are printed. The rules define how a candidate can refuse to accept public office after winning an election, and how to select a replacement for such a candidate.

NOTES

[1] Carter Center, The Carter Center 2004 Indonesia Election Report, June 2005.

[2] Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland, “How the President is Elected.”

Registration of Interest Groups

Activities supporting a political program or candidate are considered to be included in freedom of expression and the right of all citizens to influence their government. As a result, many countries do not prevent lobbying by interest groups, but try to make it more transparent by requiring groups to publicly disclose their activities and funding.

Many systems have adopted regulations, usually requiring lobbyists to register. They are also required to file regular reports that are open for public inspection. This enables voters to know which candidate has received special interest funding and the extent of that assistance.

Enforcement can help ensure integrity in lobbyist registration and in the reporting of lobbyist activities and funding. Regulations and legislation dealing with lobbying usually specify the agencies responsible for enforcing regulations, the process for submitting complaints and the penalties for non-compliance.

Electoral Campaign

The electoral campaigns of candidates and political parties seek to win voter support in the period preceding an election. Candidates use a variety of techniques to reach voters, and communicate their message through the media. Access to the media may be defined in electoral legislation to ensure that broadcasting time is allocated fairly to parties and candidates. The release of public opinion poll findings may be controlled by law to prevent potential integrity problems and ensure that voters receive the most balanced information possible.

The electoral calendar sets the dates for the official campaign. This is usually a period of around a month leading up to election day. Actual campaigning may start much earlier, but benefits are available to political parties and candidates only during the period specified in the electoral calendar. For example, they are assured of access to the media during the official campaign period only.

Election campaigns are increasingly expensive. The need to collect large sums of money raises serious integrity concerns. The sources of these funds, the amounts that may be accepted and the lack of equal resources present potential threats to electoral integrity. To ensure honest campaigns, most countries have adopted campaign financing rules that limit allowed contributions and spending, and require political parties and candidates to publicly disclose the sources of their funding as well as the nature and amount of their spending. For legal provisions to be effective, campaign financing enforcement is absolutely necessary. Most electoral systems try to minimize the influence of political contributions and give public funds to campaigns. Public funding acts as a counterbalance to political financing, and provides considerable assistance to parties and candidates for their campaign expenses. Public funding also increases voter confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. [1]

Access to information on political financing, including campaign contributions and expenses, must be specified in legislation. These measures are essential for protecting integrity since they promote transparency and public confidence in the electoral process.

NOTES

[1] Birch, Sarah, “Explaining Confidence in the Conduct of Elections,” paper presented to the Public Opinion and Political Parties Conference, University of Essex, U.K., September 9–11, 2005.

Access to Media

In modern campaigns, access to the media is crucial to electoral success. Since this is how most voters can be reached, it is essential to ensure media access for every candidate. Media buys can be expensive, and not every political party has the same financial resources; for this reason, equal access is an important integrity safeguard.

Most countries’ electoral laws or regulations have provisions on media access. Many systems require the media to allow time to all parties and candidates able to pay for advertising. Some may also require the media to allocate airtime fairly among all candidates. Some systems provide public funds or free airtime to achieve a balance in the time available to the different parties. Eligibility requirements for equal time or public funding may be based on how a political party is categorized by electoral administrators when it registers, the percentage of the vote it won in the previous election or the number of seats it holds in the legislature.

Equal Access

Most election laws or regulations require equal access and treatment for those wishing to broadcast election advertisements. In New Zealand, for example, the law “prohibits a broadcaster from offering or giving to any political party terms for broadcasting time that are more favourable than those offered or given to any other party for comparable time.” [1]

Equal access does not necessarily mean equal treatment. In a crowded field of competing candidates and parties, it may be difficult to decide who should appear in the media first or last. Is there enough time for all the candidates’ advertisements to air within the official campaign period, or for the voters to absorb these messages? What time slots are the candidates allotted in the campaign, and when? Even if candidates have equal airtime, do they have equal access to production resources needed to create their advertisements?

Allocation of Public Funds or Free Airtime

Even if all parties have equal access, they do not all have the same resources to pay for advertisements. To even out these differences, most systems allocate public funds for broadcast time or provide free airtime. An equitable formula for allocating resources or airtime may be based on how each political party has been categorized by the electoral management body.

In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer appoints a Broadcasting Arbitrator, who allocates paid and free airtime to political parties during an election according to a formula set by law. In India, the Election Commission gives all national and regional parties extensive free airtime on government-run media outlets. The Commission makes its allocations equitably by offering each party a fixed minimum number of hours plus additional time linked to the party’s performance in the previous election.

In New Zealand, parties may not use their own funds to buy radio or television time for broadcasting their election programs. Instead, the Broadcasting Act provides for allocation of free airtime during the official campaign period. This includes broadcasting the opening and closing speeches of political party leaders. [2] To qualify, political parties must have registered at least three months before Parliament was dissolved, or have at least five candidates running in the election. The allocation of free time is based on a number of criteria, including how many people voted for the party in the previous election, popular support for the party as shown in opinion polls, party membership figures and the number of MPs who belonged to that party at the time of dissolution. [3]

Enforcement of Access

Some countries that protect equal access to the media through legislation and regulations also have enforcement mechanisms; these are needed to ensure that the intent and letter of the law are applied. Enforcement differs according to the system and the legal requirements. In New Zealand, the law requires every broadcaster to provide the Electoral Commission with a report on all election programs broadcast for parties and candidates during the campaign period. The report must include:

• the name of the candidate or political party for which each election program was broadcast
• the length of each election program and the time when it was broadcast
• the amount paid for broadcasting each election program and the rates by which the amount was fixed [4]

In most systems, the law enables parties or candidates to take legal action against broadcasters who they believe have treated them unfairly. Criminal offences are handled separately through the criminal justice system.

NOTES

[1] Elections New Zealand, Broadcasting at Parliamentary Elections: A Guide of Political Parties, Candidates and Broadcasters, Wellington, 1999, p. 18.

[2] Broadcasting at Parliamentary Elections, p. 15.

[3] Elections New Zealand, Everything You Need to Know about Voting Under MMP, New Zealand's Electoral System, Wellington, 1996, p. 27.

[4] Broadcasting at Parliamentary Elections.

Opinion Polling

Political parties, candidates and the media conduct polls to gauge voter support for the different candidates or parties. Polls are also used to focus campaigns and to develop and improve messages for voters. When the results of a poll are announced publicly, the methodology used should generally be made public so that users may assess the accuracy of the poll. In Canada, this information includes the names of whoever conducted and commissioned the poll, the timing of the poll, the sample population, the number of people contacted, the margin of error for the results presented, the wording of questions asked, and instructions on how to obtain detailed information on methodology.

The timing of the release of poll results may be an integrity issue. The results may influence undecided voters and create momentum in favour of a candidate. Thinking that the election has already been decided, people might choose not to vote.

To avert such problems, some systems prohibit the release of poll results at strategic times, usually immediately before election day. These rules may vary; in Mexico, for instance, it is an offence to release a poll predicting the winner less than eight days before voting ends. In Canada the law prohibits the publication of opinion poll results during the last three days of the electoral campaign, while in Denmark there is no restriction on the publication of polls.

Political Finance

Clearly, the number of channels through which money may be poured into politics… makes political financing difficult to control as a practical matter… As soon as one channel of political money is blocked, other channels will be used to take its place. [1]

 

Many of the values and principles that are important to election integrity are at stake in the area of political finance, particularly electoral campaign financing. Main issues include the development of policy goals, adoption of a legal/regulatory framework, implementation, enforcement, and definition of the role of the public. Political finance should be examined from the viewpoint of ethics, fairness, equity, accountability, transparency and accessibility—the same viewpoint generally followed to examine election integrity throughout the electoral process. Rigorous standards are especially necessary given the high visibility of campaign financing and its impact on public confidence in elections.

This section is divided into three main areas: Political Finance Policy Goals, Political Finance Regulation Components and Political Finance Enforcement.

Political Finance Enforcement discusses the following issues:

• Clear Laws and Regulations;
• Establishment of Independent Political Finance Regulator;
• Oversight Powers of Political Finance Regulator in the areas of Disclosure, Audits and Investigations;
• Enforcement Powers of Political Finance Regulator in the areas of Material Incentives, Administrative and Civil and Criminal.

The section is complemented by Access to Information about Political Finance, as well as Regulating Party Financing in Parties and Candidates.

NOTES

[1] Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael, “Financing Politics: A Global View,” Journal of Democracy, 13(4), 2002, p. 69.

Political Finance Policy Goals

Laws that regulate financing for election campaigns, candidates and political parties are usually intended to achieve some or all of the following policy purposes:

• Deter corruption, undue influence of great wealth and special interests, misuse of state resources, vote buying, and other forms of electoral fraud;
• Ensure equity and fairness in the financial resources available to candidates and parties (i.e. a level playing field);
• Promote competition between parties and candidates;
• Limit overall spending on election campaigns and political activity;
• Encourage transparency and public access to information about campaign financing by setting financial reporting requirements, so that valuable information reaches voters and campaign financing laws/regulations are generally followed.

These policy purposes serve a larger goal: encouraging respect for the election process and political institutions, and fostering public confidence in them.

The need to deter corruption is the justification most commonly given for regulating political finance. A society may view the political process as vulnerable to the improper, excessive or secret influence of money and other resources. Accordingly, it may prohibit political funding from some sources (e.g. foreign donors) and may limit contributions from legal sources in terms of the amount any one donor is allowed to give to a political party or candidate. A society may be concerned that a few large donors or special interests could become overly dominant or gain excessive influence over political parties, candidates, other electoral participants and office holders; the concern may be that those wielding influence might have the power to distort public policy, divert public resources, threaten the integrity of elections and undermine democracy. Even without overt or perceived corruption, a society may find excessive the sheer amount of money being spent on political activity and electoral campaigns, and may regard fundraising as too distracting for the parties, candidates and other electoral participants.

Every democracy thus faces important policy decisions about regulating political finance, and especially about restricting the sources of funds as well as how political parties and candidates may spend funds. In making those decisions, each country may find guidance in a range of models. It should choose what is appropriate to its political culture and circumstances. It should adopt policies that can be implemented by its administrative and law enforcement bodies. It should also recognize that imposing restrictions on free speech and placing regulatory burdens on electoral participants—even when well intended—could dampen vigorous competition in the political marketplace of ideas.

Establishing the Legal Framework

A key election integrity issue, and one of the first needing to be addressed, is the process for adopting political finance laws. Ideally, such laws are drafted and passed by a legitimately elected legislative body. An executive power may provide initial input and usually must give final approval. The entire process occurs in full view of the public via the news media, and an informed and organized civil society has the opportunity to contribute. This ideal is more likely to find expression in well-established democracies than in countries making the transition from authoritarian regimes or conflicts.

In Russia in 1993, for example, a presidential decree established the legal framework for post-Soviet parliamentary elections, including campaign financing rules. In Mozambique in 1993 and 1994, a national assembly run by the ruling party enacted electoral provisions regarding public subsidies for political parties; the legislation followed extensive post-conflict negotiations with a main competing political force and other parties, and these negotiations continued right up to the election. In Indonesia in 1999, after the collapse of the 32-year reign of President Suharto, an election law was passed by members of a legislature who had been chosen in elections controlled by the Suharto regime.

In each of these instances, the legitimacy of the legislative process was questionable. However, because newly formed competitive political elements were able to exert sufficient influence, they accepted the electoral laws adopted. As a result, it was possible to hold successful elections. Laws passed under such circumstances often contain only rudimentary political finance provisions, but these can be a starting point for reflecting the key policy concerns of the country. In subsequent elections, the countries mentioned introduced additions and refinements to the legal framework for political finance regulation (although with mixed results in terms of efficacy and enforcement). Even advanced democracies need to review and revise their political finance laws periodically in a fair and open legislative process.

The Political Finance Regulator

Once there is a legitimate process by which to develop the legal framework for elections, the next critical issue is conferring legal authority on a body that will implement and enforce the political finance laws. Known as the political finance regulator (PFR), this body may be responsible for:

• drafting and implementing regulations that further clarify and define the policy goals of the political finance laws;
• administering policies for public subsidies to electoral participants and for political finance reporting requirements;
• enforcing legal funding restrictions and reporting obligations through administrative or quasi-judicial processes.

These responsibilities are usually assigned to the general election authority (e.g. a national election commission), but some or all of them may be given to other permanent or temporary government bodies.

For political finance regulators as for election management bodies in general, independence, impartiality and institutional capacity are essential. In appointing members of PFRs, fairness and transparency are as crucial as in appointing election administrators.

