This question was posted on behalf of Bertram Chambers, UNDP Timor-Leste.

The question 

I work for the UNDP in Timor-Leste and am doing research for their elections unit. Since the referendum in 1999, Timor-Leste has had Presidential, Parliamentary, and Succo (Local) elections all requiring the passing of a separate piece of legislation before each election.  This year we are awaiting Municipality elections, however they have been postponed because the government has failed to pass the legislation required for the conduct of the elections.

A consolidated law covering all elections at all levels in Timor-Leste would appear to solve this problem and simplify the conduct of the electoral process. However, as far as I know there has been no prior research on this topic before. Therefore my question is whether a single, codified electoral law would be more effective than using separate laws for each election? What are the potential advantages and drawbacks of these two approaches? Are you aware of relevant cases of other countries using single/separate laws, or even better countries which have changed from one system to the other?

Summary of responses
The majority view is that a single, stable and codified electoral law is preferable to separate laws for different types of elections.

The principal arguments in favour of a single electoral law are that it fosters stability and enables efficient planning and administration.

Advocates of a single electoral law emphasise the importance of such a law being sufficiently comprehensive, so as to cover all aspects and nuances of the electoral process. The importance of institutionalising such uniform practices is also highlighted. The need for a clear mechanism for amending the law if needed is also pointed out.

Separate electoral laws are seen by one expert as being more likely to attract, and result in, political interference from incumbents who may seek reforms for personal gain.

Regardless of whether there is a single or several separate electoral laws, there was a strong emphasis on the need to establish the rules and regulations well before an election and not allow changes or amendments in the run up to an election. This is both for the purposes of stability and electoral integrity. On the other hand, one expert is of the opinion that it is more practical to allow flexibility in order to address any unforeseen circumstances.

The example of Brazil was given as a country where there is a single, but broad and multi-levelled electoral law that contains specific instructions for each type of election. Mexico was cited as a case where there are many separate, yet similar, electoral laws. Cameroon currently has five separate electoral laws, but having experienced difficulties with this system is now considering adopting a single, uniform law.


Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
·    Electoral Laws and Acts
·    Electoral Laws: A Macroscopic Perspective


Names of contributors
1.    Fredrik Blanck
2.    Ray Kennedy
3.    Jeremy Gross
4.    Idriss Kamara
5.    Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni
6.    Rafael Riva Palacio Galimberti
7.    Charles Winfree

To me election legislation should be as stable as possible in order to make it possible for all stakeholders to foresee and plan for future electoral campaigns. This could hopefully to some extent prevent manipulation in the form of election engineering. Thus electoral rules of any kind such as law, regulations etc must not be amended close to election day, preferably not later than one year before the next scheduled election. Transparency increases with fixed election days either in one go or separately.

The bulk of electoral rules are generally the same for elections of all applicable levels and should be put in general terms in an unfied electoral law whereas if realy necessary the exceptionl specifics for a certain level can be put under a special heading in one and the same document.

Sweden has a uniform law for all three regular elections (parliament, county councils and municipal councils) taking place every fourth year on the third Sunday in September.

Brazil has various levels in its electoral legal framework.  The Constitution is followed by the Codigo Eleitoral (http://www.tse.gov.br/internet/legislacao/codigo_eleitoral.htm), which is relatively stable (1965, with subsequent amendments), and instructions which are specific to each election (http://www.tse.gov.br/internet/jurisprudencia/codigo_eleitoral/index.html).

Having worked on the suco elections in October 2009 and on the cancelled municipal elections of August 2010, I would say what is most important is a standardization of practices for all election procedures. For the moment their is no uniformity, including of such basic practices as how to mark the ballot paper. A comprehensive election law would be ideal, but are political considerations that are preventing this from happening. Institutionalization of uniform practices would, therefore, be my priority.

In as much as it is ideal to have unified electoral laws for easy reference and predictability of rules governing elections, it is not always practicable to have all of these put in a single, codified document. The practicable nature of election management requires flexibility to address unforseen situation. It is therefore important that the EMB has some authority given to it under the Constitution to make rules and regulations governing the elections. This authority is important given the entrenched nature and/or difficulty in amending Codified laws, which in most cases requires convocation of a special constitutent assembly, requiring a super majority!

POste on behalf of Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni

Cameroon has 5 different elections enshrined in the constitution with each having a separate law; Presidential, Parliamentary, Senate, Regional and Municipal elections. These laws are fixed and can only be amended by parliament during sessions.

Apart from the selection of candidates and the electoral systems which are contextual, all other aspects or processes in the electoral process remain the same in all the 5 different laws and each time amendments are made to one law which may affects the other when not in use. The Government and the EMB have realized these failures and are now considering the elaboration of a single codified electoral law otherwise referred to as the Cameroon Electoral Code that will be fashioned as explained by Fredrick Blanck.

A uniform law is preferable to ensure consistency and integrity of elections at all level. Such laws must take all aspects of the process in to account and a clear mechanism for amendment should be included especially in situations of a severe natural disaster.

Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni,

Electoral Commission of Cameroon

Here in Mexico, we have 33 electoral laws, a federal (national) one for President and two chambers of Federal Congress elections, and also each one of 32 states has its own law for local elections –Governor, local Congress and Municipal authorities-. All are similar, but some procedures are very specific for each election.

So I think if you have a similar procedure for all elections, you can have a common law, just with separate chapters for Presidential, Parliamentary, and Succo elections.

Are there significant changes from one election cycle to the next?  I agree with the comments above that a stable set of election laws would help prevent incumbents from using their position to manipulate either the process or the result.  I understand that rules might be different for some offices (partisan or not, by plurality, primary / runoff, etc.), but the rules should be established well ahead of time and the administrative discretion should only be left to matters of implementation and interpretation of established rules.

I understand that different elections require certain special considerations as minority rights, gender, regional balance and national integration like the Cameroon case. But I strongly stand that a single codified law stating these measures is best and consistent. Laws that guarantee a transparent, free and fair electoral process is key to legitimacy and credibility if well applied. Separate laws for Presidential, legislative and Municipals may attract political interference for quick reforms in favor of the incumbent if the opposition and other stakeholders show less concern.