Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections B. Reform A crucial element for ensuring legal certainty in nascent democracies is for states to define the ways in which international standards can inform and guide reform efforts. Legal reforms are to be encouraged if the goal is to improve the electoral system; however, frequent or erratic changes confuse both the electors and the officials charged with conducting free and fair elections. Timing is of the essence in the codification or reform of the electoral framework. The public, candidates and staff of electoral management bodies should have sufficient time to become familiar with the law before an election takes place. After each election, states should conduct an assessment analysis to identify the gaps and challenges that exist in the electoral law and in the performance of the electoral complaint adjudication entity. Postelection audits and evaluation will provide stakeholders with an opportunity to remedy the mistakes that were made during an election78 and allow for the time needed to correct defects and make legal reforms before the next election. In 2002, the Venice Commission adopted a Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, affirming that “stability of the law is crucial to credibility of the electoral process,” and stating that in the event of election law reforms, “the old system will apply to the next election — at least if it takes place within the coming year — and the new one will take effect after that.”79 Perhaps more importantly, states should codify language that safeguards fundamental principles of their legal framework.80 The 2010 presidential elections in Ukraine provide an example of the importance of timing when adopting a new electoral law. In July 2009, six months before the elections, a new electoral law was adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament. Many provisions contradicted international standards; for example, measures for lodging complaints and challenges were restrictive and limited. The Constitutional Court struck down the most egregious provisions of the law, but left many provisions intact. International experts called for new changes before the first round of the presi- Kriegler Commission Report, supra note 3, at 139 (“Audits are an effective tool for building public confIdence in election outcomes because they can detect human errors and help correct them.”). 79 Venice Commission Code, supra note 44, at 26. 80 Id. 78 32