Political Finance Regulation Components

There are six main ways of regulating political finance:

• bans on funding from certain sources
• limits on contribution amounts
• expenditure bans
• expenditure limits
• public funding/subsidies
• campaign time limits
• full and public disclosure [1]

The first four of these may involve election integrity questions.

• Bans on funding from certain sources. Political finance laws generally prohibit certain persons or organizations from donating to candidates, political parties or other electoral participants. Most commonly, foreign governments, organizations or individuals are prohibited from making contributions to electoral participants or spending funds on their behalf. Also, it is generally forbidden to accept funding from domestic government sources, including state-owned enterprises, or to use government facilities, personnel, materiel or other resources for political purposes. Some countries ban donations to electoral participants by corporations and unions, or tax-exempt charities and other non-profit organizations.

  Some of the prohibitions are more understandable than others, and easily defensible as a matter of public policy. But the political impact and fairness may become more questionable as the list of prohibitions lengthens.

• Limits on contribution amounts. Political finance laws often limit the amount of funds or the value of non-monetary (in-kind) resources that a donor may contribute to a particular electoral participant. The laws may set different limits for different types of donor – whether individuals, businesses and other legal entities, or independent political committees. The restrictions and the distinctions between types of donor are often politically contentious, posing difficult questions of equity and fairness. For example, very low contribution limits may place new candidates or anyone challenging an incumbent at a disadvantage since they may lack a broad network of supporters that established candidates or incumbents have to help in fundraising. The imbalance is particularly acute if wealthy candidates are permitted to spend their own funds without limitation, while their opponents need to raise numerous small donations.
• Expenditure bans. Political finance laws also ban certain types of expenditures, including gift giving (usually above a set amount), all cases of vote buying, and other forms of electoral fraud such as bribing election officers. It is critical that these regulations be well defined. If enforced, such prohibitions can be an effective way to promote electoral integrity.
• Expenditure limits. Political finance laws sometimes impose spending caps—that is, limits on the total amount of spending by an electoral participant during the election campaign or another period. The intent is usually to prevent one electoral participant from financially overwhelming the competition. Again, such restrictions have political consequences and may give certain electoral participants an advantage. In addition, very low spending limits may make it difficult for new or “challenger” candidates to raise their profile in a contest with an incumbent, who has the advantage of name recognition and can draw on the perquisites of an office holder.

Thus, although the intention may be simply to reduce corruption and level the playing field, these methods of regulating private political funding are not neutral in their political effects. Moreover, restrictions on the sources and amounts of political donations—and especially expenditure limits—could lead to evasion and cheating. The restrictions on receiving and spending funds require effective mechanisms for law enforcement, and these in turn require effective mechanisms for financial reporting, disclosure and transparency. Without such mechanisms, electoral participants who obey the restrictions are playing by a different set of rules from those who disregard the restrictions with impunity. Finally, in political environments where election and/or judicial authorities are fundamentally biased and dishonest, legal restrictions on political finance may be arbitrarily enforced against opposition candidates.

Election integrity issues also arise with the use of public funding/subsidies for political parties, candidates and other electoral participants, whether the funding is in addition to or in place of private funding opportunities. The values of fairness, equity, accountability and transparency assume particular importance when electoral participants are to be allocated public funding or other benefits, such as free broadcast time.

• Fairness and equity are crucial in deciding thresholds and requirements for eligibility, standards for the amount of subsidy entitlement (if the amount differs for each recipient), conditions on the use of funds or particular forms of subsidy, and timing of receipt of the subsidy or other benefit.
• Accountability and transparency are critical to maintaining election integrity standards in the way that public subsidies or other benefits are distributed and used. Fortunately, public funding (or rather the threat of losing public funding) provides substantial leverage in requiring eligible electoral participants to meet higher standards of financial reporting and internal accountability controls.

Campaign time limits often are intended to limit the amount of money spent in a campaign. However, political parties and candidates can evade such limits by claiming that their pre-election efforts are non-political. Further, this approach may actually encourage more spending overall by allowing money to be spent without any limit outside the campaign period. [2]

Finally, full and public disclosure is a fundamental public control mechanism.

NOTES

[1] See Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies, Washington, D.C.: US Agency for International Development, 2003, p. 13–18.

[2] Money in Politics Handbook, p. 15.

Political Finance Enforcement

The political finance systems of different countries, states/provinces or other jurisdictions may involve some or all of the following:

• campaign finance disclosure and reporting requirements;
• restrictions on size and source of contributions;
• campaign expenditure limits;
• incentives such as public funding/subsidies and access to the media or free advertising.

These measures are generally adopted to reduce the corrupting influence that large donations or donations from undesirable sources may have on elections and the political process. They are also intended to encourage political competition and a level playing field for electoral participants with less access to financial resources.

Political finance enforcement gives force and effect to the political finance legal requirements. Timely and fair enforcement can:

• uncover political finance irregularities and violations through audits of campaign finance reporting;
• change the practices of political parties and campaigns by publicizing violations and/or imposing administrative, civil and criminal sanctions;
• remedy political finance violations by requiring the return of banned contributions or of public funding, or removal from elective office.

Enforcement Mechanisms

Each country’s legal framework determines which government institutions act as political finance regulators (PFRs) and which enforcement mechanisms they use. Mechanisms vary from one jurisdiction to another, but they generally include some or all of the following:

• Disclosure requirements. Campaigns are required to report their contributions, expenditures and all other financial transactions, and to produce documentation that substantiates their reporting. Compliance with this requirement can be promoted by providing training to parties and campaigns.
• Audit. The PFR audits campaign reporting and financial documentation to ensure accurate and honest disclosure, and to identify potential violations of the law.
• Oversight. External mechanisms (e.g. a formal complaints process) allow other electoral participants, civil society groups and the public to report suspected political finance violations.
• Investigation. The PFR investigates potential reporting irregularities, errors or fraud, and/or potential violations of the law. The PFR may need the authority to subpoena records, obtain the testimony of candidates and witnesses, and gain physical access to campaign offices and documents.
• Negotiation. Rather than resorting to civil action or criminal prosecution, the PFR may negotiate compliance or conciliation agreements with offending campaigns. The PFR may also use alternative dispute resolution.
• Administrative penalties. The PFR may impose sanctions in the form of “strict liability” (“traffic ticket”) penalties for relatively minor or simple violations, or graduated penalties for more serious or complex offences.
• Civil action. The PFR may file civil actions in either general or specialized courts to enforce political finance laws and/or seek monetary relief or injunctions.
• Criminal prosecution. The PFR may seek prosecution of potential criminal violations of political finance laws.

A Role for Civil Society and the Public

Civil society and the public have a crucial role to play in the effective enforcement of political finance laws. Non-governmental organizations and the media gather and disseminate information about political finance laws, publicize violations committed by electoral participants, and report on enforcement actions taken by the PFR against the violators. Negative publicity is often a more potent deterrent than the penalty that ultimately might be levied against a violator.

Non-governmental organizations and private citizens can also file complaints with the PFR about suspected political finance violations, conduct investigations of alleged irregularities or violations, bring third-party legal actions, and mobilize pro-reform political pressure or support.

Best Practices

In every country the enforcement system is imperfect and represents a work in progress. Nevertheless, certain best practices can be identified in effective enforcement.

• The political finance law should be clear and unambiguous, requiring political parties and candidates to make full financial disclosure and produce supporting documentation. The law must state which actions constitute violations, and must specify administrative, civil and/or criminal sanctions for offences.
• The law should establish an independent political finance regulator, with responsibility for administering and enforcing the political finance laws in an impartial and politically neutral manner.
• The law should give the PFR an oversight role, with authority to review and audit the financial reporting of candidates and parties, and to investigate them when necessary.
• The law should grant the PFR the authority and jurisdiction to enforce the law by imposing monetary, electoral or criminal sanctions on offenders at the administrative, civil or criminal level.
• The political finance legal system should allow and encourage the participation of civil society and the public in publicizing political finance issues, providing oversight and enforcing the law.
• The law should institutionalize incentives such as public funding/subsidies to political parties and/or candidates, but it should also allow for these incentives to be limited/withheld as a sanction.

Clear Law and Regulations

Political finance laws are technical and complex, and have historically proven vulnerable to evasion, distortion and abuse. For enforcement efforts to be effective, the law must be clear, unambiguous and comprehensive. It must also anticipate how political parties, candidates or other electoral participants may seek loopholes to subvert the law.

An effective political finance law clearly states the scope of its jurisdiction and defines all relevant terms unambiguously. [1] Vague terminology allows electoral participants or their legal counsel to argue that certain financial activities are not encompassed by the definitions of regulated political activities and are thus not subject to the law. For instance, if the definition of “contributions” does not mention in-kind contributions (i.e. of goods and services), the law will apply only to monetary donations, allowing potentially valuable in-kind gifts to be unregulated and unreported.

Political finance laws are ineffective if they fail to include all relevant financial activity in their scope, or to set forth a comprehensive and consistent enforcement mechanism. [2] For effective enforcement of disclosure requirements, for instance, the law must list every type of financial transaction that electoral participants are required to report, including monetary donations, in-kind contributions, loans, advances, liabilities, shared expenditures and joint fundraising. Similarly, if the law is intended to regulate political advertising, it should list all media and types of electioneering messages to which it applies.

The law and regulations should deal clearly with:

• Violations. The provisions should specify actions that constitute political finance violations, and the administrative, civil or criminal penalties for such offences. Many political finance regulators publish a schedule of the offences and/or penalties, with a graduated scale stipulating the amount and nature of sanctions according to the gravity of the violation and the degree of culpability involved.
• Process. The provisions should specify the process for determining violations of the law and/or imposing sanctions, including the investigation process, the procedure and evidentiary requirements of the administrative adjudication, and the due process rights of the alleged violator.

Political finance laws must specify which persons or entities are liable for which offences—particularly in the case of “strict liability” violations, where the intent of any particular individual is not determinative. Electoral laws commonly hold political party officials, candidates or campaign committee financial officers (treasurers) liable for political finance violations. If the law does not make high-ranking officials or candidates personally liable for violations, these persons may claim ignorance to evade responsibility for acts committed by their agents and employees. Further, if the law does not make individuals personally liable for violations, and imposes liability only on party or campaign committees, there may be no one to hold accountable for violations once these committees disband after an election.

In a federal system, a complicating factor is overlapping jurisdiction of laws and agencies regulating political finance at the national, state/provincial or other local level. Depending on the nature of the electoral offices involved or the violations concerned, either federal or state law might apply and determine the enforcement procedures.

The best way to ensure that a political finance law is clear and comprehensive is to exercise forethought and due deliberation when drafting it. Since electoral statutes are rarely perfect, however, it is vital to conduct periodic reviews of the law, and to be proactive in amending the law and instituting new programs. For instance, after every election some political finance regulators publish a review of the political finance law, analyzing the efficacy of enforcement efforts and identifying weaknesses. The political finance system must continually be refined to counter ongoing evasion efforts, and to maintain full and effective enforcement.

NOTES

[1] See Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies, Washington, D.C.: US Agency for International Development, 2003, Appendix G.

[2] Ibid.

Establishment of Independent Political Finance Regulator

The political finance law should mandate a government regulator to enforce the relevant laws, or authorize an existing government body to perform this function. The identity and structure of the political finance regulator (PFR) will vary in different jurisdictions, and the responsibility for enforcement can be assigned to a single body or shared by a number of bodies. In many countries, the PFR is a department within the electoral management body. Other countries may authorize government agencies with more general jurisdiction to administer or enforce the political finance laws—for instance, the interior ministry or the tax office. The PFR may also be a separate executive institution, such as an independent administrative agency. [1]

To perform their oversight and enforcement functions, PFRs must have independence, impartiality and operational integrity.

Independence

An independent PFR is better protected from attempts by the executive or legislative branches to misuse the regulator’s enforcement powers for political ends. Independence is fostered by a fair and transparent appointment process, with members selected by the executive and/or legislature through open deliberation. To promote continuity and stability, the institution should have a strong chair or chief commissioner, and staggered terms of office for members. Public monitoring by the media and public interest groups can serve to check interference by the legislature.

