Voting Operations Materials and Logistics
Logistics, production, or planning failures, if not sufficiently remedied by contingency planning may result in inequitable opportunities for voters to record their votes and, therefore, significant complaints.
There could be many causes, including:
• late or non-arrival of ballot boxes, ballots (or voting machines), or other necessary material at particular voting locations;
• errors in quantities of or candidate/party details on ballots;
• errors in voters lists (see Challenges to Voters);
• early or mail voting materials not arriving in time for the voter to vote;
• inadequacy of voting station facilities to cope with the voter turnout;
• advertised voting stations not opening on time or at all;
• claimed inaccuracy or failures in the operation of computers or other voting machines.
These are avoidable complaints which adequate planning and quality controls during the lead up to voting day should prevent.
Recourse in such situations requires immediate notification of deficiencies to voting operations administrators from voting station managers and well developed contingency plans. Depending on the framework for the election these could include:
• possible extension of voting hours;
• delivery of emergency stocks of reserve materials and equipment;
• transport of voters to other voting stations.
Even where such remedial action is taken, such deficiencies could be an allowed basis for requesting judicial invalidation of any election, if it can be shown that the number of voters denied the opportunity to vote could have affected the election's outcome.
Legal Limitations
It can be prudent that election legislation specifies what actions taken by voting station officials to counter emergencies that arise on voting day are subject to challenge. In general, restrictions on such challenges should be limited to breaches that, while they may not be allowable normally, could not be considered to have a material affect on the fairness and integrity of the election.
An example of such circumstances could be where a voting station exceeds a legally defined limit on the numbers of voters allowed at a voting station. Similarly, adjournment of voting to another location or time due to natural disaster or civil disturbance should be covered by legislative provisions.
In general, however, it would be better to leave open to challenge and determination by the relevant judicial authority whether actions taken by voting station officials and administrators in the face of emergencies, while taken in good faith, sufficiently affected the voting processes to warrant the result of the election being set aside.
Voting Operations Staff
Complaints about the attitudes, service, and perceived bias of voting station officials may be received from political participants and voters. Causes for complaint could include:
• partisan actions by voting station officials;
• selection of voting station officials with known partisan affiliations in systems where independence is a requisite for selection;
• a preponderance of voting station officials of one particular political bias in systems where voting station officials are supposed to represent a balance of partisan interests;
• poor service, long voting queues, and lack of procedural knowledge shown by voting station officials;
• late opening or early closing of voting stations;
• intimidation of voters by voting station officials or allowing others in the voting station to intimidate voters or deny voting secrecy;
• errors in assessing voters' eligibility to vote and in issuing of correct ballots.
Wherever possible, such matters should be handled at the voting station level, through discipline, and, if necessary, termination of staff by the voting station manager.
Party/candidate representatives and independent observers should, however, be encouraged to report voting station irregularities to voting operations administrators.
Service complaints, in particular, may be resolved by the attendance of a roving senior voting station official.
However, where any pattern of systemic bias, or violation of correct procedures is detected by party or other observers in voting stations, there should be the opportunity for relief measures to be sought from an independent judicial body.
There will also be many decisions made by electoral management bodies during the voting period that could be the subject of complaints, such as in the preparation of voters lists , decisions on registration of parties and acceptability of candidate nominations
Where electoral management bodies have a history of independence, such complaints could initially be investigated and dealt with internally. Equity would demand that opportunities for external administrative or judicial review of such decisions should be available.
Post-Voting Day Challenges
Challenges to election outcomes may be based on complaints about unavailability of ballot materials, required services, and lack of impartiality and professionalism of staff (see Management of Challenges)
It is vital that all records relevant to voting station operations remain under strict security until any time limitation for election challenges has elapsed.
Relevant records would include:
• inventories, materials supply, and distribution records, including delivery receipts;
• records of opening and closing of voting stations, including sealing of ballot boxes;
• recruitment and staff selection records;
• code of conduct violations;
• voter service records.
