Active oversight of the electoral process is an important means of safeguarding integrity. In many electoral systems, a particular governmental authority is mandated to oversee, or even more actively supervise, the electoral process. This agency may be located within the EMB itself, or in a separate institution, such as an auditor general’s office, or an independent commission or court. In Canada the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections bears this responsibility; in Mexico the Federal Electoral Tribunal plays a similar role.

Occasionally, conflicts arise from the actions of Government officials, such as “Ombuds-persons” or Public Defenders, exercising their general (non-election specific) jurisdiction to investigate and respond to violations of human or civil rights.  The risk is that their actions may discredit the conduct or results of an election in a way that cannot be remedied.  In Georgia, the highly-respected Public Defender at the time sought to subpoena the video continuously captured in certain polling stations (as part of a pilot program insisted upon by opposition parties) during the 2008 Parliamentary elections.  By this time, the complaint and appeal process had already been concluded, and final results announced.  The purpose of the Defender’s action was to determine if the vote totals recorded in those polling stations could possibly have been as large as reported.  While laudable in themselves, such actions might undermine the credibility of the electoral process after the results have been accepted.

Oversight agencies generally address potential or actual integrity problems in all aspects of the electoral process, including:

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

In addition to providing routine oversight of the electoral process, oversight agencies may also be empowered or undertake investigations or consider formal complaints. To be effective, oversight agencies should generally have:

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

To protect election integrity, oversight agencies can have the following tasks:

Provide independent oversight of the electoral process

This can be done through:

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

Review compliance with legislation and regulations

Oversight agencies can:

• review electoral policies and procedures to check compliance with legal requirements;
• check whether electoral administration complies with specific performance requirements and submits financial reports as stipulated by law
• consider measures to promote accountability on the part of electoral administration.

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

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

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

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

Promote transparency and credibility of the election process

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

Oversight reporting highlights problems stemming from programs and operations, and brings them to the attention of the electoral management body and principal electoral administrators, as well as all others with a need to know (such as parliamentary oversight committees and parliamentarians, and governmental accountability offices). In countries in transition to democracy, confidence in the process can be bolstered and voter turnout can be increased with the help of oversight by a neutral and professional mechanism that has gained the trust of political parties and electoral administrators through objective and professional work.

Ensure compliance with the legal framework

Oversight agencies may play a similar role as enforcement agencies, if they have power to determine responsibility for actions, as well as impose punitive measures. The actual enforcement power of an oversight agency depends on its specific mandate but may include taking corrective or enforcement action.  These could include imposing civil sanctions, such as fines or suspensions, on violators. In serious cases, the oversight agency can recommend such administrative (including disciplinary) sanctions as termination of employment or referral of the matter to the criminal justice system.

Monitor compliance, including with codes of conduct

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

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