Congressional Brief: Electoral Violations and Anomalies, February 2009

Serious Concerns of Anomalies and Violations to Electoral Regulations in El Salvador

 

Introduction

We, as U.S. citizens, are very concerned about fraud in El Salvador’s upcoming presidential elections on March 15^th, 2009. We have followed the January 18^th, 2009 Municipal and Legislative elections closely, and are concerns about structural problems in the politicized Salvadoran electoral system, problems in the electoral registry, a vulnerable voting system, intimidation and violence, and past United States intervention.

Current Context

For the first time since the Peace Accords, the March 15^th, 2009 elections show the strong possibility of change in the balance of power in El Salvador.  In the January municipal elections, the majority of voters voted for the opposition party FMLN[1]. While the January elections showed that Salvadorans want a stronger democracy, the process also demonstrated that there continues to be major problems within the electoral system.

 

Structural problems such as a politicized Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and an inaccurate electoral registry have remained unaddressed.  On January 18, the day of the municipal and legislative elections, many irregularities with the vote casting and counting were observed, proving the system to be very vulnerable to fraud.  There was evidence of people voting in municipalities outside of their own, as well as denouncements of a large number of voters from neighboring countries[2].

Another major concern is the atmosphere of threats, political violence and politicization of the armed forces surrounding these elections, along with the misuse of statements by U.S. politicians saying that the U.S.-El Salvador relationship will be damaged if the opposition wins the election. 

 

Cause for Concern

a.  Structural Problems in a Politicized Electoral System

In 2006, the Legislative Assembly changed the Supreme Electoral Tribunal regulations, requiring only a three of five person majority to approve decisions about the electoral process, as opposed to the four person majority in the years before. The Legislative Assembly also allowed the National Conciliation Party (PCN) to hold a seat on the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which violated the Constitution of the Republic, as the party did not receive enough votes in the previous election to continue as a formal political party[3].

The European Union observation mission noted concern about the impartiality of the TSE, because the TSE is responsible both for electoral material and the juridical process of the elections[4].

While the President of the TSE insists that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure fair and transparent elections, other members continue to criticize the possibilities for electoral fraud.[5] 

One of the most concerning actions by the TSE is the annulment a number of recommendations made by the Organization of American States (OAS) to organize and update the electoral registry. The OAS found over 100,000 people whose names were on the electoral registry but are not on El Salvador’s National Registry, and over 440,000 people whose addresses in the electoral registry were not recognized.[6]  The OAS recommendations were not fully addressed and information about the completion of the recommendations was not released to the public.[7] 

The inconsistencies in the electoral registry are also visible in the difference between the 2007 census and the 2009 Salvadoran electoral registry. The 2007 census found less that 3,500,000 inhabitants in El Salvador that are of voting age, while the 2009 Electoral Registry said that there are over 4 million people registered[8].

On February 5^th, 2009, the TSE took the PCN Presidential candidate Tomás Chévez off the ballot for the March 15^th elections, after the party asked to withdraw the candidacy. Chévez publicly stated that the party pulled his candidacy after the ARENA party promised that members of his party would receive positions in a number of Government Ministries and control of the Court of Accounts. Chevez brought the case to the Ombudsman for Human Rights office and Ombudsman Oscar Luna said ¨They have violated his civil and political rights, which are specifically established in Article 71 of the Magna Carta. [9]

                                b. Electoral Registry and Outsider Voting

On election day, international observers noted an overwhelming number of citizen denouncements regarding irregularities in the voting process. A local radio station reported receiving over 200 citizens denouncements of irregularities from all over the country on election day.[10] Many of these denouncements referred to people from outside a municipality coming in to vote on election day. There were also many denouncements of foreigners from other Central American countries entering the country to vote.[11]For example, police detained five buses of foreigners that had entered the country in the department of San Miguel the day before the January 18^th elections.[12] International observers documented this in a number of municipalities.

17% of observers from the University of Central America Institute for Public Opinion (IUDOP) reported observing inconsistencies with the Unique Identification Cards (DUI) that Salvadorans use to vote. This included inconsistencies between the information in the electoral registry and the photo on the card, and cases of voters who used DUI cards that were visibly damaged. In the highly contested municipality of San Salvador, 24% of IUDOP observers reported problems with DUI cards[13].

Oscar Luna, the Ombudsman for Human Rights in El Salvador, said that irregularities in the electoral registry included the appearance of names of people who had died, problems with identification cards that had been altered, people that came to vote and found another person had already voted in their place, people whose names did not appear on the registry and the possibility that many people from outside certain municipalities came to vote there[14].

