Voter Service

Voting stations are the public faces of the electoral management body and voting day the one time when the majority of the public will come face-to-face with formal democratic processes.

The public's experiences in voting stations--how they are treated, the perceived efficiency and integrity of voting station operations--will colour their attitude about the effectiveness of the electoral management body, and often the democratic process itself.

Voting hours operations are a massive exercise in voter service, not just a blind application of rules for the benefit of officials. Under the pressures, within the tight time frames common for elections, of constructing a large network of voting locations, staffing and supplying them, and ensuring that procedures are applied with integrity, administrators can at times lose sight of service issues. The service aspect is of equal importance to, and enhances, integrity.

As with any customer-based activity, poor voter service will drive the customers away. Experiences with long queues, rude or unknowledgeable officials, complex and ill-explained procedures and materials, inflexible facilities, and lack of accuracy in registration records can contribute to decisions not to participate in voting and, hence, in democracy.

Service considerations are an essential component of all stages of planning and preparation for voting, including:

• the voting procedures and methods used and the range of voting facilities provided so as to stimulate voter participation.

• the staffing levels allocated to voting facilities 

• the voter information provided to voters 

• the user-friendliness of design and the availability of election materials and equipment (see Materials and Equipment);

• the training provided to voting station staff

• the measures taken to assure voter safety

Planning Considerations

In the end, no matter what preparations are made, service and integrity rest on the practicality of voting procedures and the quality of their implementation by voting station staff on voting day. Elements that need to be carefully considered in providing voter service during voting hours include:

• voting station locations, size, and facilities—(voting station area, staffing, materials, and equipment allocations) should be of sufficient capacity to cope with the expected number of voters

• voting station layouts should create a one way flow of voters from the entrance, through eligibility checks, issue of ballot materials, to voting compartments, casting of ballots, and thence to the exit

Service Implementation

In implementing plans for voter service, attention needs to be paid to:

• methods of controlling crowds of voters waiting to vote to promote an orderly, efficient, and friendly atmosphere in the voting station, using voting station layouts that encourage a logical flow of voters through the voting station, and ensuring that waiting time to vote is minimised 

• determining eligibility of voters to vote speedily, accurately, and courteously, and in a manner that minimises possible disruption to other voters.

• the manner of issuing ballots and casting votes (see Issue and Casting of Ballots);

• provision of information to voters that will assist their understanding of the voting process (See  Informing and Assisting Voters) and providing assistance to voters with physical disabilities or literacy or language problems;

• systems to identify voters who may need further information or assistance early, before they reach the eligibility check and accountable voting materials issue area and possibly delay other voters' progress;

• helping people who turn out to vote at a voting station at which they are not eligible to vote ;

• motivating and supervising voting station officials in the performance of their duties (see Voting Station Staff Management);

• providing a secure voting station environment (see Security in Voting Stations).

Crowd and Queue Control

Ensuring an orderly flow of voters through the voting station promotes efficiency of voting services and enhances the maintenance of security in the voting station. Time spent waiting to vote is often the major factor that voters remember of their voting experience.

Having to endure a long or disorderly wait to vote can be a significant negative factor in voters' perceptions of the efficiency and integrity of the election:

• Long queues for voting are not necessarily the only problem. Slow moving queues, no matter what length, are also to be avoided.

• A large number of voters inside a voting station is not a problem, if the size of the voting station area is large and the control mechanisms are effective.

• A small number of voters milling around aimlessly in a voting station, with no clear idea of where they should go next, can cause delays and confusion.

• Where voters are accustomed to voting station procedures, speed of voter processing can be increased and voters' waiting time and requirements for crowd and queue control are diminished.

• The fewer voters that need individual attention from voting station officials for procedures to be explained, the more familiar vote styles are, and the greater efficiencies are both in staffing requirements and processing, the more speed can be attained.

Thus creating voting processes and procedures that are sustainable and stable in the longer term will considerably aid effectiveness in voter service.

Crowd Control Focus

There are four distinct areas and functions in the voting station that need to be considered in organising effective crowd control measures:

• queues of voters waiting to be checked for voter eligibility and issued with voting materials, which may extend outside the voting station itself and require assistance from security forces in external crowd control;

• the area between ballot materials issuing tables and the voting compartments;

• voters seeking information or assistance or being redirected within the voting station;

• control of voting station exits.

Factors That Will Aid Crowd and Queue Control

There are some crucial factors that need to be considered in providing an effective framework for crowd and queue control inside a voting station, including:

• the size of the voting station and the appropriateness of its staffing and facilities for the expected number of voters;

• the effectiveness of the voting station layout;

• allocation of staff to crowd control duties;

• control of entry to the voting station, including the use of restricted entry areas around the voting station;

• early identification of and facilities for voters who may be slower to process;

• use of clear signs, voting information posters, and crowd control barriers;

• making voting station officials and other authorised persons in the voting station clearly distinguishable, through use of badges, armbands, caps, or other distinctive apparel;

• use of more than one voter eligibility checking and accountable voting materials issuing table.

Attention to these issues can ensure effective management of large numbers of voters through a voting station in a single day.

Allocation of Staff to Crowd and Queue Control

Crowd and queue control duties should be assigned to specific voting station officials. This may not necessarily mean staff have this as a sole task--for example, in all but very large voting stations or high security risk situations, the staff member guarding ballot boxes may also be able to ensure that voters do not congregate around or attempt to re-enter through exits.

In all but the smallest voting stations, control of queues of voters waiting to vote would generally be assigned to a specific official. However, in enveloped ballot systems, where envelopes are issued on entry to the voting station, this entry control official could also undertake queue control functions.

In other systems, depending on the method of voter identity checking used, and where the issuing tables for accountable voting materials are located, queue control could also be combined with control of the voting station entrance. In very small voting stations, it could be undertaken by the voting station's manager or any voter information officer allocated.

Voting Station Staff Crowd and Queue Control Functions

In instituting effective crowd and queue control measures within the voting station, all voting station staff have a role, not just those assigned to voter queue control duties. This is not just a matter of control; effective handling of voters queued to vote would enhance service to voters.

Staff responsible for entry and/or voter queue control must ensure that:

• Queues are kept in orderly lines, and particularly that voters are not permitted to congregate around the issuing area for accountable voting materials;

• voters have identity or other required documents ready for eligibility checks;

• voters are directed to the voting materials issuing table (or the correct one, if more than one is operating) as soon as it is vacant;

• they have an active engagement with the voters waiting to vote, patrol the queues on a regular basis;

• monitoring the time spent by voters in queueseither on a regular, formal basis, through the use of time stamped cards presented to the voter on arrival at the voting station and also time stamped when the voter is issued with a ballot, or, less formally, through monitoring of a random sample of voters' progress by an official using a watch; service evaluation and improvements can be based on an objective foundation.

These officials can play a large role in enhancing the service to voters and the efficiency of voting materials issue through such activities as:

• escorting "priority" voters to the head of the queue;

• actively providing information on voting process requirements;

• actively attempting to identify any problems with regard to eligibility or voting processes that voters may have and attempting to have these resolved before the voter reaches the ballot issue table;

• identifying voters with language difficulties, or who may require assistance in voting, and arranging for assistance for these voters.

Issuing of Voting Materials

The efficiency of methods used by staff checking voter eligibility and issuing ballots is a major determinant of how fast voter queues are processed. As far as possible, any disputes or difficulties with voters at these points should be directed to senior voting station officials to prevent disruption of service to the bulk of voters. Issuing staff should ensure that:

• Where voters' names cannot be found on the voters list within a reasonable time, assistance is sought from supervisory or voter information officials--arguments over eligibility should not be allowed to hold up the voter queue.

• Voters with language problems or needing assistance in voting are referred quickly to the voting station manager or other senior information staff.

• To prevent congestion in the voting compartment area, a voter is not issued with accountable voting materials (ballots or envelopes) unless a voting compartment is empty.

Congestion may lead to breaches of voting secrecy requirements through voters attempting to complete their ballot outside a voting compartment.

Exit Control

Staff responsible for control of the voting station exit must ensure that voters leave the voting station immediately after depositing their ballot in the ballot box (or after lodging a computer or voting machine vote).

Monitoring by Managers

The voting station manager and any other supervisory staff must constantly monitor the length of time voters are waiting in queues, entry control, and activity at the ballot issuing tables. Issues needing particular attention include:

• checking the overall number of voters in the voting station at any time and advising entry control staff of any need to slow down or speed up entry rates;

• being aware of any difficulties or disputes arising at ballot issuing tables and moving quickly to ensure that these do not affect voter flow;

• in voting stations with multiple voting materials issuing tables, the relative speed of issue at each table.

Where tables deal with separate alphabetical or other divisions of the voters list, inefficient or tired staff at one table can lead to a long queue, and resentment at relatively slow processing, for one segment of voters. Flexibility in systems to allow rotation of staff between the different tables or functions will help maintain overall voter service and goodwill. Such rotation will require a more complex system of maintaining staff accountability for voting materials issue.

Perimeters Around Voting Stations

Legal delineation of an area around the voting station available only to voters, security forces and accredited party or candidate representatives, observers or guests, but not to party campaigners or any other persons not attending to vote, can aid both crowd control and voting station security.

The appropriate radius of this area will vary according to the number of voters assigned to the voting station and the security situation. In various jurisdictions the radius of this exclusion zone may range from a few metres to several hundred metres7. Where buildings used as voting stations (such as schools) are set in fenced grounds, the fence line could also be legally defined as the voting station area. Such perimeters--established with rope, tape, or other barriers--can be of use in distancing any disturbances and crowd problems from the voting area itself.

In some jurisdictions, judicious use of staff and distribution of copies of voters lists to officials stationed at the perimeter are used to assist in advising intending voters if they do not have any required personal documents, have turned out at the wrong voting station, or are not registered, before they join a voting queue, and thus ease crowd control burdens within the voting station.

However, patrolling such perimeters can be very resource-intensive and impractical to enforce if set at a considerable distance from the voting station itself.

