International Foundation for Electoral Systems county, the nature of the allegation being made, the remedy being sought, and the nature of the evidence to be introduced at trial.75 There is no international consensus as to which standard must be met in order to prove electoral fraud, malfeasance or criminal malpractice.76 However, there are three standards that are typically applied in election cases: preponderance of the evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.77 Preponderance of evidence One party has offered evidence that seems more likely to be true than not. Clear and convincing evidence Evidence must show that it is substantially more likely than not that the asserted claim is true. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt Evidence of such a convincing character that one can rely and act upon it without hesitation. “Preponderance of the evidence” is also called “greater weight of the evidence” or “balance of probabilities,” and is the idea that one party has offered evidence that seems more likely to be true than not.78 When considering evidence under this standard, there must be a greater than 50 percent likelihood in support of a particular question of fact. This is the general standard that is applied to civil actions in many, if not most, legal systems.79 Since election complaints are usually treated as civil cases, some jurisdictions may apply this standard to election disputes. It is debatable, however, whether the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate in a case considering annulment of an election. Given the importance of speedy determination of election results and the potential costs associated with nullification, the public interest might best be served by a higher standard of proof. On the other end of the spectrum, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is generally the standard that must be met by the prosecution in a criminal case, but on rare occasions it is applied in civil cases. Under this standard, the applicant is required to introduce evidence of such a convincing character that one can rely and act upon it without hesitation. It does not, however, mean absolute certainty.80 In at least one U.S. election case, the court applied a beyond a reasonable doubt standard when a stricter standard than preponderance of the evidence was required.81 Using a reasonable doubt standard in election cases may be appropriate when the remedy is being sought in conjunction with criminal prosecution. The U.K. and 75 Ibid. Ibid. 77 Ibid. See also Huefner; see also Prodan v. Moldova, ECtHR., App. No. 49806/99, Judgment of April 25, 2006 (discussing all three standards’ use in international law); In re Gen. Election, 605 A.2d 1164 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992) (comparing proposed use of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence standards in U.S. election case). 78 Vickery ed., GUARDE, 46. 79 Id.; see also Prodan v. Moldova, ECtHR, App. No. 49806/99, Judgment of April 25, 2006 (discussing all three standards’ use in international law); In re Gen. Election, 605 A.2d 1164 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992) (comparing proposed use of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence standards in U.S. election case). 80 Lord Denning indicated in Miller v. Minister of Pensions that beyond a reasonable doubt does not “need to reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.” Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All E. R. 372, 372-74. 81 Rogers v. Holder, 636 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1994). 76 20