The Hierarchy of Laws: Understanding and Implementing the Legal Frameworks that Govern Elections members was elected to draft a new constitution, but rival militias disrupted the process. In Yemen, a drafting committee was established with support from neighboring Gulf States, but was also disrupted by a sectarian coup. These examples illustrate the significance of a constitution as the foundational legal document governing a state, and the sensitivity of the drafting process that can divide rival groups if they fear their rights may be diminished or if they are seeking to implement alternate models of governance. As a best practice, a constitutional drafting group consults widely with local stakeholder groups, including political parties, regional representatives, human rights organizations, civil society, academics, the legal profession and public finance experts. The group may also consult international representatives for advice on international best practices. As further outlined below, it is important that a country’s constitution adheres to international law. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, constitutional principles may be found in several statutes, treaties and even court cases, rather than one founding document (in the United Kingdom, this is sometimes termed “the unwritten constitution”). In this instance the principle of hierarchy remains the same – collectively these laws are considered paramount, and all subordinate levels of law must align with their provisions. What is the source of a constitution’s authority? In a democracy, a constitution’s authority comes from the support of the people, as the proposed draft must be approved by the population. Normally, approval is directly granted by a referendum in which a majority of the eligible voters agrees to its adoption. Sometimes a special majority or “super-majority” is needed (i.e., approval by more than 50 percent of voters). There might also be a requirement for a minimum percentage of registered voters to vote. These special requirements must be considered on balance; requiring a significant over-majority can cause a proposal to fail despite the wishes of most of those who voted. Who interprets and enforces a constitution? In the case of a constitution, there is generally no subsisting enforcement power by the authority that created it. This is because its legal force was authorized by the people en masse, not by a legislature. There are some national legislatures that create committees for the implementation of a constitution, such as in Afghanistan, but they are facilitators, not enforcers. Generally, a supreme court or constitutional court may determine whether a law or an executive action is contrary to the principles of the constitution, 3 and a typical judgment might state that a provision is unconstitutional and will not be enforced. It may also add an order that the legislature must repeal or amend the law within a set period. Provisions of the constitution are enforced by the executive (i.e., by law enforcement and prosecution authorities). See the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803), which held that the judiciary’s role is “to say what the law is.” And, “[i]f two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.” 3 5