The PFR must have an independent budget; otherwise it could face budget cuts as retaliation for enforcing the laws against elected officials or the party in power. Ideally, the need to protect the PFR from threats to its budget should be balanced with the justifiable need for government oversight of the PFR’s expenditures, salaries and other costs. [2]

Impartiality

The appointment process is central to ensuring impartiality. There is no single appointment method that guarantees impartiality and accountability. In some countries the president or executive makes all appointments, although this method may yield a PFR lacking independence. For greater balance, the appointments responsibility can be divided between the executive and the legislature. Another approach is to give the lead responsibility to the judiciary or a designated civil service commission. In Britain, a group of senior civil servants are mandated to review applications for appointments to the electoral commission, and political parties are consulted only later in the process. [3]

Some enforcement bodies are non-partisan, while others have all major political parties represented equally. A non-partisan PFR may be effective only in jurisdictions with a strong and independent civil service and a political culture that fosters the genuine neutrality of members. Multi-party representation may appear to be fair but has been criticized as leading to gridlock and inactivity within the PFR. [4]

Finally, impartiality is enhanced when the PFR itself is subject to monitoring. Like any government body, the PFR may become enmeshed in partisan politics, or internally corrupt or wasteful with resources. Biased enforcement of political finance laws is a problem particularly in transitional democracies or countries under one-party rule: elected officials and parties in power may use the PFR to harass or eliminate opposition candidates and parties. For example, in Ukraine during the 1999 presidential elections, the government reportedly used the police, fire and tax inspection services to harass opposition candidates. [5]

Several steps can enhance the PFR’s impartiality:

• The PFR should develop internal guidelines setting forth objective, neutral criteria for discretionary decisions, such as whether to commence an investigation or an administrative penalty proceeding.
• If political finance laws are administered and enforced with full transparency, the media and civil society organizations can monitor the impartiality of the PFR and raise public confidence in its integrity. Some aspects of the audit and penalty decision-making process may need to remain confidential, but much of the PFR’s internal policy can be made public. For instance, on its Web site the New York City Campaign Finance Board (NYCCFB) posts disclosure statement deadlines and administrative penalty schedules, as well as a plain-language candidates’ handbook explaining the general structure of the electoral law and the disclosure/audit process.
• An audit of the PFR can provide assurance that the PFR is using its budget legitimately and efficiently to achieve the purposes for which the funds were allocated.
• A written code of ethics can clarify the PFR’s internal policies on public employment, confidentiality and conflicts of interest.

Operational Integrity

The PFR must have the authority to plan its own program for political finance administration and enforcement, along with the financial and human resources to implement this program. Even if the PFR’s budget is protected from political pressure, it may be insufficient for effective enforcement because the country itself has limited resources or because political finance simply is not a legislative priority. In fact, in many countries political finance laws have become more far-reaching and complex in recent years, but PFRs’ budgets have not necessarily increased commensurately. [6] Without sufficient resources, the PFR cannot maintain operational integrity. If it has to depend on another agency or the legislature for resources or personnel, vigorous enforcement could be at risk.

PFR staff may lack expertise or experience, a deficiency that particularly weakens the audit function. For instance, although the Election Commission of India has powers of oversight, investigation, prosecution and sentencing, it has had little success in enforcing the political finance law because of staffing shortages. [7] To maintain operational integrity and independence, the PFR should also have control over—or at least some involvement in—the recruitment, hiring and termination of its own staff.

The Role of Technology

A PFR with limited resources can increase its operational efficiency through the proactive and innovative use of technology. If it has competent technical staff, the PFR can computerize much of the disclosure information it receives as well as its analysis of that information, publishing relevant material on the Internet.

Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Britain, Georgia, Peru, the United States and other countries currently have databases for collecting and storing information, most of which are made publicly available over the Internet. Both the Central Election Commission in Lithuania and the NYCCFB in the United States have developed comprehensive electronic campaign finance reporting programs. Both regulators provide software to candidates so that they can file disclosure statements electronically or on disk. The information is uploaded to the PFR’s public Web site, allowing users to undertake on-line searches for a wide range of campaign finance information. In addition, the NYCCFB provides a public computer terminal that anyone can use to study current contribution data.

NOTES

[1] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, 2005, p. 10–11.

[2] Ibid., p. 28.

[3] Ibid., p. 27.

[4] Ibid., p. 27.

[5] Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies, Washington, D.C., US Agency for International Development, 2003, p. 25.

[6] Enforcing Political Finance Laws, p. 17.

[7] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 148, 151.

Oversight Powers of Political Finance Regulator

Without effective oversight of the financial activity of candidates and parties, the political finance regulator (PFR) cannot successfully enforce the political finance laws. Oversight enables the PFR to determine whether electoral participants are complying with political finance laws, including restrictions on the size and source of contributions, and limits on expenditures. Oversight also helps the PFR to ensure that the funds are spent only for legitimate, election-related purposes.

There are three primary mechanisms for political finance oversight:

• financial disclosure and reporting;
• audits of regulated candidates and parties;
• investigations into suspected political finance irregularities and violations.

Disclosure

The most basic method of oversight is financial disclosure. The electoral law should set forth clear political finance disclosure and reporting requirements. It should call for comprehensive disclosure of the financial activities of regulated entities, specifying all transactions that must be reported. For disclosure to be meaningful, electoral participants should produce contemporaneous financial records that substantiate their reporting and offer an audit trail allowing review of their financial activity. Useful documentation includes:

• contribution documentation, such as copies of cheques, money orders and credit card records, or contribution verification cards for cash and non-monetary (in-kind) contributions;
• expenditure documentation, such as bills, invoices, and/or receipts for goods and services purchased, plus copies of the cheques or credit card receipts used to pay for these goods and services.

Audit

Another important oversight method is the financial audit. This is a formal analysis of the financial records of an electoral participant to verify the financial reporting and determine whether the electoral participant is following the political finance laws. There is a direct relation between the reliability of the disclosure provided by parties and candidates, as well as their compliance with the law, and the actual and deterrent effect of audits.

An increasing number of jurisdictions recognize that audits are essential to political finance enforcement. However, different jurisdictions have audit practices that vary widely in terms of the identity of the auditor and the scope and technique of the audit.

Investigation

By developing an independent investigative capacity, the PFR need not rely on cooperation from other government entities. Instead the regulator can itself identify and examine suspected political finance violations, and collect evidence of such violations for use in enforcement proceedings.

An investigation may be launched in response to the PFR’s internal review and audit of a party/candidate, or it may have an external source, such as an outside complaint or press report. Many jurisdictions have a complaints procedure that allows citizens to report political finance problems or suspected legal violations on the part of political parties, candidates or other electoral participants. External investigations may also be initiated by the media and non-governmental organizations.

Political Finance Oversight - Disclosure

Disclosure is critical to any political finance program and its enforcement system. With full and timely disclosure, during the election cycle the public can find out who contributes to a particular campaign and how the campaign spends its funds. Disclosure enables the political finance regulator (PFR) to determine whether the campaign is complying with political finance laws. In public financing systems, disclosure allows the PFR to calculate the amount of public funds, if any, the campaign is due, and to ensure that the campaign spends its funds only for legitimate, campaign-related purposes.

To help the PFR detect and penalize violations of political finance disclosure requirements, a number of provisions should be included in the electoral law.

Committee and Officer Responsible for Finances

The law should require each electoral participant to authorize a particular committee and designate an individual (who serves as the financial officer, or treasurer) to be responsible for all receipts and expenditures. For all financial transactions, the committee and treasurer should use only one bank account, which is fully disclosed to the PFR. This principle was upheld in Costa Rica in May 2003, when the constitutional court ruled that bank secrecy privileges do not apply to political party assets and that information on accounts held by parties must be made available to the general public. [1]

Electoral participants’ committees should be prohibited from using funds or accounts other than the designated, reported account. By permitting only one financial conduit for each electoral participant, the law enables the PFR to effectively track political finance activity.

Comprehensive Disclosure

The law should require comprehensive disclosure of all financial activity and specify the financial transactions that must be reported.

• Receipts: The committee should disclose the amount and nature of each contribution (whether cheque, cash or non-monetary, i.e. in-kind), and the identity, address and employer/business of each contributor.
• Expenditures: The committee should disclose all spending, including the date and amount of each expenditure and its recipient, and all debts and liabilities incurred by the committee.
• Loans: The committee should disclose all loans and advances received, including the lender’s identity and business/employment, the date and amount of the original loan or advance, and the date when the loan or advance was repaid.

The law should also require comprehensive disclosure of assets of a political party and/or individual candidate by the committee, particularly in countries where no other records exist to identify these assets.

Records

In addition, electoral participants should be required to maintain contemporaneous financial records that substantiate their reporting, and to produce these when requested by the PFR. With accurate and contemporaneous financial records sufficient to establish an audit trail, the PFR will be able to verify the electoral participant’s financial activity and compliance with the law. Without this documentation, the PFR cannot effectively audit financial reporting by an electoral participant. As a result, public confidence in the integrity of political finance regulation will be undermined, and participants complying with the law will not be guaranteed a level playing field.

Ideally, the law should require electoral participants to maintain records documenting every contribution received. This would include copies of cheques, money orders and credit card records of actual contributions; in the case of a cash or non-monetary (in-kind) contribution, the donor should sign a contribution verification card to provide the necessary record. Similarly, loan documentation should be maintained, including written loan agreements plus copies of the cheques, money orders or other documentation connected with the receipt and repayment of funds. For expenditures, electoral participants should maintain:

• copies of all bills, invoices and receipts for the goods/services purchased;
• copies of the cheques used to pay for these goods and services;
• for payment of wages and salaries, detailed records documenting what services were provided and at what cost;
• for each purchase using the reporting entity’s credit/debit card, card billing statements and receipts that identify the vendor.

If these requirements are in force, the PFR should receive sufficient documentation to perform comprehensive audits. However, in countries with no documentation requirements or in cases of non-compliance with existing requirements, the PFR must have the power of compelling electoral participants to produce financial records so that it can verify the reported information.

Some countries (e.g. Canada, Israel) require public access to the records kept by parties. [2] If that is not the case, the PFR may need the power to issue subpoenas compelling candidates and party officials to provide testimony, and to produce campaign documents and computerized records.

The PFR should also have authority to physically enter the offices of reporting entities and access their information, in order to properly audit them and to verify the existence of property/services purchased with public funds. For example, Britain’s Electoral Commission is empowered to require an authorized political party official to produce books, documents or records relating to the party, and also has the right to enter the premises of a party to examine its books. [3]

Public Release

Public release of the financial disclosure provided to the PFR by candidates, parties or other electoral participants serves an important public education function. Unfortunately, a recent survey of 118 countries found that as of January 1, 2000, 17 percent of them did not make party/candidate financial reporting available to the public, instead following a policy of “hidden disclosure.” [4]

The best practice is to collect the information reported by electoral participants and integrate it into clear and comprehensible public reports, to be disseminated through the media, posted on the PFR’s Web site or provided in print form. In Germany, for instance, the parties’ financial reports are comprehensive and organized according to a common format prescribed by law; this facilitates review and comparison. [5]

Disclosure Without Democracy

Finally, it should be recognized that full disclosure poses a particular challenge in countries with non-democratic regimes because the information reported by opposition parties may enable the ruling party to harass and threaten opposition supporters. In the 1999 presidential election in Ukraine, contributors to the campaign of opposition candidate Oleksander Moroz suffered government harassment, and were required to report to tax inspection branches and explain the sources of their money. [6]

NOTES

[1] Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2004, p. 28.

[2] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 150.

[3] Global Corruption Report 2004, p. 54.

[4] Ibid., p. 46 (citing Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies, Washington, D.C.: US Agency for International Development, 2003).

[5] Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, p. 149.

[6] Global Corruption Report 2004, p. 41.

Political Finance Oversight - Audits

Audits are crucial to the work of the political finance regulator (PFR). A financial audit analyzes the contribution and expenditure documentation, banking statements and other financial records of a political party, candidate or other electoral participant. The audit serves several purposes:

• It verifies disclosure and reporting of contributions, expenditures and liabilities.
• It determines whether electoral participants are complying with the political finance laws.
• In public financing systems, it ascertains that any matching funds, grants or tax expenditures received were legitimately earned. It also ensures that public funds were used only for proper, politically related ends, not for private use or gain.
• It provides the public with valuable information about the contributions and expenditures of electoral participants, as well as the PFR’s assessment of the accuracy and completeness of each participant’s financial reporting.

Audits are increasingly recognized as essential for political finance enforcement. But audit policies vary greatly: some countries conduct full audits of all political finance reporting, while others provide for no audit oversight whatsoever. Some countries may not even require basic bookkeeping and the maintenance of financial records, without which it is impossible to effectively audit an electoral participant.

Choice of Auditor

The selection of auditors differs depending on the country and the subject of the audit. The accounts of a political party or an electoral campaign may be audited by a professional, independent auditor selected directly by the party/candidate, or else by the PFR or an associated government agency such as the tax authority.

In Austria, for instance, every political party must appoint an independent auditor to certify that it has used its public subsidy in compliance with the political finance laws. Before filing its disclosure reports, the party must obtain a certification from the independent auditor affirming that the party’s financial reporting represents a fair account of financial transactions of the party.

