Search

Begin New Search Topic Election Interference Publishing Institution International Foundation for Electoral Systems

1. Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations

Author:
Katherine Ellena, Chad Vickery, and Lisa Reppell
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
Mechanisms for election dispute resolution (EDR) must increasingly withstand new forms of sophisticated political and electoral manipulation, most recently illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower claims, but previously highlighted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) as a growing concern around the globe. Hence, the right to receive an effective remedy in the elections context, through the efficient and transparent administration of justice, has become even more fundamental. This involves both the protection of procedural justice (for individuals involved in an election dispute or accused of a violation) and the advancement of open justice (for the public at large, which has a stake in the legitimacy of the election process and outcome). This new IFES research paper, Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations, outlines the fundamental principles for procedural justice and open justice in election cases. Significant attention is often paid to the independence and impartiality of judges or arbiters making decisions on election cases, while the mechanisms through which these cases are managed and publicized are often overlooked. To address this knowledge gap, IFES conducted preliminary comparative desk research on the case management of election dispute resolution in six countries: Mexico, Tunisia, Kenya, Macedonia, Kosovo, and the Philippines, to better understand how case management processes and platforms can help translate established procedure into actual practice. This research was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development under the Global Elections and Political Transitions Program. Institutions dealing with election disputes and violations face enormous challenges as election litigation increases, and as political actors find new ways to undermine the process or to simply ignore laws and rules in place. It can be an extremely difficult task to balance all the different components of procedural justice and open justice in a way that ultimately ensures a just and transparent process for all litigants. The paper presents comparative information illustrating these principles in practice, discusses case management tools and techniques, and provides recommendations for election management and EDR bodies seeking to strengthen the processes and platforms through which elections disputes and violations are resolved.
Topic:
Law, Elections, Election Interference, and Election Dispute
Political Geography:
Kenya, Philippines, Mexico, and Tunisia

2. New Report on Abuse of State Resources Assessment in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Author:
Erica Shein
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
This report details findings from an Abuse of State Resources Assessment conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). As part of a two-year research effort, IFES recently developed a detailed methodology for evaluating a country’s legal framework related to the abuse of state resources (ASR) in elections. Using this methodology, the report draws on detailed desk research as well as a field research mission to BiH in November 2017. Findings are focused on ASR legal provisions, oversight institutions, and enforcement mechanisms. To the extent possible, the report evaluates both the state (national) level of BiH and the entities of the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska. While in BiH, the team conducted 15 interviews in Sarajevo and Banja Luka with a range of stakeholders. Assessment participants were confident that public awareness of ASR was high. There was general agreement, however, that – more than two decades after the conclusion of a devastating war – the public is largely resigned to accepting such misuses in exchange for peace. The 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the war created a uniquely complex political and electoral structure for the country that remains in place today. This structure creates additional challenges to preventing ASR in campaigns, as ethnic divisions in society are replicated in the political system. Voting blocs are considered pre-determined, so parties representing a particular set of ethnic interests cater to their own constituencies at the expense of broad or programmatic-based coalition building. There is a limited “opposition” willing to advocate against ASR, as essentially all political actors are both beneficiaries and victims of the abuse. This report focuses on three principles for detecting, deterring, and remedying ASR abuses in a manner commensurate with international standards. Principle 1 evaluates the legal framework for addressing three potential avenues for ASR: state personnel, state funds and physical resources, and official government communications. Principle 2 of this report focuses on oversight of the ASR legal framework by independent institutions. Principle 3 of the ASR methodology analyzes the effective enforcement of sanctions and penalties. This report also delves into key contextual features that impact ASR: the public service framework, campaign finance mechanisms, civil society oversight and advocacy, media environment and public information, and public procurement. An overall environment of impunity for perpetrators of the misuse of state resources during elections is further enabled by a variety of factors external to the legal and administrative system, which are explored in this section of the report. The remainder of the report offers a detailed recommendations list and a brief overview of the ASR assessment methodology, as well as an in-depth analysis on each of the areas described above. Based on this analysis, recommendations have been made to strengthen the legal framework with an emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of civil servants, explicitly regulating the use of state funds and other resources, strengthening mandates of oversight and enforcement bodies, creating incentives for improved enforcement, and strengthening weaknesses in the enabling environment that impact ASR.
Topic:
Corruption, Elections, Voting, Election Interference, and State Abuse
Political Geography:
Europe, Balkans, and Bosnia and Herzegovina

