ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM Principles for Large-Scale Post-Election Audits As we will propose here, post-election audits should be held to the same standards as other dispute resolution and investigative processes, including clear ownership of the process, predetermination and uniform application of procedures, well-understood evidentiary requirements, and the right of appeal. Processes should also be in place to permit unfettered access of observation groups and political party/candidate agents. All of these elements are needed to safeguard the integrity of elections and their final outcomes. Ownership of the audit process Many students of the electoral process note that domestic election commissions should manage postelection audits (Lindeman et al. 2008). If the electoral authority lacks sufficient credibility to stand behind an announced electoral result, however, it may also lack credibility to stand behind the outcome of an audit. Careful consideration of who will conduct an audit is therefore vital. In many cases, it may be necessary for a trusted third party (such as an electoral tribunal) to provide guidance to the audit process, but it is sometimes difficult to identify a neutral actor in nascent democracies. Instead, representatives of the international community may be called upon to assist with or lead a post-election audit, as was the case with elections in Haiti in 2010 and in Afghanistan in 2014. Regardless of the level and types of support the international community provides for the audit, the election commission should have authority over the process. Daniela Donno explores the potentially transformative effect international actors can have on the post-election environment (see chapter 3), but it is worth underscoring here that international stakeholders should endeavor to reinforce, rather than undermine, the election commission’s mandate. In this sense, the upwards accountability of the election management body to the international community should be mirrored by the responsibilities of these external actors to the country’s electoral process. Ensuring that the final decision-making authority lies with the election commission or a domestic dispute resolution body will help to mitigate the risk of real or perceived foreign interference in the election and its outcome, and help build confidence in the EMB and the election process as a whole. Representatives of the candidates may be involved in the audit, but it is important to ensure that they do not control the process. If parties or candidates drive the audit, its course will be determined by partisan interest rather than protecting the public’s interest in a legitimate and credible election. This issue was especially salient in Afghanistan in 2014, as illustrated below. 4