Although the Austrian practice ensures that there is some independent review of the parties’ reporting, no regulation provides for the reporting to be cross-checked by the PFR or another public enforcing agency. [1] If the candidate or party is required to select a private auditor, the law should set clear standards for choosing professional auditors, and should specify how and when the audit is to be performed. In addition, the PFR should retain some oversight authority over the process.

In Poland, auditors are selected by lottery to ensure their political neutrality and professionalism. [2]

Choice of Entities to be Audited

In some jurisdictions, the PFR will conduct a full audit of every party and candidate in an election, or it will require all parties/candidates to engage an independent auditor to review their financial reporting. If the PFR lacks resources to comprehensively audit the disclosure reports of all reporting entities, it may audit a random sample during the election cycle. Another practice is to audit only parties or candidates that receive public subsidies, show signs of political finance irregularities or problems, or are the subject of external complaints.

Not all PFRs have this authority, however. The Federal Election Commission in the United States, for example, is not empowered to perform random audits. It can audit a political party or candidate committee only when the reporting entity has failed to meet certain threshold requirements of the Federal Elections Campaign Act.

Levels of Review

Last, the scrutiny applied in the audit depends on the practice of the PFR and auditors’ experience. It may include:

• field audits and visits to offices of parties/candidates to establish that they are meeting basic requirements for recording their financial activity and maintaining adequate supporting documentation;
• review of disclosure statements for apparent irregularities or violations in reporting;
• review of backup documentation to ensure that it corroborates the reporting;
• evaluation of the overall financial activity of a reporting entity, and comparison with the standard or average practices of other parties/candidates;
• closer analysis of documentation showing signs of fraud, such as apparently forged signatures or improperly altered information. [3]

Communication Between Auditor and Reporting Entity

While the audit is being conducted, it is often helpful for the PFR to inform the party/candidate of reporting or documentation problems. This provides an opportunity for the problems to be corrected or for the original reporting and documentation to be supplemented. Such an exchange of information helps promote compliance with disclosure requirements, eliminating the need for administrative or legal sanctions. The PFR may formalize the process by issuing a draft audit report to the party or candidate that was audited, with a request for a response to the preliminary findings and correction of outstanding problems before the PFR makes its final audit findings.

Audit Report

After the audit is complete, the PFR often issues a written report describing the scope of the audit, and presenting the factual and legal grounds supporting the findings. The report gives the PFR’s assessment of the electoral participant’s compliance with the law, and indicates any remedial action required. Public release of the report serves an important public disclosure function, making the information it contains available to the media and civil society organizations.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 150.

[2] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, 2005, p. 43.

[3] Ibid., p. 39.

Political Finance Oversight - Investigations

An investigation into an electoral participant’s financial activities may be warranted if a political finance report is submitted that is incomplete or incorrect, or if the political finance regulator (PFR) has reason to suspect a violation of the law. While PFRs may be reluctant to conduct them, investigations are crucial to the detection process. If a PFR has its own investigative capacity, it can identify and analyze political finance violations itself without relying on cooperation from other government entities.

An investigation may:

• collect general information about the electoral participant’s financial activities, including banking and vendor records;
• gather testimony from employees, contributors and other witnesses through interviews or other communications;
• collect evidence of political finance violations for use in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement proceedings.

The PFR may decide to launch an investigation on the basis of its internal review and audit of the electoral participant, or in response to an external source such as a complaint or a press report. If the PFR has an effective audit and review system, most reporting errors and potential political finance violations may be detected in-house. Even the most advanced political finance monitoring system, however, will benefit from an external oversight mechanism.

Many jurisdictions have a complaints procedure allowing citizens to report political finance problems or suspected legal violations on the part of political parties, candidates or other electoral participants.

The complaints mechanism should be accessible and user-friendly. At the same time, it should discourage frivolous complaints or “fishing expeditions” by competing electoral participants. The PFR should set clear standards, requiring at a minimum that any complaint be timely, based on specific factual allegations, and signed and affirmed by the complainant. In the case of transitional democracies or states with one-party rule, some flexibility may be needed: if there is a danger of reprisal from the party in power, citizens should be able to file complaints anonymously.

In addition to complaints, the PFR should be empowered to launch an investigation in response to information received from other sources, including other government agencies, the media and non-governmental organizations.

The PFR may have the authority to conduct a field investigation itself, or else it may refer a case to another government agency or engage a private investigator. In Poland, for instance, the National Electoral Commission may refer cases to the tax authority for investigation. [1] With a potential criminal violation, the PFR often will refer the matter to the appropriate federal or state criminal law enforcement authority or prosecutor’s office. Referring an investigation to another government agency conserves the PFR’s resources but it leaves to that agency the decision on whether to investigate the alleged violation.

When investigating potential political finance violations, the responsible agency should respect the legal rights of suspects or witnesses, and should inform them that an investigation is being conducted. In a criminal investigation, additional due process rights might apply to a suspect under interrogation, such as the right to counsel or the right to refrain from self-incrimination. Proper care should be taken to ensure that all evidence gathered in an investigation is admissible in a civil or criminal court.

An investigation may also be initiated by the media or by non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups. Such an external investigation might encourage a reluctant or deadlocked PFR to undertake an official investigation. Alternatively, the external group may refer the evidence it gathers in its investigation to the PFR or a government prosecutor for further action.

NOTES

[1] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, 2005, p. 45.

Enforcement Powers of Political Finance Regulator

For enforcement to be successful, the political finance regulator (PFR) must have clear authority to enforce the political finance laws in administrative, civil and criminal forums, and must have access to a range of penalties and sanctions. Even if the PFR has full oversight authority, it cannot meaningfully enforce the political finance laws without the power to impose sanctions or initiate proceedings against offenders. Japan, for example, has extensive disclosure requirements but the election agencies that administer disclosure regulations are not authorized to verify financial statements, investigate financial transactions, or impose sanctions on parties or politicians. [1] Without penalties, a system of political finance regulation is ultimately toothless and is forced to rely entirely on the good will of the electoral participants.

Enforcement will be better and more consistent with access to a full range of penalties of varying degrees of severity. Sanctions include:

• modest administrative fines for minor violations;
• heavier monetary penalties for serious violations;
• criminal sanctions for significant violations that undermine the integrity of the elections;
• loss of reimbursement for election expenses, withdrawal of public funding and ineligibility for future funding;
• loss of seat in the legislature, disqualification from standing for future elections and ineligibility for appointment as a public official;
• dissolution of a party;
• cancellation of an election. [2]

If the political finance laws provide only for severe sanctions, such as the reversal of an election or criminal penalties, the PFR may be reluctant to bring an enforcement action or is likely to face considerable legal opposition from the violator. Equally problematic is a general belief that penalties for relatively minor transgressions are too severe: this may raise doubts about the fairness of the political finance system, with the result that non-enforcement or the “under-charging” of offences is tolerated. In the Republic of Georgia, for example, the absence of civil penalties is widely thought to have led to the non-enforcement of political finance disclosure laws. The only penalty for disclosure violations is disqualification from future electoral contests, and this sanction has yet to be imposed by judicial authorities. [3] Similarly, the Canada Elections Act can be enforced only through the criminal courts, not an administrative tribunal or civil court. As a result, the Canadian PFR has developed a policy of imposing light sanctions for many offences. [4]

A final consideration in the establishment of an effective enforcement system is timing. For many aspects of political finance, enforcement is meaningful only if it takes place during the election period itself. For example, if the PFR does not ensure that campaign committees are making contemporaneous disclosure of their financial transactions, the public will not receive accurate and timely information on which to base voting decisions. If penalties are not assessed before election day, the sanctions may come too late to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. Further, media coverage of political finance violations during an election draws public attention to the integrity of campaign committees, and this attention may be a far greater deterrent to offending committees than any monetary penalty imposed after the election.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 149.

[2] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, February 2005, p. 30.

[3] Ibid., p. 16.

[4] Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, p. 153.

Enforcement Powers - Material Incentives

One powerful sanction that can be imposed on a political party, candidate or other electoral participant is the withholding of a public benefit. The loss of public subsidy (e.g. matching funds or free media broadcasts) may have more impact than a monetary penalty. And since the political finance regulator (PFR) usually controls and has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of the public subsidy, this type of enforcement mechanism may be easy to manage.

Public financing is intended to offer candidates, especially challengers, sufficient resources to run a viable campaign without dependence on big donors or excessive time spent fundraising. The provision of public subsidies is a popular political finance approach. Over 79 percent of countries have some or all of the following:

• public funding/subsidies to political parties and/or candidates;
• tax relief such as tax deductions or credits for donations to parties or candidates;
• free or subsidized media broadcasts by political parties and candidates;
• in-kind subsidies (other than media broadcasts) such as free or reduced postal rates, rent or printing. [1]

If it is properly structured, a public financing program may be an effective enforcement technique. First, eligibility for a public subsidy can be restricted to political parties or candidates willing to voluntarily meet certain political financing standards, such as more extensive disclosure or spending limits. In the United States, for instance, public matching funds for the presidential race are available only to candidates who pledge to remain within voluntary spending limits. Second, the PFR can require the return of some or all public funds allocated if a party/candidate does not properly disclose and document how the funds were used, or if the electoral participant is in violation of the public financing laws generally. Removal of a public subsidy is a practice used to sanction offenders in France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain and many Latin American countries. [2]

Public funding may facilitate enforcement but the need to regulate it presents new problems:

• The state may wish to impose higher standards on political parties/candidates receiving public funds; for instance, the PFR may restrict the use of public funds to core electoral campaigning activities, or it may require more detailed documentation for expenditures. Higher standards for those accepting public funds creates a two-tier enforcement system, with different requirements and possibly different sanctions applied to publicly funded and privately funded electoral participants.
• Which parties or candidates should receive public financing? How equitably should public subsidies be allocated between them? These questions have no easy answers. There may be several options for dividing public financing or subsidies between electoral participants, with a different equity argument to support each option. [3]

NOTES

[1] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, February 2005, p. 6, Table 1.

[2] Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2004, p. 54.

[3] Enforcing Political Finance Laws, p. 21.

Enforcement Powers - Administrative

To ensure the effectiveness of a political finance system, the political finance regulator (PFR) must have authority to take enforcement action at the administrative level. Without independent authority to negotiate settlements or impose sanctions, the PFR is entirely dependent on other government agencies and the courts to give force to the political finance laws.

Enforcement does not necessarily require the imposition of administrative penalties, or recourse to civil or criminal courts. Where appropriate, non-legal approaches—such as training, negotiation or “shaming sanctions”—can often resolve non-compliance more quickly and inexpensively.

Education and Training

One method of encouraging compliance is providing education and training to regulated electoral participants. The PFR may hold training seminars, and/or issue plain-language handbooks or summaries of the applicable laws and regulations. Not only can training promote a culture of compliance, it can also empower parties and candidates themselves to monitor their own reporting and financial activities, and to correct inadvertent mistakes. The system should encourage self-monitoring by reducing penalties for errors or violations that are self-corrected, or by treating self-correction as a mitigating factor.

Negotiation

Non-compliance may also be resolved by informal negotiations, such as conferences, conciliation and alternative dispute resolution. [1] Generally, negotiations result in a compliance or conciliation agreement: the reporting entity acknowledges a violation, and agrees to take certain actions, pay a civil penalty or offer other remedies. The best practice is to make all settlements a matter of public record. Particularly if the PFR has no authority to impose administrative penalties or take legal action against offenders, negotiation and conciliation may be valuable tools for ensuring compliance with the political finance laws. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms offer several advantages:

• faster resolution of disputes;
• an active role for electoral participants or other respondents in determining the settlement of their cases;
• reduced costs and resource depletion compared with traditional enforcement mechanisms.

Shaming Sanctions

Since publicity is the lifeblood of politics, one of the most effective non-legal enforcement techniques is public shaming. An example is public release of the final audit reports of political parties/candidates, through print publication or posting on the PFR Web site. This promotes public education and disclosure. It may also persuade reporting entities to correct reporting problems during the audit process, lest their violations become common knowledge. Another shaming sanction is Web posting of a blacklist of political parties/candidates found in violation of the law.

Press coverage is key to the shaming process. The PFR press department may promote compliance by informing the media about enforcement actions as they are taken, and by hosting periodic background briefings for journalists about the political finance requirements to be met by electoral participants.

Administrative Penalties

Non-legal sanctions ultimately depend on the good will of the regulated electoral participants, and criminal sanctions on the good will of the law enforcement agency. Hence the need for the authority to impose administrative penalties. In many countries, the PFR itself can impose sanctions or monetary penalties against political parties, candidates or other electoral participants. Often, it establishes a quasi-judicial process to adjudicate violations of the political finance law.

