Polling stations are an essential element of an electoral process. They are the sites where voting takes place and where votes are counted by the election administration. Therefore, it is essential to ensure freedom and secrecy of the vote in the polling stations.

In order to locate and create polling stations, it is necessary to establish an electoral map. To this end, the location of polling stations should be determined in each district according to the following criteria:

• The distribution of polling stations should be publicly announced, so that citizens participating in the electoral process know in advance the location of the polling station at which they are entitled to vote. With this in mind, changes to the distribution and location of polling stations between elections should be minimized;
• The distribution of polling stations should take into consideration geographical criteria, so that polling stations are as close as possible to the voters’ residence. On the contrary, a distribution of voters on the basis of other criteria (for instance, by name) implying mass transfers of citizens to polling stations very far from their residence would discourage voter turnout;
• Polling stations must have a minimum size, serving the need to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, and a maximum size, serving the need to perform complex electoral operations in a relatively short period of time. It is difficult to establish general rules in this regard, given the wide variety of geographical and communication conditions under which different electoral processes are carried out. Normally, a polling station has a minimum capacity of 300 voters and a maximum of 1500. Often the minimum and maximum permitted sizes are fixed by law. Depending on the geographical circumstances, it may be necessary to establish mobile polling stations that fulfill the legal requirements. In this case, after all citizens have voted, the mobile polling station moves to a suitable place for the vote counting;
• The polling stations must be accessible to all voters including the elderly and disabled persons;
• The location of polling stations must be in an ideologically neutral site in order not to discourage the free expression of the vote. In this sense, polling stations should not be located in police stations, army barracks, headquarters of political parties, offices of religious groups and government buildings in times of political transition. On the contrary, it is appropriate to use schools as polling stations;
• The prospective location must have adequate lighting and communications, transport and other logistical considerations. This requirement may prove in some countries more challenging in the rural areas than in urban areas given the sometime imbalance between urban and rural infrastructure.[i]
• In some countries, consideration may be given to the need to establish separate polling stations for women in order to provide them with an opportunity to vote in an environment free of intimidation and pressure and thereby increase the likelihood of their participation”.[ii]

The hours for voting should be set in law and uniformly applied[iii] and should include some time outside regular working hours.  It is also commonly understood that voters arriving at a polling station prior to the official closing time, but are still in line to vote as the polls close, will be allowed to vote.[iv]

The polling staff or Electoral Board is the key to the proper conduct of the voting and counting processes. They organize and supervise the voting procedure, count the ballots and prepare the minutes for the central election administration that is in charge of the tabulation of votes and allocation of seats. In this way, local boards and polling staff are responsible for the key operations of the entire electoral process. More specifically, they perform the identification of voters, decide on the validity of ballots and may certify the results. In many cases, the decisions of the Electoral Board cannot be challenged.

Thus, it is essential to achieve a suitable composition of the Electoral Board. In particular, polling officers must be independent from the government and political parties. With this in mind, polling officers are sometimes chosen by lot amongst individual citizens and their appointment binding. This procedure, if followed correctly, ensures the greatest likelihood that polling officers will act independent of any political party or candidate, and greatly reduces the possibility of fraud. The only drawback to this system is the lack of legal knowledge of the appointed officers, as an inevitable consequence of their largely non-professional character. Nevertheless, various measures may be taken to ensure knowledgeable and effective polling officers:

• First, certain legal orders impose specific education requirements for the appointment of polling officers and presiding officers, so that the members of the Electoral Board are chosen only amongst citizens that fulfill the requirements;
• Most legal orders, to a greater or less extent, offer specific training to polling officers, either through courses or by giving them detailed instructions and manuals on how to perform their duties and how to resolve the different problems that may arise on election day;
  
• In certain northern European countries the system is slightly modified, so that while members of the Electoral Board are chosen by lot, its President is a permanent municipal officer. This is probably the most effective system, given that it combines the benefits of citizen participation and professionalism and is a characteristic pattern used in consolidated democracies.