Control of Voting Station Entry

Entry to the voting station should be controlled to ensure only those with authorised access to the voting station--voters and other accredited persons--are allowed to enter, and that the number of voters within the voting station area at any time is of manageable proportions. All voting station officials, party or candidate representatives, observers, and security staff authorised to be present in a voting station should:

• be issued an accreditation document or card which must be presented on entry to the voting station;

• prominently wear a badge or other article of apparel that clearly distinguishes them from voters and indicates their function while in the voting station.

Stationing of a voting station official at the voting station entrance to check voters' identity documents can be the most efficient method of controlling voter entry. The nature of the entry check will be in part determined by voter eligibility requirements and the ballot issue system, and in part by efficiency considerations.

Entry control is easy to achieve in systems where voters must produce a document--a general identity card or a voter identity card of some description--to gain entry to the voting station. The issue is how far should the checks on entry extend to achieve a balance between strict entry control, efficiency, and accessibility to voters.

Rigorous control of voting station entry will also be impossible in systems where maximum accessibility to voting processes is the overriding goal--for example, where there is no requirement to show an identity card on entry, where voters lists are not unique for each voting station, or where unregistered persons may register at a voting station or cast a tendered or provisional vote.

Basic Check

The simplest level of entry check is merely to ensure that voters have  the documentation required for voting.

Where such documentation is a general purpose identity card, or a voter identity card that does not identify the voting station at which the voter is eligible to vote, this check may only filter out those ineligible to vote or unable to attempt to vote until they return with their identity documentation.

It may allow persons who are not registered or whose registration does not entitle them to vote at the voting station to enter, and transfers the need to deal with these persons to officials controlling queues inside the voting station or issuing voting materials. It does reduce delays for voters entering the voting station.

Higher Level Checks

Where effectiveness of crowd control inside voting stations or integrity of issue of ballot materials is perceived as a potential problem, more thorough checks on entry to the voting station may be appropriate:

• Rigorous entry checks can be maintained if all voters are issued voter identification cards showing their appropriate electoral district and voting station.

• However, due regard must be paid to voter accessibility and equity issues, so as not to exclude voters who have been the victims of error in production of official materials.

Use of Voters List as Entry Control

In systems where voters are not issued voter identity cards, a copy of the voters list is sometimes used at the entrance of the voting station to determine eligibility for entry. However, there are significant disadvantages to this method:

• It can add to delays in entering the voting station, particularly where the quality of compilation or accuracy of details on voters lists' is poor.

• It is inefficient since it duplicates the effort of other voting station officials, as the vital voters list check should occur when voters are issued accountable ballot material.

However, checking against the voters list at the voting station entrance can have some advantages, though these need to be carefully assessed against the above disadvantages:

• It can provide early notification to voters that they cannot be easily found on the voters list, or are not on the voters list, and allow these voters to be immediately directed to senior officials for assistance and information.

• It moves the area where major disputes are more likely to occur with voters away from the area issuing accountable voting materials.

Use of Maps for Entry Control

Use of voting district maps at the voting station entrance and questioning of voters as to their address of registration can be an effective method of redirecting voters who have turned out at the wrong voting station.

This can be particularly important where voters' lists have only recently been introduced and where there are doubts about the general awareness of voters of the correct voting station to attend, due to new procedures or changes to electoral boundaries.

Numbers within Voting Station

Numbers of voters entering the voting station need to be controlled to the extent that orderly queues are maintained, and so that the number of voters inside the voting station does not prevent voting station officials, party or candidate representatives, and other observers from having a clear view of all voting compartments and ballot boxes.

Some relaxing of strict control of numbers entering the voting station may be required immediately before the time for close of voting if there are still voters outside the voting station waiting to vote.

Weapons

Confiscating weapons carried by voters is a task that should be carried out by security forces outside the voting station rather than by voting station officials.

In environments where this is likely to be an issue, liaison between local security forces and the voting station manager on optimal methods for ensuring weapons are surrendered, and establishment of secure storage and collection points for surrendered weapons, will be required.

Signs

Signs and barriers can be used to assist voters in their flow through the voting station and in keeping queues orderly. Signs should prominently identify the areas and tables for:

• issuing voting material;

• the voting station manager's desk;

• issuing special votes;

• information, language, or other assistance services;

• the ballot box (es).

It is important that signs used are comprehensible to all voters; particularly in areas of lower literacy, symbols should be used, rather than relying totally on words.

Where there is more than one table for issuing voting materials, and these are to deal with different sub-sets of voters on an alphabetical or geographic residence basis, there must be clear, visible signs above or by each table and at the head of the voter queue for each table indicating the correct table and queue for voters to join.

In all cases, placing of signs and markers for heads of voter queues some two to three metres from the relevant issuing table will prevent congestion around the voting materials issuing area.

Barriers

Barriers can be used to maintain a controlled queuing area and keep voters moving in the correct direction through the voting station. Use of a lightweight, flexible, barrier system, such as rope, modular cardboard or lightweight plastic poles/stands, or even road-marking barriers, can allow maximum effective use of available queuing space by compressing queues into a zigzag or similar formation.

Barriers are particularly useful for exit and entry control where voting stations have a combined entrance/exit. They can be similarly used to ensure that voters do not re-enter voting stations after depositing their ballot in the ballot box.

The need for crowd control barriers, and the staff resources that need to be devoted to crowd control, will vary according to the cultural environment. In societies where patience and order are a significant part of the general cultural ethos there may be a minimal requirement for crowd control measures.

Efficiency Measures

Speed of processing of voters and voter capacity of voting stations can be increased by:

• combining voter eligibility checking and voting material issue at the same location;

• having more than one voter eligibility checking/voting material issuing table, allowing simultaneous processing of more than one voter;

• Where voters must complete a ballot for more than one election, issuing ballots or accountable envelopes for all relevant elections simultaneously (either as separate ballots or combined on the one ballot).

Making voters go sequentially to different tables for eligibility checking and voting material issue for each of simultaneous elections being held in a voting station has the potential to cause confusion and slow down voter processing. Some rare exceptions to this may occur where there are major differences in eligibility criteria for different elections being held simultaneously.

Splitting Voter Queues

Where several streams are used for eligibility checking and voting material issue  it would be more usual for the voters list to be split on an alphabetical basis by surname, with voters directed to a queue formed in front of the appropriate table. Where this form of organisation is used, care needs to be taken that:

• the voters lists have been printed so that a fresh sheet is commenced with each alphabetical family name division;

• the split of the list allows approximately equal numbers of voters to be serviced by each issuing table--this will depend on frequency of family names: for example, in many societies, a straight A-M, N-Z split of the list will give widely unequal parts.

Local electoral management officials, while planning voting station operations, should determine appropriate splits for each voting station.

Use of Bank-Style Queuing

Where there is more than one eligibility checking/voting materials issue table in a voting station, voter flow can be most efficiently handled by using a single voter queue.

Officials would then direct voters to the first vacant eligibility checking/materials issue table, rather than splitting voters into separate individual queues based on an alphabetical split of family names or on address of residence.

However, this method's greater efficiency in speed of processing has to be balanced against other cost, management, and integrity considerations that can be adversely affected by its implementation:

• Instead of printing a single voters list for each voting station, that may be split to create different voter streams, additional complete voters lists for the voting station will be required, with consequent additional print and control costs.

• Being marked on a voters list can no longer be a solitary, primary control to prevent multiple voting; though it can be used as a means of identifying voters who vote more than once.

• Additional controls, such as surrendering of voter identification cards or marking voters with ink, are required for prevention, with the additional materials, or equipment and staffing costs involved.

Voting station management needs to be of high quality to take full advantage of the service flexibility possible.

Provided that the voters list format, and measures for materials control and ballot validation are sufficiently flexible, using the voting station manager or another staff member at a temporary eligibility checking/materials issue table can assist in clearing longer voter queues at peak-periods. This is more cost-effective than allocating additional full-time staff that may be under-employed for the whole day.

Other Planning Measures

There are other highly important planning measures that will assist in crowd and queue control. These would include:

• pro-active liaison between local officials of the electoral management body and political, community, and employer groups to determine if and when to expect large influxes of voters, through organised transport or other arrangements, and attempts to negotiate scheduling of these so that they do not arrive at the same time;

• maintenance by the electoral management body of individual voting station statistics of voter turnout by time period, and of queuing time for a sample of voters, so that resource allocations (e.g., the number of voting compartments required or part-time staff) can be effectively matched to peak voting periods.

Determination of Eligibility to Vote

One of the major functions of voting station officials is to determine whether voters turning out to vote at a voting station are in fact eligible to vote at that voting station. Eligibility requirements that need to be satisfied for a voter to be issued a ballot need to be clearly specified in legislation.

The effectiveness of the application of procedures for determining if a person is eligible to vote in an election is one of the crucial determinants of the overall integrity of the election process.

Steps in Determining Eligibility

Three significant questions must be answered in determining an intending voter's eligibility to vote:

• Is the person who he claims to be? Either through presentation of identity documents or by other means, is the voting station official satisfied that the voter is not impersonating someone else?

• Is the voter on the voters list for that voting station, or otherwise qualified to vote at that voting station?

• Does it show that the voter already voted in this election, and if so does this preclude another ballot being issued?

These are best undertaken as an integrated check, immediately before the voter is issued a ballot (or ballot envelope, when these are the controlled materials). In all circumstances, eligibility checking, including any checks of voter identity, should be undertaken by a properly authorised voting station official, not by police or other security personnel stationed at the voting station.

There is no generic system for implementing these controls in all circumstances. The intensity of procedures adopted will depend on a number of factors, including:

• risk analyses of possible manipulations;

• the level of community trust;

• accuracy and availability of relevant documentation.

What is appropriate in transitional elections may be excessive and heavy handed in environments with a history of election integrity.

Importance of Consistency

One important factor is that the eligibility tests are consistently applied by voting station officials, both throughout all voting stations and to all persons attending to vote.

Inconsistency in application will raise valid questions about election integrity. Achievement of consistency can be of particular importance where:

• there is a range of identity documentation, or documents possibly of unverifiable authenticity, that voters may use to prove eligibility;

• there are inaccuracies in voters lists, through errors in compilation, or voters having moved since the compilation of the lists.

