Chapter 1: International Standards jured.46 By that view, the integrity of the election process is the concern of all citizens; courts should recognize a broad definition of injury that gives rise to standing to a wide swath of interested parties. By so doing, individuals, political parties and candidates will have the opportunity to seek adjudication of election irregularities, increasing the odds that irregularities will be adequately challenged. Indeed, many electoral complaints systems do not recognize standing to the extent recognized by the Israeli Supreme Court, and some states may go so far as to only allow candidates or political parties to file a complaint challenging elections results. In the United States, general standing principles require that a party bringing suit have a genuine injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the harm alleged and that can be redressed by the court hearing the case. However, because United States elections are governed by state statute, states often specifically limit standing to electors or candidates in cases that seek to void elections due to vote-counting irregularities.47 Moreover, citizens of one jurisdiction are barred from bringing suits over election laws in another jurisdiction.48 Similarly, absent a public interest citizen suit statute, citizens may lack standing to challenge election law provisions such as felon voting restrictions, on the theory that these provisions affect citizens equally and thus do not cause particularized harm to any The Israeli Supreme Court “held that the petitioner had standing as a public petitioner. In general, however, the standing of a public petitioner has not been recognized where there is a specific indivIdual who has been injured and has ordinary standing. The Court held that in the context of election law, the standing of a public petitioner should be recognised,[sic] despite the existence of specific indivIduals who have standing. The Court asserted that the extended right of standing should be recognised [sic] due to the importance of regular and proper elections to the democratic process. According to the Court, the regularity of the election process is the concern of the entire public and goes beyond the direct concern of the indivIdual injured by government action. . . . The voters' rights, therefore, are connected to those of the candidates running for elections.” Venice Commission, Supreme Court of Israel: Working Document for the Circle of PresIdents of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts 19-20 (2006) (discussing HCJ 651/03 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Chairman of the Central Election Committee 57(2) PD 62 [2003] (Isr.)), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL-JU(2006)036-e. pdf. The Iraqi electoral commission, named the Independent High Electoral Commission, also provIdes a broad legal standing. It recognizes that any voter or organization, other than referendum and election observers, who has a complaint or dispute related to the electoral and referendum process has the right to file a complaint. Electoral Complaints and Disputes (Regulation No. 2 of 2008), § 3(1) (Iraq); see also Independent High Electoral Commission (Law No. 11 of 2007), art. 4, § 8 (Iraq). 47 See, e.g., Potts v. Fitzgerald, 784 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003); Morse v. Dade Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 456 So. 2d 1314, 1315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984); Rogers v. Shanahan, 565 P.2d 1384, 1387 (Kan. 1976). 48 Antosh v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 664 F. Supp. 5, 8-9 (D.D.C. 1987). 46 23