ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM Predetermination of standards and procedures An electoral system that does not define audit standards and procedures, or that does so in an ad hoc manner, can enable arbitrary implementation of procedures and erode public trust in the process. The rationale is simple: to be fair, effective, and efficient, the rules of the game should be clear for all stakeholders before the game begins. Just as transparency is essential for all election process rules and procedures (see chapter 6), we argue that audit standards and procedures should be clear and publicized in advance. When an audit is part of a preconceived electoral certification process, standards and procedures are likely to be codified in the legal framework, thus clarifying what constitutes a lawful audit and mitigating a common source of disputes during contentious elections. In contrast, in situations in which an ad hoc audit process is proposed as a means of resolving a legitimacy deficit or an intractable electoral dispute, establishing standards and procedures post-complaint can become an overwhelming challenge. Such an audit process would also be more vulnerable to partisan pressures, as stakeholders may seek to create rules and procedures that would benefit one party or candidate over another. In chapter 6, Garnett similarly argues that an EMB should inform the public of electoral administration issues clearly and in a timely manner. If the legitimacy of an election’s outcome is questioned by unsuccessful candidates or the public, an audit may be needed for reasons beyond what was specified in the electoral framework. In such cases, the audit may be an integral means to restore legitimacy to the electoral process or the credibility of the election management body. One of the major problems with such an audit is that the election commission is starting from a position of weakness. When an unsuccessful candidate or political party succeeds in having the election process audited, it casts doubt on the credibility of the EMB. Even when an electoral authority can show that the election results are credible, skepticism may linger, as it did during the 2014 Afghanistan presidential election. If a decision is made to undertake an audit, electoral bodies should supplement the legal framework by putting in place well-defined and consistent standards and procedures to govern the process, including for sensitive issues such as similarly marked ballots and results sheets. This framework should be established and publicized before the audit is initiated, and applied consistently. This is the same standard that applies to rules and regulations governing the management of elections, as well as those governing the resolution of other electoral disputes. This prior planning takes time, usually a scarce resource in a fraught political environment. However, failing to take these steps leaves the process vulnerable to uneven or arbitrary application of the law and charges of bias, and may increase the risk that other stakeholders will not accept the results. 5