The opportunity to make a complaint or appeal is an important safeguard of election integrity. Some candidates and parties may refuse to accept defeat, and make unsubstantiated charges of fraud or tampering. Other candidates may have valid grounds and plausible evidence to justify a complaint.
Election integrity requires that the election management body and the justice system be willing to effectively address complaints without undue delay. It also requires that the complainant be willing to use the official complaints mechanisms and abide by the resulting decision.
In the 1998 elections in Cambodia, the National Elections Committee failed to grasp the importance of handling complaints transparently and with care. The Cambodian People’s Party pressed the Committee to settle complaints as quickly as possible. The haste simply increased the opposition parties’ suspicion of a cover-up. As a result, the Committee’s reputation was irreparably damaged. [1]
In Ethiopia’s 2005 elections, the system for processing grievances was incapable of handling the very large volume of complaints filed. In a climate of violence, the ruling party reached a consensus with opposition parties on an emergency measure to resolve the conflict and legitimize the results. This situation could have been avoided if a practical, simple and transparent system had been developed before the elections. [2]
Administrative Reviews
The electoral management or policy-making body may have the authority to review complaints; this is usually a first step in the process. A review is part of the internal checks of most electoral administrations, and may examine a complaint related to registration, voting or the count. In most systems, complaints about criminal activities are referred to the criminal justice system.
The institutions responsible for settling complaints and hearing appeals differ according to each country’s electoral and judicial system. In some systems, the electoral management or policy-making body is mandated to receive complaints and hear appeals. In other systems the task is given to a specialized court, such as an electoral court. In Denmark, the legislature has this responsibility. Under the Danish constitution, the Folketing (Parliament) determines the validity of the election of its members and is the sole judge in matters of eligibility. [3] In contrast, in South Africa complaints are first filed with the Electoral Commission and appeals are heard by the Electoral Court.
In Ireland, the result of a presidential election may be challenged only by a petition to the High Court, presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, a candidate or the agent of a candidate in the election. When hearing an election petition, the High Court must determine the correct result of the election and may order a recount for this purpose.
Recounts
A recount is usually held if a candidate or party challenges the vote count because there is reason to believe that the count was inaccurate. It may be that ballots were improperly counted or rejected, or that election officers improperly carried out the tabulation of results. Some systems provide for an automatic recount in a close election.
In Canada, an automatic recount is performed if the two leading candidates are separated by less than a thousandth of the votes cast in an electoral district. The returning officer makes a request to a judge for a judicial recount and notifies the candidates in writing. Citizens may also apply to a judge for a judicial recount by submitting an affidavit within four days of the official count.
To safeguard integrity, a recount must usually be performed with as little delay as possible. This is to ensure that ballots are not destroyed or tampered with before the recount. Monitors and observers usually watch the recount.
Appeals
To ensure integrity in the review process, the decision of the electoral management body is generally subject to appeal. This enables the person who filed the complaint to seek a review of the decision with a higher-level institution, such as a constitutional court. The appeals process serves as a check on the decisions made in the initial review, and may deter arbitrary or biased decision making.
Appeals are part of the checks and balances on decisions made by a lower court or after administrative review of a complaint. Each system handles appeals differently, according to its legal and institutional framework, but it is important to have a straightforward procedure that allows review of lower-level decisions in a systematic, neutral and timely manner.
NOTES
[1] Kassie, Neou and Gallup, Jeffrey C., “Conducting Cambodia’s Elections,” Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 1999, p. 161.
[2] Carter Center, Final Statement on the Carter Center Observation of the Ethiopia 2005 National Elections, September 2005.
[3] Folketing (Danish Parliament), “Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark.”
