When Are Elections Good Enough? Validating or Annulling Election Results of the irregularity. In Australia, the EMB has a formal and permanent role as a source of information and expertise in challenges to election results: “The Australian Election Commission (AEC) has since 1983 clearly been accepted by the High Court as appropriately being involved in matters involving arguments about whether facts as pleaded disclose any illegal practice that may have led to the results of the election being likely to have been affected. This test necessarily involves the Court having regard to expert evidence from the AEC about the election and counting processes.”70 In the U.K., the traditional rule that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving all the elements in an election petition was questioned in a 2012 report by the U.K. Electoral Commission,71 which asked whether it might make sense for the Electoral Commission to be given an investigatory role in election petitions since in many cases it is difficult for individual plaintiffs to investigate effectively. The paper also noted that since election petitions raise issues of interest to the wider public, it is in the public interest that all relevant evidence comes before the adjudicator. EMBs should generally play a leading role in election investigations because they are better equipped than the police in terms of technical knowledge of election administration and access to the relevant evidence. Additionally, they should have authority to decide which claims to investigate – as long as the EMBs are not corrupt, and as long as they process claims in an unbiased manner irrespective of their source, and a right of appeal is in place. However, to play this role, the EMB must be equipped to properly conduct election investigations within tight timelines, and to handle and compile evidence appropriately to ensure it is admissible. As pointed out in general Comment 31 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.”72 Standard of Evidence The collection and corroboration of evidence is fundamental in an adjudication process that leads to the invalidation of votes.73 There are varying degrees to which irregularities must be proven to the court in order to be considered as proven in the case.74 Different jurisdictions establish different standards of evidence (i.e., the degree of certainty required for a court to accept a fact as proven) in challenges to election results. Which standard is used is based on many factors: for example, the legal traditions of the 70 Paul Pirani, ‘Elections and Administrative Law’, Paper to the AIAL Forum No. 68, Canberra, 2011 p. 38, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2012/2.pdf. See also by s. 359 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which allows the AEC to be added as party to legal proceedings in which the validity of election results is challenged. 71 Challenging Elections in the UK, https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-theUK.pdf. 72 IFES has outlined key principles for election investigations in a forthcoming publication Standards, Techniques and Resources for Investigating Disputes in Elections (STRIDE). 73 IFES and DI, Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity, April 2015, 9. 74 Vickery ed., GUARDE, 46 (Standards of Evidence) 19