Chapter 1: International Standards is linked to their website.41 This sort of public availability of election complaints increases transparency and trust in the electoral process. D. Standing Finally, and perhaps most importantly, states must be clear about who has standing to bring claims. Election irregularities include a wide range of issues such as candidate eligibility, ballot recounts, or fraud, all of which may implicate the interests or involvement of candidates, political parties or individuals. Determining who holds a right to redress in those situations can, in practical terms, be the most important aspect of such a system. However, it seems that there is no general agreement on the standards to follow. Theoretically, all relevant actors who assert knowledge of an electoral irregularity should have standing to bring complaints, regardless of injury. The intrinsic importance of maintaining a fair electoral system, which encourages applying broad standing requirements, should in some cases trump concerns for judicial efficiency that may lead to narrower standing statutes. However, a broad legal standing can lead to burdensome case loads and frivolous claims that will jeopardize the efficiency of the electoral complaint system. Thus, a more restricted legal standing to file a complaint may be preferred unless a particular type of grievance is at stake.42 Generally, electoral laws state that claims should be limited to individuals who are directly impacted by a violation.43 Indeed, the mere fact that voters, candidates, political parties and non-governmental organizations are all participants in the electoral process is not sufficient for filing a complaint. In cases in which there is a clear need to represent a wider swath of society, broader legal standing could, however, be necessary. In its Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, the Venice Commission states in general terms that, “standing in electoral dispute matters must be granted as Submitted Appeals/Statements/Complaints, Central Election Commission of Georgia, http://sachivrebi.cec.gov.ge/eng/ (last visited Jan. 6, 2011). 42 Carter Center, Electoral Dispute Resolution Experts’ Meeting 2, 10 (2009), available at http:// www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/peace/democracy/des/electoral-dispute-resolutionmeeting.pdf. 43 Avery Davis-Roberts, International Obligations for Electoral Dispute Resolution 10-11 (Carter Center, Discussion Paper for Experts’ Meeting, Feb. 24-25, 2009), available at http://www. cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/peace/democracy/des/edr-approach-paper.pdf. 41 21