Election Observers

* We have included more detailed notes from the observation in these 3 municipalities, not because they were the only municipalities which experienced problems, but because they illustrate well the range of irregularities we observed across the 24 municipalities.

The Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS) Mission of Electoral Observers 2000 was made up of 115 observers from 17 countries [see Appendix 8]. The electoral process, including the pre-electoral and post-electoral periods, as well as the voting process on election day itself, was observed in 24 municipalities [see Appendix 7].

Prior to the elections the Mission met on a national level with the six principal political parties, and also with the key electoral actors in each municipality.

In this report we outline our key concerns with the electoral process in El Salvador and our recommendations for reform.[1] It should be stressed that this is the fourth electoral observer mission organized by CIS and we are disillusioned at having to repeat many of the same concerns and recommendations yet again. This is, of course, closely related to the lack of implementation of the electoral reforms agreed to in 1994 by ex-president Calderón Sol (ARENA) and the presidential candidate for the FMLN-CD-MNR coalition, Rubén Zamora.

We hope that during the three year period before elections 2003 the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and the Legislative Assembly work together to make the urgent changes necessary to strengthen the democratic process in El Salvador. This will also help to ensure that levels of disillusionment and lack of confidence in the electoral system among the Salvadoran people do not become any more acute.

[1] We have attached appendices in order to give further details of the observation.

We recognize and congratulate the hard work, commitment to the democratic process, and collaborative spirit demonstrated by the TSE and the majority of Juntas Electorales Municipales (JEMs) and Juntas Receptoras de Votos (JRVs) during election day.

However, as the fourth CIS observer mission we note that there has been a significant rise in the number of anomalies and allegations of malpractice. Taken on their own they may not be regarded as serious problems, however in their totality they pose a grave threat to the democratic process.

Moreover, we observed that the atmosphere surrounding the elections was considerably more tense than during the electoral periods of 1999 and 1997.

We are extremely concerned about the following aspects of the electoral process:

¨ incidents of violence directed at ARENA and PAN activists in San Pedro Perulapán, Cuscatlán

¨ FMLN activists threatened and attacked by ARENA activists in Quezaltepeque, La Libertad (March 5)

It is also important to remember that the elections of March 12, 2000 took place in an atmosphere of intimidation. Riot police used violent measures during the labor conflict at the Médico Quirúgico Social Security hospital only six days before the elections. This was a destabilizing factor in the days running up to the elections.

the only transport available was party transport usually displaying flags, posters

It seems that large numbers of people, despite having registered in a local enlistment centre through the TSE pilot project of July and August 1999, did not (or could not) vote on March 12^th (eg. San Pedro Masahuat[1]). We suggest that this is directly connected to the confusion and disillusionment generated by the lack of will, on the part of the TSE, to implement the residential voting project.

We heard many reports that political parties had actively encouraged voters to register in neighboring municipalities, and arranged transportation for them on the day of the elections. This was often explained to us by the political parties as "legal fraud" (eg. Cinquera, Cabañas; El Paisnal, San Salvador; San Luis Talpa, La Paz).

¨ Numerous allegations by various political parties of vote-buying [eg. see Appendix 4]

¨ Allegations that certain political parties (ARENA, PCN) were threatening to fire campesino workers if they did not vote for them (eg. El Paisnal, Santiago de María) [eg. see Appendix 4]

¨ Allegations that ARENA was confiscating electoral carnets (El Paisnal, San Luis Talpa)

¨ inconsistency in JRV procedure and numerous anomalies and irregularities [eg. see Appendices 1,2,4,6]

¨ errors in TSE credentials for JRV members and vigilantes (eg. for the USC in San Luis la Herradura)

¨ missing names, and errors in names and numbers meant that many people were unable to vote (despite having valid carnets)

¨ padrones were posted inadequately (eg. too high, blown away by the wind, sheets hung on top of each other etc.)

¨ JRV members not sure of procedure - many inconsistencies especially with regard to the actas [eg. see Appendix 6d]

¨ many JRV members clearly did not understand the legal definition of "null votes", "impugned votes" etc. [eg. see Appendix 6d]

¨ many votes for small parties (especially when they did not have a municipal candidate) were discarded, lost or generally treated with a lack of respect

¨ in several municipalities voting boxes were re-opened, and there were several reports of actas being tampered with [eg. see Appendices 5,6e]

[1] In the local enlistment centre at El Achotal more than 700 people registered. According to our calculations, of these 700 only 200 actually voted on election day.

[2] as late as 9.30am in Guatajiagua

1) An independent investigation into the violence, fraud and vote-buying of Elections 2000 needs to be carried out.

a) A project of residential voting must be adopted. This will dramatically facilitate voter turnout.

d) The TSE should be de-politicized to create a more professional institution.

3) The two conflicting functions of the TSE (administrative and judicial) must be separated into two distinct institutions.

6) Training for JRV and JEM members should be standardized, made mandatory, and financially supported by the TSE.

