ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM In general, the complaints and appeals mechanism for adjudicating electoral disputes was streamlined significantly in advance of the 2010 elections in Kosovo through amendments to the 2008 Law on General Elections and other reform efforts (Republic of Kosovo Central Election Commission. 2010). The Central Election Commission (CEC), the Election Complaints and Appeals Panel (ECAP), and the Administrative Division of the Kosovo Supreme Court are all involved in resolving election disputes (European Union Election Expert Mission 2011). The CEC is responsible for administering elections and reviewing and auditing election data (through its Count and Results Center), and can order recounts of ballots in problematic polling stations (Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe 2012). The amended law gave ECAP the authority to adjudicate voting and counting complaints. These decisions were binding on the CEC but could be appealed to the Administrative Division of the Kosovo Supreme Court within 24 hours (European Union Election Expert Mission 2011). In Kosovo, all the reconciliation and results forms (and corresponding candidate results sheets) that are compiled by polling stations are processed, verified, and audited at a centralized Count and Results Center (CRC) based on procedures developed by the CEC. In advance of the 2010 election, and in order to detect errors in results compilation, the CEC adopted procedures to cross-reference the candidate results form with the results and reconciliation form (party totals) using an audit feature incorporated into the counting and tabulation software. The tabulation system then would automatically detect whether results were compiled incorrectly at the polling station level; because each voter could choose only one political party and five candidates from that party, the ratio of party votes to candidates should have been approximately 1:5. When the 2010 election results forms were processed at the CRC, significant deviations from this ratio triggered a review of investigation reports compiled and submitted by the CRC’s audit and investigations team. Based on that review, the CEC ordered a recount and investigation of the ballots in 760 polling stations (approximately 40%) (European Union Election Expert Mission 2011). The high number of irregularities combined with pressure to produce results in a reasonable time frame limited the amount of training that could be provided to auditors and created an enabling environment for mistakes. Although established before the election, the uniform application of audit and recount procedures was challenging without comprehensive training; in many cases, materials were incorrectly counted or recorded in the initial recounts, requiring a repeat of audit procedures.9 In its own investigation, ECAP also invalidated results in 49 polling stations in five municipalities based on breaches of the secrecy of vote, persons voting on someone‘s else behalf, and falsification of signatures on the voter lists, and ruled that re-voting should be organized in those individual polling sites. Based on this ECAP decision and CRC reports, the CEC organized re-voting on January 9, 2011 in several polling stations in five municipalities. On January 6, the Supreme Court overturned ECAP’s rejection 18