Report on the public consultation of the proposed new Code of Practice for observers
The consultation was launched to get views on the clarity and relevance of the draft Code or Practice to update and strengthen guidance for accredited electoral observers under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA).
The consultation was shared with existing observers and local authorities including the police and electoral administrators. 66 responses were received. The consultation itself was received as being inclusive, transparent, and open.
How clear is the code on the rules for, and responsibilities of, observers?
Respondents found the new Code of Practice for Electoral Observers to be clear on these issues. 56.1% described it as very clear and a further 36.4% as quite clear. A minority found it not very clear (6.1%) or not clear at all (1.5%), and no respondents selecting don’t know. Overall, 92% of participants considered the Code to be either very clear or quite clear.
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Very clear | 56.1% |
| Quite clear | 36.4% |
| Not very clear | 6.1% |
| Not clear at all | 1.5% |
| Don't know | 0% |
Feedback was largely positive, with some highlighting the use of plain language, the structure of the document, and its alignment with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA).
Respondents described the Code as “succinct,” “precise,” and “easy to navigate,” and that it set out expectations and responsibilities in a straightforward way.
A number of comments suggested that the Code could go further with the inclusion of practical examples on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour by observers, particularly for new observers or those from international backgrounds.
A minority felt that certain terms, such as “obstruct the electoral process,” was too open to interpretation and might benefit from clarification via real life scenarios.
Overall, the consultation feedback suggests support for the draft Code.
Is the Code missing information you would like to see included?
When asked whether the Code was missing any information they would like to see included, 57 respondents provided feedback. Their responses focused on recurring themes of transparency, practical guidance, the overall effectiveness of the Code and accreditation and political impartiality. Some respondents called for a clarity of how the Electoral Commission assesses political impartiality when granting accreditation.
Suggestions included outlining how applicants’ social media activity is reviewed through the background check process, and whether local authorities could play a role in verifying an applicant’s impartiality. Some responses indicated that the Code should make clear that accreditation may be revoked immediately if concerns about impartiality or inappropriate conduct arise, to ensure integrity within the observation process.
The theme of training and support was also raised. Several respondents suggested that introducing either mandatory or recommended training for observers, particularly for those new to the role would be beneficial. This training could take the form of online learning modules or pre-election briefings delivered by Returning Officers. The Commission is considering the former and the latter is delivered by the Commission and at the discretion of Returning Officers. Respondents felt such measures would improve observer preparedness, promote consistency across electoral events, and ensure observers fully understand their responsibilities and obligations before attending polling stations or count venues.
In terms of practical guidance some respondents want more information about the level of observer access permitted during various stages of the electoral process, including vote counting and the adjudication of doubtful ballots. Definitive expectations around conduct, with real life examples of what might be considered disruptive behaviour, such as blocking access, excessive questioning of polling staff, or attending under the influence of alcohol or drugs was suggested. Some of this has been filtered into the draft guidance document to accompany the code.
Some respondents wanted guidance on how observers should introduce themselves to staff upon arrival and importantly how to escalate issues that arise, particularly those involving accessibility challenges for voters at polling stations. This has now included in the draft guidance document.
Issues of online conduct were also raised. Respondents recommended guidelines explicitly outlining what observers may or may not post on social media during observation of electoral events.
Several respondents raised the importance of transparency and accountability. They proposed retaining elements of the 2019 Code, including, allowing observers to raise irregularities with officials as soon as they become aware of them, maintaining clear records of when access being restricted or suspended, and publishing a transparent process for appealing decisions to revoke accreditation. These suggestions are included in the current draft guidance.
Overall, responses indicate the draft Code was well received but suggestion that there is a need for more clarity and practical examples to guide observers in real life scenarios. This feedback reinforces the idea that a guidance document and potentially more training for observers is needed to complement the Code.
Is there anything in the Code you don’t feel should be?
When asked whether there was anything in the Code that should not be included, 49 respondents provided comments. The majority, (more than 95%) stated that there was nothing they felt should be removed. Most respondents agreed that the sections included were appropriate.
Some however suggested that the Code should make it clear that the requirement for political impartiality applies not just during observation activities but rather throughout the full period of accreditation.
Some felt that the impartiality provisions could be relaxed, focusing specifically on behaviour and conduct while actively observing elections, rather than their entire accreditation period. There are no plans to move away from the requirement of impartiality throughout the entirety of accreditation.
One respondent also proposed that the Code could be two separate versions, one tailored to individual observers and another for organisations to make the document more accessible and relevant to its different audiences. As there are no differences in observer status or permissions, the Commission’s decision is that a separate Code is not necessary.
One responder in particular urged the Electoral Commission to ensure that the Code remains consistent with global best practice and aligns with the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation.
In addition, some participants suggested that the Commission provide additional resources, such as quick-reference guides or FAQs, to support practical understanding of the Code by observers. An FAQ document has been created but is not yet live on our website until we hear further from focus groups about website layout and access. The plans are that this process of website development will be completed and implemented in good time ahead of May 26 elections
Summary
Respondents praised the clarity of the Code and noted that it was written in plain and accessible language. They also welcomed its strong alignment with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA), and the way in which it sets out the responsibilities and expected conduct of observers.
At the same time, areas for enhancement were suggested. These included giving examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour to help observers and electoral officers interpret the Code in real-world scenarios and more guidance on impartiality, accreditation checks, and the revocation procedures. All these suggestions have been taken on board, and these are now included in the draft additional guidance to be provided to Observers
Respondents also recommended including clearer information on social media conduct and developing training resources or pre-election briefings for observers and clarifying how concerns or issues encountered at polling stations or count venues should be escalated. We have included such information in our draft additional guidance and as always will provide seminars to Observers before large electoral events. These seminars will help Observers understand the expectations and responsibilities of the accreditation. We have made sure to include information on what to do if concerns need to be raised.
Several participants proposed that the Commission publish a concise “observer guide” or FAQ document to accompany the Code, making it easier to reference in practice. Both are set to be available in 2026.