[1] During our observation of the electoral process we were shocked at the numbers of people we came accross with two carnets. The single ID card would also eliminate the possibility for political parties to use a strategy of encouraging voters to register in a municipality other than where they live.

[2] This would require a re-evaluation of the location of many voting centres.

Ø In the municipality of San Luis Talpa the TSE did not act in a timely manner concerning the legality of Rafael Yohalmo Gonzalez Varela's candidacy.

Ø On March 11, observers witnessed ARENA activist Wilson Galeas distributing party t-shirts from a government vehicle in the rural community of Confredia (San Antonio Silva, San Miguel).

Ø Voter orientation cards with party logos were distributed to voters on election day (FMLN cards in San Salvador and San Pedro Perulapán; ARENA cards in San Salvador and Soyapango; and CDU cards in Soyapango)

Ø Sweets with ARENA logo wrappers were given out in the voting centres in Cojutepeque.

Ø Free food was offered to voters (in Guatajiagua by the PDC, FMLN and ARENA; in Santiago de María by ARENA).

Ø Campaigning by the political parties and distribution of propaganda on election day was observed in numerous municipalities.

Ø 2 vigilantes from the same party were seen present at many JRVs (in the Feria , San Salvador 2 ARENA vigilantes were at each voting table; in Santa Rosa de Lima there were at least 100 ARENA vigilantes in a voting centre of only 44 voting tables).

Ø ARENA vigilante overheard several times telling voters to vote for Tito Varela (San Luis Talpa JRV 6544).

Ø In many municipalities observers saw vigilantes and representatives from the political parties watching closely how people were voting (Soyapango, San Pedro Perulapán, Guatajiagua, San Luis Talpa, Santa Tecla).

Ø Vigilantes and vocales were seen helping voters put ballot paper into boxes (San Pedro Perulapán).

Ø JRV member voted using only TSE letter of accreditation - without showing a carnet (Guatajiagua).

Ø Observers were told they were not to be present during vote count and told to leave (by an ARENA legal representative in Santa Tecla and by a TSE worker in Pavilion 6 at the Feria Internacional, San Salvador).

Ø In Jucuapa, Usulatán the Fiscal Electoral abandoned the vote count before it was over.

Ø The Cigarrería voting centre, Soyapango, closed ten minutes early. Approximately 150 people were not allowed in to vote. Voters who were waiting in line inside the voting centres at 4:55pm were escorted out of the voting centre by armed police.

Ø The crayons used to mark the ballots did not work properly and resulted in several votes becoming nullified.

Ø Confusion about which political parties had the right to have members on the JRV (eg. in San Luis Talpa the ARENA legal representative insisted that the CDU could not have members on the JRV).

Ø Errors on TSE credentials for JRV members and vigilantes (eg. the USC in San Luis La Herradura).

Ø Confusion about which JRV table vigilantes should vote at (Guatajiagua, San Rafael Cedros).

Ø Condition of ballot papers was not verified at the beginning of the day (San Pedro Perulapán).

Ø Fingers were not checked prior to voting to make sure they were not already stained with ink (observed in most voting centres).

Ø Fingers were inked before voting. This caused several votes to be nullified (San Rafael Cedros JRV 7150, Cacaopera)

Ø Voters fingers were not dipped in ink after voting (Cacaopera, San Rafael Cedros JRVs 7157 & 7148).

Ø JRV president signed and stamped many ballot papers in advance (Soyapango, San Pedro Perulapán).

Ø JRV members interchanged roles eg. president did secretary's job (Santiago de Maria, San Luis Talpa).

Ø Vigilantes sitting at JRV table were seen doing jobs of JRV member eg. handing out ballot papers (San Pedro Perulapán), inking fingers (San Miguel), cutting the corners of the ballots (Nejapa).

Ø Final actas were signed before votes were counted (in San Pedro Perulapán the TSE representatives encouraged this; in Cojutepeque president of the JEM said this was fine).

Ø Difficult or impossible to control the number of people in the voting centres - serious overcrowding. In addition, the high number of street vendors present made it even more impossible to guarantee that the vote was secret.

Ø Lack of shade. In various voting centres the JRVs moved looking for shade. This caused confusion among voters and represented a security risk to the ballots and electoral materials.

At 12:30pm, on Saturday March 11, observers visited the rural cantón Batres, where community leaders told observers that ARENA campaigners had brought a medical brigade which had distributed medicines from the National Hospital in Santiago de María and that the medicines had also already passed the expiration dates marked on their labels.

At 3:00pm, ARENA's Mayoral candidate told observers that the party had carried out 42 medical brigades during the campaign using mainly donated pharmaceutical samples with some additional purchased medicines.

That evening people came from the community San Martín to show the observers a bag of medicine that they claim was distributed by ARENA medical brigades in San Martín. Some of the samples they gave observers had expired dates and all were clearly stamped "Sale Prohibited, Property of the MSPAS" (Ministry of Health and Public Assistance). They also told observers that Dr. Morán and Dr. Perla from the National Hospital in Santiago de María had participated in the brigades. The 2 doctors were also running as municipal candidates.

