International Foundation for Electoral Systems doctors, the duty of care for a given condition is based on a set of guidelines for treatment. The traditional conception of the standard for doctors in the United States is that he or she use “the average degree of skill, care, and diligence exercised by members of the same profession…in light of the present state of medical and surgical science.”27 Deviations from the duty of care by a doctor due to negligence can often be cause for professional or legal action. It is important to also note that, should a professional commit a gross deviation from the required duty of care, it could imply criminal negligence (or criminal malpractice) and lead not only to professional or civil penalties but also to criminal prosecution. The duty of care provision is also applicable to other professions, and even to non-specialists. In British tort law, the standard for the non-specialist is determined by what might be expected of a “reasonable person,” who is described as one of the “commuters on the Underground” in a 1999 Opinion of the House of Lords.28 For election management professionals, the duty of care refers to the degree of skill, diligence and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a competent election management professional in the execution of his or her duties. Key principles that should be incorporated into the standard may be found in legislation establishing EMBs and should be an integral part of the training program provided to election officials. In addition, in some countries election professionals are bound to follow a signed code of conduct or ethics. These documents, and the principles embodied by them, should form the foundation for an expected duty of care. Accordingly, election commissioners appointed to the EMB based on their relevant experiences and education would be expected to perform their election duties in a manner that contributes to a credible electoral process (and does not undermine it). For example, an EMB official responsible for procurement of indelible ink must perform due diligence on the available options. If she does not, and selects an inferior ink (perhaps based solely on price) that fails on Election Day, she may have breached her relevant duty of care. A poll-worker who disregards his basic training by failing to check voters’ fingers for the presence of ink before issuing a ballot paper might similarly breach the expectations for his position. In each case, the election official should be held to a duty of care that befits the training and qualifications associated with his or her role. Based on this concept, we define electoral malpractice as the breach by an election professional of his or her relevant duty of care, resulting from carelessness or neglect. Incorporating a duty of care into the definition allows for segmentation of malpractice by level of responsibility; i.e., a senior election management official will have a heightened duty relative to the responsibilities of a temporary poll worker. Some examples of electoral malpractice by senior officials include permitting shortages of indelible ink, not properly training poll workers or allowing foreseeable delays in adjudication of complaints. As discussed above, a gross deviation or breach of an election official’s relevant duty of care could result in criminal prosecution and penalties, even in cases when 27 Gillette v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St.106, 65 N.E. 865. See also, Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 129, 346 N.E.2d 673, 676, 75 O.O.2d 184. 28 Macfarlane and Another v. Tayside Health Board (Scotland) [1999] UKHL 50, November 1999. 10