systemic manipulation, malpractice, and fraud. The IFES Electoral Integrity Assessment Methodology defines systemic manipulation as “the use of domestic legal provisions and/or electoral rules and procedures that run counter to widely accepted democratic principles and international standards, and that purposefully distort the will of voters.”23 Malpractice is “a breach by a professional of his or her relevant duty of care, resulting from carelessness or neglect.”24 Finally, fraud is considered to be “deliberate wrong-doing by election officials or other electoral stakeholders, which distorts the individual or collective will of the voters.”25 It is important to note that there is some overlap between the concepts of fraud and malpractice: criminal malpractice (i.e., malpractice by an official that is so egregious that it rises to the level of fraud despite the lack of intent). Determining whether a particular act constitutes gross negligence or fraud can be difficult in practice, but proof of intent is not always a prerequisite for criminal liability. Criminal malpractice or gross negligence can be subject to criminal sanction even without the element of intent. One key benefit of integrity distinctions is that they can help identify appropriate remedies depending on the type of vulnerability identified – particularly with respect to the distinction between fraud and malpractice.26 The remedy for a procedural mistake will be different than for a procedural fraud. As discussed further in Cameron Quinn and David Ennis’ chapter on Election Day violations, consideration should also be given to whether a practical resolution, particularly one to an immediate Election Day problem, might protect the integrity of the process as effectively, or more effectively, than a formal legal remedy. While the two terms overlap to some extent, a remedy focuses on recovering a right or obtaining a redress for a wrong, while a resolution focuses on solving a problem to allow a process to proceed properly. As Quinn and Ennis note (in chapter 6 of this volume), “a court or tribunal may not be able to find an effective remedy to an Election Day problem, but a person impacted by that problem may find a timely, practical resolution by a polling official to be entirely satisfactory.”27 Figure 2: Distinctions between applicable remedies for fraud and malpractice Electoral Fraud Possible Actors Election officials, other public officials, voters, political parties, candidates, media Action Actor knowingly interferes with the electoral process Intent The act or omission is committed 23 Electoral Malpractice28 Election officials (including full-time and temporary election staff performing official duties related to any stage of the electoral process, as well as other actors with electoral responsibilities (for example, security personnel, media, political party officials) Actor is negligent or careless in carrying out his or her election-related responsibilities The interference results from carelessness or neglect (gross negligence may rise to the level of Id. Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. We use the term “malpractice” rather than breaking it down further to cover misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance because: (1) the term “malpractice” has widespread use in academic literature and is used by practitioners; and (2) we want to make sure that we are capturing the concept of each actor having a duty of care, particularly those with a professional responsibility like an election administrator. 27 chapter 6 of this volume 28 Id. 24