The Question

This question was posted on behalf of a member of the ACE Practitioners' Network who wishes to remain anonymous.

In relation to annulling and re-running an election in a district, what thresholds apply around the world? Are they based on number of votes, number of ballot boxes annulled, or a combination?

Summary of responses
One practitioner notes that while some countries apply quantitative thresholds when annulling an election (e.g. number of votes affected), most opt for qualitative criteria instead (such as the effect on the election’s outcome). The quantitative approach is said to be most prevalent in Latin America.

In Sweden, qualitative criteria are used by the election court to decide whether to annul and re-run an election: irregularities must be of a magnitude that affects the results of a particular constituency and impossible to rectify by other means. When the nature of the irregularities is less quantifiable, however, the decision rests with the election court.

In Bangladesh, the law states that an election will be annulled and re-run in any constituency where the number of ‘none of the above candidates’ option exceeds 50%. The other scenario for annulment is if following a challenge in the High Court, the number of votes between two or more candidates is evenly split and where an additional vote would alter the result.

Similarly, in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone, any decision to cancel part of an election is predicated upon a judgment that irregularities have affected the result. In addition, the results of polling stations in Sierra Leone that report more than 100% voter turnout are also annulled.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Election nullification 

External Resources
• Electoral Justice: The International IDEA Handbook

Names of contributors
1. Stina Larserud
2. Dr. Noor Mohammad
3. Abdul Alim
4. Vincent De Herdt
5. Alimeti Kitutu Nonhon
6. Amon Emmanuel Chaligha
7. Momoh Mohamed Kanneh
8. Christine Ndayishimiye
9. Richard Lloyd Raymond Kidd

In Sweden, the decision to annul and re-run an election is taken by the election court if: irregularities are found, it is deemed possible that the irregularities could have influenced the results in that constituency AND it is impossible to correct with a smaller effort (such as a recount). This is easy enough when irregularities affected individual ballots e.g. if x number of postal votes were accepted when they shouldn’t have been – and x is greater than the difference between two contestants in the election. When irregularities include “softer” issues, like breaking the rules of campaigning or the availability of ballot papers outside the polling station, there is obviously no simple calculation that can be made, and it is left to the judgment of the election court.

In India we have polling station wise voter list and only those registered on the voter list of the polling station are allowed to vote on that very polling station.  In case the process is vitiated, a re-poll is done on that very polling station and indeliable ink is put on the middle finger of the voters instead of the index finger used during the first poll. The counting of votes is done centrally a day or two after the poll so that all the complaints of fraud are investigated and repoll if necessary is ordered and conducted.  Then only the entire votes of the constituency are counted.  All this done by the Commission and courts are barred to interfer till the election results are declared. 

If some one is dissatisfied with the results, s/he can approach courts in an election petition. It is the case of single member constituencies in FPTP. The reasons of re-poll vary from non-compliance with procedures that are substantive in nature and can cause doubts in the minds of the stake holders to cases of violence, intimidation etc.

In Bangladesh, the law has provided 2 types of option:

1. In addition to the candidates' list, the ballot paper in Bangladesh contains an option "None of the above candidates". If the number of “none of the above candidates” votes exceeds 50% (fifty percent) of the total votes cast in any constituency, the Returning Officer shall cancel the election proceedings after giving an immediate notice and inform the Commission accordingly. In this case a fresh poll in that constituencies shall be commenced.

2. If an election result is challenged in the High Court and , after the conclusion of the trial, if it appears that there is an equality of votes between two or more contesting candidates, and the addition of one vote for one such candidate would entitle him to be declared elected, the High Court Division shall so inform the Commission. In the event that no appeal is filed against the decision of the High Court Division, the Commission shall, after expiry of the period specified for the filing of an appeal, direct a fresh poll to be taken in respect of the said candidate, and fix a date for such poll, but otherwise, the Commission shall await the result of the appeal and shall act as above only if the decision of the High Court Division is uphold in appeal on all points.

La décision d’annuler une élection est souvent délicate à prendre et peut être lourde de conséquences en pratique (coût de l’organisation d’une nouvelle élection, risque de contestation politique). Une approche restrictive de l’annulation devrait donc être favorisée en utilisant des critères précis. En droit comparé, les critères sur lesquels se basent une annulation sont parfois quantitatifs mais demeurent le plus souvent qualitatifs.

