Management of Challenges and Complaints

Treatment of Complaints

Effective and transparent mechanisms for dealing with complaints about and challenges to voting operations promote the accountability of the electoral management body and can assist in enhancing the acceptability of election outcomes by political participants and the public in general.

It is important for maintaining standards of accountability and transparency that all complaints about and challenges to operations of voting stations are investigated, not just those sufficiently serious to raise doubts about the validity of election outcomes. Even apparently vexatious complaints, if not openly and publicly answered, can be manipulated to raise doubts about voting operations integrity.

Effective and transparent complaint resolution and challenge mechanisms can identify and combat not only any fraudulent activities or wrongdoing, but can ensure that any errors made by voting station officials in the course of their duties can be identified and corrected.

For further discussion of dispute management frameworks, see Complaint Procedure.

Types of Complaints

Complaints on the operation of voting stations would generally fall into the following broad categories:

• challenges to the rights of specific voters to cast a vote, and complaints by intending voters that they have been omitted from voters lists or otherwise denied a vote (see Challenges to Voters and Challenges to Voting Operations Management);

• challenges to validity of ballot papers

• complaints about or challenges to the actions of parties, candidates, and their representatives (see Challenges to Party/Candidate Representatives' Actions);

• complaints about or challenges to the administration of voting stations, either regarding the materials available and logistics issues, or the decisions/actions of voting station officials, election administrators, or security forces.

Correct Implementation of Procedures

It is important that it is reinforced both during training and whilst on duty, to all election administration officials and all officials working in voting stations and in counting ballots that:

• All actions they take may be subject to challenge or may need to be justified in the course of investigating election-related complaints or legal actions.

• It is vital that all officials implement the actions required by the procedures, manuals, and checklists provided by the electoral management body.

• It is also necessary that any significant occurrences or decisions taken that may affect the election outcomes (such as disturbances, unavailability of necessary materials, voters turned away or denied votes) be recorded at the time in writing.

• Records of voting and the count are official records that may be required by judicial authorities in relation to challenges to election outcomes or other legal action regarding voter fraud or other alleged election irregularities.

• It is essential that all documentation of voting operations be maintained in the manner prescribed by the electoral management body.

Principles of Complaint Resolution

Transparency and public confidence in the election process are considerably aided if:

• voting station managers have the powers, ability, and training to enable resolution of minor complaints and disputes at the voting station level;

• there is no undue limitation on the classes of persons who may make officially recognised and formally investigated complaints regarding voting operations, including voters, political participants, independent observers, and officials of the electoral management body itself;

• there is no undue limitation on voting issues about which formal complaints and challenges may be made;

• complainants are protected from any intimidation or harm that may be perceived as resulting from their complaints or challenges;

• procedures for lodging complaints are simple, equitable, affordable to complainants, and publicised;

• complaints and challenges are handled in a courteous, open, and professional manner;

• complaints and challenges are handled at as local a level as possible;

• resolution of complaints and challenges is swift (time frames for resolution would preferably be defined in the election framework), and decisions and their basis are openly available to the public.

These principles hold as true for minor, local complaints about voting station operations as they do for later challenges to election outcomes. 

Systems for Handling Complaints and Challenges

Given the usually tight time frames during election periods, complaint and challenge handling systems for voting activity work better in a simple, quick-response system, following a single hierarchical line. Without this, resolvable minor complaints may grow into major challenges to election outcomes.

Multiple avenues of initial complaint or appeal, to voting operations administration and judicial bodies, may not only confuse but delay resolution of complaints or challenges, as aggrieved parties "shop" for a favourable forum of decision.

In general, administrative review mechanisms should be used before recourse to judicial intervention is available; though in systems where there is little confidence in the professionalism or independence of electoral management, handling all complaints through a judicial system may be the only reasonable option.

A practicable complaint resolution and review chain would see complaints and challenges handled in the following ways:

• On the operations of a single voting station, wherever possible, by the voting station manager, in consultation with the electoral district management, where necessary.

