A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO INCREASING WOMEN’S ACCESS TO ELECTORAL JUSTICE stakeholders in one place, the busy meeting schedule meant that it was sometimes difficult to cover all topics in the conversation. IFES did not interview members of political parties or former or current candidates for office, given the political sensitivities associated with the pre-election period. As a result, the information presented in this case study does not reflect their perspective. Nonetheless, the relevant key findings and recommendations are directed to all political parties based on the discussions with other stakeholders. In addition to the interviews conducted during the field visit, IFES staff reviewed reports from the PPDT, JCE, and IEBC workshops; relevant election-related FAQs; and reports on election-related disputes and other judicial processes and on women’s rights in Kenya. Materials consulted and included in this analysis are cited in footnotes, as relevant. This case study also benefited from the deep knowledge and relationships of the IFES Kenya team, which reflect decades of support to and partnership with Kenya’s electoral institution and CSOs. Key Findings The Kenya case study field visit and document review led to a number of key findings, including challenges that women in Kenya face in seeking electoral justice and opportunities to make improvements to the existing system. Detailed below, these occur throughout the electoral cycle and include issues registering as candidates, intraparty disputes, electoral violence, and concerns about the process on Election Day and with the results. Women are underrepresented as litigants due to lack of party support and resources. A number of the stakeholders interviewed noted that, while Kenya is, as a general rule, an extremely litigious country, the majority of election-related cases are brought by men. One interviewee commented that, while this is consistent with women comprising a smaller portion of the candidate pool, men’s representation as litigants in electoral justice cases also outpaces their representation in the candidate pool. Interviewees had a variety of explanations for this. One noted that men are much more likely to bring a case if they feel they have been wronged, regardless of the merit of their claim, and to come to court to “demand justice” or a recount of the vote. Women are much more likely to be in court because they have been victims of electoral violence or an obvious crime. Another interviewee stated that women often do not bring claims even when they have a strong case, and that those that do have the financial resources to do so or have relatively more power within their political parties and thus have the backing of their parties to bring cases. In addition, while the Political Parties Act requires parties to establish internal party dispute resolution mechanisms, implementation remains weak and is further undermined by lack of information on how to file disputes through those mechanisms. Civil society representatives also reported that by the time women have made the decision to mount a campaign and gone through the electoral process, they are so exhausted and depleted by the experience that bringing a court case to dispute the results, regardless of how valid the merits of the case, feels like a bridge too far. Interviewees noted that physical barriers, including the distance women have typically needed to travel to file cases, as well as variation in the rules regarding whether cases must be filed in person or can be filed online (only available in Nairobi at the time of the interviews but subsequently expanded across the country to seven PPDT offices in advance of the 2022 elections and to all electoral courts 147) are barriers, particularly for women from more rural areas. 147 Judiciary decentralizes political parties’ disputes tribunal – Kenya News Agency. (2022, April 25). Kenya News Agency. 51