Nomination procedures are
those that establish the eligibility of candidates to be included on a ballot.
In most countries, candidates register with an endorsement of a political party
(or affiliation to a political party or grouping), especially under a
list-proportional representation system, while some systems permit independent
candidates.[1]
While the qualifications
for nomination vary from country to country, consideration needs to be given to
whether the rules directly or indirectly discriminate against women. For
example, if the candidacy deposit is set too high, candidates from poorer
sectors may be discouraged or prevented from registering. As women constitute
the majority of poor in most countries, this requirement may indirectly
disadvantage women candidates. Consideration also needs to be given to laws
with quota provisions requiring that a certain proportion of nominated
candidates should be women or from other under-represented groups, or laws mandating
a reduction in public campaign finance allocations if a certain proportion of
candidates are not women.[2]
More than 80 countries have legislated TSM in the form of gender
quotas, which are
aimed at increasing the number of elected women to decision-making bodies,
notably parliaments. In many countries, the authority to monitor and enforce
compliance with gender quotas rests with the body charged with candidate
nominations, often the EMB. In some others, the judiciary is in charge of
verifying compliance of candidate lists with gender quota requirements and,
under certain circumstances, it can reject the list of candidates if parties do
not comply with the rules. An interesting trend has emerged in Latin America
with electoral tribunals robustly interpreting electoral quota legislation to
ensure political parties’ compliance.[3]
Political finance reforms have been adopted in 27 countries with
the explicit purpose of increasing female candidatures and addressing gender
inequality through the system of public funding. These reforms mainly target
the candidacies of women by political parties, where public funding is used as
an incentive or penalty for compliance or non-compliance with certain levels of
women’s representation and a portion of funds is either allocated or reduced in
line with this representation targets. Where EMBs have responsibility for
overseeing campaign finance, they are often also responsible for implementing
these laws.[4]
Example: In Kyrgyzstan, as
amended in 2011, the Electoral Law specifies a 30-percent quota for either sex
on electoral lists (Code on Elections, Article 60 [3]).
Lists that fail to meet the quota
requirement will be rejected by the Electoral Commission (Code on Elections
2011, Article 61 [3]). No more than three positions can separate men and women
(Code on Elections 2011, Article 60 [3]).[5]
Example: In Mexico, the Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF,
Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial
de la Federación) has issued a number of sentences with a robust interpretation
of the gender quota legal requirements, in order to ensure compliance in the
candidate registration process. The TEPJF voted to reject the candidate
lists of five different parties and
two coalitions competing for seats in the
2012 elections if they did not correct their lists to meet the 40 percent
quota. Before the Tribunal’s decision, women represented 28 percent of the
candidates on the majority electoral list and 40.2 percent of the candidates on
the proportional representation list. Following the 2012 decision, those
percentages rose to 41.5 percent and 49.5 percent, respectively.[6]
In 2011, the TEPJF issued a sentence according to which
incumbent and substitute candidates must be of the same gender. This ruling
sought substantive equality, in order to avoid the political phenomenon known
as “Las Juanitas”, by which political parties forced elected women to resign in
favor of their male substitutes after the election, while apparently complying
with formal requirements of the gender quota during candidate registration.[7]
In 2018, the TEPJF issued a sentence in favor of the complaint
of the Colectivo por la Ciudadanía de las Mujeres, Colectivos Muxes y de la
Diversidad Sexual against the agreement of the State Electoral Institute of
Oaxaca that validated the registry of candidates who were supposedly
transgender. The complaint made by women’s associations and LGBTI groups
explained that a number of registered candidates pretended to be transgender to
fit in the candidate list according to quota requirements. The sentence of the
TEPJF canceled 15 out of the 17 impugned candidatures. It should be noted that
the INE developed a protocol to promote the participation of trans voters in
Mexico.[8]
Example: In Peru, the
National Jury of Elections (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones) ruled (decision
721-2010-JNE, 26 July 2010) that the percentage of women on a party’s
electoral
list could be rounded up to the next integer. For example, if a
party presents a list with 29.6 percent of women, it would be taken as 30
percent. The Tribunal also ruled (670-2010- JNE, 23 July 2010) that a party
list will still be declared invalid if certain candidates decide to withdraw
their candidacies even after the list
is approved.[9]
Example: In Burkina Faso, lists of candidates must include at least 30
percent of either sex (Law on Quotas, Article 3).
If a party reaches or
exceeds the 30 percent quota, it will receive additional funding (Law on
Quotas, Article 5 & 6).
If a political party fails to meet the quota
provision, its public funding for election campaigns will be cut by 50 percent.
(Law on Quotas, Article 5 & 6).[10]
Example: In Ireland,
according to the Electoral Act 1997 section 17,
as amended by the Electoral
(Political Funding) Act 2012 section 42, the political parties, after the
implementation of the law in national elections, will lose 50 percent of their
state funding, unless at least 30 percent of their candidates are women and at
least 30 percent are men. After a period of seven years, the political parties
should have a 40 percent gender quota in their candidate lists in order receive
full state funding.[11]
[1] UNDP and UN Women
(2016): op. cit., p. 65.
[2] UNDP and UN Women
(2016): op. cit., p. 65.
[3] UNDP and UN Women
(2016): op. cit., p. 66.
[4] UNDP and UN Women
(2016): op. cit., p. 69.
[5] UNDP and UN Women
(2016): op. cit., p. 67.
[6] UNDP and UN Women (2016): op. cit., p. 69.
[9] UNDP and UN Women (2016): op. cit., p. 69.
[10] UNDP and UN Women (2016): op. cit., p. 70.
[11] UNDP and UN Women (2016): op. cit., p. 70.
