Most investigations of electoral irregularities are undertaken in response to a complaint from an individual or findings of the oversight body. In systems where investigations are not conducted by the police, investigators might not be empowered to initiate an investigation without a sworn complaint or other authorization. This is the case in Canada, where special investigators cannot start an investigation without the approval of the Commissioner of Canada Elections or the Counsel to the Commissioner.[1] A complaints process that is non-threatening and easily accessible to the average citizen can facilitate the reporting of integrity problems. Citizens should not be afraid of submitting a valid complaint or be deterred from doing so because of cumbersome or intimidating procedures. In general, complaint processes often include the following features as a means to contribute to the integrity on an election:

• Any person is able to file an electoral or related complaint if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that a law has been broken or a violation is about to occur; this helps authorities uncover and deter crimes.  To avoid overly numerous complaints, it is possible to limit complaints submitted by individual citizens/voters  to certain subjects (such as their own voter registration or that of other persons in their area).[2]  Or a certain number of voters may be required in order to validate a complaint about electoral procedures more generally.
• Complaints should be made in writing, signed and dated, and sent to the appropriate office. To avoid frivolous or anonymous complaints, some systems require official complaints to be notarized. However, some persons may be afraid to make a complaint if they have to identify themselves. The complaint system should have a mechanism to deal with such situations  by protecting the identity of the complainant.
• Complaints should be made in a timely manner, show that a violation has occurred and, if possible, identify the persons involved. Complainants should differentiate between statements based on their personal knowledge and second-hand information or rumour. Sources of information must be identified; this helps ensure that law enforcement officers have enough information to evaluate the complaint and decide whether it warrants investigation.

Making Complaints Public

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

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

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