When Are Elections Good Enough? Validating or Annulling Election Results Election Day, issues that can call the integrity of an election into question can arise at any stage in an electoral process. In some jurisdictions, pre- and post-election allegations of fraud or other irregularities are common, often with little or no supporting evidence. Sometimes these claims are a way of undermining the legitimacy of the winners of the election. In other cases, candidates use allegations of fraud or other wrongdoing as a way of saving face following an election defeat or to facilitate a negotiated outcome. In Afghanistan in 2014, a presidential candidate refused to accept the results of the election because of alleged vote-rigging and fraud and threatened to set up his own alternate government.42 The timing of a violation has important implications for the availability of annulment as a remedy. As is discussed further under procedural considerations, many jurisdictions use expedited timelines for handling election related cases that, in some cases, include requirements that cases be brought shortly after they occur. In some U.S. states, failure to challenge a pre-election violation in a timely way will prevent a subsequent challenge to the results. At the same time, there are reasons why a court or adjudicator might be hesitant to address some claims before an election. As courts do not want to be seen as unduly interfering with the political process, they might be hesitant to address claims before an election; there is a tension between allowing the election process to progress organically and protecting the sanctity and integrity of elections as they are being held.43 The following sections outline some key potential grounds for annulment, although this is not an exhaustive list. Ultimately, any fundamental irregularity in the electoral process could potentially be grounds for the annulment of an election result, depending on the law of the country in question. For example, in a petition filed challenging the results of the fresh Kenyan presidential election in October 2017, the following grounds were raised by the plaintiff to support the request for annulment: the failure to conduct fresh candidate nomination; the withdrawal and boycott of the opposition candidate; recently passed Election Law amendments that were alleged to be unconstitutional; violence, intimidation, improper influence and corruption; arbitrary relocation of polling stations on Election Day; abuse of state resources and unlawful government advertising; lack of independence, impartiality and competence of the EMB; illegally appointed election officials; failed biometric voter identification and errors in the transmission of results; failure to ensure a secure and accurate voter register; and low voter turnout. While this petition was ultimately unsuccessful, it demonstrates the range of grounds on which results may be challenged and the tendency of plaintiffs to allege multiple different grounds for seeking an annulment, whether legitimately, or to cast doubt over the electoral process more generally, which, in 42 William R, Sweeney Jr., Chad Vickery, and Katherine Ellena, “Yes, the U.S. presidential election could be manipulated,” The Washington Post, September 2, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/globalopinions/yes-the-us-presidential-election-could-be-manipulated/2016/09/02/b125885e-6afe-11e6-ba325a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.93f66bff8f7d. 43 Election Litigation: National Center for State Courts Election Litigation Resources, summary by Margaret S. Williams, Federal Judicial Center, 2012, https://www.fjc.gov/content/national-center-state-courts-electionlitigation-resources-1. 11