3. When Are Elections Good Enough?

Author:
Chad Vickery, David Ennis, Katherine Ellena, and Alyssa Kaiser
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
The high-profile annulment of the 2017 Kenyan presidential election surprised many election watchers in Africa and across the globe. All elections suffer from challenges and irregularities, to varying degrees of seriousness, including poll worker error, acts of God, and violence, without these challenges necessarily changing the outcome of the vote or leading to a full annulment. A decision to annul elections is one that should not be taken lightly as it can have serious consequences for democracy. Repeat elections impose unexpected costs on state budgets and candidates; the normal operation of legislatures and governments may be disrupted while a revote is organized; candidates may refuse to participate in the fresh elections, leading to a political crisis; and repeat elections may themselves be subject to irregularities. Most concerning, however, is the potential for bad actors to use annulment of results (under the guise of ensuring “secure elections” or as redress for “widespread irregularities”) as a tool to thwart the will of voters. This raises important questions: When are elections considered good enough? And what is needed to make a determination whether to validate or annul an election? The answer to these questions is not straightforward, and different jurisdictions have taken different approaches. In some contexts, there may be a readily quantifiable number of votes affected by one or more irregularities. In other cases, however, such as voter intimidation, cyberattacks, or electoral disinformation, determining the impact of an irregularity on an election will be difficult or impossible. With that difficulty in mind, it is critically important for jurisdictions to have clear and pre-determined rules governing when annulment is available as a remedy, both to ensure that annulment is available if needed, but also so that annulment is not misused to frustrate the will of the voters. A new International Foundation for Electoral Systems research paper outlines various legal approaches to election annulments, explores different grounds for annulment, and outlines procedural considerations for courts and adjudicators when determining whether to annul an election result, drawing on international principles and global jurisprudence.
Topic:
Elections, Voting, Election Interference, and Rigged Elections
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. An Evaluation of the United States’ Electoral Process

Author:
Chad Vickery and Heather Szilagyi
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
he 2016 elections brought into view serious threats to the United States’ (U.S.) electoral process, though much recent attention has focused on cybersecurity and foreign interference. The U.S. has traditionally benefited from high levels of trust in the electoral process and its outcomes, but that inherent trust has been declining in recent years. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) routinely conducts comprehensive assessments and offers advice on how countries around the world can reform their elections to better align with international standards and best practices. However, more established democracies like the U.S. are rarely scrutinized by the election practitioner community in the same manner.
Topic:
Elections, Cybersecurity, Foreign Interference, and Election Interference
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and North America

5. New Report on Abuse of State Resources in Georgia

Author:
Erica Shein, Chad Vickery, Heather Szilagyi, and Julia Brothers
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
his report details findings from an IFES Abuse of State Resources Assessment conducted in Georgia following October 2016 elections. This assessment served as the pilot test of the Abuse of State Resources Research and Assessment Framework assessment methodology, which was researched, developed, and peer-reviewed under the Global Elections and Political Transitions mechanism supported by the United States Agency for International Development. Using this methodology, the report draws on detailed desk research as well as a field research mission to Georgia in May 2017. Findings are focused on abuse of state resources (ASR) legal provisions, oversight institutions and enforcement mechanisms. ASR violations are a consistent feature of national and municipal elections in Georgia, and assessment interlocutors see the participation of civil servants in campaign activities as one of the most significant challenges. Also of concern is the perceived over-staffing of public service departments and legal entities of public law, especially at the local level. This report aims to provide actionable recommendations for improving the ASR environment in Georgia. The report focuses on three principles for detecting, deterring and remedying ASR abuses in a manner commensurate with international standards. Principle 1 evaluates the legal framework for addressing three potential avenues for ASR: state personnel, state funds and physical resources, and official government communications. Principle 2 focuses on oversight of the ASR legal framework by independent institutions. Principle 3 analyzes the effective enforcement of sanctions and penalties. The methodology applied for this assessment also acknowledges the need to account for contextual factors may impact the ASR in elections. As such, the report provides a narrative overview of challenges related to the public service framework, campaign finance framework, civil society oversight and advocacy, media environment and public information, and public procurement in Georgia. Based on in-depth analysis of each of the areas described above, the report offers detailed recommendations to strengthen the legal framework with an emphasis on clarifying the rights and responsibilities of civil servants, ensuring that ASR sanctions and penalties achieve a deterrent effect, and clarifying mandates of oversight and enforcement bodies.
Topic:
Corruption, Elections, Voting, Election Interference, and Rigged Elections
Political Geography:
Europe, Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and Georgia