L’approche quantitative et l’existence de seuils à atteindre pour obtenir une annulation semble principalement exister dans les législations des pays d’Amérique latine. Dans ces pays, lorsque l'annulation d'une élection est le résultat de l'annulation du scrutin dans un certain nombre de bureaux de vote, les seuils d’annulation varient de 20% à 50%. Dans certains cas, si l’annulation affecte plus de la moitié de tous les bureaux de vote (Argentine et au Guatemala), de nouvelles élections sont nécessaires. Dans d’autres cas, il faut que l’annulation affecte plus de la moitié de tous les votes (Brésil) ou au moins un tiers des suffrages valablement exprimés au niveau national (Pérou). Les seuils d’annulation sont plus bas au Mexique et au Paraguay où le scrutin doit avoir été annulé dans au moins 20% des bureaux de vote (source : “election nullification” on ACE Electoral Knowledge Network and International IDEA Handbook on Electoral Justice).

Il est intéressant de relever qu’au Nicaragua (2011), la mission d’observation électorale de l’Union européenne a estimé que le seuil d’annulation de 50% des bureaux de vote comportait le risque d’une annulation sélective. La mission a recommandé d’abandonner une telle disposition.

Une approche plus qualitative prévaut dans de nombreux pays où le juge électoral dispose d’un pouvoir d’appréciation assez large en la matière. Ceci découle aussi du fait que les causes possibles d’annulation sont nombreuses et que la nature et l’ampleur des fraudes et des irrégularités sont variables.

Cependant, la doctrine et la jurisprudence ont mis en évidence deux paramètres intéressants qui devraient pouvoir contribuer à circonscrire l’exercice de ce pouvoir d’appréciation du juge électoral : le principe de l’influence déterminante et la technique de l’écart des voix. Selon le premier principe, pour entraîner une annulation, les fraudes ou les irrégularités qui sont établies doivent avoir une influence déterminante sur le résultat. En vertu du second principe, le juge électoral prend en compte l’écart des voix pour rendre son jugement : plus l’écart des voix est faible entre les candidats ou les listes en compétition, plus un recours est susceptible d’aboutir à une annulation.

En République Démocratique du Congo, le legislateur consacre le pouvoir d'annuler l'élection en tout ou en partie à la juridiction competente, cependant, la decision d'annuler le vote en tout ou en partie n'est possible que dans la mesure où les irregularités retenues ont pu avoir une influence déterminante sur le resultat du scrutin.(article 75 alinéa 2 de la loi N°11/003 du 25 juin 2011 modifiant la loi N°006/006 du 09 mars 2006 portant organisation des élections presidentielle,legislatives, provinciales, urbaines, municipales et locales.

Annulment of election results depends on election laws particular to a country. In Tanzania for example, before election results are announced in a particular constituency the commission can nulify them should there be  major irregularities. If many people could not vote because ballot papers are missing or are not enough, or voters cannot access polling stations because of violence or because of natural calamities such as floods etc. the Commission can cancel the election and announce a new date. After the results are announced by the Returning Officer in the constituency, only a court of law can nulify the results. If results are nulified by a court of law, the Commission can announce a date for a by-election. Thus, it is imperative for election laws and regulations to state under what conditions election results can be nuliffied and new elections held.

The decision that lead to a re run of election at district level, varies from country to the other. For my country Sierra Leone, the new Public Election Act(PEA) 2012, mandate the National Electoral Commission to first, investigate up to 95 % and nullify Polling Stations that report above 100 % in an election. The decision to annul or re-run an election at district level will base on the impact on the final result of the annul stations, if it will not have major impact, the Commission will do a recount of stations that are under investigation. Infact i was faced with this scenaro in the just concluded multi tear election, a recount was done to rectify some of the issues. Thanks

Dans mon pays le Burundi, en 2005 , La commission électorale a été obligée de reprendre les élections dans une circonscription car les malfaiteurs avaient tiré des coups de feu le jour du vote et du coup la participation était très faible à cause de la peur. Mais même en période de paix quand un candidat parvient à démontrer que lors du vote ses bulletins étaient insuffisants, il peut réclamer que le vote soit repris. ( Il est à noter que jusqu’à ce jour nous pratiquons l'usage des bulletins multiples )

Litigious question. In an Australian context, usually determined through Court /Tribunal systems.