A fair and equitable candidate registration process is important to maintain electoral integrity. A clear, standardized and reasonable process facilitates the equal treatment of potential candidates and helps ensure each candidate has an equal opportunity to register.
Candidate registration is an important part of the electoral process. Having a competitive process, where potential candidates understand the requirements and are able to register if qualified, is important. Integrity problems can be avoided when the process is transparent and scheduled far enough in advance in the electoral calendar so candidates have time is prepare their applications, and for electoral managers to review the applications and notify candidates of their decision, before the start of the electoral campaign period.
As in the registration of voters and political parties, integrity concerns include having reasonable
eligibility requirements, a fair and transparent review of the application, timely notification of acceptance or rejection, and the right to an appeal if required.
Eligibility requirements
The basic eligibility requirements for national office candidates are usually found in the
constitution, or other basic laws. These can include citizenship, age and residency requirements. Specific registration
requirements are added by electoral policy-makers. These can include the date by which the
application is due, a nomination petition signed by a certain number of registered voters, financial
deposits or other documents required to prove eligibility. For integrity purposes, these requirements must be reasonable,
standardized, public and not have the effect of excluding a particular group or individuals.
One of the basic requirements of a free, fair and credible election is to have a competitive election. This usually requires having enough candidates competing to give the voters a choice. Candidate requirements can affect the number of candidates. In general, the easier the requirements, the more candidates will register. What is the right number of candidates? Too few can limit choices, but too many can confuse the voters. As discussed in Party Registration, the right formula will depend on the system and its Social and Political Context. Having too few or too many candidates can be addressed by changing the number of signatures required on a petition to support a nomination or changing the amount of deposit each candidate must submit with their application. For instance, Canada tightened its requirements as it raised the number of signatures required to
support a nomination in 1970 from 10 to 25 and in 1993 to 100, and required a C$1,000
deposit. 158
Some countries have adopted an affirmative action type of formula to correct past problems. This
means different standards are applied to different categories of persons. In India, for instance, candidates from
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes pay half the deposit required of other candidates.
India also requires nominations to be supported by only one registered voter in the constituency.
This has increased the number of candidates contesting elections from 3.8 per constituency in
1952 to 26.6 in 1996. 159
Some commentators have criticized the openness of the nomination process, arguing that
it is far too easy for frivolous candidates to stand for election, and that this confuses the
electoral process. Certain remedial measures have been taken in August 1996, which
included increasing the size of the deposit and making the number of people who have to
nominate a candidate larger.160
These actions reduced the number of candidates competing in India's 1998 elections. India also
furnishes candidates with a list of Do's and Don'ts for Candidates (India) containing practical advice for candidates submitting their application. This helps ensures that all candidates receive the same information and advice.
Review of applications and rejections
The electoral management body determines who is eligible to compete in an election. The review
of applications is supposed to be done in accordance with established eligibility criteria, and in a fair, timely and transparent manner. Establishing standardized
review procedures and standards for supporting documentation, can help ensure reviews are done uniformly throughout the review process. Rejections done in writing, with the reason for the
rejection clearly stated provide information for candidates and help increase the transparency of the process. It also provides the information needed for candidates who may wish to contest the
decision of the registration body. This can be facilitated by including the appeal procedures in the rejection letter.
In Ireland, for example, the process is as follows: 'the returning officer, accompanied by a judicial assessor, who is either the President
of the High Court or another judge of the Court nominated by the President of the Court, rules on
the validity of the nominations received. Every prospective candidate or his/her representative
must attend the ruling on nominations, and must furnish all relevant information required by the
presidential returning officer or the judicial assessor.'
161
Exclusions because a candidate did not fill in a form right, or did not meet the basic requirements, are usually straightforward as long as they are applied evenly to every candidate. However, exclusions for other reasons, such as political affiliation to an outlawed political party, can entail a
judgement call-- and this is where rules can be applied subjectively and selectively. In the 1995
Haitian elections, for example, one of the eligibility requirements was that a candidate could not be a member
of the ruling party from the Duvalier era. Determining who was a duvalierist and could be excluded from the process
was subjective and could have been used as a justification to reject other politically unacceptable
candidates.
Right to appeal
A second hearing for rejected candidate applications, can protect candidates against arbitrary rejections. The mechanism for doing this will vary according to the system. In South Africa, for instance, this is done by the Commission to the Electoral
Court. The dates for appeals are set in the electoral timetable. 162 The appeal process must also be done in a timely
enough manner so that a wrongly rejected candidate can be reinstated in time to compete in the
electoral campaign. In Suriname, this is done by the President, who must decide within 8 days of
receiving the appeal. 163
Right to withdraw
Candidates may wish to withdraw from the race and election managers need to ensure there is a mechanism for these candidates to withdraw within a reasonable time frame. As
ballots need to be printed in enough time before the elections to enable their nationwide
distribution by polling day, withdrawal by a candidate after a certain point may mean that the candidate's name remains on the ballot. The deadline to withdraw in many systems is set to coincide with the date for the final approval on the design of the ballots.
Clearly specifying the rules and dates for candidate withdrawal in the electoral law or procedures can help avoid the integrity problems that could arise if a candidate decides to withdraw after the ballots are printed. This includes having clear rules on how a candidate can refuse to accept public office after winning an election, and the rules
for selection of his/her replacement.
