An EMB may have to deal with electoral dispute resolution bodies that have powers to deal with issues such as challenges to EMB decisions, disputes between the EMB and other stakeholders, the legality of the content of EMB regulations or challenges to election results. These may be judicial, quasi-judicial or less formal conciliation bodies. Their decisions can greatly affect the activities and public perceptions of the EMB.
General openness with these bodies — including ensuring that they are well informed on all EMB activities and decisions through regular meetings, receive all EMB publications and are invited to inspect EMB operations — can help maintain a good relationship. This needs to be done in a manner that does not, and does not appear to, impinge on the independence of decision-making of either the EMB or the dispute resolution body. This is especially important if the EMB is also mandated to play a role in resolving disputes, which will often be the case (even if only in the sense that complaints might be made to the EMB in the first instance, and then escalated).
It is of critical importance that an EMB is professional and cooperative in any investigations of electoral disputes by these bodies. It will be difficult to maintain a good relationship if the EMB obstructs a dispute resolution body’s access to relevant electoral materials or sites, if it lobbies to limit the powers of such bodies, or if its presentation of evidence on disputes is not professional.