The process for determining violations and/or assessing penalties should vary according to the seriousness of the potential offence/penalty. The best way of handling minor violations (e.g. late or incomplete filing of disclosure statements) may be under a “strict liability” standard, with a minimum of process for imposing small fines. For instance, PFRs in Canada and the United States administer a system of lesser fines to punish minor infringements and encourage voluntary compliance. [2] A trial-type hearing is unnecessary in the circumstances, and due process standards can probably be met by providing notice to the offending entity and an opportunity to respond. This system resembles the issuing of tickets for illegal parking in many cities; the great advantage is that it is easy and inexpensive to administer. Any monetary penalty should be proportionate to the offence but severe enough to have a deterrent effect.

For a more complex violation or one involving intent or culpability, the PFR may establish a quasi-judicial hearing process to ensure that the case is adjudicated properly and to afford the offending electoral participant a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The process generally begins with the serving of notice that charges have been laid and that the electoral participant has the right to appear to challenge them. The administrative adjudication may take place before a commission appointed by the PFR, or it may be assigned to an administrative law judge in the general administrative tribunal system. Whoever acts as adjudicator, the accused is entitled to an impartial, politically neutral judge. Further, due process requires that the electoral participant, whether in person or in writing, have the opportunity to mount a defence by presenting evidence and to test evidence presented by the government.

NOTES

[1] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 151.

[2] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, February 2005, p. 32.

Enforcement Powers - Civil and Criminal

In some systems, the political finance regulator (PFR) has the authority to file a civil action in the general courts, requesting monetary relief or an injunction if an electoral participant appears to have violated the political finance laws. In addition, the PFR will have to bring an action against the offender in the civil system to enforce administrative orders and penalties if they are not self-executing.

The advantage of civil enforcement is that the PFR need not depend on the law enforcement authority to initiate legal action, as is the case for criminal prosecutions. Should a PFR be ineffective or lack resources, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private litigants can file a civil suit. An NGO often is able to sue on behalf of its membership or the general public to ensure that candidates and political parties comply with the law. [1] In civil cases initiated by the PFR, civil society groups and academics may provide useful research and legal arguments by filing an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the PFR. Even a candidate or campaign may promote enforcement by bringing suit under the political finance laws because of injury suffered in the electoral process.

Enforcement is strengthened if the PFR can itself initiate criminal prosecution of political finance offences or can refer certain cases to another government body with the authority to launch criminal proceedings. Most countries, however, do not empower the PFR to initiate or conduct prosecutions of criminal violations of the political finance laws. An exception is Canada, where the PFR can initiate an investigation and appoint personnel to conduct it. The Canadian PFR can also initiate prosecutions of offences under the political finance laws. [2]

In fact, rather than severe criminal penalties, experience shows that a more effective way of enforcing the law is through monetary fines and the threatened withdrawal of public subsidies. [3] Prosecutions involve two disadvantages:

• They almost always take place after the election is over. As a result, when making their voting decisions, electors do not have the benefit of knowing the facts of any potential violation.
• The PFR usually must rely on law enforcement agencies to prosecute criminal violations of the political finance laws.

In Korea, for instance, the Central Election Management Committee must transfer every investigation/prosecution of violations of the spending limits and disclosure requirements to the criminal investigation authorities, which decide whether imprisonment or fines are appropriate. [4] A decision to pursue criminal sanctions thus shifts all enforcement authority to the law enforcement agency, and this body may not give priority to political finance violations or may be vulnerable to political pressure.

Particularly in countries in transition, the decision about whether to prosecute political leaders or candidates is not always made objectively and may not be based on a detailed review of the case. [5] For instance, in the 1993 parliamentary elections in Poland, dozens of campaign committees failed to make timely disclosure, or any disclosure. Despite this, the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue proceedings in 58 cases of political finance violations that it deemed were socially harmless. [6]

NOTES

[1] IFES, Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook, February 2005, p. 60–61.

[2] International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, 2003, p. 151; See also Davidson, Diane R., “Enforcing Campaign Finance Laws: What Others Can Learn from Canada,” Election Law Journal, 3(3), 2004, p. 537–44.

[3] Enforcing Political Finance Laws, p. 30–31.

[4] Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, p. 151–52.

[5] Enforcing Political Finance Laws, p. 33.

[6] Ibid.

Access to Information About Political Finance

Political finance regulators (PFRs) must manage an increasing flow of political finance information from electoral participants, and at the same time they must often comply with new legislative provisions requiring the information to be made available to the public. This is a major challenge, and it is heightened by demands from an active and aware civil society and media. If a PFR fails to manage and share the information effectively as required by the law and regulations, it can face a serious credibility gap.

If political finance information is widely available to political parties, civil society organizations, the media, reform-minded politicians, academics and ultimately well-informed voters, the result is more external scrutiny and a stronger impetus for self-policing. In Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark 1976 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled:

Disclosure provides the electorate with information as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office. It allows the voters to place each candidate in the political spectrum more precisely than is often possible solely on the basis of party labels and campaign speeches. The sources of a candidate’s financial support also alert the voter to the interests to which a candidate is more likely to be responsive and thus facilitate predictions of future performance in office. [1]

In political finance, access to information involves the full disclosure of political finance information and its availability for inspection and analysis by the public. Access to information is essential for fundamental transparency in political finance regulation. As an unpublished study on IFES Money and Politics projects states:

Political finance transparency, achieved through the availability (and accessibility) of political disclosure information, can help to illuminate and mitigate the effects of corrupt and illegal practices, while it simultaneously rewards those who “play by the rules.” As such, the disclosure of political accounts is a necessary—albeit insufficient—condition for holding political actors accountable and reducing political corruption. [2]

Two Steps to Transparency: Legal Framework and Disclosure

The first step in establishing a political finance system based on transparency is a legal framework that requires routine and thorough financial reporting by political parties, candidates and other electoral participants. Creating the framework is complicated; it involves setting clear rules about who needs to report and to whom, what needs to be reported and when, and how the information is to be reported. This first step must be backed up by proper enforcement and auditing.

The next step is what is commonly called “disclosure,” that is, making financial information received by electoral authorities available to the public. Disclosure may take many forms, and may be limited by electoral authorities to general statements about overall compliance with reporting obligations or to summary data. Genuine access to information involves complete public disclosure, sufficient to meet the policy objectives of informing the public and facilitating enforcement of political finance rules and requirements.

The electoral law and regulations should specify the various aspects of full public disclosure of political finance information:

• Who is responsible for disclosure: There should be a single collector and disseminator of disclosed information—generally the political finance regulator—with power to audit and enforce. [3]
• Who must report: Electoral participants subject to political finance reporting obligations should include elected officials, candidates, political parties and political organizations. [4]
• What to report: All relevant financial information must be reported—for example, both monetary and non-monetary (in-kind) contributions. Typical information disclosed would include campaign income and expenditures, regular income and expenditures for political groups, and assets and liabilities. [5]
• When to report: Disclosure should be regular, detailed and timely. [6] Public control is significantly less effective if the information is not published in a timely and comprehensible manner. Ideally, public disclosure should occur before election day so that voting decisions can be based on best available information about the political finance activity of parties or candidates. Information provided after the election has far less political impact and therefore less value as a deterrent to violations of political finance laws and reporting requirements.

PFRs use various mechanisms to collect and store political finance information. Information may be collected in print or electronic format, and stored in files or a database. Consultation will ensure the development of regulations with which the regulated community is able to comply, and of forms that the community can properly use. Once regulations and forms are ready, training and education should follow, explaining how to fulfill regulatory requirements.

Disclosure Methods

Perhaps the most common method by which PFRs publicly disclose political finance information, as widely required in election laws, is release through the print media. This usually involves publication of the information in an official state newspaper or gazette with limited circulation. Publication places the information in the public domain but access to it is limited. Sometimes only a summary of the reported information appears in print.

New technology allows either summaries or scanned financial reports to be posted on government Internet sites. Scanned reports are more widely available than print versions but they do not support information searches. Even so, Web posting of scanned reports may be the best choice for some PFRs since it costs less than entering data into a database.

The most common passive approach to public disclosure is to simply make political finance information available for review at the office of the PFR or another government body. This type of public access to disclosure files puts a burden on those seeking information and the body responsible for controlling it. Rarely are the files allowed to leave the premises, and the viewing process is often closely monitored. Civil society organizations and journalists wishing to examine the files complain of problems such as insufficient time allowed for viewing the materials and poor file organization.

Nevertheless, physical access by the public to the financial reports of political parties, candidates and other electoral participants may be a very valuable means of disclosure if certain needs and standards are met:

• An office of public disclosure should be established with adequate resources to assist public examination of political finance reports. It should have the necessary personnel and equipment to receive, photocopy, organize, file and make available the reports for public scrutiny in a timely manner. It should have suitable facilities to assist public examination of financial reports, and to permit photocopying at a reasonable cost and in a convenient manner.
• Access to the information should be open to all interested persons and groups, including journalists, academics, civil society organizations and electoral participants themselves. [7]

A more confrontational mechanism for gaining access to political finance information is through freedom of information acts. Exercising rights under such legislation may require filing a written request. In Romania, a local civil society organization, Asociatia Pro Democratia, utilized the country’s access to information laws to obtain disclosure information, which it posted on the Internet. Access to information requests are onerous for both applicants and the body responsible for providing information. Further, the information might be provided in a discretionary or arbitrary manner, depending on who is asking for it or whose information is being requested. [8]

Many countries at various levels of development (Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Britain, Georgia, Lithuania, Peru, the United States and others) have established searchable databases that can be accessed over the Internet (or at the office of a PFR or other government body). Web posting in a searchable format has many advantages over print publication:

• It is easily accessible by anyone with an Internet connection—particularly civil society groups and news media, most of which rely on some degree of Web access.
• Organizations and media can monitor and analyze reports, use disclosed account data in their investigative reporting, and make external complaints. [9] These actions increase accountability and encourage the regulated community to report more accurately.
• It eases the burden on the PFR, while facilitating the detection and enforcement process.

As both the PFR and the regulated community increase their ability to use information technology, a best practice is emerging. In Lithuania, the Central Electoral Committee provides political parties and candidates with electronic reporting forms that feed into an Oracle database. Although use of the forms is voluntary, they are popular because they make internal accounting easier and eliminate unnecessary data entry. The database can be accessed by the tax authorities responsible for reviewing political accounts. The public can view and search the database via the Internet.

Safeguards Needed

Full, detailed and timely transparency in political disclosure should be the norm, but reports may contain highly sensitive and personal information—particularly in the case of financial disclosure by political candidates. Further, the information may be abused or, in certain political circumstances, wrongly employed to harass opposition parties and their supporters. [10]

In view of these risks, political finance laws should provide safeguards to ensure that certain clearly defined types of information are not misused and that enforcement is not arbitrarily pursued against opponents of the party in power. [11]

NOTES

[1] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), p. 67.

[2] Carlson, Jeffrey and Walecki, Marcin, “Guide to Applying Lessons Learned from IFES Money and Politics (MAP) Projects,” (unpublished).

[3] See Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies, Washington, D.C.: US Agency for International Development, 2003, p. 21–26.

[4] “Guide to Applying Lessons Learned from IFES Money and Politics (MAP) Projects.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dahl, Robert, Money and Politics in Indonesia, vol. 4, IFES Project Report, Washington, D.C.: IFES, 2003.

[8] Elena, Sandra, Buruiana, Procop and Autheman, Violaine, Global Best Practices: Income and Assets Disclosure Requirements for Judges, IFES Rule of Law White Paper Series, Washington D.C.: IFES, 2004, p. 16.

[9] “Guide to Applying Lessons Learned from IFES Money and Politics (MAP) Projects.”

[10] Money in Politics Handbook, p. 25.

[11] Global Best Practices: Income and Assets Disclosure Requirements for Judges, p. 19.

Voting Operations

For an election to be free and fair, the voting process must follow democratic principles. These call for procedures and measures to guarantee the secrecy of the vote and the security of participants and sites. The electoral system must clearly define voting rules at a safe, accessible and neutral polling site. The ballots used and their design should reinforce the integrity of the process. To attract voters less likely to use traditional voting methods, the system might allow alternatives such as e voting, which poses its own challenges to electoral integrity. At polling stations, competent officials should be present to ensure that voting takes place in compliance with electoral law. There should also be monitors representing political parties, as well as independent observers; these can help detect potential problems, such as discrimination, intimidation and fraud.