Reasonably equitable voter eligibility checking systems take account of such errors (for example that, the elector's name may be misspelled or reversed, address details may have been erroneously transcribed to the certified voters list or may not be current) and would err on the side of the voter, allowing any significant perceived problems to be dealt with by means of challenge to the election.

Where such subjective judgment has to be applied by voting station officials, clear guidelines for their actions, and supervision to ensure that these are implemented consistently, are necessary.

• The overall level of integrity provided by voter eligibility checking will very much depend on the quality of the voters lists.

• It is also likely to be easier to check voter eligibility in smaller voting stations with staff drawn from the local community.

Basic Approaches

In general, there are two ways of approaching voter eligibility checks:

• in an active manner, by requiring voters to prove that they are eligible, that is, by requiring voters to produce some defined identity document, to show in some manner that they have not already voted in the election and possibly to have an exact match with details recorded on the voters list;

• in a passive manner, by relying on an oral or written statement to a voting station official by voters regarding their identity, the match with details on the voters list and that they have not already voted. Appropriate and cost-effective procedures could combine elements of each of these two approaches.

The basic consideration is: are eligibility checking mechanisms to be very high integrity checks that will absolutely prevent anyone not eligible from voting, very possibly at the expense of some eligible voters being turned away, or are they to be more realistically targeted at eliminating significant or systematic manipulation, through maintaining some flexibility in order to maximise participation?

Efficiency of the Eligibility Checking Process

Effectiveness of eligibility checks can be enhanced if:

• the eligibility check is carried out by voting station officials immediately before, and at the same table as, the issue of accountable voting materials (ballots and/or envelopes);

• there is opportunity for officials to challenge the eligibility of any intending voter, and either to have this adjudicated by the voting station manager (or other senior voting station official) following the swearing of a declaration as to eligibility by the voter, or to allow challenged voters to vote only by way of a provisional ballot.

In some systems, party or candidate representatives may also challenge whether a voter is eligible to be issued voting material, though more often this right is restricted to challenging inclusion of these votes in counts.

Voter eligibility checks can efficiently be applied by a single voting station official with the combined functions of eligibility checking, marking the voters list, and issuing voting materials (ballots and/or ballot envelopes). However, it is common that functions of eligibility checking and ballot or ballot envelope issue are assigned to separate officials.

On balance, this may be a more costly method. It may provide some additional integrity through cross-checking between the staff but is often the result of lack of confidence in staff professionalism or additional extraneous tasks, adding little to integrity, being loaded on to these officials.

If multiple voting controls include the marking of voters with special ink, a second voter eligibility control official engaged in checking voters for ink marks and for applying the ink will generally be required.

Voters Eligible for More than One Vote

Under some systems of elections at local government levels, voters may be entitled to vote more than once, in respect of their domicile and also of any other rated property owned or leased by the voter. While the philosophy behind such systems may be open to question, where they are used, the compilation of certified voters lists, preparation of voters lists, and voting station procedures for determining voter eligibility and preventing multiple voting will need to be adapted to allow such voters their legal entitlement to more than one vote.

Similarly, in systems where proxy voting  is allowed, proof of eligibility will need to be established in regard to each vote being claimed by proxy voters.

Multiple voting controls based on marking voters with ink will be more difficult to implement where proxy voting is allowed.

Voter Identity Checks

The first step in checking voter eligibility is to determine if voters are who they claim to be. This should be established before moving to check if the voter's name appears on the voters list at the voting station.

It would be more usual, and generally seen as necessary for voting integrity (for public perceptions, even if not to combat real risks) for voters to show a specified document or documents to prove their identity. The most simple and cost-effective means of checking voter identity is through requiring voters to present a nationally recognised identity card of high integrity.

Determination of Valid Identity Documents

Whatever documents may be used for establishing identity in the voting station, the identification system must maintain equity and, as far as possible, simplicity in defining the relevant document or documents required to prove identity. In implementing proof of identity systems for voting there are some useful principles to use as a guide:

• It is best that a single, unique form of document be used as the basis of establishing voter identity.

• Where a range of documents, or a combination of documents is acceptable, the range should be kept to the minimum required to cover all eligible voters. This issue is more likely to arise in post-conflict situations where administrative identity systems have broken down and there is insufficient time or finances to develop specific voter identity cards for the election. The acceptance of both military and civilian documents as identifiers should generally be avoided.

Where a range of documents may be used to prove identity, additional controls on multiple voting, such as marking the voter with ink, may be required, particularly if voters lists are not of high quality.

• Eligible voters must have had equitable opportunity to obtain the identity document(s) required for voting. (This may be important where elections are rushed as a conflict resolution mechanism in post-conflict or new state situations.)

• The identity document or documents required should not be easily forged.

• Documents bearing a photograph or other high integrity personal characteristics of the voter would preferably be used.

Without these, the documents may be too easily transferable and add nothing to voting integrity.

Using signed documents and requiring some form of signature check (on an application or receipt for voting materials) against an identity document has significant disadvantages; it will slow the voting process, is not reliable (officials are not handwriting experts), and creates problems for illiterate voters.

• The required document(s) must be public knowledge and voting station officials made totally aware of what is acceptable.

• Where a range of identity documents is acceptable, voters must be treated equitably no matter what acceptable identity document they choose to use.

Voter Identification Cards

It is becoming more common that voter identity is established by showing some form of receipt for voter registration or a voter identification card issued for the election. This additional measure may be particularly useful where there is no general national identity card system of sufficient integrity.

Production of a high integrity voter identification card eliminates the need for any other proof of identity to be shown in the voting station (instead these checks are undertaken at the registration stage).

Surrendering or cancelling of the card in the voting station can also provide an effective multiple voting control. High integrity cards would normally bear a non-removable/alterable photograph of the voter. Development of other voter identification systems (using developments in technology for thumb print recognition, voice and retinal imaging) is also current.

However, in determining whether specific voter identification cards are required, all associated costs and the longer-term sustainability of production must be considered.

Their use would be justified in environments where there is likely to be sufficient contention over voting eligibility that lack of a high integrity identity mechanism specifically for voting could affect overall acceptance of election outcomes.

Applications to Vote

High integrity control on voter identity can be achieved, where no national identity card system exists, by requiring each voter to complete an application to vote (or finalise an application pre-printed from registration records) on arrival at the voting station.

The details on this application, including voter's signature, are then compared with original registration records provided in the voting station to determine if the voter should be issued voting material.

While this method can achieve integrity in assessing voter eligibility and preventing multiple voting, it is a comparatively slow, cumbersome method of processing voters, with big disadvantages in societies of lower literacy and requires voting station officials to make quick judgments on handwriting comparisons.

Declaration by Voter

There are systems in which identity checking consists solely of voters orally declaring to the voting station official that they are who they claim to be, and there is little if any evidence that this openness is abused.

While this may be appropriate in societies where there is a tradition of political restraint, transparency, and community trust, it is not a model that is generally applicable.

Location of Identity Checking

Where documents proving identity are to be shown at the voting station by voters, checks can effectively be instituted in two stages:

1. An initial check on entry to the voting station, to ensure that voters have the relevant documents with them and turning away any voters without the required documentation (for discussion of voting station entry controls, see Crowd and Queue Control). Service to voters can be enhanced by questioning voters on entry, or while queuing to vote, to determine if they are at the correct voting station and advise them accordingly (see Crowd and Queue Control).
2. A check of identity as part of a full eligibility check by the official controlling the voters list, prior to being issued a ballot and/or ballot envelope. Voters should be asked to present the required identification documents to the official for inspection.

Eligibility to Vote at a Voting Station

Following confirmation of the voter's identity, the next step in establishing eligibility to vote is to determine whether the voter is eligible to vote at that voting station.

It is preferable that certified voters’ lists be used for this check, rather than relying purely on voter identification cards or on some external source prepared for some other purpose, such as civil lists. Inclusion of a voter on the voters list used in the voting station would generally be regarded as proof of a voter's right to vote at that voting station; if the list includes voters believed to be ineligible, this may be a matter for later challenge.

Checking Against Voters List

In undertaking this check, the voters list should be searched for the voter's name (with reference to the identity document provided by the voter where these are required), and if found, the name and particulars confirmed with the voter. The voters list is then marked to indicate that the voter is issued a ballot. Depending on how the lists are to be later processed, the manner of marking may differ.

Where manual reconciliations of voters marked on voters lists to ballots and/or accountable ballot envelopes issued are to be undertaken, it would be usual and prudent to draw a line through both the voter's name and serial number on the certified voters list. If certified voters lists are later to be processed electronically, special marking means may be required.

Standard Marking of Names on Voters Lists

Care should be taken to ensure that all voters' names are marked accurately and in the same manner. Some issues to consider include:

• Marking of voters on the list should be clear and precise to aid calculation, after the close of voting, of total voters supposedly issued with ballots and/or accountable ballot envelopes (for use in reconciliations),

• The voter's entry on the list should not be totally obliterated; there may be a need to refer to it later in case an incorrect marking has been made.

• Where a voters list entry has been erroneously fully or partially ruled through, this should be clearly indicated by the voting station official through use of an initialled standard mark.

• Use of a ruler can assist the voting station official to mark cleanly through the voter's name and serial number, as long as writing implements with non-smudging ink are used.

• Accountability for marking of voters lists is important.

Particularly where there is more than one official with the duty of marking names off voters lists, the names of the officials responsible should be clearly indicated on the cover of each voters list or section of the list.

Common Problems Encountered

There are a number of common problems that may arise with checking of voters' names against the voters list.

Hopefully, as many as possible of these potential problems will have been ascertained before the voter reaches the table for eligibility checking and for receiving ballots (or ballot envelopes), and either solved or the voter directed to the voting station manager or voter information officials. Where the voter's name cannot be found on the voters list, this could indicate that:

• the voter is not registered at all;

• the voter is registered at another voting station;

• there is some difference in the name/details provided by the voter, and the details as they appear on the certified voters list;

• there has been an error in preparation of the voters list, resulting in omission of the voter's details.

