Election management activities are governed by the legislation and regulations made by a
responsible legislative body or by the election management body (EMB) itself. The opportunity
to review and revise the legislation should, wherever possible, be formalised to ensure, in line
with good management practice, that regular debriefings and objective analysis of actions and
outcomes are undertaken. It is also critical that changes in the relevant legislation and
regulations be made far enough in advance of an election so that they do not unfairly influence
the outcome of the election.
The opportunity to amend legislation and regulations will vary from country to country. It may
rest with the national government or with an election commission. The election manager may
have the opportunity to make recommendations for changes to the law. This opportunity arises
in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where there are national commissions that can put
forward recommendations for improvement on an objective and impartial basis. In the United
Kingdom, by contrast, there is no national election body, and parliamentary time is seldom
found for changes to electoral legislation.
The law will cover all aspects of the electoral process to, possibly, differing degrees. In some
countries, the interpretation of some of the detailed points is left to the discretion of the election
official, whilst in other countries the election code will be very detailed, seeking to minimise the
risk of individual discretion and interpretation. Many of the state electoral laws in the U.S.A.
prescribe actions to a very great extent.
The electoral law should be kept under constant review. Three distinct opportunities for
implementing changes to the law appear:
- immediately after an election,
- midterm review,
- immediately prior to the next election.
These three opportunities present all participants in the process with the chance to seek to
influence the legislature to improve the process.
In determining the process for review, consideration should be given to the problems that can
arise if only the third option above was followed. Making changes close to an election could
result in administrators and candidates being placed at a disadvantage. Any changes to
legislation or regulations should be made with sufficient time to allow for their introduction at
the next election. The credibility of the electoral process could be jeopardised by the attempted
introduction of hurried changes that have not been the subject of wide consultation and debate.
In Brazil, for example, Article 16 of the constitution requires that changes be in place no less
than one year before an election so that everyone has an adequate opportunity to adjust to the
new provisions. Changes must also be widely publicised to the population at large.
In formulating proposals for change in the legislation, it is necessary to consult widely with
political parties, agents, NGOs, and the public at large, to seek to obtain a consensus on any
proposals. Achieving consensus on such issues reduces the criticism that could be levied at the
entire process by an imposed change not agreed by all the key players.
Those responsible for proposing changes to election legislation and regulations should seek
feedback from the EMB's workforce, including those who have worked in polling places, to find
out how they would improve arrangements. Consideration should also be given to formalising
arrangements for obtaining feedback from voters themselves. Turnout statistics, on their own,
are too crude a measure of the success or shortcomings of election administration. The EMB
should seek to ascertain what voters feel about the process they have experienced. Do they have
any suggestions for improvements?
