This question is posed on behalf of Practitioner's Network member Amin S. Wasike Yusuf.

To eradicate the problem of ballot stuffing in areas where presidential candidates are strong and other candidates lack agents/are compromised, one proposal is to include in the legislation a law requiring that the ballot boxes be emptied and the content verified six months after the elections. This should be done whether there is a petition or not. 

The procedure should be done before a magistrate and those election officers found to have colluded to staff ballot boxes be punished. Many such crimes ago undetected, especially where the beneficiary is a sitting president. Critics of this proposal argue that this is akin to opening a Pandora box and that it will put the EMB in an awkward situation after a good job (when very minor mistakes are done). How can we balance between the two?

Summary of Responses

Practitioners’ Network members from around the world weighed in on the verification of ballot boxes, and investigating ballot issues without compromising the confidence of EMBs and the public.

Two members emphasized the importance of maintaining confidence among the public and the EMB. As a member noted in Uganda, voters are allowed to observe the counting of ballots, which improves the transparency of the electoral process, and instills confidence in voters in the EMB. Similarly, a member from Kenya suggested that if ballot boxes are to be opened the EMB must be notified, as compromising this standard can affect the confidence of both the EMBs and voters.  

Several members shared suggestions to improve the ease and effectiveness of ballot investigations. For example, a member from Sierra Leone suggested that audits should be conducted within six months of the election, and ideally immediately after every major operation for the sake of transparency and being able link specific EMB personnel to every stage in the voting process. In line with this view, a member from Iraq suggested that ballot boxes should be opened ideally within 15 days of the election, citing the example of the September 2013 parliamentary elections where allegedly 250 complaints were made against the election commission, but the complaints were presented to the court after the announcement of results leading to no redress. Another member from India added that audits should ideally occur before results are declared, and suggesting that after all complaints are received and the EMB announces the election results, courts and tribunals must deal with ballot box issues. However, EMBs should also have strong internal dispute resolution mechanisms that are independent of the courts and tribunals, as another member noted.

The member from India also suggested using video cameras to capture all electoral events, which a panel could then review to provide feedback to the EMB to improve its future management of elections.  Furthermore, allowing the public to view polling day activities on a live webcast may help in polling stations where dominant candidates seek to intimidate voters.

Last, one member suggested that having a formula predetermining a finite number of ballots based on the number of electors in each constituency helped tackled the problem of ballot box stuffing in Mexico. Mexico’s sections (the smallest administrative units) can range from between 50 and 750 electors, and voters may only cast their votes in their section, allowing each polling station to expect a finite number of ballots. 

Contributing Members

• Ronan McDermott
• Deyanira Galindo
• Kwanboka Mogaka Florence
• Horacio Boneo
• Gibrilla Murray Jusu
• Elaine Ginnold
• Dr. Noor Mohammad
• Aram Jamal
• Henry Makabayi
• Tope Akanmu
• Zekria Barakzai
• Amin S. Wasike Yusuf
• Abdiwahidi Hussein
• Sadou Lady Bawa

The election is not over until all opportunities to challenge the result (or the process) have been exhausted. Any verification of ballot box contents that does not happen until six months after election day extends the period of elevated political tension by four to five months. I can think of few situations in which this is desirable.

A proactive EMB could, based on certain agreed and publicly disseminated criteria, proactively examine the contents of ballot boxes (or a statistically random sample thereof). It should plan to do this in a transparent and accountable manner in the period after election day and before any period for the submission of petitions.

Undetected crimes, legally, are not crimes... I'm not sure that it's helpful to assume criminal behaviour and ballot stuffing have taken place where there is no evidence - even statistical indicators - of same.

In my opinion, the integrity of the elections is compromised if the law is not followed during the entire electoral process. For any EMB to win the confidence of the citizens of its country, it must ensure that the legal framework in place is respected and the required international standards of elections are met during the entire election period. This is the reason Observer Missions are invited to monitor the process.

If ballot boxes need to be opened after a specified period of time, the reason should be to inform the EMB after verification, of any gaps that may be detected, and future strategies of for example voter education and training of election officials.

