The Question

This question was posted on behalf of an ACE user from Electoral Reform International Services. 

I am doing some research and have two questions related to the coordination and development of electoral boundary delimitation:

• What examples are there of international standards/guiding principles for delimiting electoral boundaries?
• Are there are any examples of attempts for specific regional or international coordination or networking platforms/initiatives among individual professionals involved in electoral boundary delimitation, beyond activities such as the development of standards?

 
Summary of Responses
Practitioners’ Network (PN) members gave several examples of international standards and guiding principles for delimiting electoral boundaries. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 25 interprets the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights with the following remark:

“Although the Covenant does not impose any particular electoral system, any system operating in a State party must be compatible with the rights protected by article 25 and must guarantee and give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors. The principle of one person, one vote, must apply, and within the framework of each State's electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their representatives freely.”

Guidelines are also provided in the Venice Commission’s Code Of Good Practice In Electoral Matters, and the IFES Delimitation Equity Project Resource Guide entails a systematic, comparative study of boundary delimitation laws and practices. The IFES Resource Guide identifies a wide variation of practices, noting that: 

“The task assigned to the boundary authority is the same in all countries: divide the country into constituencies for the purpose of electing legislative representatives to office. The type of boundary authority established and the rules this authority is obliged to follow, however, vary markedly across countries.”

As a final example, the Compendium of Election Administration in Canada: A Comparative Overview provides separate criteria for national and provincial delimitation of electoral boundaries and the establishment of boundary commissions in Canada. One PN member highlighted that commonality among the criteria exists not only between the provincial and the national level in Canada but also between the national and the international level. While the commonality might not be an overt effort, it was perceived as the result of best practices emerging within each country’s own boundary delimitation process. The absence of an international or regional code on electoral districts/constituencies delimitation was also seen to be compensated by well-established international best practices.

It was also noted that in Istvan Mátyus v. Slovakia, the UN Human Rights Committee found a boundary delimitation plan non-compliant with the ICCPR's requirement for equality of votes.

Examples of Related ACE Articles and Resources

• Guiding Principles of Boundary Delimitation
• Boundary Delimitation Bibliography 

External Resources

• The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 25
• Code Of Good Practice In Electoral Matters (Vienna Commission)
• Delimitation Equity Project - Resource Guide (IFES 2006)
• Compendium of Election Administration in Canada: A Comparative Overview
• Istvan Mátyus v. Slovakia, Communication No. 923/2000, U.N. Doc. A/57/40 (Vol. II) at 257 (2002), UN Human Rights Committee

Names of Contributors

• Liberata Irambona
• Francisco Barrera
• Manuel Wally
• Carl Dundas
• Velko Miloev
• Herschell Sax
• Dagrou Salomon, BAYORO

PROFESSIONAL PLATFORMS AND STANDARDS FOR BOUNDARY DELIMITATION COMMENT FROM IRAMBONA LIBERATA/RWANDA.

Yes, to have a professional platform is good but how can we have international standards for boundary delimitation? It is good, but practically it is impossible. For example boundary  delimitation should be based on countries electoral code and regulations and there is no common electoral code. Boundaries should also be based on number of voters by region or provinces depending on country constitutions.

Maybe the platform can set up strategies or guidelines that can help when EMBs set up laws and regulations related to boundary delimitation.

Generalmente las normas están elaboradas para proteger actividades electorales o de consultas tanto de partidos como de interés general de un país, por tanto para la rutina electoral normal de dignidades (cargos) locales o nacionales de cualquier país,  se debe tener en cuenta un registro de votantes, el cual amerita una comprobación de que el contenido coincide con los lugares donde se desea votar, esto es, que la persona tenga un vinculo con el lugar, sea por que vive o porque tiene un interés en el lugar de votación, a esto lo denominan “lugar de domicilio o de residencia”, también se debe coordinar con los partidos para que en caso de necesidad de tratar temas de consulta de los partidos, se haga también un registro de sus afiliados o de sus seguidores que equivale al registro de votantes pero por cada partido, finalmente se debe tener en cuenta que existen personas fuera del país que están interesadas en la democracia y a las cuales se les debe facilitar el derecho al voto, luego debe haber un registro de votantes del exterior, de esta manera de fijan algunos límites o fronteras, que corresponde con lo físico pero también con la organización de las elecciones.

En cuanto a tecnología y plataformas del manejo de distritos electorales por mencionar alguna, vi una demo en el sistema electoral mejicano, con una base de datos, mapas digitales, sistemas de ge-posicionamiento (GIS), pero existen en varios países.