Where the voter's name and details cannot immediately be matched to an entry on the voters list, the voting station official should not make an immediate assumption that the voter is not eligible to vote.

This is a poor service standard to provide; the principle of maximising valid participation in the election should be kept in mind.

However, lengthy checking of the voters list by eligibility checking officials can considerably delay other voters. If, after a reasonable check, the voter cannot be found on the voters list, the voter should be directed to the voting station manager for assistance.

If the voting station manager finds that the voter is listed on the voters list, the voter would then be returned to the voting materials issuing area. If the voter's name is not found, the voting station manager would most likely undertake the appropriate action for voters not on the voting station's list (for further discussion of this issue, see Voters Not Found on Voters Lists).

Matching Voter to Voters List Entry

Where no immediate exact match to a voters list entry can be made, eligibility checking officials should carefully check the voter’s list and question the voter to ensure that:

• The voter's name has not been misspelled, or given/family names jumbled in order on the list. Care needs to be taken regarding voters from minority cultures, who may be known under different names peculiar to their culture, or whose given/family names may appear on the list in an order different from that used in their culture. Further investigation of the voter's identity documents may help clarify such an issue.

• The person has changed name since registration, for example, by taking another name after marriage. Equity would require that these voters be accepted as eligible to vote; integrity would require evidence, by means of a statement provided by the voter, or other evidence, of a link between the two names.

• The voter's current address (as shown either on an application for a ballot, the required identity card, or in questioning by voting station officials) is different from what is on the voters list.

Procedures for handling such occurrences can vary widely according to how restrictive the proof of eligibility and integrity controls required by electoral legislation are.

Where the address on the voters list can be shown to be incorrect as a result of an error in voters list processing, equity would demand the voter be allowed to vote. Where the address on the voters list and any other address provided by the voter are within the same electoral district, both integrity and equity can be served by a legal framework that still allows the voter to vote; the vote, however, may need to be supported by a formal declaration of eligibility by the voter.

Where these addresses are in different electoral districts, and it can be established that the address on the certified voters list is a recent former address of the voter, in systems which place the emphasis on maximising participation, it could still be argued that it is preferable to allow the voter to vote in some fashion, provided that there are sufficient controls on multiple voting.

Circumstances where voters whose details cannot be matched exactly on the voters list may be deemed eligible to vote need strict definition in election legislation or rules, and consistent application of procedures by voting station officials. The extent of such problems will be influenced by the comprehensiveness of voter registration measures, the quality control in voters' list preparation, and the quality of the identity documents required.

Voters Already Marked as Having Voted

Conversely, on looking up the name in the voters list, the official may find that the voter's name has already been marked as having received voting materials. This could be due to either the voter having already voted or the voter's name having previously been marked in error for another voter.

The problem is, how to separate the voting station official errors (which may well occur, particularly with families with similar or the same names at the same address) from attempts to vote more than once.

Where multiple voting controls (such as marking voters with ink, surrendering or cancelling of voter identification cards, requiring voters to sign a record when issued a ballot) have been effectively implemented, a voter who has passed these checks but who is found to be already marked as having voted on the voters list could be presumed to have been marked on the list in error.

Equitable systems would contain procedures to allow these voters to be issued with a ballot.

Where the voter’ list is the sole control on multiple voting, it is more difficult to determine correctly. These are not matters for the voting station official to determine. Assistance and decision should be sought from the voting station manager, with, no doubt, opinions from party or candidate representatives present.

Systems that would allow voters in such cases to vote in the normal fashion after swearing a declaration that they have not previously voted, or to cast a sealed tendered or provisional ballot, with later determination of validity by a court or tribunal (or where it is of trusted integrity, the electoral management body), can assist resolution in the voting station. Any such occurrences should be noted by the voting station manager in reports on voting station operations.

Announcement of Voters' Names

In some systems an additional function of the official checking the voters list is, having found the voter's name on the certified voter’s list, to call out the serial number or name of the voter for the benefit of all present including observers and party and candidate representatives.

The serial number and/or name may also be recorded on a ballot stub or list of voters. The supposed benefits are in enhanced transparency and in better control of materials issue. This practice can give rise to misperceptions about voting secrecy and is better avoided.

Prevention of Multiple Voting

As part of the voter eligibility checks, the voting station official must check that the voter has not previously voted. The intensity of this control will very much vary with the environment. Use of accurate, unique lists is the most cost-effective control to prevent multiple voting.

Provided that lists are unique and are carefully and accurately marked by voting station officials, they will immediately show when a voter is attempting to vote more than once. Where apparent multiple voters make claims that errors have been made in marking of lists, these will need to be dealt with as described under "Voters Already Marked as Having Voted" above.

In systems where each voters list is not unique, or there are doubts about their accuracy, or if national identity documentation systems are weak, additional multiple voting controls will be needed. Depending on the security risk environment and the need to allay public fears of multiple voting, this could be accomplished by methods of varying intensity, including:

• before issuing accountable voting materials, requiring all voters to make a verbal or written declaration that they have not voted before in this election;

• the surrendering or defacing of unique special voter identification cards or stamping of other identity cards;

• marking voters with special inks when they vote.

Use of Special Ink

Marking voters with special indelible ink when issuing ballots has become more common, particularly in transitional elections, but it is an expensive mechanism.

For security, safety, and aesthetic reasons, indelible inks of secret composition, a determinate lifespan, and visible only under special (usually ultra violet) light are better used. The additional costs incurred, in ink production, supply of special light equipment, and the need to engage at least one additional staff member per voting station to implement this control, can be considerable.

While this is an effective method, alternative measures such as ensuring accuracy of unique voters lists are less costly, more sustainable, and make marking of voters redundant. However, where other controls are weak, or where there is a need to present a strong image of integrity control to the public for acceptance of election validity, the additional costs of using special ink as a multiple voting control can be justified.

Where special inks are used, the voter should be checked to determine if the specified body part has been marked with ink prior to checking identity or voters list entry. In some situations this could be done on entry to the voting station, usually this would occur just prior to other eligibility checks. If the mark is revealed, the voter should be removed from the voting station. If not, identity and other eligibility checks proceed.

After the voter has been found on the voters list, or otherwise deemed eligible to vote, the voter is marked with the special ink. If done before this point, voters who have turned out at the wrong voting station may then find themselves unable to vote at the correct one.

The ink must be applied in a consistent fashion, to specified fingers or hands either by dipping in a container or application by a device. If inks invisible to the naked eye are used, the voter should be immediately tested under the appropriate light to ensure that the ink has been applied correctly.

Fraud Control through Use of Voter Identification Cards

Voter identification cards, issued by the electoral management body, could alternatively be used as a control on multiple voting, as long as these are high integrity photographic or similarly personalised cards that must be surrendered or cancelled when the voter is issued voting materials.

Without a photograph, or other easily distinguishing personal mark of the voter, such cards can be easily bought, traded, or stolen, and their effectiveness as both an identity and multiple voting control is very low.

Issue and Casting of Ballots

Following determination that a voter is eligible to vote at the voting station (see Determination of Eligibility to Vote), the accountable voting materials should be immediately issued to the voter.

The materials subject to strict accountability of issue will vary according to the basis of the ballot issuing system:

• Where ballots are accountable, and their use restricted, issuing controls will apply to ballots.

• On the other hand, if ballots are freely available, but instead there is strict accountability for the ballot envelope issued to voters in which the voter's ballot must be included (as in the system operating for manual ballots in France), issuing controls will relate to the ballot envelopes.

• For some types of voting, both ballots and envelopes may be accountable and subject to issuing controls.

Such systems relying on accountability of envelopes can be more costly, in additional printed materials required and in additional time taken in preparing materials for ballot counts.

Ballot Issuing Controls

Where the ballots themselves are the accountable voting material, the basic process of issuing the ballot entails:

• taking the ballot from its pile, folder, or tearing it from it's stub;

• where required, validation of the ballot by the voting station official placing an official mark or stamp, or endorsing, the reverse side of the ballot;

• showing the face of the ballot to voters and explaining the correct method of recording a vote (including advice to read any instructions on the ballot);

• showing voters the correct method of folding the ballot so that the vote remains secret and any validation mark required on the reverse of the ballot is visible;

• if the ballot has to be placed in an envelope before being placed in the ballot box, instructing voters on how and where this will be done;

• instructing voters on how and where to place the ballot in the ballot box (and, where more than one ballot is being issued, or there is more than one ballot box in use, the correct ballot box in which to place each ballot);

• directing voters to a vacant voting compartment, and instructing them that they must be alone in the voting compartment while marking the ballot (for discussion of systems where the voting station manager may authorise assisted voters to be accompanied in the voting compartment, see Assistance to Voters).

For reasons of efficiency in staffing and crowd control,  (see Crowd and Queue Control), where more than one election is being held simultaneously, ballots for all elections would preferably be issued at the same time to a voter.

Issuing of ballots to voters using special voting facilities, such as early, absentee, or provisional voting, may require a more complex process. Where voting machines, which mechanically or electronically record votes, or computers are used, controls on voters recording a vote require a different methodology.

Validating Ballots

In many election systems where each ballot is accountable, the ballot is validated on issue by the voting station official placing an official mark on or signing or initialling the back of the ballot.

This is a cost-effective manner of controlling that only valid ballots enter the count, and will generally do away with the need for special and expensive paper stocks, bearing watermarks or security print, for ballots.

Official marks used by voting station officials could be made by perforating instruments or stamps. A different, distinctive mark would preferably be provided to each voting station to enable full accountability and integrity checks during counts. These are highly accountable items for which design should be kept secret and that should be held under strict security until the voting station opens for voting, and then be secured immediately following close of voting.

Even more cost-effective, but of slightly less integrity and of less use in less literate societies, is the alternative method of requiring the ballot issuing official to sign or initial the reverse of the ballot.

The official mark or voting station official endorsement should be placed in the same position on every ballot, to allow it to be visible when the ballot is folded by the voter.