But if ballot boxes are to be opened on assumption that ballot stuffing had been done, it will translate to an EMB casting doubt on itself and the process it has supervised. It will also keep the country on election tension for unnecessarily longer period as opponents wait for that time to "confirm their fears"

In the event a petition is filed in court to challenge the outcome of an election, and the petitioner prays for scrutiny of ballots, then the ballot boxes may be opened before court officials so as to verify the ballot papers in question. This may be done when there is tangible evidence of ballot stuffing.

Hence EMBs could strife to put legal frameworks in place to check the vice of ballot stuffing.

In Kenya for example, it is an election offense punishable by the court of law if one is found to have inadvertently dealt with a ballot paper.

You may find of interest Annex 6A of the IREC Report in Kenya (attached), where a full recount and analysis of the results in each of the polling stations in a sample of 18 constituencies was undertaken.  It might give you an idea of what you can find - something rather worst than the Pandora Box

Usually it is advisable to strengthen integrity measures in the  procedures for processes of  all electoral activities, make them transparent to an extent that it is easy to commit stakeholders to them. Negative perception about an election process especially from the electorate weakens the legitimacy score of the winner and the credibility of the EMB. 

Besides the pre elections integrity measures, audit sessions should be organised immediately after every major operations to re evaluate the personnel ( and stakeholders) compliance and comportment to standard procedures. Such should have as participants representatives of the operational arm of the stakeholder organisations and the EMB. This will  reinforce multi sectoral collaboration for subsequent operations.

I don't understand why it would be necessary to wait for 6 months to open ballot boxes to check for ballot box stuffing.  Any audit of the election, including opening the ballot boxes, should be done immediately after the election during the canvass period and before the election is certified. In California, the law allows elections officials 28 days to count all the ballots, audit the results and certify the election.  Then everything is sealed and stored for the retention period of 6 months for local elections and 22 months for federal elections unless someone requests a recount.  Anyone can request a recount within 5 days after the election is certified.  If the election results are still in dispute after a recount, the parties can take it to the courts for resolution.  Waiting for 6 months after the election to do an audit would result in prolonged insecurity about the election results. 

Once the EMB announces the election results, its job is over. All the complaints received before the declaration of results need to be disposed off as per a transparent and acceptable procedure. After the EMB has done its job, it is the courts/ tribunals or a similar agency created for the purpose should have the power to open the box - this could be through an election petition by a voter or a civil society organisation also.

As regards audit of the ballot by the EMB, it can be taken before the results are declared, if required. I think a large scale videography of all electoral events and its review by a group would help in providing feedback to the EMB to improve its future work. This will also help the EMB in disposal of all irregularities detected in the videos in addition to complaints received from other sources. 

In polling stations where a candidate is dominant and the opposition does not find even a poll agent, it would be desirable to cover such polling stations by webcast in which all the activities of the polling station will be streamed to the public and any one having an internet connection will be able to see and record. This will inhibit the dominant candidate from indulging in malpractices. This needs only an inexpensive webcam and free platforms like Ustream can be used. 

I think re- opining the ballot boxes after six months has not positive impact on the election results because there is not change will be happened after this long time. I prefer audit of the ballots should be do before/ after certifying of the results for a determine period that no longer than a 15 days.
In the fourth parliament election in KRG/ Iraq where is held in September 21th 2013, there were 250 variety complaints against IHEC performances and frauds that was made by the ruling parties, the complaints presented to the court after declaration of results without any effectiveness. the more important guarantee for a fair and free election process is the independence of each of the electoral Commissions, judicial court and government.

The idea of auditing the outcome of election results is very appropriate but the timing must be not later than the day after the election is carried out.  With the passage of time a lot can take place to alter the contents of a ballot box.

Ballot stuffing, in my opinion may arise in any place where any of the participating parties has a comparative advantage to the extent of silencing their oponents, this may be the ruling party or an opposition party in its stronghold so stuffing ought not be attributed to the ruling party or incumbents only.

It would be prudent to store used and unsed ballots in a tamper proof envelope which can be transported to whichever point verification would be carried out, for example a district office where the recount would be taken to verify contents of the declaration of results forms.  After this is done a verified declaration would be written.  The challenge arises when a disparity occurs and this is very likely.  This may arise due to the opinion of those carrying out the recount regarding invalid votes, some of which may have been invalidated maliciously and are now clearly seen to be meand for one of the candidates.  The law would have to clearly state what would be done in the circumstances.  It would also have to state which could would be considered the right one.