The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 25 authoritatively interprets the applicable article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as follows:

21. Although the Covenant does not impose any particular electoral system, any system operating in a State party must be compatible with the rights protected by article 25 and must guarantee and give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors. The principle of one person, one vote, must apply, and within the framework of each State's electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their representatives freely. 

The General Comment can be found here:

• http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/d0b7f023e8d6d9898025651e004bc0eb

On a technical level, the most comprehensive publication on boundary delimitation to date can be accessed here:

• http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Books/2006/Delimitation-Equity-Project-Resource-Guide.aspx

Manuel

Although there is no international or regional code on electoral districts/constituencies delimitation that I am aware of, there are well-established best practices that are usually applied to delimitation and followed in constitutional provisions relating to elections and in electoral codes in the jurisdiction concerned. In applying delimitation rules, the legal framework, whether in the Constitution and or electoral laws concerned, must be followed and guided by best practices. Economics formula in sorting out the phrase 'as near as possible' in population or electorate formula when used in the constitution or electoral law will not do. (I have known of a case where that was attempted and the inevitable disastrous result followed.)Well-known international best practices in constituencies' delimitation include: fairness; avoidance of gerrymandering; adherence to legal formula of population or electorate formula, with stipulated tolerance levels of 5%-10% above or below the average electoral district (arrived at by dividing the population or electorate by the number of constituencies/districts involved); timely and comprehensive awareness programme which involves the full participation of stakeholders who wish to do so. (Of course, where the legal framework requires public enquiry as in United Kingdom and Australia- such procedure provides transparency and an avenue for participation). Transparency and participation by stakeholders are important factors in delimitation.

See also useful and detailed guidelines in: 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) - CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE IN ELECTORAL MATTERS (http://www.coe.am/en/docs/venice/opinion_190_2002.pdf, section I.2.2.)

2.2. Equal voting power: seats must be evenly distributed between the constituencies.
i. This must at least apply to elections to lower houses of parliament and regional and
local elections:
ii. It entails a clear and balanced distribution of seats among constituencies on the
basis of one of the following allocation criteria: population, number of resident
nationals (including minors), number of registered voters, and possibly the number of
people actually voting. An appropriate combination of these criteria may be envisaged.
iii. The geographical criterion and administrative, or possibly even historical,
boundaries may be taken into consideration.
iv. The permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10%, and should
certainly not exceed 15% except in special circumstances (protection of a concentrated
minority, sparsely populated administrative entity).
v. In order to guarantee equal voting power, the distribution of seats must be reviewed
at least every ten years, preferably outside election periods.
vi. With multi-member constituencies, seats should preferably be redistributed without
redefining constituency boundaries, which should, where possible, coincide with
administrative boundaries.
vii. When constituency boundaries are redefined – which they must be in a singlemember
system – it must be done:
- impartially;
- without detriment to national minorities;
- taking account of the opinion of a committee, the majority of whose members are
independent; this committee should preferably include a geographer, a sociologist
and a balanced representation of the parties and, if necessary, representatives of
national minorities.

See also the Explanatory Report.

In addition to the above replies, you may wish to look at the Compendium of Election Administration in Canada: A Comparative Overview (http://www.elections.ca/res/loi/com/compoverview2012jun_e.pdf) which includes a chapter on the criteria for delimiting electoral boundaries (redistribution) and the establishment of boundary commissions to do so within Canada.  In Canada, separate criteria exist at the national (federal) and provincial/territorial levels for boundary delimitation.  Although each commission operates independently from others, even at the federal level, you will see that many of the same criteria are common to most, if not all.  This commonality extends internationally, in many cases. 

The international commonality in boundary delimitation is not necessarily a conscious effort but is the result of best practices emerging in each country’s boundary delimitation process. 

Il existe trois principes directeurs et standards internationaux pour la délimitation des circonscriptions, quoique chaque pays oeuvre selon ses lois nationales,

     -   la représentativité

     -   l'égalité des votes

     -   la réciprocité et  la non-discrimination

Il existe des normes et des standards internationaux pour la délimitation des circonscriptions électorales. Chaque pays agissant dans le cadre de sa géographie, de sa population, de son histoire etc., il n'existe pas encore de plateformes pour harmoniser les pratiques. Les meilleurs pratiques de délimitation utilisant les standards internationaux doivent être encouragées.

This contribution is posted on behalf of Manuel Wally.

Further to my above contribution, I would like to add that in Istvan Mátyus v. Slovakia, Communication No. 923/2000, U.N. Doc. A/57/40 (Vol. II) at 257 (2002), the UN Human Rights Committee has found a boundary delimitation plan non-compliant with the ICCPR's requirement for equality of votes, since its constituency populations deviate from each other by a factor of 1:7. The full case can be found here:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/923-2000.html

Manuel