Complaints of this nature could be related to issues such as the behaviour of voting station officials or party/candidate representatives or observers in the voting station, lack of necessary supplies, or incorrect opening and closing times.

• On general issues surrounding voting station operations, to the appropriate electoral management body administrative level--local, regional, or national. Complaints of this nature could be related to such issues as the overall accuracy of voters’ lists or consistent patterns of procedural implementation across voting stations that appear not to be in accord with the law.

• Where a satisfactory outcome to the complaint is not achieved, immediate review is available at the next level in the administrative hierarchy, either within electoral management body administrations, or specially-appointed administrative tribunals. This could include review by electoral district management of complaint decisions made by voting station managers; by regional electoral authorities of electoral district managers' decisions; by national electoral authorities of regional decisions.

• Judicial review, through normal courts or specially appointed tribunals, of decisions endorsed at the national electoral management body authority level. To ensure that election outcomes are not unduly delayed by successions of appeals, electoral legislation may sensibly provide for a single, non-appellant judicial authority to hear such reviews.

Challenges to election results, based on perceived voting operations deficiencies, would be better determined by judicial authorities. Where internal investigations by the electoral management body show that these deficiencies are significant enough to have had a possible affect on an election's outcome, it is prudent for the electoral management body itself to challenge the election's result.

In publicly recognising these deficiencies it can help the future promotion of its image as a professional, impartial body.

Voting Day Complaints

On and around voting day, there will be intense pressure on complaint resolution mechanisms.

To prepare for this, voting operations administrators at local and other levels must ensure that they have:

• access to legal and specialist technical, conflict resolution, and operational advice;

• consulted with judicial and administrative review bodies to ensure that their officers will be available, and facilities are in place, to allow swift complaint resolution.

Documentation of Complaints and Challenges

It is best that all complaints and challenges concerning voting operations be accurately documented by the official to whom the complaint is made. Without such documentation, defences against any later challenge will be based on what may be imperfect recollections of occurrences in a pressured atmosphere.

At the voting station level, standard forms for generic or specific complaint purposes could be provided to voting station managers, particularly where widespread challenges or complaints may be expected on issues such as eligibility of voters. Alternatively, documentation could be included in the voting station manager's report on voting.

Documentation should:

• state the time and location of the complaint/challenge;

• give the substance of the complaint;

• note the action taken by voting station officials or other election staff;

• be signed off by the voting station manager or other supervisory staff;

• be witnessed, wherever possible, by the complainant.

Complaint records should be treated as apt documents to be securely maintained, as they may be later required in any challenges to election outcomes.

Court Challenges to Election Results

While some challenges and complaints regarding voting operations may be resolved satisfactorily by administrative means prior to the declaration of election results by the electoral management body, where aggrieved parties are not satisfied by such measures, they may be able to challenge an election's result before a court or a legally designated special election tribunal. It is important that such courts are not unduly limited in the directions and determinations they may make. Possible outcomes would preferably include:

• confirming the election result;

• determining a different result;

• directing that the election be voided and a new election held;

• making orders binding on election participants, including administrators, candidates, and parties.

In relation to ballot paper counts, they should also include powers to direct that certain ballot papers formerly included in counts be excluded, or certain ballot papers formerly excluded be included, and a new result calculated by the electoral management body.

Legal Specifications

Issues that could come before the courts fall into two distinct categories:

• those that allege breaches of criminal or electoral law by individuals or groups, but do not challenge election outcomes;

• those that challenge the outcome of the election through alleged breaches of electoral law. With regard to challenges to the election results, electoral legislation needs to be specific as to:

• judicial authorities with jurisdiction over challenges and any appeal rights;

• grounds available for challenge;

• procedures for challenge;

• required actions by complainants in terms of nature of evidence and necessity for affidavits;

•who may initiate court challenges--whether this may be done by individual complainants, the electoral management body, or whether it requires judicial order;

• the role of the electoral management body and other state agencies in investigations, preparation, and presentation of evidence. The legal framework should also give clearly stated deadlines for lodging and resolving challenges to election outcomes.

