These examples illustrate the need for countries to carefully consider the myriad of potential consequences the pandemic might have on different parts of the electoral process, and what the legal and regulatory response might need to be to mitigate these impacts in a way that preserves electoral integrity. In particular, as modifications are made to laws, by-laws, regulations or procedures, drafters must carefully consider what integrity vulnerabilities might emerge as a result of operational changes and craft amendments in a way that minimizes these vulnerabilities. At the same time, the principles of legal certainty, clarity and inclusiveness must guide any amendment process, whether legal or procedural. Finally, public outreach, communication and education will be critical, not only because new rules and procedures need to be conveyed to stakeholders, but also because of the potential deterrent effect the pandemic may have on turnout and participation. In Mali, which went ahead with parliamentary runoff elections on April 19 despite the pandemic, voter turnout in the capital city of Bamako was historically low — at a reported 7.5 percent.76 While the EMB noted that general turnout across the country was higher — around 36 percent — very low levels of turnout may have flow-on implications for the real or perceived legitimacy of mandates. Differences in turnout between urban and rural areas is also a trend to watch: in the February 2020 elections in Iran, the national turnout was 43 percent, whereas in Tehran it was 25 percent.77 Capital cities tend to have higher population density and higher numbers of COVID-19 cases, so the toll is likely to be heavier on urban voters. The legitimacy of governments may be affected when a country’s powerful capital city or economic centers are perceived as not significantly contributing to election outcomes, and hence the importance of voter education — especially around health safety and mitigation measures — is magnified. The Role of the Courts It is inevitable in some contexts that decisions to postpone or modify elections will become politicized and heavily contested. Partisan actors are likely to challenge these decisions in the courts, with varying motivations. Courts may also be asked to render a judgment on the legal validity of emergency powers, decisions to postpone elections and the introduction of new rules governing election processes. As law professor Michael Morey has noted about the United States: “[m]any states lack ‘election emergency’ laws that empower officials to adequately respond to these crises. As a result, courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate the consequences of election emergencies as a matter of constitutional law, often applying vague, subjective, ad hoc standards in rushed, politically charged proceedings.”78 [M]any states lack ‘election emergency’ laws that empower officials to adequately respond to these crises. As a result, courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate the consequences of election emergencies as a matter of constitutional law, often applying vague, subjective, ad hoc standards in rushed, politically charged proceedings.” In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Constitutional Court was asked to determine the legality of the state of emergency put in place by the president. According to the Constitution,79 the president can announce a state of emergency after consultation with the prime minister and presidents of the two Chambers, but details regarding the state of emergency must be contained in a law.80 However, this law does not currently exist in the DRC. The Constitution requires the Constitutional Court to verify the validity of any Presidential Ordinance setting out restrictive measures in response to a state of emergency, something that the court in the DRC has now done. -18- International Foundation for Electoral Systems