The top right hand corner of the reverse of the ballot is probably the most comfortable position for quick application by most (right-handed) officials. The correct position could be marked by a box or other shape on the reverse of the ballot; the additional costs of two-sided printing should be carefully weighed against any likely advantages in doing this.

Overly complex systems for thus validating the ballot should be avoided; a single mark or voting station official's endorsement should be sufficient.

Requiring multiple official marks, more than one voting station official to endorse, or party or candidate representatives to counter-endorse increases the chances of error, slows down the voting process, and implies poor selection of and lack of trust in staff.

Voting station officials validating ballots must validate each ballot only when it is about to be issued to a voter:

• To validate a stack or book of ballots in advance defeats the purpose.

• However, in their haste to issue a voter with a ballot, voting station officials can forget to place any official mark or endorsement required on the ballot and thus jeopardise acceptance of the voter's ballot for counting. In systems where such validation is required, training must reinforce the importance of validating each ballot issued.

Other Controls on Issuing Ballots

In systems where ballots are accountable voting materials, various additional controls may be applied in issuing a ballot. These could include the ballot issuing official:

• copying the voter's serial number from the voters list onto the issued ballot's counterfoil or stub;

• maintaining a list of voters who have been issued ballots, or making voters sign a register or list on receipt of their ballot paper.

These additional controls slow down the ballot issuing process and add little to its integrity, while raising doubts in voters' minds about voting secrecy.

Where voting station officials accurately mark voters names on voters’ lists when ballots are issued, they are a duplication of effort. Whether they are of more use in disputes over whether particular voters were issued ballots than good quality control on marking of voters lists is open to question.

It would seem more appropriate to concentrate voting station officials' efforts and management supervision on ensuring the voter’s list was marked correctly, and using this as the basis both for determining how many and who voted, rather than adding additional recording tasks that are equally prone to error or challenge.

Enveloped Ballot Systems

As an alternative to being issued an accountable ballot, some systems issue electors instead an accountable envelope. In these systems what happens to the stock of ballots is not relevant; the envelope quantities must be accountable. Such systems may operate under either very high integrity controls or lesser controls.

Simple Enveloped Ballot Systems

Under simple enveloped ballot systems, the voter, after being assessed as eligible to vote at that voting station, being marked as voting on the voters list, and having obtained a ballot, is issued or obtains a ballot envelope.

In these simple variants, ballot envelopes are not separately identifiable by any detachable counterfoil or serial number. Controls can be instituted by:

• having on hand only as many ballot envelopes as voters registered to vote at that voting station;

• officials carefully watching or issuing the ballot envelopes during voting to ensure each voter obtains only one envelope;

• officials guarding the ballot box to ensure that voters insert only one envelope in the ballot box;

• reconciling numbers of voters marked on the voters list as having voted with numbers of envelopes issued;

• validating each ballot envelope on issue with an official voting station stamp.

With a simple system:

• if integrity controls are instituted through matching the number of envelopes available to the number of voters registered, it can be inflexible in treatment of persons who may have valid claims to be on the voters list but have been omitted in error;

• there may be difficulties in ensuring adequate levels of control, and is more suited to environments of high community trust.

Higher Integrity Enveloped Ballot Systems

Higher integrity enveloped ballot methods involve envelopes that are fully accountable through numbered tear-off stubs or counterfoils that are retained by the envelope issuing official or another voting station official. Alternative methods for such systems would require:

• the voter to return to the ballot/ballot envelope issuing table with the completed ballot(s), where it is sealed in the envelope by the official who issued the envelope and then deposited by that official in the ballot box, located on the table or nearby;

• the voter being issued the envelope and ballot, and having recorded the vote, places the ballot in the envelope and deposits it in a ballot box.

To use such a system for all ballots can be a cumbersome, inefficient procedure to protect integrity; that would be more effectively served by high quality identification checks and voters lists. Where ballots need protection from damage, such as where punch card or optical scan ballots are used, it may be a useful system.

Special Voting Facilities

Where voters may vote in absentia, use early voting facilities, or vote by mail, where systems allow a provisional or tendered vote, and any voting method that requires later verification of the voter's eligibility to vote, a similar system of enveloped ballots may be used. It would be usual to have an attachment to or enclosure with the ballot envelope containing sufficient voter information for assessment of voter eligibility.

In such systems, it would be more usual to ensure voting secrecy by using a double enveloped ballot, with the ballot sealed inside a plain envelope and with this envelope again sealed in an outer envelope containing the voter's information. Using this form of enveloped ballots is a reasonable solution for extending voter accessibility to participation in voting.

Voters Recording a Vote

After being issued a ballot, or obtaining the ballot envelope, depending on the system being used, voters should be directed to a vacant voting compartment to record their vote.

There should be no pressure placed on voters to hasten completion of recording their votes; it is a choice of great significance that voters are making. Additional time may need to be taken by elderly voters, first-time voters, or those having difficulty with ballot instructions, and where more than one ballot or complex preferential ballots have to be completed. This should be taken into account when planning voting station capacities, staff, and numbers of voting compartments required.

After recording the vote, by marking the ballot or choosing which ballot he or she wishes to use, each voter will cast their ballots according to the system being used:

• if ballots are to be deposited directly into the ballot box or returned to a voting station official for enveloping, the ballot should be folded by the voter before leaving the voting compartment, so that the voting preferences are not visible and any official validating mark stamped or written by the ballot issuing official is clearly visible.

• if the ballot has to be enveloped by the voter, the voter should insert the ballot in the envelope and seal it before leaving the voting compartment.

Marking of Ballots

In systems where preferences have to be marked on ballots, the method used to mark a paper ballot has cost implications. Pens are more expensive than pencils, and more likely to be taken as a souvenir by voters.

Pens offer no greater integrity; a voter's mark with a pen can be as easily overwritten as a pencil mark can be erased. However, where there is wide public concern about election integrity, use of pens may enhance the image, if not the reality.

Use of special stamps with which voters mark their ballots and which have to be returned to the ballot issuing table by the voter can cause problems for voter flow.

Voter inconvenience and the additional costs of providing such equipment and of directing staff required are generally not commensurate with any additional integrity achieved.

Monitoring Voting Compartment Area

The area around the voting compartments needs to be constantly monitored by officials to ensure the secrecy and efficiency of voting. Issues to be carefully monitored include:

• Voters are not marking their ballots outside the voting compartments.

• Voters are alone in a voting compartment, except in cases where authorised assistance to the voter is being provided.

• The voting compartment area is kept clean and tidy. Particular care must be taken to remove and deal with any ballots left in the area by voters (see "Ballots Discarded by Voters" below);

• No political campaign material--pamphlets, posters, stickers, or graffiti on surfaces--that may influence voters has been left in any voting compartment by earlier voters.

• Where "mark choice" paper ballots are used, each voting compartment has a functioning pen, pencil, or other required marking implement attached to it;

• Where instructions to voters on how to vote are in the voting compartment, are not removed or defaced.

In some environments there may be a need for allocation of at least one voting station official whose single role is constant monitoring of the voting compartments area to ensure that voting is conducted in secret.

In all voting stations, officials should regularly inspect the area to ensure that voting is conducted in secret, that voter flow is orderly, and that the area is kept clean and free of extraneous material. Officials should not enter voting compartments when occupied by voters, of course, unless the voter is authorised to receive their assistance in voting.

Special attention needs to be paid to hierarchical groups--such as military, state officials, particular families--arriving together to vote, to ensure that there is no intimidation within the group with regard to voting preferences and that all ballots are marked in secret by the correct voter.

A common cause of congestion in the voting compartment area, and of voters attempting to record their vote outside voting compartments, is that ballots or ballot envelopes are being issued to voters when there are no voting compartments free for use.

Staff monitoring the voting compartment area should check continually with officials issuing ballots (or ballot envelopes) to regulate appropriately the rate of issuing ballot papers.

Depositing of Ballots in the Ballot Box

When voters have completed recording their votes, they should be directed to the ballot box. Where the voter goes will depend on whether:

• The ballot is to be deposited directly into a ballot box;

• the ballot is required to be returned to the issuing voting station official for enveloping, either by itself or with details of the voter attached before being deposited in the ballot box.

Where the ballot is to be deposited by the voter directly into the ballot box, ballot boxes should be located, as far as possible, in a direct line between the voting compartments and the voting station exit, and as near the exit as is prudent for security. Ballot boxes should at all times be closely supervised by a voting station official.

When the voter approaches the ballot box, the official should ensure that:

• if the ballot is not required to be enveloped, the ballot is deposited in a manner that the voter's preferences cannot be seen;

• if the ballot has been enveloped by the voter, the voter has only one ballot envelope, and the envelope has any required official mark;

• where separate ballot boxes are being used for different elections being held simultaneously, the voter deposits each ballot or envelope in the correct ballot box;

• no voter leaves the voting station without depositing their ballot or ballot envelope in a ballot box;

• nothing other than ballots or ballot envelopes is deposited in ballot boxes. Clear instructions and signs, and especially colour-coding of ballot boxes to match ballots or envelopes, will assist in the voting process.

However, there will still be voters who deposit their vote in the incorrect box, and once in, they cannot be removed until the count. For this reason, equitable ballot or envelope validation and vote counting systems would allow ballots or envelopes deposited in the incorrect ballot box, if otherwise valid, to be counted.

When voters have deposited their ballot(s), officials should direct them to the exit. Voters should not be permitted to congregate around ballot boxes.

Inspection of Validation Marks

Where official validating marks are required to be placed on ballots by ballot issuing officials, it is appropriate that the ballot box supervisor be required to check, before the voter deposits the ballot in the ballot box, that the required official mark or voting station official's endorsement is on the ballot.

If the mark is not present, the voter should not be allowed to deposit the ballot in the ballot box; assistance should then be sought from the voting station manager.

If the voting station manager determines that the ballot was validly issued, it could either be validated with the correct mark by the voting station manager or cancelled as "spoilt" and a fresh ballot issued to the voter (at no stage of these actions should the way the voter voted be made visible).

