The legal framework for elections has several sources and each source may have more or less flexibility for amendment.  The International IDEA publication, International Electoral Standards: Guidelines for Reviewing the Legal Framework of Elections, provides this very useful chart setting out the source, formal authority and flexibility of amendment:[i]

The chart above illustrates that in order to establish fundamental aspects of genuine and periodic democratic elections; there is an advantage to constitutions and international agreements arising in part from their difficult nature of amendment thereby better enshrining core principles. On the other hand, this same safeguarding function of difficult to amend instruments, can result in very practical problems such as how to keep up with needed change and best practices in a current and systematic manner and how then to ensure that in the course of an election there will be rapid decision making on matters that may be unique to those prevailing circumstances?  The degree with which various instruments can be amended is an important consideration in the overall legal framework.

Ideally,” Democratic legislative and regulatory processes present opportunities for individual citizens to review existing legal frameworks and comment on proposed changes, as well as to suggest modifications.”[ii] Similarly for those in the political arena, “Knowing the rules, however, is not enough. The electoral contestants must analyze the legal framework to determine whether the rules actually ensure a genuine chance to compete fairly.”[iii]  Academics, media and all manner of civil groups as well have significant interest in how the legal framework for elections is created and amended and so understanding these processes is very important to the health of the overall electoral system.  Each source of the legal framework will have its own process and opportunities and challenges to change.

Usually, electoral laws in consolidated democratic systems have a two-fold and inconsistent nature.

• On one hand, they are evolved within political and social debates, which cause some of their weaknesses to be more frequently addressed than their strengths. Frequently, such a situation encloses a contradiction that can be summed up by the following example: how come a proportional system can be criticized when a clear separation between voters and candidates has been promoted?
• The study of consolidated electoral systems draws a significant conclusion: electoral systems are supported by a very important degree of continuity. A kind of universal rule can be established as follows: electoral systems tend to consolidate their fundamentals; however, they can be modified when the political system is in crisis.

Such a situation is consistent with the permanent, technical, minor and procedural changes afflicting electoral laws. Among the reasons supporting the basic continuity of electoral systems, some can be mentioned as follows:

• First, no one is eager to change what is known for the unknown. Agents of any electoral system have certainty regarding the way in which such system works. Such a certainty does not prevent citizens or even political parties from having different opinions about the electoral system.
• Secondly, those who can modify electoral laws are the winners of the elections. Those who have benefited from the current system are the ones who must promote any change.
• Besides, there are some historical facts that make any modification more and more difficult. Citizens usually show a kind of empathy towards their traditional electoral system, which is by the way and according to them, the closer representation of democracy. The older the electoral system is, the stronger the citizens’ empathy becomes. Tradition forces legislators to endorse traditional clauses, which may be seen as legislative relics somewhere else.
• Finally, there are many legal challenges derived from reforming electoral laws. The most important electoral rules are set down by the Constitution and vested, therefore, with such a special protection. Electoral laws can only be reformed by composed majorities. Such a fact obliges political parties to reach a clear and broad understanding on the subject.

Nonetheless, minor reforms to electoral laws are frequent. Electoral laws in both new democracies and consolidated democratic systems are constantly reformed, constantly adjusted.