Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity importance of an appeals mechanism to address situations in which the results of an audit are not acceptable to various stakeholders or there are concerns that the procedures prescribed by the legal framework have not been followed. An appeals process protects the audit from arbitrary decision-making and helps to ensure that decisions are based on credible findings. 1 This is especially important when an audit changes an election’s outcome. Because audits are typically conducted in times of crisis when tension between candidates is high and trust in the election management body (EMB) is low, prior planning is vital. This planning should stress the fundamental principle of uniformity. All ballots should be treated exactly the same way, regardless of who cast the vote, where it was counted, or who performed the count. This principle applies equally to any audit process: it is essential for decisions about inclusion or exclusion of ballots or results to be based on the consistent application of clearly defined rules that are known by stakeholders and EMB officials prior to the commencement of the audit. This paper discusses important considerations for conducting an audit and provides some recent comparative examples from past elections that help illuminate these key considerations. Rules and regulations for polling, counting, and reviewing ballots should be sufficiently robust to avoid needing an intensive audit. However, in developing and post-conflict democracies in particular, it is important at the outset of an electoral process for an EMB to conduct comprehensive scenario mapping and planning to set rules, contingencies and processes to prepare for the possibility of disputed results. Although post-election audits should be avoided if at all possible, there are clearly instances in which they are necessary. In these situations, audits must be based on a predictable set of procedures and be conducted in a fair, transparent, impartial, and uniform manner. II. Introduction In both developed and developing democracies, elections are the best means to facilitate peaceful and predictable transfers of power. Many elections result in clear outcomes, in which one candidate or party is the resounding winner by a large and acceptable margin, or a clear coalition government emerges. Close contests, on the other hand, are more frequently challenged. In these situations, the credibility of the outcome depends on the strength of the electoral legal framework, the integrity of the electoral management body, and the dispute resolution process, as well as on the extent of public confidence in the legitimacy of electoral and other government institutions. Elections in both developed and developing democracies are often zero-sum contests. These elections inherently have higher stakes, which may encourage non-winning candidates to pursue challenges since they may feel they have nothing to lose – even when contesting the election involves a costly, contentious, or time-consuming legal process that may have little chance of succeeding. When election results are close in developed democracies, existing laws and regulations generally trigger predictable procedures that confirm results, adjudicate complaints, and produce election outcomes that are respected. In developing democracies, on the other hand, legal frameworks are often more ambiguous and susceptible to dispute. Fraud, or allegations thereof, compounds these challenges, as do a 2