This composition is perfectly compatible with the fact that, in most of the jurisdictions that use it, there is the possibility for political parties and candidates to appoint representatives to each polling station (prosecutors, auditors, attorneys). The representatives of parties and candidates can be present at all operations, but usually without any decisive powers. In general, they contribute to electoral transparency, providing an important complement to the appointment of polling officers by lot. The presence of party or candidate representatives during the voting and counting operations should not be confused with national or international electoral observation, as they are two entirely different mechanisms.

It is good practice for electoral management bodies to institutionalize selection criteria for the recruitment of polling staff and performance management processes.[v]

Finally, it is necessary to ensure that people that do not play any role in the organization of the electoral process do not remain in the polling station, as their presence may hinder or interrupt the free conduct of elections. The legal framework usually grants to the President of the Electoral Board the power to authorize or prohibit the presence of other people in the electoral operations.

In addition to polling staff, other persons when authorized may also be present in the polling station.  This includes of course voters but only while in the act of exercising their franchise, representatives of political parties and candidates, domestic and international observers where allowed, and security forces when necessary.

To facilitate the proper operation of a polling station it is imperative that even those authorized to be present in addition to polling station personnel clearly understand what they may and may not do.  Training and written materials are useful and of course it is preferable if the legal framework also specifically addresses this matter.

Political parties and candidate have a clear vested interest in the conduct of an election and therefore their representatives should be enabled to observe all aspects of the process including the conduct of voting and the count.  The legal framework should stipulate both the rights and obligations of party and candidate representatives while at the poll.[vi]  In addition to the right to observe proceedings it is good practice that the legal framework requires challenges to voters or complaints about the operation of the polling place made by a representative of a party of candidate to be recorded in writing in the documentation for the voting place.[vii] On the other hand, authorized political representative must not otherwise disrupt the conduct of the voting place and of course, no campaigning, political displays or intimidation are to be permitted.  The President of the Electoral Board should have the right to remove representatives for a breach of the regulations regarding their presence.

To facilitate the important role of authorized political representatives at the voting place and at the same time ensure that they act within what are proper limits it may be useful that the legal framework, including possibly a code of conduct, specify that at a minimum authorized political representatives must declare that they will:

• maintain voting secrecy.

• follow the directions of polling officials.

• not interfere with election processes.

• be bound by the legal framework for elections.[viii]

The legal framework should otherwise specifically prohibit the presence in the polling station of other than persons whose presence is authorized under the law, such as local executive leaders.[ix]

The effective conduct of electoral operations during polling day presupposes that the polling stations be sufficiently protected in order to avoid disorders that may hinder the voting, and to ensure that the right to vote is exercised under democratic conditions.

For this purpose, the electoral law often vests the presiding officer with public authority, including the possibility to take the necessary measures for the maintenance of law and order.  This authority often includes the ability to give precise instructions to whoever, in each polling station, performs electoral police functions.

In consolidated democracies, these functions are carried out by security, police or military forces. Sometimes however,” the presence of security forces around polling station may intimidate and instil fear in voters”[x] particularly in countries in political transition where this option is sometimes looked at with suspicion, due to its relation with the previous regime. This mistrust can lead to a very expensive and likely unreasonable appointment of special civil police, which performs its duties on polling day under the command of the electoral administration. Experience has shown, however, that the use of the armed forces during voting operations can present many advantages, not only because of its effectiveness and low additional cost, but also because of its importance for the stability of a country. Thus, armed forces may be attributed functions of cooperation and democracy strengthening under the command of the electoral administration. It is also very important for public opinion to see such collaboration between the different public institutions for the purpose of strengthening democracy, instead of the creation of an ephemeral and untrained electoral police.  Where public security forces provide order at voting stations, it is preferable that the legal framework set out a code of conduct.[xi]