Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections results dispute in Namibia, stating that “the procedures for challenging the results of elections . . . can leave political contestants and the electorate in an uneasy state of suspense concerning the validity of elections to offices that come under challenge. It may, therefore, be appropriate to consider mechanisms to accept and process complaints in a more rapid fashion.”159 This state of suspense can lead directly to the breakdown of democratic systems; specific deadlines and adequate resources must be in place to support expedited proceedings as part of a well-functioning election complaint system.160 In addition to cumbersome procedures, frivolous complaints, or an inability to prioritize and triage complaints, an expeditious decision can be limited by other structural factors within the adjudicatory body, including inadequate numbers of staff persons and outdated or limited resources.161 In order to rule without undue delay, an arbiter will need adequate technology and logistics and the support of a full, qualified staff.162 When designing the electoral complaint process, it is also important to avoid overly fragmenting the individual stages of election complaint adjudication. The more entities involved in the electoral complaint process, the greater the potential for delays. Indeed, if another entity, such as the police, is mandated to investigate claims, the electoral complaints body will generally have less control over the timing of the process. In developing democracies, however, complaint adjudication bodies usually do not have the resources necessary to undertake all steps in the complaint adjudication process.163 In NDI, Comments on the Namibian PresIdential and National Assembly Elections 8 (1994), available at http://www.accessdemocracy.org/files/150_na_comments.pdf. 160 See National Democratic Institute & Carter Center, Statement of the NDI/Carter Center Pre-Election Delegation To Liberia’s 2005 Elections 2 (Sept. 9, 2005) (“To build public confIdence in the impartiality of the electoral complaint process, NEC should outline and publicize its methodology for resolving election-related complaints. The NEC timeline should establish specific deadlines for the filing of complaints to ensure that electoral disputes are not used to disrupt the electoral process. Sufficient resources should be dedicated to ensure that the potential volume of complaints can be processed impartially and on an expedited basis with adequate transparency in accordance with due process requirements and equality before the law.”), available at http://www.ndi.org/files/1907_lr_statement_090905. pdf. 161 Vickery, supra note 34, at 15, 25. 162 Organization of African Unity, Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa, 38th Ordinary Sess., arts. II(4), III(c), AHG/decl. 1 (xxxviii) (July 8, 2002) [hereinafter African Elections Declaration], available at http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/summit_council/oaudec2.htm. 163 IFES, The Kingdom of Thailand, Analysis and Issues for Consideration: The Organic Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Installation of Senators and the Organic Act on the Election Commission 10-11 (2008) [hereinafter Kingdom of Thailand Report]. 159 56