Unless determined quickly, challenges to election results can disrupt systems of governance since they can leave in doubt the validity of any decisions taken by the challenged representative body. However, the time period for lodging such challenges should be sufficient to allow the complainant to gather evidence to support the challenge.

 For such challenges, it would be usual for legislation to require the complainant to prepare and present formal legal documentation of the challenge (or a judicial order to be prepared) within a specified time period after the results of the election have been announced, and argue the case before the court or tribunal. It is preferable that the electoral management body also has the power to make application to the relevant judicial authorities that an election be set aside.

The electoral management body is likely to have access to a wider range of data on the election than individual complainants.

It is best that judicial bodies have the power to examine all relevant election material, including ballots, ballot boxes and seals, voters lists and supporting documents, election forms, voting station reports and records. In the interests of justice and transparency complainants should have access, under security conditions if necessary, to original or certified copies of such material held by the electoral management body.

Storage of Material

All information that may be relevant to challenges to election results must be kept securely until any time limit for such challenges has passed.

Care must be taken that during counts or post-voting day administrative actions, no marks are placed on ballots or voters lists, and other material is not amended or defaced in a manner that obliterates the original record. It is vital that this material is kept under secure conditions sufficient for the electoral management body to be certain that it cannot be tampered with or destroyed.

In determining which material may be relevant to challenges, and should be maintained under security, it is better to err on the side of safety:

• all ballots, ballot boxes and seals/locks, voters lists and supporting documents, ballot paper reconciliations and count records, voting station and incident reports would fall into this category.

• it is better to maintain secure storage of all possibly relevant material than be embarrassed by the inability to produce material required for a court challenge or later recount.

A formal materials destruction schedule should be developed by the electoral management body that ensures that election material is not destroyed before the lapse of any period during which it may be required for legal or further administrative action. In some systems, where recounts are used to replace resigned or deceased representatives, ballot material may need to be kept under secure conditions for the term of the elected representative body.

Challenges to Voters

Basis of Challenges

Challenges to or complaints regarding voters in voting stations could be made about the following:

• the behaviour of the voter within the voting station;

• the issuing voting material to a voter believed to be ineligible to vote at that voting station;

• the denial of a vote to a voter believed to be qualified to vote at that voting station.

Voter Behaviour

Regarding voter behaviour, the voting station manager must be given and be prepared to use powers to remove or arrange for the removal from the voting station of persons who:

• are intimidating or otherwise threatening other voters, officials, or observers;

• are intoxicated;

• refuse to surrender weapons when entering the voting station (excepting security forces undertaking their voting operations security duties);

• are not authorised to enter the voting station;

• are in any way threatening the security of election materials or the secrecy of voting;

• remain unauthorised in the voting station following completion of their vote;

• are distributing political material or in any way advertising political allegiance or attempting to influence other voters' ballot choices.

Voting station officials should take a proactive role in monitoring behaviour within the voting station. They also must be prepared to react swiftly to investigate any complaints about the behaviour of other persons in the voting station made by other voters, party/candidate representatives, or observers.

In societies emerging from conflict, or in the midst of bitter political dispute, voters, and particularly party/candidate representatives, may have very sensitive perceptions about the behaviour of others in voting stations. In such environments, some training on conflict management and resolution techniques would be appropriate for voting station managers, if not all voting station staff, during their operational training sessions. 

The voting station manager's report on voting activity should include details of complaints about voters' behaviour and instances where persons were removed from the voting station.

Voters threatened with removal from the voting station must first be given the opportunity to behave in an acceptable manner.

If a voter refuses to leave the voting station or any designated area around it on request by the voting station manager, assistance should be sought from security forces.  Voting station officials should not generally attempt to remove voters by force themselves.