Numerous observation missions have expressed that the TSE needs to revise the electoral registry before the March 15^th elections. This has been noted as a priority by the European Union Observation Mission, Ombudsman for Human Rights office, IUDOP observation and Social Initiative for Democracy.

                         c. Vulnerable Voting and Counting Systems

On election day, observers from U.S.-El Salvador Sister Cities observed several anomalies that could have affected the outcomes of the elections.  These anomalies include a dysfunctional inking system to mark those who already voted, inconsistencies on the part of people working at the voting table[15] and a lack of secrecy in the vote. IUDOP observers reported that at 44% of voting tables, voters’ ballots could be seen at the time of voting.[16]

Oscar Luna listed problems such as the delayed opening of voting centers, general disorder, massive back-ups in the voting, lack of training, inadequate locations for voting, and an absence of neutral representatives from the TSE to receive denouncements of irregularities when they occurred[17].

                            d. Violence and Intimidation

In December of 2008, one month before the elections, the Administration of Salvadoran President Tony Saca made public accusations that armed groups could be operating in the country.  His ruling ARENA party Government made alleged links between these groups and civilians associated with the principle opposition party in the country, the FMLN. However, the Government has failed to present any conclusive evidence of these accusations.

This situation has led to military deployments in rural areas of the country and Government leaders have warned of military further intervention.  This is an alarming prospect given the lack of evidence to warrant military action and the countries’ violent past. It is deeply concerning that these accusations were made without evidence to support their validity, and apparently without respect for careful investigation or the rule of law. 
            In this time of elections, respect for the rule of law and democratic practice are vital for a safe and fair election, and as such military deployment and unfounded accusations must be avoided at all costs. For more information please see the attached document Congressional Brief regarding Supposed Armed Groups.

                             e.  United States Intervention

In September 2008, El Salvador’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marisol Argueta, asked the U.S. government to intervene in the upcoming Salvadoran presidential elections, claiming that El Salvador’s opposition party consists of ¨dangerous populists¨ that would harm national and regional security. Although the Salvadoran constitution prohibits government representatives from advocating for a particular political party, Argueta´s statements have caused fear in El Salvador.[18]

In campaign advertisements in El Salvador in 2008, statements by U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama’s advisor Dan Restrepo were manipulated to send the message that El Salvador’s relationship with the U.S. will be threatened if the opposition wins the Presidential election. A group called Fuerza Solidaria, whose purpose is to prevent left leaning governments from being elected in Latin America, created a propaganda campaign that used statements from Dan Restrepo and threatened that the relationship between the U.S. and El Salvador would be damaged if the opposition candidate were elected President.17

More recently, on February 12, 2009 Salvadoran Newspaper El Diario de Hoy reported that Pastor Antonio Bolainez called on members of the Evangelical Church in El Salvador to think seriously about their vote ¨in order to not bring El Salvador to its destruction, with a radical left regime that favors Venezuela and Irani terrorism.¨ El Diario de Hoy reported that Bolainez is one of ten spiritual advisors to Barack Obama.

On February 19^th, 2009, acting Ambassador, Robert Blau made a public statement saying that ads that use images of Obama “can give the impression that there is backing from a political party” and that “the democratic party does not back any candidate.”  While this statement was meant as an affirmation of US neutrality, Salvadoran newspaper the Diario de Hoy reported that Robert Blau “asked the Left not to use the image of Barack Obama.”

The fact that the Embassy denounced the use of the Obama administration in recent campaign ads by one party but ignored its use in Fuerza Solidaria ads by the other party, directly contradicts the US Embassy’s commitment to neutrality in the upcoming elections.  The statements by the acting Ambassador were quickly used to the advantage of the ARENA Party’s presidential campaign by two national newspapers, the Prensa Grafica and Diario de Hoy, which known for biased reporting. 

 

Request

We are deeply concerned by the problems listed above.  

Therefore, we ask that:
1. Acting Ambassador Blau make a complete list of all of the instances when the image of the U.S. was used incorrectly during the electoral campaign and publicize it to the Salvadoran people.

2. That the US Embassy make a public statement, clarifying the statement from Mr. Bolainez, and assuring that the status of US immigrants and El Salvador commercial agreements do not depend on the election of one presidential candidate or the other.

3.Make a public statement to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, calling for them to follow the European Union and Human Rights Ombudsperson Office recommendations before the March 15^th elections.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this pressing matter.