The former course is the more efficient; the latter preserves full accountability measures. Where the voting station manager determines that the ballot was not validly issued, details of the incident should be noted for voting fraud investigation and police may need to be called.

Where an error has been made by the official issuing ballots, these actions can protect the voter's voting rights. Where a voter is attempting to deposit an illegal ballot, it will be stopped. In either case, later ballot disqualifications and disputes during the count will be avoided.

Checking Need for Fresh Ballot Box

Officials should regularly check how full each ballot box being used is (a ruler or similar implement can be used if needed) and warn the voting station manager in good time when any additional ballot boxes need to be sealed for use.

Early warning is needed, as this procedure may take some time (for procedures for sealing of ballot boxes, see Preparations for Commencement of Voting). Also extra ballot boxes may need to be sourced from another voting station that has surplus or local electoral management body office.

Use of Multiple Ballot Boxes

Whether separate ballot boxes or the same ballot box are used for simultaneous elections held in a voting station is a matter of practicality for the particular environment rather than of principle. There is a cost factor to be considered: the costs of acquiring, maintaining, transporting, and securing separate ballot boxes as against the costs of accurately sorting different elections' ballots taken from the same ballot box at the count.

There is also a perception of integrity factor: when different ballots are deposited in the one box, it may be harder for ballot box supervisors to ensure that only validated ballots are deposited.

Spoilt Ballots

In systems that depend on ballot accountability, spoilt ballots, that is, ballots that are returned to the ballot issuing table because a voter has made an error in marking the ballot or cannot be used due to print defects, need to be carefully controlled so that they do not find their way into the ballot box. Prudent control mechanisms would ensure that:

• no replacement for a spoilt ballot is issued until the original ballot has been surrendered to the voting station official who issued it;

• voting station officials do not look at the manner in which the ballot has been marked;

• where more than one ballot issuing table is in use, the voter returns the spoilt ballot to the table from which it was issued;

• spoilt ballots are fully accounted for in ballot reconciliations following close of voting .

When spoilt ballots are surrendered by voters, they should immediately, in the presence of the voter, be:

• cancelled by the official, by writing "spoilt" on the reverse of the ballot or using any stamp provided for this purpose;

• sealed individually in special envelopes--one ballot per envelope--and maintained under the security of either the ballot issuing official or the voting station manager until the close of voting.

Misprinted or damaged ballots found amongst those to be issued should be similarly enveloped and sealed immediately on discovery, to prevent their issue.

Leaving enveloping or sealing of spoilt ballots until some fixed time, or leaving a single envelope to contain spoilt ballots open throughout voting hours, runs too great a risk that these ballots may find their way into a ballot box, or may be inadvertently lost creating problems in the verification process later.

The voting station official should record on the outside of the spoilt ballot envelope some basic information to aid accountability and reconciliation, such as:

• the signature of the voting station official issuing the replacement ballot;

• identification of the voting station;

• if multiple elections are being held simultaneously within the voting station, the election for which the ballot was issued;

• if multiple voting material issuing tables are in operations, identification of the table from which the replacement for the spoilt ballot was issued. It is useful to have specially printed envelopes available for this purpose.

Damaged Optical Scan or Punch Card Ballots

In some systems where ballots are later counted automatically, such as ballots designed for optical scanning or punch card machines, methods of dealing with damaged ballots will need to be implemented either at the voting station or at the counting centre.

Spoilt ballots that have been torn or otherwise damaged after completion by the voter will not be read accurately by machines.

For integrity purposes, these ballots be set aside from machine counting and counted manually. Attempting to remake these ballots so they can be machine counted, even under intense observer supervision, political or otherwise, can raise doubts as to the motives.

Ballots or Sealed Envelopes Discarded by Voters

While it is the duty of officials supervising ballot boxes to ensure that all voters, before leaving the voting station, deposit their ballots or envelopes in the ballot box, this supervision may not always be fully effective, and voters may leave ballots or sealed envelopes containing ballots in voting compartments, drop them on the floor, or otherwise misplace them.

It is prudent to have procedures in place to cover such control failures. Ballots or sealed ballot envelopes left in this fashion in the voting station by voters should never be placed in the ballot box by any other person, especially voting station officials.

In maintaining supervision over the voting compartment and ballot box area of the voting station, voting station officials should always be watching for ballots (or where relevant, sealed ballot envelopes) left by voters. These should be marked as "cancelled" and each placed into a separate special "cancelled" or "discarded" ballot envelope as soon as found, and kept under security by the voting station manager for inclusion in ballot or envelope reconciliations following the close of voting.

These envelopes containing cancelled or discarded ballots or ballot envelopes should have recorded on them similar information as for spoilt ballots, except that where e multiple voting materials are issued the table of issue will not be known. Special envelopes used for this purpose could be designed to function for both spoilt and discarded or cancelled ballots

Declined Ballots

Under some election systems, voters, after being issued a ballot, may indicate their refusal to vote in the election by declining the ballot, and handing it back unmarked to the voting official who issued it.

To ensure that reconciliations of ballots in ballot boxes to voters marked as having voted can be accurately conducted, these ballots should:

• Immediately, in the presence of the voter, be cancelled by the official by writing "declined" on the ballot or using any stamp provided for this purpose;

• be sealed individually in special envelopes, one ballot per envelope, and maintained under the security of either the ballot issuing official or the voting station manager until the close of voting.

Declined and discarded ballots (or ballot envelopes) must be fully accounted for in ballot reconciliations following close of the voting 

Informing and Assisting Voters

Information Issues

The role of voting station officials in providing information to aid voters in their participation in the election is an important part of providing voter service; all eligible voters should be provided with the most informed opportunity to cast their voter correctly.

Information should be restricted to implementation of election procedures; voting station officials should politely refrain from engaging in any discussion with voters about the merits of political participants, candidates, or the appropriateness of election policies and procedures.

(For further discussion of voter information services that may effectively be provided in voting stations, see Voter Service)

Designated Information Officers

Consideration should be given to assigning a specific official, or officials, to voter information duties. This will generally be effective in voting stations where:

• of larger size, other officials may be fully pressed in undertaking other voter service duties;

• significant proportions of the voters expected are from minority cultural or language groups, are elderly, or are first-time voters;

• there have been significant changes in voting procedures;

• computer or machine voting has been introduced which may require taking each voter through a trial run using the computer or voting machine to ensure that they understand the operations required for voting.

Particularly in transitional environments, voting station officials with specific voter information duties may well need to undertake a broader voter education role.

Guidelines for Providing Information

General guidelines for providing information to voters in voting stations include:

• Information for voters must be provided in an open and transparent manner and must allow monitoring by party or candidate representatives and other observers in the voting station.

• All voting station officials should be ready to answer courteously and promptly any inquiries by voters about voting procedures; where the official does not know the answer, assistance from the voting station manager or other senior voting station officials should be sought.

• Except where the voters are authorised to receive assistance in marking their ballots, any information for voters should be provided before voters enter the voting compartment.

If voters require further information after having commenced to mark the ballot, they should be requested to step outside the compartment.

• All voting station officials should pay particular attention to the needs of voters from minority language and cultural groups; employment of multi-lingual voting station officials will assist in this regard.

• Voters requiring assistance to vote should be identified as soon as possible after entering the voting station and directed to the appropriate officials for assistance

Proactive Methods

Information is more effectively provided, and voter service enhanced, if a proactive stance is taken by voting station officials. The use of a static voter information officer, seated behind a table, both disrupts voter flow and may well not encourage contact with those who need further information the most.

Voting station layouts may provide for a separate information table or area for storage of information pamphlets and other materials (if the voting station is of sufficient size) or store such materials on the voting station manager's table. Such a static facility is generally required for voters with complex inquiries or difficulties.

However, maximum effectiveness is obtained if voters' information needs can be ascertained and satisfied while they are queued waiting to vote, through pro-active inquiry by entry control or queue control officials (see Crowd and Queue Control) and use of roving information officials.

Voting station managers and any other supervisory officials assigned to the voting station should also take an active interest in providing information to voters. The better voters are informed before they reach the eligibility checking and voting materials issuing tables, the more efficient the issuing of ballots is likely to be.

Assistance to Voters

Where voters with certain disabilities are allowed assistance in marking their ballots, voting station officials should do everything possible to assist such voters to participate in voting with the same high level of service provided to other voters.

Categories of voters who would normally be eligible for assistance in marking the ballot would include:

• voters who have a temporary or permanent physical disability that prevents then from marking the ballot;

• voters who are blind or severely vision impaired;

• voters who are not sufficiently literate in the language used on the ballots for the election.

Time Allowed to Vote

Voting station officials should not assume that because a voter is taking a long time to complete marking the ballot they require assistance.

However, officials issuing ballots and monitoring the voting compartments should be aware of voters obviously having difficulty in understanding the ballot and advise them of assistance that may be available.

In all cases, both for voters requesting assistance and for those whom voting station officials believe may need assistance, it is appropriate that the voting station manager be the person legally delegated to make the decision as to whether the voter is eligible for an assisted vote.

Assisted Voting

Wherever possible, voters seeking or requiring assistance should be identified and directed to the voting station manager as soon as they enter the voting station.

This may not always be possible, particularly with non-literate voters in more advanced societies where admission of non-literacy may be embarrassing. In some systems such voters must make special application to be allowed assistance, but this would seem generally excessive for maintenance of a reasonable standard of integrity.

Under equitable systems, a voter eligible for assistance would be able to designate a friend or other person to complete their ballot, or, if no such person is available, could be assisted by a voting station official.

While this is generally a task specifically given to the voting station manager, it would be useful if the voting station manager possessed the power to delegate the actual assistance in marking the ballot for such voters to other senior voting station officials, to prevent delays during peak periods or in large voting stations.

Assisted by Friend

Steps in implementing assisted voting will vary according to who assists the voter. If the voter brings with them or nominates another person to complete the ballot for them, the voting station manager should ensure that:

• the person qualifies for an assisted vote under the rules for the election;

• the person chosen by the voter to mark the ballot is not excluded from providing assistance by the legislation or rules governing the election--qualifications defined in electoral legislation of minimum age, or being registered to vote at that voting station, or restricting persons to assist only one voter, can enhance the integrity of the process;

• the voter's eligibility is checked as for any voter, and if eligible for a ballot, is issued a ballot and goes with the person designated to complete the ballot in a vacant voting compartment to mark the ballot, and from there deposits the ballot in the ballot box in accordance with the normal prescribed procedures.