Official Verification of Voter Eligibility

All voters should be questioned, by voting station officials prior to being issued a ballot, as to their identity and eligibility to vote in the election and at that voting station.

Where, as a result of such questioning, the voter is denied a vote, details should also be recorded, as this issue may be relevant in any later challenge to election results (and in evaluations of voter information programs, particularly regarding voters who have turned out to vote at the wrong voting station).

Challenges to Voters

It would be usual that the legal framework gives voting station officials the power to challenge or formally object, in the voting station, to a voter being issued a ballot. This may be on the grounds of eligibility to vote, multiple voting, or impersonation of another voter. In some systems, party/candidate representatives may also have this right.

This may have some practical additional effect where voting stations are servicing relatively small numbers of voters in a distinct community.

However, allowing challenges in the voting station by party/candidate representatives may lead to retributive, rather than fact-based, challenging by all party/candidate representatives. This would disrupt voting without enhancing voting integrity.

Resolution at Voting Station

Where challenges to voters are resolved at the voting station level, there needs to be provisions for a formal statement giving reasons for a challenge, formal response by voters, and determination of eligibility by voting station managers.

Where this method is used, arrangements should be made for voters who can satisfy the voting station manager of their right to vote to resume their original place in the voting queue.

Resolution Following Close of Voting

It would generally be regarded as less disruptive to the voting process that such objections are recorded and resolved following the close of voting. Methods by which this could be implemented include:

• allowing the voter to vote in the normal fashion after providing a formal declaration of eligibility to vote, officially recording the objection or challenge, and requiring such objections to be considered in any ballot recount or result challenge proceedings;

• issuing the voter with a provisional or tendered ballot, which is enveloped with the voter's identity information, to be checked after the close of voting to determine if the voter was eligible to vote.

Records of challenges to voters must be treated as highly accountable material, as they may be relevant to any post-voting day challenges to election outcomes.

Area for Dealing with Challenges

To minimise disruption to the service being provided to other voters, challenges to voters within the voting station should, if at all possible, be dealt with away from the tables or areas used for issuing and marking ballots.

Dealing with these at the voting station manager's table and (if allowable under election frameworks) a special area for taking declarations from voters or issuing provisional or tendered ballots is preferable.

Validity of and Omissions in Voters Lists

The validity of the entries on the voter’s lists used in voting locations is an aspect of voting operations that can be highly contentious. The issue is whether validity should be subject to complaint and challenge. In some jurisdictions challenges to validity are barred.

There are two issues here. The first is the accuracy of the compilation of the voter’s lists, that is, whether the processing of voter information to produce the voters’ lists has either:

• omitted or incorrectly recorded details of valid registered voters;

• included details of persons not entitled to be registered.

In systems where voters’ registers are open, that is, there is a method available to voters who have been omitted from the register to vote through means of a declaration as to their eligibility or by provisional ballot, or where voting day registration is available, this can be dealt with in the context of the voting procedures.

In systems where the voters’ registers are regarded as closed, that is, unless the voters' information can be found on the voters list they are denied a vote, it would seem that this would be a valid basis for challenging the election results, to determine if errors in compilation of the voters list were sufficient to affect election outcomes.

The second issue relates to the validity of claims to registration by those voters who have been accepted for registration and who consequently appear on the voters list:

• Where there has been reasonable public opportunity for challenge and equitable resolution of challenges to the acceptance of a person's claim for voter registration, through objection, revision court, or other facilities, at the voter registration stage, this would seem to be an issue no longer capable of challenge.

• Where such reasonable opportunity has not been provided, it would seem that it should be legally allowed as an issue capable of challenge during and after voting.

Complaints about voters’ registers inaccuracies are not something to be resolved on the spot by individual voting station managers. Where significant problems in this regard are encountered, they should be immediately relayed to voting operations administrators. Once voting has commenced amendment of the actual voters lists being used is generally not practicable, and may be a questionable exercise at best. However, omissions or incorrect information on voters’ lists can be dealt with by allowing, within the legal framework means of provisional voting, voting following a formal declaration of eligibility or additional registrations being accepted on voting day.