Safe, Accessible and Neutral Polling Site Locations

The location of a polling site may affect the integrity of the vote, especially if it is not a neutral, easily accessible or safe location. Voters need to feel protected from political activists and pressure during voting. Polling sites should be in a safe and neutral location, such as a school, sports centre or community hall. They should not be in a private home, on the property of a party representative or in government offices. Electoral sites should also be easily accessible, easy to find and served by public transit.

Professional, Non-Partisan Personnel and Suitable Equipment

Non-partisan, properly trained and competent voting personnel play an essential part in supervising the voting process and ensuring that the necessary measures are taken to maintain order and keep voting secret.

Ballot boxes must be secure. Each should have a sealing mechanism with a serial number or other identifying mark to prevent fraud. Mexico, for example, uses see-through ballot boxes to show that boxes are not pre-stuffed. South Africa labels and numbers all ballot boxes so they cannot be switched without the knowledge of officials. Suitable privacy screens should be set up at polling stations to protect the secrecy of the vote.

Presence of Monitors

Having monitors from various political parties along with domestic observers reduces the risk of collusion with polling station officials to manipulate the results. Monitors usually sign each tally sheet and keep a copy, allowing them to check that results are not changed later. They also monitor the voting process to detect potential problems of discrimination, intimidation and fraud that may arise on election day.

Secrecy of the Vote

A secret vote is an essential integrity safeguard because it allows voters to cast their ballot in full independence. If a vote is not secret or can be identified during vote counting, some people might be intimidated into not voting as they had intended. Secrecy makes intimidation or bribery less effective.

Suitable privacy screens are used at polling stations in most countries to help protect the secrecy of the vote. The screen should be large enough and positioned so that others within the polling station cannot see how the voter marks the ballot. During the 2004 legislative elections in South Africa, privacy screens at some polling stations were poorly positioned, and this may have compromised the secrecy of the vote. [1]

When hand-marked ballots are used—as they are in most systems—voters mark their choice on a standard ballot out of the view of others. The ballot is then placed in a ballot box with the ballots of other voters, making it impossible to know whom the voter supported. Recent interest in allowing remote on-line voting has raised concerns that this method cannot guarantee the secrecy of the vote, thereby compromising electoral integrity.

NOTES

[1] Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA), Interim Statement by the EISA Election Observation Mission: South African National and Provincial Elections 12-14 April 2004.

Security

Electoral integrity requires an atmosphere free of fear, intimidation or manipulation on election day. Security during the election process is critical, especially during voting, vote counting and transmission of the results. A peaceful election environment facilitates a free, fair and credible election, and avoids security problems that could compromise the integrity of records, turnout or election results.

Voters must be able to vote without fear, and monitors must be able to observe without intimidation. Candidates must be able to campaign without the fear that their supporters will be killed or harmed. To ensure integrity, electoral administrators need to be able to plan and conduct elections without interference, and election materials must be safeguarded from tampering that would change the election outcome.

Maintaining physical security for elections is the responsibility of the government, which usually gives this task to the civilian police force. Security measures vary by country and circumstances. For integrity purposes, law enforcement must be neutral and impartial, ensuring a fair trial for suspected offenders.

Good Security Planning

Security requires good planning. This first involves identifying vulnerable stages in the electoral process and physical sites that need protection. Next it involves developing protective measures and implementing a security plan.

A security plan may be enhanced by good coordination between the election management body and enforcement agencies. A joint security plan might be developed and a coordination mechanism established to facilitate information sharing and decision making at the national, regional and local levels of all institutions.

Neutrality of Security Officers

Good election security relies on the neutrality and professionalism of enforcement officers. They must respect the law and citizens’ constitutional and civil rights, and not become involved in the campaign or agenda of any political party or candidate. Security officers must also refrain from using excessive force or violence.

In some systems, especially in post-conflict societies, security problems may stem from police misconduct. This may give rise to an atmosphere of insecurity, disrupting the election.

Protection of Polling Sites

Physical security for electoral sites and the election officers working there creates an environment in which the process can be administered in a neutral and unobstructed manner. Theft of electoral supplies and equipment may undermine the integrity of the process. Site security may be ensured by requiring people entering or leaving to wear photo identification badges. Observers and monitors should also wear badges indicating that they are allowed to enter election-related areas at critical stages of the process.

Order needs to be maintained at polling stations on election day. In some countries, this is a job for the police but indirect measures may also be taken, such as closing bars and liquor stores during voting hours. In the Philippines, it is illegal to serve, sell, buy or consume alcoholic beverages on election day. Firearms are prohibited within a certain distance of polling stations in most countries. Some systems designate a person responsible for security at each polling site. The security officer controls access to the building, allows a limited number of voters into the polling station at one time and keeps the line orderly.

Protection of Electoral Materials

To safeguard electoral integrity, ballots, tally sheets and other electoral materials must be protected from copying, destruction or tampering. Ballot tracking is facilitated in most systems by the use of stubs numbered in sequence. The way ballots are packed may also help with security. If ballots are in different-sized tamper-proof packaging, the right amount can be distributed to each polling station without any need to open and reseal packages. Storage and distribution are facilitated if the ballot packages for each electoral district are placed in sealed containers, with serial numbers and polling site locations marked on the outside. This also minimizes opportunities for mishandling.

The polling site needs to be secure enough to protect election materials and ballot boxes. Sometimes losing candidates steal or destroy ballot boxes after the polls have closed to invalidate the results. Sometimes ballot boxes are switched after voting ends. These tactics can be detected with the use of seals on ballot boxes, and with continuous monitoring by political party representatives and observers.

Protection of Candidates, Voters and Monitors

Candidates may be targets for violent acts. Police and other enforcement agencies usually provide candidate protection. Also needing protection are sites of campaign rallies, debates and other public events that attract large numbers of people interested in the campaign.

Voters need to be able to leave their homes and vote without fear of violence in the streets or intimidation at the polling station. Turnout will be lower if voters must face threatening partisan groups in order to cast their ballot.

Monitors also require protection allowing them to observe the process, ask questions and sign tally sheets without intimidation or fear of retribution. In countries in transition, domestic observers may feel vulnerable to intimidation and violence, especially if they observe problems caused by the ruling party or security forces.

Voting Mechanisms

Standardized ballots help maintain the secrecy of the vote. The design and type of ballot may affect the integrity of the process. A good ballot design can help ensure that voters locate the candidate of their choice on the ballot and that they mark the ballot so that their intention is clear. Proper ballot design avoids many of the problems that may arise during counting.

There are many types of ballots, including conventional paper ballots and ballots for use in voting machines. Some newer electronic systems have no paper ballot; voters view a screen and press a button to record their choice in the machine’s electronic memory.

The use of mechanical or electronic voting machines makes counting the vote faster, more accurate and economical, and eliminates risks of tampering with the results. Despite this, machines have not substantially changed the voting process. Voters still go in person to the polling station to cast their ballot. In contrast, e voting could change the voting process: the voter would be able to vote from home. This method comes with its own set of election integrity challenges.

Protecting the Integrity of Ballots

For integrity purposes, each ballot needs to:

• have a standardized format so that the name of every candidate or party appears in print of the same size, and is equally visible on the ballot;
• be easily tracked – for example, through a serial number on the stub;
• be complete and simple to understand so that voters can mark the ballot correctly; and
• be non-partisan in the placement of candidates’ names.

In some multicultural societies, the election policy-making body must choose the language used on ballots. The needs of illiterate voters also have to be taken into consideration. Several systems have met these needs by using logos as well as print text to identify candidates and parties. Another option is to add candidates’ photographs to the ballots.

Once the ballot design has been settled, election officers oversee the number of ballots printed and circulated. They need to properly estimate the number of ballots required for each polling station to ensure that everyone who is entitled can exercise his or her right to vote. They must ensure as well that it is difficult or impossible to tamper with ballots or mark them in advance.

Some systems include security features in the ballot design to make unauthorized duplication impossible; an example is the use of special watermarked paper. These features involve additional costs, which may affect the decision on whether to use them.

In other cases, the ballot is authenticated when handed to a voter in order to ensure that the voter returns the same ballot. In Ireland and Kenya, for example, ballots are valid only if they bear an official authenticating mark. In Mexico, after checking to make sure that ballots have not been pre-marked, political party representatives sign the ballots on the back. These measures can deter attempts to provide voters with pre-marked ballots or to replace valid ballots with counterfeit ones.

During storage and distribution, electoral administrators must protect ballots from damage or tampering that would affect their integrity. Good planning as to the number of ballot packages and the quantity of ballots per package can eliminate the need to open and re-handle ballots after delivery from the printer. A good tracking system is essential to protect ballot security.

Voting Machines

When voting machines are used, the same good planning and security mechanisms are required to protect the integrity of the machines. Electoral administrators are responsible for ensuring that only authorized persons have access to the machines during storage or in the pre- or post-voting period, to guard them from programming that would alter the election results.

Mechanical errors may give rise to integrity issues during machine vote counting. A machine cannot determine the intention of a voter if the voter’s mark does not strictly conform to specified requirements.

Internet Voting

Many countries are studying the feasibility of e-voting. Although electronic distance voting is not yet a reality, various systems have already tried out on-line voting from traditional polling stations and other public sites. [1]

Electronic distance voting could make voting easier, encouraging participation by people who are less inclined to go to the polling stations. However, it could be more difficult to protect integrity, entailing risks to the democratic principles of free and secret voting. How can we ensure that someone voting on-line is doing so freely and without coercion? How can we be sure of the identity of someone voting on the Internet and at the same time protect the secrecy of his or her vote? [2]

E-voting sidesteps many of the safeguards found at a polling station, such as the possibility of verifying that the person truly exists and is eligible to vote, or the ability to dip the voter’s finger in ink to prevent repeat voting. It is also more difficult to detect errors and their source. In addition, e-voting raises questions concerning public confidence, voter competence and accessibility, which could threaten election integrity. [3] Last, with a system based entirely on e-voting, there is a risk that results could not be saved effectively, making a vote recount impossible.

NOTES

[1] For an overview of these experiments, see Guérin, Daniel and Akbar, Asifa, “Electronic Voting Methods: Experiments and Lessons,” Electoral Insight, March 2003.

[2] For an in-depth discussion on the impossibility of guaranteeing free and secret voting from a legal and democratic perspective during electronic distance voting, see Birch, Sarah and Watt, Bob, “Remote Electronic Voting: Free, Fair and Secret?” The Political Quarterly, 75(1), 2004, pp. 60–72.

[3] On the subject of social acceptance of e voting at polling stations, see Delwitt, Pascal, Kulahci, Erol and Pilet, Jean-Benoît, “Electronic Voting in Belgium: A Legitimised Choice?” Politics, 25(3), 2005, pp. 153–54.

Discrimination, Intimidation and Fraud

Discrimination, intimidation and fraud may prevent voters from casting a ballot, lead them to change their choice against their will, and alter the outcome of the vote.

Discrimination

Bureaucratic obstacles may make it difficult for certain segments of the population to register or vote. For example:

• in several southern U.S. States, payment of a poll tax was a requirement for voting. Anyone unable to pay the tax was not allowed to vote. This discriminatory practice was not fully ended until 1966;
• the definition of eligibility criteria for voter registration may systematically exclude certain segments of the population.

Intimidation

Intimidation may take many forms, both subtle and aggressive. The purpose is usually to coerce voters into supporting or opposing a candidate or party. Following are some tactics of intimidation:

• physical or economic threats, such as threats of loss of employment;
• stationing a party activist beside the line of voters waiting to enter a polling site. Through words or gestures, the activist may threaten persons entering or leaving the polling site. The intimidation may also be more subtle—for example, wearing the emblem of a particular candidate or party within the polling site;
• locating a polling site on the property of a candidate, political party or government official.

Intimidation may also target electoral employees, with the aim of compromising their independence and impartiality.

Intimidation may be practised by anyone—a candidate, political party, monitor, voter, electoral administrator or government official. Most electoral laws specifically prohibit intimidation. However, subtle forms of intimidation may be hard to prove.

Fraud

Fraud by individuals may include:

• impersonating a voter at the polls or in casting an absentee ballot;
• voting with a pre-marked ballot;
• voting more than once;
• voting when not eligible;
• paying others to influence how they vote.

Other types of fraud may be committed by the electoral administration:

• allowing ineligible persons to vote;
• changing or destroying voters lists;
• preventing qualified voters from casting a ballot;
• allowing voters to cast more than one ballot;
• substituting fake ballots for votes legitimately cast, or casting ballots in the name of voters who did not go to the polls;
• not marking a ballot as directed by someone who requested assistance in voting;
• stuffing ballot boxes with pre-marked or spoiled ballots;
• destroying ballots that were validly cast;
• not accurately counting the ballots or recording incorrect information on the tally sheets;
• changing the election results or announcing false results.