In Uganda, where the counting of ballots cast is done in the presence of the voters who wish to withness the the count immediately after the polls close, the verdict on polling day would be deemed more authentic given that it is witnessed by the electorate as opposed to a verification count done at a location away from the respective voters days after the polls.

Since the law governing the electoral process has stipulated the numbers of days after election in Nigeria, in which complains can be made. I think this is appropriate than waiting till six months after swearing in of the elected before subjecting such result to legal scrutiny. In Nigeria  maxmum of 21 days after the announcement of election result, such result can be subjected to legal scrutiny and judgement to be delivered within 180 days starting from the date of the filling of the petition. This involves access to all electoral materials used during the election by all parties involved, that is the ballot papers (used and un-used), ballot boxes, result sheets and other relevant materials.

I think six months is not a timeline which will have any impact on results. I would propose that if the election environment is prone to massive fraud, it should be done according the election calendar before the final results are announced!

I fully agree with Dr. Noor Mohammed and i think his proposal will work well in many different scenarios/cases.

I was referring to some situations, especially in remote areas where some candidates/parties or even local and international observers are not represented and this should not come as a surprise to many of us. These case are very common, in countries where ethnicity is very strong or where there are regional parties. The polling process ends up becoming a formality/"a local thing" in those areas, since it is usually difficult to get none partisan polling officials who will defy all odds (pressure from kinsmen) including the temptation to put one of their own in office. The situation is made worse, where verification of registered voters is not by the use of Biometric devices and the polling process is manual and the polling station are miles away or inaccessible.

Read Krieggler report attached above.

Verification of cast ballot papers can be done at any stage as a means of detecting any element of collusion/ electoral malpractice and punish the culprits. This, can help bring the practice to an end.

In some countries, the legal framework provides that a duration of six months must elapse before the ballot boxes can be emptied and contents discarded. This should be the case where there are no petitions. But, if there is a better way of doing it, say as it is done in California, i want to believe that, it  will go along way to strengthen the integrity measures.

I find the proposal for opening the ballot boxes six months after the elections ridiculous and at best an act of  'shadow Boxing'. I think the electoral laws have clear mechanism for expediting dispute resolution and determination of complaints arising from election results. 

The issue of ballot stuffing will naturally be addressed by the EMB's Dispute Resolution mechanism or through established mechanism for redress independent of the EMB such as courts/tribunals. 

After the settlement of disputes within the legally stipulated time and through its own needs assessment or as a result of the feedback from stakeholders like Observer reports, court/tribunal rulings e.t.c., an EMB can institute any research or fact finding that can help it pro-actively detect and possibly eliminate fraud or other lapses in its system and therefore enhance its own capacity to deal with and continually improve on its own delivery(post-election evaluation phase).

More importantly, it is the duty of the EMB to earn and maintain the  trust of its valued stakeholders (voters,contestants etc) because of its demonstrated commitment to integrity though open, transparent and accountable culture and performance standards. Voter and civic education, responsive investigative and prosecution capacity and in-built clear monitoring, evaluation and reporting system should discourage and punish any electoral malpractices like Ballot stuffing. The  EMB has no business engaging in speculation and self-doubt in any stage of the electoral cycle because the law is clear and where it is not the courts can always interpret and advise on them.

L'ouverture des urnes 6 mois après les élections est de nature a créer des suspicions chez les électeurs et porter atteinte a la crédibilité du scrutin. Néanmoins si la loi électorale du pays concerne le prévoit cela peut être fait. Par ailleurs s'agissant du contentieux électoral cela dépend également des dispositions des lois électorales nationales. Au Cameroun, les bureaux de vote ouvrent a heures et sont fermées a 18 heures. Mais si d'aventure il y a encore des électeurs dans les rangs le président de la commission locale de vote doit leur permettre de voter. LE DÉPOUILLEMENT DU SCRUTIN INTERVIENT IMMÉDIATEMENT APRES LA FERMETURE DU BUREAU DE VOTE ET EN PRÉSENCE DES ÉLECTEURS QUI  LE DÉSIRENT. Il faut noter que le bureau de vote est compose d'un président désigné par elecam puis d'un représentant de l'administration et d'un représentant de chaque parti politique ou candidat en lice selon  les élections concernées.