International Foundation for Electoral Systems Consider, for example, the 2018 mayoral election in Chisinau, Moldova, which was annulled by a court on the ground that the outcome of the election had been affected by what seem to be relatively minor campaign violations, including postings on social media on Election Day encouraging voters to vote.38 Many inside and outside Moldova have questioned this decision, especially in light of the fact that the second place candidate had strong ties to the ruling party.39 Regardless of whether the court was influenced by partisan consideration, it is certainly been perceived as having been so, with serious implications for the credibility of the courts and the legitimacy of whoever is ultimately elected mayor. Another instructive example is the 2014 presidential election in Afghanistan, during which allegations of fraud by the opposition candidate led to an agreement to conduct a full, nationwide audit of all ballots, ostensibly to determine whether outcome-determinative irregularities existed. Further allegations of fraud and interference in the audit process by both sides eventually brought the process to a standstill, and pressure to find a solution – even one that might be seen as outside the legal framework for the elections – was increased by concerns that failing to find a mutually acceptable solution would lead to serious instability.40 The election management body (EMB) ultimately agreed not to release the final results of the audit as part of political negotiations that led to the National Unity Government that rules Afghanistan today, a compromise that may have averted a broader political crisis but certainly did nothing to build public confidence in electoral democracy in that country.41 While the Afghanistan example did not strictly deal with an election annulment, it demonstrates the importance of establishing clearly defined rules and procedures for responding to allegations of fraud or other irregularity, particularly in environments where the capacity of courts and EMBs is not strong. The risks of ill-considered or partisan annulment decisions can be addressed to a degree through legislation that clearly delimits the scope of the adjudicator’s discretion. Measures to restrict discretion include requiring actual proof that an election outcome has been influenced by irregularity, as in the “but for” test, and establishing a higher standard of proof in annulment cases (see the discussion under standard of proof below). III. Grounds for Annulment Taking into account the legal approaches explored above, there are a wide range of irregularities that could provide grounds for annulment of an election. Although media attention usually focuses on 38 Adam Taylor, “Moldovan prime minister says his government is victim in election chaos that blocked rival from office,” The Washington Post, June 27, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/27/moldovan-prime-minister-says-hisgovernment-is-victim-in-election-chaos-that-blocked-rival-from-office/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7102fb7b8c78 39 “Court invalidates mandate of Chisinau mayor-elect Andrei Nastase, protests announced,” Moldova.org, June 19, 2018, http://www.moldova.org/en/court-invalidates-mandate-chisinau-mayor-elect-andrei-nastase-protestsannounced/ 40 IFES and Democracy International (DI), Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity, April 2015, 6, https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/2015_ifes_di_election_audit_white_paper_0.pdf. 41 Ibid, 7. 10