Two safeguards are commonly used to minimize opportunities for fraud:  

• Confirming voter identity: To prevent someone from using the valid registration of another person to vote, some systems require voter identification. This enables polling officers to check whether the person who showed up to vote is really the person registered. To prove identity, the person may show the voter registration card or another type of acceptable identification.
• Identifying people who have already voted: To prevent repeat voting, some systems mark voters who have cast a ballot. Someone thus marked cannot commit voting fraud. The most common marking system involves dipping one of the voter’s fingers in indelible ink. Other systems use hand stamps that are visible under fluorescent light. The election management body must ensure that there is enough ink for all voters and that it will not wear off before the polls close. Storage and distribution must be monitored to prevent use of the ink by persons who wish to stop voters from casting a ballot for an opposing candidate.

Vote Counting

Integrity problems may arise at the polling table where the ballots are counted or in the tabulation of polling station totals. They may be the result of a genuine mistake or a deliberate effort to manipulate the outcome.

Machine counts reduce the risk of error but a machine cannot determine a voter’s intention if the voter did not mark the ballot in a spot read by the machine.

To maintain the integrity of the electoral process, vote counting must produce results that are valid, accurate and accepted by all participants. A number of important measures must be taken to achieve this objective.

Counting should be done as soon as possible after the polls close

The longer that ballots remain uncounted, the higher is the risk of tampering with the results. Before beginning the count, however, it is important to ensure that the site is secure and observers are present.

When there are problems of intimidation or security, counting at individual tables may be impossible. In this case, counting may be moved to a different site (for example, a regional centre) where ballots from several tables are brought together before counting. This provision is included in the election laws of several countries, including South Africa, which allows electoral administrators some discretion to move the counting location.

The voter's intention must be properly understood

A voter may mark the ballot but miss the designated box or space, making it difficult to know how to count the vote. Too strict an interpretation of the rules may invalidate an otherwise valid vote.

For example, during Indonesia’s 2004 presidential election, ballots that were perforated twice became a major issue in the electoral process. Each ballot had been folded in such a way that a voter could perforate it without opening the ballot fully. The poor design raised the number of invalid ballots. Indonesia’s General Election Commission had to pass an emergency order allowing use of the criterion of obvious intention. Nonetheless, some counting centres did not comply. [1] Not using the designated space to mark the vote is a major problem if machines are used for counting. Machines can read only the designated spaces and cannot take into account a voter’s obvious intention.

Accuracy of the count must be ensured

The following should be applied to guarantee the accuracy of the count:

• Good management of the count is essential, as is proper training of all the counters.
• A transparent count with monitors and observers is desirable. Monitors and observers compare the official results with the results they received; their participation is a good mechanism for ensuring accurate counts. In some countries, such as Denmark, anyone may attend the count, increasing the transparency of the process still further. [2]
• There should be predetermined rules about what to do with spoiled ballots and ballots where the voters’ intention is not clear.
• Spoiled or rejected ballots need to be separated from ballots that are marked and valid.
• Disputed ballots also need to be separated for review at a higher level.
• All relevant tally sheet information should be recorded, including: the number of ballots delivered to the polling station; the number available at the start of voting; the results; and the number of disputed, spoiled or unused ballots.
• In most countries where ballots are counted by hand, the choice marked on each ballot is read aloud. The ballot is shown to all monitors and election officers present to demonstrate that the vote has been properly counted.
• It is important that monitoring continue through the consolidation of the count until release of the official results, since tampering may occur after the initial count.
• In many systems, monitors keep track of the count and sign the tally sheets to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the results (stating their reasons in the case of disagreement).
• An effective appeals process is necessary. Candidates and monitors should be able to challenge the results of the count. The appeals process is usually set out in the legal framework. Since it may allow a recount, ballots are usually kept for as long as the law requires.
• Good law enforcement is crucial. In every system, it is a crime to tamper with election results by not counting some ballots, deliberately misreading votes, changing the results, destroying ballots or falsifying tally sheets. Election fraud may be averted by investigating allegations of tampering as soon as they are reported, and by enforcing the law.

Secrecy of the vote must be protected

The secrecy of the vote is maintained when ballots are not marked in a way that could identify the voter. If ballots are validated by a stamp or signature, the use of a standard mark can minimize the possibility of connecting a ballot with a voter.

The secrecy of the vote may be at risk when votes are counted locally. If few people voted at a table and the votes are counted at that same table, it may become obvious who voted for whom.

NOTES

[1] Carter Center, The Carter Center 2004 Indonesia Election Report, June 2005.

[2] Folketing (Danish Parliament), “Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark”.

Electronic Vote Counting

New technology is changing the way people vote. E-voting and electronic counting are increasingly in use. Machine counting is generally more rapid and accurate than counting by hand.

Machine counting removes the subjectivity involved in assessing the validity of ballots and can ensure an impartial count. It also eliminates many human errors, as well as opportunities for manipulating the count and the results.

However, a machine cannot determine a voter’s intention if the voter made an extra mark on the ballot or did not mark it exactly in the spot that can be read by the machine. Although the intention is clear, the ballot may be rejected.

In addition, machines are not infallible and, if not programmed or maintained properly, they will yield incorrect results. For instance, in the 2000 elections in the United States, shortcomings of the voting machines used in the state of Florida gave rise to an unprecedented electoral and legal tangle involving the Democratic and Republican parties. The race in that state was extremely tight and it was decided that all the votes would be recounted by hand because the defeated candidate believed that the machine results were inaccurate.

Complaints and Appeals

The opportunity to make a complaint or appeal is an important safeguard of election integrity. Some candidates and parties may refuse to accept defeat, and make unsubstantiated charges of fraud or tampering. Other candidates may have valid grounds and plausible evidence to justify a complaint.

Election integrity requires that the election management body and the justice system be willing to effectively address complaints without undue delay. It also requires that the complainant be willing to use the official complaints mechanisms and abide by the resulting decision.

In the 1998 elections in Cambodia, the National Elections Committee failed to grasp the importance of handling complaints transparently and with care. The Cambodian People’s Party pressed the Committee to settle complaints as quickly as possible. The haste simply increased the opposition parties’ suspicion of a cover-up. As a result, the Committee’s reputation was irreparably damaged. [1]

In Ethiopia’s 2005 elections, the system for processing grievances was incapable of handling the very large volume of complaints filed. In a climate of violence, the ruling party reached a consensus with opposition parties on an emergency measure to resolve the conflict and legitimize the results. This situation could have been avoided if a practical, simple and transparent system had been developed before the elections. [2]

Administrative Reviews

The electoral management or policy-making body may have the authority to review complaints; this is usually a first step in the process. A review is part of the internal checks of most electoral administrations, and may examine a complaint related to registration, voting or the count. In most systems, complaints about criminal activities are referred to the criminal justice system.

The institutions responsible for settling complaints and hearing appeals differ according to each country’s electoral and judicial system. In some systems, the electoral management or policy-making body is mandated to receive complaints and hear appeals. In other systems the task is given to a specialized court, such as an electoral court. In Denmark, the legislature has this responsibility. Under the Danish constitution, the Folketing (Parliament) determines the validity of the election of its members and is the sole judge in matters of eligibility. [3] In contrast, in South Africa complaints are first filed with the Electoral Commission and appeals are heard by the Electoral Court.

In Ireland, the result of a presidential election may be challenged only by a petition to the High Court, presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, a candidate or the agent of a candidate in the election. When hearing an election petition, the High Court must determine the correct result of the election and may order a recount for this purpose.

Recounts

A recount is usually held if a candidate or party challenges the vote count because there is reason to believe that the count was inaccurate. It may be that ballots were improperly counted or rejected, or that election officers improperly carried out the tabulation of results. Some systems provide for an automatic recount in a close election.

In Canada, an automatic recount is performed if the two leading candidates are separated by less than a thousandth of the votes cast in an electoral district. The returning officer makes a request to a judge for a judicial recount and notifies the candidates in writing. Citizens may also apply to a judge for a judicial recount by submitting an affidavit within four days of the official count.

To safeguard integrity, a recount must usually be performed with as little delay as possible. This is to ensure that ballots are not destroyed or tampered with before the recount. Monitors and observers usually watch the recount.

Appeals

To ensure integrity in the review process, the decision of the electoral management body is generally subject to appeal. This enables the person who filed the complaint to seek a review of the decision with a higher-level institution, such as a constitutional court. The appeals process serves as a check on the decisions made in the initial review, and may deter arbitrary or biased decision making.

Appeals are part of the checks and balances on decisions made by a lower court or after administrative review of a complaint. Each system handles appeals differently, according to its legal and institutional framework, but it is important to have a straightforward procedure that allows review of lower-level decisions in a systematic, neutral and timely manner.

NOTES

[1] Kassie, Neou and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999, p. 161.

[2] Carter Center, Final Statement on the Carter Center Observation of the Ethiopia 2005 National Elections, September 2005.

[3] Folketing (Danish Parliament), “Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark.”

Official Results

The final step in the electoral process is the official announcement of the election results by the electoral administrators. To safeguard integrity, the results must accurately reflect the total vote, taking into account decisions on disputed ballots. Tampering with the official results may be a last-ditch effort to subvert the outcome of an election. [1]

The integrity of the official results can be protected by applying the same safeguards used to protect the integrity of the vote. These include putting in place efficient systems with proper control mechanisms and oversight. Continuous monitoring throughout the count by observers and monitors can deter tampering with the results. Monitors can compare their parallel vote count with the official results and immediately report any discrepancy through the official complaints system or the press.

Speedy announcement of the official results is also important. The more time that passes between counting and release of the results, the more time there is to tamper with the results. A long delay in the release of results, even if they are accurate, may feed suspicions that will damage the credibility of the results when they are finally released. For instance, the electoral law governing the 2005 elections in Iraq did not provide a timeframe for releasing the preliminary results and publishing the official results. This flaw represents a potential threat to the transparency and legitimacy of the process. [2]

In South Africa the timely release of results is ensured by the Electoral Commission, which may declare the outcome of an election even if it has not received results from all polling stations, on two conditions:

• Waiting for the results from every polling station would unduly and unreasonably delay the determination and declaration of the election outcome.
• The missing results would have no influence on the overall election outcome.

Taking Office

In the final step of a valid electoral process, the election winner takes office. In the older democracies, the transfer of power from one elected official to another is routine and not an issue. But for countries undergoing a transition, this final step may be difficult and may abort the democratic election process.

In post-conflict societies or countries with a history of undemocratic rule, it is important to address these issues in the planning process. If an election is transparent, free, fair and credible, a loser has fewer excuses for not accepting the results. Accurate parallel counts by political parties may validate the results, and international election observation may win acceptance for an election and its results.

NOTES

[1] Schedler, Andreas, Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico, Mexico City: Facultad Lationamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), 1999, p. 3.

[2] International Mission for Iraqi Elections, Final Report: Assessment of the January 30, 2005, Election Process.

Contributors to Electoral Integrity

This topic covers the many matters related to the standards and challenges of electoral integrity. Democratic principles, measures and mechanism are considered at each stage of the election administration, including electoral management, voting procedure, boundary delimitation, voter education and registration, party/candidate registration, campaigns, media, political financing, vote counting, as well as enforcement.

The topic area of Electoral Integrity was originally written by Ms. Sue Nelson in 1997. Ms. Agnieszka Dobrzynska updated and expanded the topic.

Agnieszka Dobrzynska is a postdoctoral fellow with the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies at the Université de Montréal. Her Ph.D. thesis (Université de Montréal, 2002) focused on the role of the media in electoral campaigns. Her research interests include elections and voting behaviour, public opinion, media coverage of politics, electoral systems and methodology. Her main postdoctoral project examines the impact of the media coverage on political engagement and cynicism in Canada.

Sue Nelson has close to twenty-five years of experience managing international assistance projects and democracy and governance programs and is currently an independent consultant advising on governance, integrity, electoral assistance and electoral observation matters.

IFES Senior Program Specialist, Jeffrey Carlson, coordinated a team of practitioners from the New York City Campaign Finance Board -Executive Director Nicole Gordon, Tara Malloy, and Tanya Domi- and an independent expert, Bob Dahl.  Thanks to the financial contributions of USAID, this team provided valuable contributions in the area of political finance as they relate to the values and principles that are important to election integrity.

Electoral Integrity - Bibliography

Print sources:

Argentina. Office of the President. Official Bulletin No. 28,590, 1st Section. February 20, 1997.

Barkan, Joel, and Njuguma Ng'ethe. “Kenya Tries Again.” Journal of Democracy 9 (2), 1998.