In such cases here should be no requirement, nor is there any real need, for anyone else to witness the marking of the ballot.

Assistance by Voting Station Official

Where the voter does not designate anyone to assist, assistance (where allowable under the legal framework) could be provided by a duly authorised voting station official. The method used is essentially the same, except that the integrity is better served if the legal framework requires that there is one or more witnesses.

This would often be specified in the legal framework as either one (and preferably more) party or candidate representatives, or alternatively, another official or even a person chosen by the voter. The voter must be informed of and understand this condition, and reasonably then be again given the opportunity to designate a person of their choice to assist in their vote, rather than having their vote witnessed by party or candidate representatives.

The witness (es) must be able to hear any oral instructions or see any written instructions given by the assisted voter, and observe the ballot being completed by the official.

Where an assisted voter provides written instructions for marking the ballot, the voting station official should check to be certain the voter understands and agrees with the content of these instructions. If voters are not literate in the language used on the ballot and in the voting station, but literate in some other community language, wherever possible the help of any official literate in the voter's language should be sought.

In those jurisdictions where voting station officials are political appointments rather than independent, a balance of interests from amongst the officials should together assist the voter to vote, rather than a single official.

It is very important that assisted votes are still completed in a voting compartment and the ballot remains secret from any person not authorised to assist or observe the assisted vote.

Those assisting the voter and any authorised witnesses must not disclose to any other person the instructions which the voter gave for marking the ballot. To ensure this, it can be useful to require that persons assisting voters complete a formal declaration binding them to keep the vote secret (where they have not already done so for the election).

Visually Impaired Voters

As an alternative to being assisted to vote, templates could be provided for blind or vision impaired voters that can allow them to complete their vote themselves. This will allow these voters the option of keeping their vote totally secret. Where paper ballots are used:

• the voter's eligibility is checked as for any voter;

• when issued a ballot, the voter is also issued a template that fits over the ballot, with holes cut out that line up with the parts of the ballot paper where the voter may mark a preference, and is instructed on its use--the template may also include braille script indicating the party or candidate relevant to each of the holes in the template;

• a voting station official accompanies the voter to the voting compartment but does not enter it, but would then read to the voter the party or candidate names in the order they appear on the ballot, to assist the voter in marking preferences correctly through the holes in the template;

• the voter removes the template from the ballot before leaving the voting compartment, folds the ballot, hands the template back to the voting station official, and from there deposits the ballot in the ballot box in accordance with the normal proscribed procedures.

Where computers are used for voting, such arrangements are more difficult; however, templates fitting over the keyboard (for keyed voting) or monitor (for touch screen voting) could be used.

Other Assistance to Voters

Other categories of voters that may often require assistance from voting station officials, but who may not need another person to complete their ballot for them, would include those who:

• have limited understanding of the language used on voting material and in the voting station;

• have physical disabilities or are elderly or frail sufficient to make entering the voting station difficult.

Voters with Language Difficulties

Where significant numbers of voters from minority language groups are expected to attend a voting station, all effort should be made to employ at least some staff fluent in these minority languages. In some cases, staff appointed specifically as interpreters may be justifiable; more cost-effectively, some officials engaged for tasks involving information provision, entry and queue control, eligibility checking, and ballot issuing would have skills in the relevant minority language(s).

If officials with these minority language skills are not available, every effort should be made to assist the voter in explaining required actions, through slow, clear speech, simplifying language, and using diagrams, illustrations, or gestures to demonstrate what is required. This would apply equally to all voters with literacy difficulties.

Elderly and Frail Voters

Voting station staff should in general be aware of the needs of elderly, frail, and disabled voters, as well as other classes of voters such as pregnant women and nursing mothers, to ensure that they do not have to endure long waits in queues to vote.

Bringing such voters to the head of queues to vote and providing them with a high level of information and/or physical assistance to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in voting is an integral part of voting station service.

For the elderly, frail, and physically disabled, election rules may allow the voter to vote outside the voting station, from the area outside the voting station or from a vehicle parked outside (so-called "kerbside voting"). Systems for allowing such votes would normally provide for:

• a maximum distance from the voting station entrance within which such voting is allowed;

• voting station officials, on application by the voter, to check the voters eligibility and mark the voters list inside the voting station and then bring to the voter the ballot(s), ballot envelope (if required), and a portable voting compartment or screen within which the voter can mark the ballot in secrecy;

• the folded (or enveloped), completed ballot, and voting equipment, to be brought back into the voting station by the voting station official who, without attempting to look at the manner in which the voter has marked the ballot, deposits the ballot in the ballot box.

It would be best if this process only be undertaken in the presence of party or candidate representatives, but other voters should not be allowed to observe the marking of the ballot.

Whether voters need to make prior application for this assistance is more a matter of practicality than integrity. Large numbers of such voters needing such assistance may require additional staffing in the voting station or advice to political participants of additional monitoring requirements.

The utility of adding this service to the range of voting station services will depend on factors such as:

• the potential disruptions of service to other voters;

• the ability to provide transparency;

• the availability of other methods of voting of equal integrity for disabled and frail voters.

Special Provisions with Regard to Voting Locations

As an alternative to or extension of the "kerbside voting", legislative provision may be made for disabled or frail voters to vote on voting day at a voting station other than that to which they have been assigned to attend to vote.

In systems where a general system of in-person absentee voting is in operation on voting day, these voters would be serviced according to procedures for absentee voting.

In systems more restricted as to voting methods and locations, special provisions for disabled or frail voters to vote at a voting station other than the one(s) to which they have been assigned, if this (or these) do not offer easy access to the disabled and frail, could be provided. These would normally entail:

• an application prior to voting day by the voter, or someone authorised by the voter, for the voter to vote at a specified voting station other than the one(s) to which the voter has been assigned;

• examination of the request by the electoral management body and, on approval, issue of a certificate to the voter enabling the voter to vote at the voting station requested;

• the voter producing this certificate when attending to vote during eligibility checking, and the voter's attendance being specifically noted in voting station records.

Depending on the sophistication and complexity of any general systems for absentee voting, this facility may have to be limited to allow the voter to choose an appropriately accessible voting station within the voter's electoral district of registration.

Consideration could also be given to providing special facilities for disabled, infirm, and frail voters, rather than insisting they attend a normal voting station. These could take the form of:

• locating voting stations in care institutions that are restricted to residents or patients (and possibly staff) at the institution and/or the elderly and infirm within a specified geographic area;

• where the legal framework allows, providing mobile voting stations within care institutions or for home visits to elderly and infirm voters.

These facilities could be provided in advance of voting day (where allowed by legislation) or on voting day itself. Where these facilities are provided in advance of voting day, these voters should also be allowed the opportunity to vote at their normal assigned voting station on voting day, if they did not participate in the early voting. Reliable mechanisms to prevent multiple voting would be required.

Voters not Found on Voters' Lists

Basic Issues Varying methods of treatment of voters who are not found on the voters list at a voting station can have a marked affect on:

• the equity of the election process;

• Potential disruption in the voting station;

• Voting operations costs.

In general, people do not turn out to vote unless they genuinely believe that they are entitled to be part of the process. Methods for including in the election process, in some manner, all who turn out to vote, facilitate building democratic processes.

Apart from this ideal, there is always the possibility that voters are not on the voters list at the voting station because of an administrative error, or because they have come to vote at the wrong voting station. At the very least the opportunity to overcome such errors should be provided.

Facilities available and procedures used for persons not on the voters list attempting to vote will generally be dependent on the voter registration legal framework and the manner of maintaining the certified voters list, particularly on the methods adopted for it’s revision.

Reasons for Omission from Voters Lists

Voters may not be found on the voters list in a voting station for a number of reasons, including:

• the voter has correctly registered and is entitled to be on the voters list for that voting station, but due to administrative error the voter's information has been recorded incorrectly on the certified voters list, or has been omitted in preparing the voters list for the voting station;

• the voter is correctly registered, but on another area’s list;

• the voter has not registered;

• the voter has been officially and accurately removed from the certified voters list by due process;

• the voter has had an application for registration rejected.

Service to Omitted Voters

So as not to unduly delay the voter queue, voters with such problems would be better directed to the voting station manager or officials with specific voter information duties, rather than being fully investigated by staff conducting eligibility checks and issuing voting materials.

Wherever possible, proactive questioning by officials controlling voter queues and voting station entry should attempt to identify voters with more easily recognisable problems, such as attending the wrong voting station, before the voter has waited for too long in the queue (see Crowd and Queue Control). A map of the voting station area and its adjacent voting station areas placed at the voting station entrance will also help voters in determining immediately if they have come to the incorrect voting station.

Voters who cannot be found on the voters list are as deserving of service in the voting station as other voters. In providing this service, voting officials should make every effort to assist voters in determining if they are in fact eligible to vote, whether at that voting station or elsewhere.

It may not be possible to fully investigate all such voters at the voting station itself; however, the basic steps listed in the next section should be followed by voting station officials to attempt to determine the voter's status.

Investigative Measures

In dealing with apparently unregistered voters who cannot be found on the voters list by voter eligibility checking voting station officials (see Determination of Eligibility to Vote), voting station managers and information staff should pursue a thorough line of investigation by questioning voters to establish if there is any basis for their belief that they are eligible to vote. Questioning may be effectively pursued in this order:

Determine whether the voter is qualified for and did apply to register on the voters register for the election.

Establish the voter's address for the purposes of registration and assess whether this is within the area that would allow the voter to vote at that voting station, or in another area.

If it is within the voting station's area, further investigation may be required; if not, the voter should be directed to the correct voting station (or if allowable under the voting system, directed on how to cast an absentee ballot at that voting station or at any special voting stations set up for voting day absentee voting). Voting station managers should be provided with maps of surrounding electoral units, voting station areas and lists of voting station locations for this purpose.