Where voters’ lists are based on civil registry records, provision can also be made for voters omitted from their correct voters list to receive, on voting day, certificates from the civil registry attesting to their eligibility to vote in a particular area and use these to establish their eligibility at the voting station. The success and equity of this method will depend on the accessible locations of civil registry offices and the costs and capacities of civil registries to handle this workload.

Post-Voting Day Challenges

Challenges to election outcomes may be based on complaints about the accuracy of voters’ registers (see above), significant levels of impersonation of voters, voting by ineligible persons, and multiple voting (see Management of Challenges and Complaints).

It is vital that all records relevant to voter eligibility, persons voting, and challenges to persons voting remain under strict security at least until any time limitations for election challenges has elapsed.

Challenges to Validity of Ballots

Basis of Challenges

Challenges to validity of ballots are more likely to occur during the counting phase rather than during voting itself.

However challenges may occur during voting where it is suspected that:

• unauthorised additional ballots are being introduced into the ballot box;

• ballots are being removed from the voting station for marking outside, then brought back into the voting station by other voters to deposit in the ballot box;

• the ballots being issued by voting station officials are not those officially printed or authorised;

• ballots are being handled by unauthorised persons (e.g., party/candidate representatives) during voting;

• unauthorised assistance is being provided to voters in marking their ballots.

Complaints about ballot validity issues in voting stations should, in the first instance, are directed to the voting station manager. Details of these should form part of the voting station manager's report on voting day proceedings.

Introduction of unauthorised ballots into the voting station will generally require the intervention of security forces.

Suspected unauthorised ballot handling and assistance to voters will require intensified control by voting station officials and the removal from the voting station of offenders.

Where complainants are not satisfied with the action taken at a voting station level, there should be right of complaint to and immediate response from voting operations administrators.

Post-Voting Day Challenges

Challenges to election outcomes may be based on complaints about the validity of ballots issued or found in ballot boxes (see Management of Challenges and Complaints)

It is vital that all records remain under strict security until any time limitation for election challenges has elapsed. These would include:

• receipts of ballots at voting stations, both prior to and during voting;

• reconciliations of ballots at close of voting;

• statements from staff, party/candidate representatives, other observers, or voters regarding any suspicious occurrences in relation to ballots during voting.

Challenges to Party/Candidate Representatives' Actions

Basis of Challenges

Complaints and challenges based on the behaviour of political participants may result from the following:

• perceived intimidation of voters, voting station officials, or other political participants by party officials, candidates, or their representatives;

• campaigning at prohibited times and places;

• publicising false or misleading statements about voting procedures or other political participants;

• campaigning within voting stations;

• party or candidate representatives in voting stations attempting to influence voters or assist them to complete their ballots;

• party or candidate representatives in voting stations handling ballots or marking election material in an unauthorised fashion. In carrying out their duties, voting station officials should be preventing such actions from occurring.

However, where they have not, or there is collusion between political participants and officials, political participants and voters must have the opportunity to lodge and have resolved challenges to such actions.

Immediate resolution may be available by lodging complaints at the voting station level and voting station managers removing such persons from voting stations, with the aid of security forces if necessary.

Direction may be required from voting operations administrators for application of sanctions under the legal framework, including any legally sanctioned codes of conduct.

Post-Voting Day Challenges

Challenges to election outcomes by voters, political participants, independent observers, and voting operations administrators may be based on complaints about intimidation or illegal influencing of voters and voting station officials by political participants (see Management of Challenges and Complaints).

It is vital that all records relevant to complaints about political participant behaviour in and around voting stations, including voting station managers' records, party/candidate representative statements, security force records, statements from voters and independent observers, remain under strict security until any time limitations for election challenges has elapsed.