Beetham, David. “Freedom as the Foundation.” Journal of Democracy 15 (4), 2004, pp. 61–67.

Birch, Sarah. “Explaining Confidence in the Conduct of Elections.” Paper presented at the Public Opinion and Political Parties Conference, University of Essex, September 9–11, 2005.

Birch, Sarah, and Bob Watt. “Remote Electronic Voting: Free, Fair and Secret?” The Political Quarterly 75 (1), 2004, pp. 60–72.

Bjornlund, Eric C. Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

Boneo, Horacio. “Observation of Elections.” International Encyclopedia of Elections, ed. Richard Rose. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2000, pp. 197–198.

Buckly v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976), p. 67.

Buruiana, Procop, Sandra Elena, and Violaine Autheman. Global Best Practices: Income and Assets Disclosure Requirements for Judges, IFES Rule of Law White Paper Series. Washington, D.C., 2004.

Carlson, Jeffrey, and Marcin Walecki. “Guide to Applying Lessons Learned from IFES Money and Politics (MAP) Projects.” IFES. Unpublished.

Carothers, Thomas. “The Observers Observed.” Journal of Democracy 8 (3), 1997.

Dahl, Bob. Money and Politics in Indonesia, vol. 4. IFES.

Delwit, Pascal, Erol Kulahci, and Jean-Benoit Pilet. “Electronic Voting in Belgium: A Legitimised Choice?” Politics 25 (3), 2005, pp. 153–154.

Donsanto, Craig. “The Federal Crime of Election Fraud.” Paper presented at the Third Annual Trilateral Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, May 8–10, 1996.

Elklit, Jorgen, and Andrew Reynolds. “The Impact of Election Administration on the Legitimacy of Emerging Democracies.” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 40 (2), 2002, pp. 86–119.

Elklit, Jorgen, and Palle Svensson. “What Makes Elections Free and Fair?” Journal of Democracy 8 (3), 1997.

Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. Élections libres et régulières. Droit international et pratique. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1994.

Hughes, Colin. “Institutionalising Electoral Integrity.” Elections Full, Free and Fair, ed. Marian Sawer. Sydney: The Federation Press, 2001, pp. 142–157.

IFES. Enforcing Political Finance Laws: Training Handbook. 2005.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns: Handbook Series. 2003.

Krishna, Kumar, ed. Postconflict Elections, Democratization and International Assistance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998.

López-Pintor, Rafael. Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance. New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2000.

Mozaffar, Shaheen, and Andreas Schedler. “The Comparative Study of Electoral Governance – Introduction.” International Political Science Review 23 (1), 2002, pp. 5–27.

Neou, Kassie, and Jeffrey C. Gallup. “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections.” Journal of Democracy 10 (2), 1999.

New Zealand. Electoral Commission. Broadcasting at Parliamentary Elections. A Guide of Political Parties, Candidates and Broadcasters. Wellington, 1999.

———. Everything You Need to Know About Voting Under MMP, New Zealand’s Electoral System. Wellington, 1996.

Pastor, Robert A. “Mediating Elections.” Journal of Democracy 9 (1), 1998.

———. “The Role of Electoral Administration in Democratic Transitions: Implications for Policy and Research.” Democratization 6 (4), 1999, pp. 1–27.

Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael. “Financing Politics: A Global View.” Journal of Democracy 13 (4), 2002.

Plano, Jack, and Milton Greenburg. The American Political Dictionary, 8th ed. Holt, Reinhart and Winston Inc., 1989.

Saldana, Augustin Ricoy. “Electoral Offenses.” Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Electoral Systems, IFES, May 8–10, 1996.

Schedler, Andreas. “Democracy by Delegation: The Path-Dependent Logic of Electoral Reform in Mexico.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), Atlanta, September 2–5, 1999.

———. Distrust Breeds Bureaucracy: The Formal Regulation of Electoral Governance in Mexico. Mexico City: FLACSO, 1999.

South Africa. Independent Electoral Commission. “Code of Conduct for Political Parties.” Election Administration Manual of South Africa, Chapter 5. 1997.

Throup, David. “Elections and Political Legitimacy in Kenya.” Africa 63 (3), 1993.

Transparency International. Global Corruption Report 2004. Pluto Press, 2004.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies. Washington, D.C., 2003.

Electronic sources:

Associated Press Managing Editors. Statement of Ethical Principles. 1994. www.apme.com/ethics.

Canada. Commissioner of Canada Elections. Investigators’ Manual. 2004. www.elections.ca/loi/inv_e.pdf.

The Carter Center. The Carter Center 2004 Indonesia Election Report. June 2005. www.cartercenter.org/documents/2161.pdf.

———. Final Statement on the Carter Center Observation of the Ethiopia 2005 National Elections. September 2005. www.cartercenter.org/documents/2199.pdf.

Denmark. Folketinget. Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark. www.ft.dk.

Elections Canada. www.elections.ca.

Elections New Zealand. www.elections.org.nz.

———. Everything You Need to Know About Enrolling to Vote. www.elections.org.nz.

Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA). Interim Statement by the EISA Election Observation Mission: South African National and Provincial Elections 12–14 April 2004. April 2004. www.eisa.org.za/PDF/pr20040416.pdf.

Guérin, Daniel, and Asifa Akbar. “Electronic Voting Methods: Experiments and Lessons.” Electoral Insight, March 2003. www.elections.ca.

India. Election Commission. www.eci.gov.in.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Code of Conduct for the Ethical and Professional Observation of Elections. 1997. www.idea.int/publications/conduct_obs.

———. The Future of International Electoral Observation: Lessons Learned and Recommendations. 2005. www.idea.int.

International Mission for Iraqi Elections (IMIE). Final Report: Assessment of the January 30, 2005, Election Process. www.imie.ca/rep_Jan30.html.

Ireland. Department of the Environment. Heritage and Local Government. www.environ.ie.

Landry, Raymond. “Enforcement of the Canada Elections Act.” Electoral Insight, March 2003. www.elections.ca.

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). www.ndi.org.

———. Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. A Post-Election Conference Report. February 2004. www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1782_kh_report_021204.pdf.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Representative on Freedom of the Media. www.osce.org/fom.

OSCE/ODIHR. Ukraine, Presidential Election: 31 October, 21 November and 26 December 2004. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report. Warsaw, May 2005. www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/05/14224_en.pdf.

Sax, Herschell. “Readjustment of Federal Electoral Boundaries.” Electoral Insight, May 2002. www.elections.ca.

Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. www.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/ethics.htm.

Society of Professional Journalists. Code of Ethics. 1996. www.spj.org/ethics.asp.

South Africa. Independent Electoral Commission. www.elections.org.za.

United States. Comptroller General. Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision). www.gao.gov/govaud/yb2003.pdf.

———. Federal Election Commission. Filing a Complaint. www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complain.shtml.

Wyoming State Legislature. Ethics and Disclosure Act. legisweb.state.wy.us.

Consideración de costos

El costo de la integridad de una elección depende de los sistemas utilizados y del grado de salvaguardas requerido. La conveniencia de adoptar ciertas salvaguardas de integridad se debe ponderar contra los riesgos potenciales a la integridad en cada etapa del proceso electoral. Unas elecciones poco íntegras no se considerarán creíbles, ni sus resultados se percibirán como legítimos. En ocasiones, candidatos y electores tienen miedo de participar por amenazas a la seguridad. A veces, las aparentes irregularidades hacen dudar del proceso electoral o de si el resultado representa en realidad la voluntad de la mayoría de los votantes. La organización de una segunda celebración de elecciones debido a problemas de integridad puede resultar mucho más costosa que la adopción de salvaguardas.

El organismo electoral y los legisladores deben determinar si se amerita el costo de la adopción de los mecanismos para salvaguardar la integridad que estén considerando. Deben plantearse una pregunta: ¿Cómo se verá afectada la integridad del proceso electoral si no se toma esta medida? [1]

La valoración diferirá de acuerdo con el contexto político y social del país en cuestión. En sistemas electorales caracterizados por altos niveles de desconfianza, generalmente se adoptan amplias salvaguardas para asegurar la integridad del proceso y reafirmar la confianza de los participantes. Estas salvaguardas pueden significar altos costos, pero el gasto extra se justifica si el resultado es una elección creíble y aceptada por el país en general. Por otra parte, en sistemas electorales bien establecidos, en donde los procesos electorales son rutinarios y sus resultados no son cuestionados, los beneficios de adoptar salvaguardas extraordinarias pueden no justificar el costo adicional.

Algunos mecanismos de integridad no requerirán de mayores desembolsos. Por ejemplo, para la planeación eficaz y el desarrollo de buenos sistemas, sólo se necesita hacer un uso adecuado del tiempo y las capacidades de los profesionales en elecciones. Lo mismo es cierto para los mecanismos de control interno que forman parte de cualquier sistema de administración electoral.

Asegurar la transparencia y exigir que el organismo y los funcionarios electorales rindan cuentas de sus actos son salvaguardas de integridad que no implican ningún costo. La protección de las instituciones basada en un sistema de pesos y contrapesos es crucial en el mantenimiento de la integridad y no implica costos adicionales.

Sin embargo, muchas salvaguardas de la integridad sí implican gastos y requieren de un análisis de costo-beneficio. ¿Cuál es la probabilidad de que efectivamente se presente el problema y afecte la integridad de la elección? ¿Qué tan eficiente es la salvaguarda? ¿Incrementará la confianza en la integridad del proceso? ¿Incrementará la credibilidad en el proceso? ¿Podemos afrontar los gastos de su adopción y mantenimiento en el transcurso del tiempo? ¿Hay formas menos costosas de lograr el mismo resultado?  Los siguientes mecanismos son bastante costosos:

Personal adecuado. Los costos de personal representan el mayor gasto en la administración de una elección. Los riesgos contra la integridad se elevan si el personal es muy poco o si carece de la debida capacitación.

El empleo de salvaguardas en el material electoral puede incrementar los costos de una elección. Por ejemplo, es más costoso imprimir números seriados en los talonarios de las papeletas electorales, aunque es una manera sencilla y eficaz de darles seguimiento. Hay otros mecanismos más sofisticados, pero también más costosos. Cuesta más emplear papel de seguridad con marcas de agua para las papeletas, que papel ordinario. Podría haber menos proveedores de este tipo de papel y de otros materiales especiales, por lo que se requeriría de un mayor plazo de entrega.

El uso de nuevas tecnologías puede fortalecer la integridad. Ejemplos de ello son los inventarios computarizados y listas del padrón electoral a los mecanismos de verificación y control. Sin embargo, el uso de nuevas tecnologías en ocasiones puede originar riesgos a la integridad, como sería el caso de la emisión del voto a través de Internet. La tecnología moderna puede ser costosa, pero el costo se distribuirá en un periodo más largo si los equipos y el software se utilizan en elecciones subsiguientes. El costo del uso de tecnología adecuada a las condiciones locales, casi siempre se analiza contra su efectividad.

Algunos equipos se pueden rentar en lugar de comprar, con lo cual se reduce el riesgo de obsolescencia. Puede emplearse equipo de otras organizaciones. En las elecciones de 1999 en Indonesia, se utilizó la red bancaria computarizada para el conteo de votos. En casos como éste, deben tomarse en cuenta los riesgos a la integridad que implica el uso de un sistema y personal externos.[2]

La adopción de tecnología moderna para mejorar la integridad puede resultar costosa a corto plazo debido a la inversión de capital y a los costos de capacitación. Sin embargo, si su uso es eficiente, a largo plazo la tecnología moderna puede representar un ahorro de recursos.

La vigilancia de las elecciones y de la aplicación de la ley son factores clave para el mantenimiento de la integridad que pueden resultar costosos. No obstante, el monitoreo significará ahorro de recursos a la larga si asegura que todas las partes aceptarán los resultados de la elección. Vigilar la aplicación de la ley, la investigación y el procesamiento de infractores puede ser costoso, pero estas son medidas eficaces para combatir la corrupción, asegurar la integridad del proceso y ayudar a prevenir problemas futuros.

La educación para electores es otro mecanismo importante para la integridad; pero cuando los recursos son escasos, la educación del público es uno de los primeros programas en sacrificarse. Los organismos electorales deben buscar opciones de bajo costo para difundir información, tales como negociar tiempos de transmisión gratuita en radio o televisión, llevar a cabo conferencias de prensa con regularidad y buscar la colaboración de organizaciones no gubernamentales para ayudar a transmitir mensajes de importancia crítica para los electores.

NOTAS

[1] Harris, Paul, Comisión Electoral de Nueva Zelanda, comunicación con Sue Nelson.

[2] Ibid.