If the voter claims to be living in and having registered for the relevant voting station area, further investigation of the voters list entries to determine if the voter's details have been incorrectly entered in the list should be undertaken.

Potential misspellings and reversals of or omissions from name or address information should be investigated. If the voter is found on the list with incorrect details, equitable systems would allow the voter still to vote, having provided an oral, or, to give greater integrity, a written declaration that they are in fact the person represented by the incorrect list entry.

If a voter claiming to be living in the voting station area still cannot be found on the list, procedures for unregistered voters will need to be implemented. There are wide variations in the basis and content of such procedures. Possible alternatives are discussed below.

The alternatives available will very much depend on the legal framework for the certified voters list, whether it is a closed document which must remain unchanged following its certification for use in the election to the close of the election period, or whether it is open to further revision under certain defined circumstances during the voting period.

Where permanent, continuous voter registration systems are maintained by electoral authorities, it is preferable that facilities should be made available in the voting station for persons not found on the voters list to complete a voter registration form.

This will enable their participation in future elections, even if there are no voting day registration provisions to allow them to vote at the current election. In any situation, information on how to register should be provided to these persons.

Denial of Vote

The simplest administrative solution, yet one that does not encourage participation or accessibility, is to deny the person a vote. Where certified voters lists are closed documents, this can often be the option taken. However, while administratively simple, it has a number of negative features on both equity and operational grounds:

• it provides no safety net to deal with administrative errors in compilation of voters lists.

The onus is on the voters to have ensured that their registration has been correctly processed. This is not a fully effective method, even where provisions for compilation of voters’ lists allow for public inspection, close to voting day, of the certified voter lists by voters, and amendment of defects found.

• It does not admit any possibility of error in production/printing of voters lists used in voting stations.

• Particularly where registration systems are not of high quality, or not well understood by the public in general, use of this method may lead to problems at the voting station in controlling voters denied a vote.

Where voters not found on the list are denied a vote, at the very least the voter should be referred to an electoral management body information officer for further investigation. This will help in dealing with electors who may be registered elsewhere.

Implementation of telephone systems by which voting station managers can access a central voters list information bureau to check on a voter's registration status should only be undertaken with extreme caution.

Experience with such systems has often been that they become easily overloaded, thus tying up voting station phone lines and voting station officials' time in attempting to make contact.

Issuing of Voting Certificates

More equitable solutions would at least allow voters an opportunity to determine if they had been omitted from the voters list because of administrative error and an opportunity to redress this.

Where voter registration is a function under the control of electoral authorities, such solutions would allow a person omitted from the voters list in error to obtain on voting day a certificate from the electoral management or voter registration body attesting to the error and, on presentation of this at the appropriate voting station, to be allowed to vote.

Where voters lists are extracts of civil register data, civil registries would preferably remain open throughout all hours of voting to enable voters who believe that they have been incorrectly omitted from the voters list to check records held at the civil registry, and be allowed to vote at their correct voting station on presentation of a similar certificate issued by the civil registry.

It would enhance transparency to allow representatives of parties or candidates running in the election to observe the issue of such certificates, whether by electoral authorities or by a civil registry.

Such certificates should be:

• authenticated, when presented by the voter, by the voting station manager or another senior voting station official;

• Surrendered by the voter to the voters list checking officials;

• Maintained securely by the voters list checking officials for use in close of voting reconciliations

It may also be useful for officials checking voters list to maintain a supplementary list of those voters not on the original list but who prove their eligibility to vote on voting day.

Under such systems, these voters, after establishing their entitlement to vote through presentation of the required certificate, would be issued voting material and vote in the normal fashion.

Use of Provisional or Tendered Ballots

An effective means of handling possible administrative errors in compilation of voters lists, for both voters and voting station officials is to allow a provisional or tendered ballot to any voter who cannot be found on the voters list and who claims to be living in the area covered by the voters list for the voting station.

Under such systems, the voter's ballot will be enveloped with a declaration of relevant details by the voter, kept separate from other ballots, and after the close of voting the eligibility of the voter will be checked against voter registration records.

If the voter is then found to have been eligible to vote in the election, even though not found on the voters list for that voting station on voting day, the voter's ballot will be included in the count.

There are both advantages and disadvantages in using this method. Major advantages include:

• accessibility to all voters wishing to vote;

• reduced risk of disruption in the voting station;

• greater accuracy in checking voter eligibility in such doubtful cases than that available in the pressured atmosphere of the voting station;

• maintenance of voting integrity. The ballots of these voters are only included in the count if it is established following checking of the registration records that the voter was eligible to vote.

Thus, the risks of election challenges on the basis of ineligibility of ballots completed by voters not found on the list are avoided.

Disadvantages of this method are mainly related to the increased complexity inherent in using such a system, and the additional resources required for implementation. These would include:

• provision of special materials, e.g., envelopes and other documents for recording voter information;

• additional training of staff in issuing provisional ballots;

• additional controls required for voting material;

• additional staff expenses in checking the eligibility of these voters prior to determining if their ballots should be admitted to counts;

• possible delays in finalisation of counts due to the time taken for such checks.

It is important that where systems of provisional or tendered ballots are implemented, these ballots are later assessed for eligibility and, if eligible, counted.

It has been the practice in some environments that the tendered ballot is a useful method of eliminating a source of stress on voting day, but it is too difficult to undertake later full investigations to determine if the voter was eligible to vote, and thus these voters' ballots are ignored during counts. Such an attitude is dangerous, both to the integrity and reputation of the electoral management body, and also in terms of voter reaction if it were learned that tendered or provisional ballots had not been properly examined.

In determining eligibility of provisional ballots to be included in the count, strict guidelines are required as to what administrative errors, or other conditions, must be satisfied.

These methods still will only allow the admission to counts of ballots from voters who have registered but have been affected by administrative error in the compiling or production of voters lists.

Voting Day Registration

Voter accessibility can be greatly enhanced if there are facilities for voters to register to vote on voting day itself. Provision of such facilities will depend on the legal frameworks for allowing voters lists to remain open during voting.

This method can make planning and resourcing of voting station activities difficult, particularly if relatively low proportions of the estimated voting age population have registered to vote prior to the election. It, therefore, needs careful examination of its effects on the administration of the voting process before being considered.

It can also be a process of less transparency and integrity as it does not allow for the checks, through objection or revision proceedings, which would be normal in high integrity registration systems.

 Where implemented, systems allowing voting day registration will require some specific procedures in voting stations themselves.

The exact nature of the procedures will depend on whether the registration is done in the voting station or at an office of the electoral management body.

Registration by Declaration in Voting Station

A simple means of allowing voters not found on the voters list to vote is by means of a declaration by the voter allowing on-the-spot registration in the voting station. This would require the voter to:

• produce documents proving identity and address of residence;

• make a sworn declaration, administered by the voting station manager, that they are eligible to vote at that voting station.

An additional measure of integrity can be applied to such declarations if:

• the declaration is required to be witnessed by a voter or voters on the voters list at that voting station;

• party or candidate representatives may object to the eligibility of such voters and have these objections officially recorded, with such challenges being required to be taken into account in any recount or judicial application to have the election overturned.

The voter is then issued a certificate of entitlement to vote by the voting station manager ; on surrendering of the certificate to the appropriate voting station official, a ballot is issued in the normal manner and the ballot is deposited in the ballot box and counted with all other ballots.

A supplementary list of such voters should be maintained, and the certificates retained for use in voting material reconciliations following close of voting.

There are a number of advantages to this method in its simplicity of operation; however, it may raise questions about election integrity, particularly in environments where there is some history of election manipulation or where voters do not have a high level of knowledge of the requirements of voter registration. Its advantages would include:

• Better access for all voters wishing to vote. (This may be limited by the strictness of any requirements for witnessing of declarations required for voting day registration.)

• Reduced risk of disruption in the voting station, since voters not found on the voters list may still have an opportunity to vote.

• Simplicity of administration, both in the issuing and counting of ballots, requiring little in the way of additional materials or processes. However, the disadvantages in terms of perceptions of election integrity can also be substantial:

• The onus is put on party or candidate representatives in the voting station to issue objections to the voter's entitlement to vote, rather than the eligibility of all such voters being checked officially by electoral authorities and subject to public scrutiny.

• Ballots of such voters may be admitted to counts without any prior official check or opportunity for public challenge of the voter's eligibility to vote.

This is a weaker system of control than that which applies to other voters and may raise questions about election integrity if there are substantial numbers of such voters.

• The only redress available is through official challenges to the count or judicial review of whether the election should be overturned. This can be a less effective method than determining voter eligibility before admission of ballots to any count.

Whether such a method would be appropriate would depend on careful analysis of the level of risk of manipulation of voting that it may engender. If societal mores are such that the risk is very low, it can be a service-oriented and cost-effective manner of dealing with unregistered voters.

It will also work with higher integrity if voting stations cater to small numbers of voters from distinct local communities, where party or candidate representatives and voting station managers are more likely to be aware of who is eligible to register to vote in that area.

Higher integrity could be satisfied by having these ballots enveloped with the registration certificate and further confirmation of eligibility obtained before accepting the voter's ballot for counting.

Voting Day Registration at Electoral Authority Office

Alternatively, voters not found on the list could be directed to electoral management body offices to apply for voting day registration. As for registration in a voting station, the voter would produce identity and other documentation normally required for voter registration. It would enhance transparency by allowing representatives of parties or candidates running in the election to observe these proceedings.

If registration requirements are satisfied, the voter would be issued with a certificate which must be presented at the relevant voting station to evidence eligibility to vote.

These certificates should be surrendered to the voting station manager, the voter's name would normally be entered on a supplementary list of voters, and arrangements made to issue voting material to the voter.

Similar advantages and disadvantages as those for voting day registration in a voting station apply.

Reconciliation of Material

Where voting day registration or provisional voting may occur, care must be taken when the quantity of liable voting material issued to voters is reconciled to voters marked on the voters list as having voted to include those voters registering on voting day or issued provisional ballots.