Challenges to Voting Operations Management

Voting Operations Materials and Logistics

Logistics, production, or planning failures, if not sufficiently remedied by contingency planning may result in inequitable opportunities for voters to record their votes and, therefore, significant complaints.

There could be many causes, including:

• late or non-arrival of ballot boxes, ballots (or voting machines), or other necessary material at particular voting locations;

• errors in quantities of or candidate/party details on ballots;

• errors in voters lists (see Challenges to Voters);

• early or mail voting materials not arriving in time for the voter to vote;

• inadequacy of voting station facilities to cope with the voter turnout;

• advertised voting stations not opening on time or at all;

• claimed inaccuracy or failures in the operation of computers or other voting machines.

These are avoidable complaints which adequate planning and quality controls during the lead up to voting day should prevent.

Recourse in such situations requires immediate notification of deficiencies to voting operations administrators from voting station managers and well developed contingency plans. Depending on the framework for the election these could include:

• possible extension of voting hours;

• delivery of emergency stocks of reserve materials and equipment;

• transport of voters to other voting stations.

Even where such remedial action is taken, such deficiencies could be an allowed basis for requesting judicial invalidation of any election, if it can be shown that the number of voters denied the opportunity to vote could have affected the election's outcome.

Legal Limitations

It can be prudent that election legislation specifies what actions taken by voting station officials to counter emergencies that arise on voting day are subject to challenge. In general, restrictions on such challenges should be limited to breaches that, while they may not be allowable normally, could not be considered to have a material affect on the fairness and integrity of the election.

An example of such circumstances could be where a voting station exceeds a legally defined limit on the numbers of voters allowed at a voting station. Similarly, adjournment of voting to another location or time due to natural disaster or civil disturbance should be covered by legislative provisions.

In general, however, it would be better to leave open to challenge and determination by the relevant judicial authority whether actions taken by voting station officials and administrators in the face of emergencies, while taken in good faith, sufficiently affected the voting processes to warrant the result of the election being set aside.

Voting Operations Staff

Complaints about the attitudes, service, and perceived bias of voting station officials may be received from political participants and voters. Causes for complaint could include:

• partisan actions by voting station officials;

• selection of voting station officials with known partisan affiliations in systems where independence is a requisite for selection;

• a preponderance of voting station officials of one particular political bias in systems where voting station officials are supposed to represent a balance of partisan interests;

• poor service, long voting queues, and lack of procedural knowledge shown by voting station officials;

• late opening or early closing of voting stations;

• intimidation of voters by voting station officials or allowing others in the voting station to intimidate voters or deny voting secrecy;

• errors in assessing voters' eligibility to vote and in issuing of correct ballots.

Wherever possible, such matters should be handled at the voting station level, through discipline, and, if necessary, termination of staff by the voting station manager.

Party/candidate representatives and independent observers should, however, be encouraged to report voting station irregularities to voting operations administrators.

Service complaints, in particular, may be resolved by the attendance of a roving senior voting station official.  However, where any pattern of systemic bias, or violation of correct procedures is detected by party or other observers in voting stations, there should be the opportunity for relief measures to be sought from an independent judicial body.

There will also be many decisions made by electoral management bodies during the voting period that could be the subject of complaints, such as in the preparation of voters lists , decisions on registration of parties and acceptability of candidate nominations

Where electoral management bodies have a history of independence, such complaints could initially be investigated and dealt with internally. Equity would demand that opportunities for external administrative or judicial review of such decisions should be available.

Post-Voting Day Challenges

Challenges to election outcomes may be based on complaints about unavailability of ballot materials, required services, and lack of impartiality and professionalism of staff (see Management of Challenges)

It is vital that all records relevant to voting station operations remain under strict security until any time limitation for election challenges has elapsed.

Relevant records would include:

• inventories, materials supply, and distribution records, including delivery receipts;

• records of opening and closing of voting stations, including sealing of ballot boxes;

• recruitment and staff selection records;

• code of conduct violations;

• voter service records.