The formalisation of a candidacy should be a neutral operation. The object is to verify whether it meets the necessary requirements and formally name those who will be the contenders in that electoral process.
Therefore, any other illegitimate purpose, aimed at limiting the number of candidates or hampering the activities of anyone who meets such requirements, must be avoided.
However, this rule of respect should not become an excessive, costly guarantee, which is not always justified because of its real effects on the honesty of the electoral process. In effect, a visible contrast in attitude towards certain physical or formal defects can be observed among states with a long-standing democratic tradition and those recently established or recovered. In the latter, some precautions which are sometimes a formal guarantee and other times perhaps over-zealousness tend to be maximised to such an extent that it is worth taking a look at their financial repercussions, which cannot always be defrayed by the state itself without
international aid.
The candidacy must include the name and proof of identity, nationality, age and registration on the voters list or register. As evidence of the negative requirements (not having been sentenced to the deprivation of the right to vote, not being involved in an ineligibility suit), certification of public registers in which such limitations are entered should be sufficient (e.g., a certificate of not having a criminal record) or even a formal statement by the candidate.
The express manifestation of each candidate that he wishes to stand is a reasonable requirement. Often the candidate is required to pay a formal deposit of a set amount of money to be refunded to him after the election, unless the number of votes received is so limited that it proves the lack of support for the candidate. This requirement is not objectionable either, as long as the amount required is not so disproportionate that in reality it becomes a discriminative on financial grounds.
In this phase it is also often required that the person who will legally represent the candidate before the electoral administration and who will deal with it throughout the remaining phases of the process be appointed.
Proof of such requirements must be possible through the commonly accepted formal and legal means in the legal proceedings of each country. Thus, to prove age or nationality requirements, an identity document, a passport, a certificate from the registry office or any other means of ordinary verification, should be enough.
Failing these, the electoral procedure should facilitate proof by effective means. Obviously, any means already established in the country (drivers' licenses, municipal voters lists or registers, etc.) that offer sufficient guarantees are preferable to establishing new systems of documentation or proof of identity which could delay the electoral process and become very
costly.
The same applies to the proof that each possible candidate has full civil and
political rights. In countries that have a permanent voters list, it should officially contain information pertaining to disqualifications for voting. In any event, any ordinary means of proof of the requirements should suffice and diabolical tests be avoided, which in reality become undue problems, depending on how difficult or costly they are. The general rule should also be to facilitate that mistakes or formal defects are overcome, within the short periods of time that must characterise the preparatory phase of an electoral process.
The same rule of simplicity should be applied when it comes to proving the local influence of the candidate, when required. A certain number of signatures is not normally necessary as backing when one of the competing parties in the relevant constituency is already proposing the candidate on their list. But when they are independent candidacies or grouped voters, a
number of signatures is indeed demanded as established by law, depending on the size of the constituency.
The requirement of a usually tight deadline to demonstrate that the candidacy meets all the requirements cannot be considered unfair, as long as the demands are not discriminative in any way. An electoral process requires the accomplishment of numerous tasks in the shortest possible periods of time, to ensure that the electoral period does not become exasperatingly drawn out.
It is, therefore, necessary for the law to establish short periods, adapted
to the social, administrative and political context, though, in which each one of the preparatory phases must be completed. For the same reason, very short periods are envisaged for the resolution of the appeals which may come up in any of the preclusive phases. A candidacy proposed beyond the deadline, must be taken as non-existent. Elections take place among the candidacies that meet the requirements demanded at the set time.
An issue which is not merely formal is the denomination and the symbols of the candidacy. The name of the candidacy and the symbols by which it is identified (initials, emblems or representative signals), are fundamental for their identification with voters. Therefore, improper use of the names of other political groups participating in the elections, as well as those that are so similar that they could lead to confusion among citizens, must be avoided.
As a rule, candidacies proposed by political parties should bear their name, unless they form part of coalitions identified by another name. On the other hand, should candidacies try to formalise themselves with similar denominations, preference must be given to the party or coalition that had already been identified by it previously, whether it is because it is their own name or a name they were already using. In countries where there is a record of political parties, it should exclude those that are so similar that they might create confusion, and proof may be limited to showing prior registration of the name.
The purpose of this exclusion of erroneous, similar or confusing names is not ideological, but for the sake of identity. The electoral authority should not judge the possible ideological confusion candidacies could bring about, as long as it is possible to identify each one clearly by their name and other symbols without possible confusion.
