Chapter 2: Legal Frameworks for Effective Election Complaints Adjudication Systems a candidate; support political parties and candidates during the campaign period; and cast votes (for further detail, see Chapter 1: International Standards). The second element is time constraints. Most election disputes and complaints need to be resolved within the legally mandated and compacted schedule of various stages of the election process, most notably during the voting and counting process or immediately following polling day. A successful complaints adjudication system must balance standards of due process with the pressure for election authorities and courts to act quickly, depending upon the seriousness of election-related grievances. Reasonable deadlines and timetables for adjudicative procedures must be established within the law to allow for a fair but speedy adjudication process. As discussed extensively in Chapter 1, the international democracy assistance community has sought to develop international standards in the field of election complaints adjudication for many years. However, earlier efforts at compiling international standards tended to emphasize the role of the judiciary and due process guarantees, including rights to a hearing and to an avenue for appeal, at the expense of timeliness of decisions. Recourse to the judiciary and the attributes of “due process” are essential when fundamental rights are jeopardized and the legitimacy of elections is clearly undermined. International standards that set a high bar for legal processes in election complaints adjudication are certainly correct to the extent that they address the most serious cases of alleged election irregularities or misconduct, particularly regarding illegal or fraudulent actions of election authorities. But many (perhaps most) complaints and challenges presented during the election period do not rise to that level. Given the short timeframes inherent in the election calendar, a system that treats every complaint as deserving of all protections of due process will almost certainly become overwhelmed with cases. In those circumstances, even relatively simple matters may not be decided until after the election or not at all. The expression “justice delayed is justice denied” is particularly apt. No stakeholders benefit from a system for election complaints adjudication that cannot reach adjudicative outcomes in a timely and efficient manner. 109