Residents of both Batres and San Martín were unwilling to give their names for fear of possible consequences.

At 9:45am on election day a citizen came out of the ARENA Office denouncing to the JEM, the Fiscal Electoral, the PNC and observers, that in the ARENA office he had been given a soft drink and told to not make an error and to vote for ARENA. At 10:00am the JEM asked ARENA to close their office, to which they had been busing in voters from the countryside and apparently feeding them and orienting them to vote ARENA.

Rumors existed in the municipality that on the big coffee farms, managers had sent letters to the workers telling them to vote for ARENA or run the risk of losing their jobs. We were unable to obtain a copy of said letters in order to confirm the rumors.

Several actas had been left inside the boxes instead of being delivered to the JEM.

Several actas had been adulterated, for example, some figures had been changed and others erased.

The information in the vigilante's copy of the acta was different from that in the JEM's copy.

The majority of the actas had been filled in incorrectly by the JRVs and the numbers didn't square off.

The JEM read every acta out loud and everyone present took down all the figures.

The copies of the vigilante's actas from JRV 7020 did not match the other copies of the actas.

The acta for municipal council for JRV 7040 was still missing as of 9:30pm on Monday. The ARENA member of the JEM finally found it. It was adulterated and had been changed in the following manner:

All day Monday, the JEM worked on the actas. At 9:00pm, they began to fill their acta for the votes for deputies. At midnight, when the observers left, the JEM was beginning to fill in their acta for votes for the municipal councils.

At no time on Monday were representatives present from the TSE, the Fiscal Electoral, or from the Ombudsman's Office for Human Rights.

They lacked preparation, and weren't clear about their rights and responsibilities as JEM members. For example:

They didn't know what they were supposed to do about the errors they encountered in the actas.

There was tension amongst JEM members as well as between the JEM and legal representatives of the parties.

[1] All were municipal actas.

The international observers arrived at 5:30am, beginning the process of observing election day. The Municipal Electoral Board (JEM) began to distribute the electoral packets to the poll-workers of the 34 voting tables at 6:00am, and finished distribution at 6:45am. Because some of the poll-workers received their packets late, the voting centre did not open until 7:25am. The members of the voting tables who received their packets last found themselves in the difficult position of having to vote in the presence of voters who arrived when the polls opened.

Four delegates from Fiscal Electoral and one member of the Ombudsman's Office for Human Rights, the PDDH, were present all day. The PDDH representative did a good job as mediator of conflicts and problems throughout the day. Also present at any given moment were between eight and fifteen members of the National Civilian Police (PNC).

On Saturday morning, March 11, we received information that Julio Meléndez of San Luis La Herradura, had been meeting with members of APROAS in the cantón of San Sebastián El Chingo, offering them money in exchange for voting for ARENA. The PDC had sent someone to tape-record what Meléndez said in this meeting, and we had the opportunity to listen to the tape on Saturday afternoon. The recording was not of the best quality and it wasn't possible to understand everything. But in the meeting Meléndez was saying to the APROAS members that he was going to be in a specific place on election day, giving out ballots already marked for ARENA. When the APROAS members got to their voting table they were to put this ballot into the box. As proof that they had done this they would return the unused legal ballot to Meléndez. At this point they would receive a receipt with which they could claim their money the following week.

In total we heard four versions of the activities of Meléndez. In addition to the one just mentioned, four days before the elections, another member of the PDC told us that Meléndez would be in a certain house in the neighborhood of La Zarcera, and from there he would be distributing the quantity of 2000 colones ($230 US), with the expectation of receiving the rest the week after the elections to complete the 10,000 colones total ($1147 US). The third version, which was related to us by a member of the FMLN, was that Meléndez would be behind City Hall doing the same. The fourth version, also from the PDC, was that he was going to be giving the APROAS members their 10,000 colones the week after the elections, and that he had a document signed by ex-president Alfredo Cristiani that expressed his commitment to giving out the money.

At 8:00am on the day of the elections the JEM received information that Meléndez was behind City Hall gathering members of APROAS, reinforcing what he had already said to them the day before the elections. The JEM, the Fiscal Electoral, and the PNC went to verify whether this was true, but there was nobody there and they came back. A little bit before 8:30am Meléndez showed up at the voting centre. The JEM immediately asked for the Fiscal Electoral, the PNC, and the PDDH officer to be present while they expelled him from the voting centre. At this time Meléndez himself did not vote because he didn't have his voting card with him. The reason given for expelling him from the voting centre was that "he had committed a crime against the JEM by offering money in exchange for the vote". The PDDH officer clarified to the JEM that should Meléndez return with his voting card, legally they must allow him vote. Meléndez never returned to the voting centre. At 2:00pm we received information that he was behind the City Hall orienting the ex-civil patrol members to vote for ARENA. We went to verify this, however there was nobody there.

On Friday, March 10, the TSE made the decision to provide free transportation in some specific municipalities, including San Luis La Herradura. However, the TSE did not notify the JEM. At 7:25am on election day three people with credentials as official "Transportation Orienters" presented themselves. They asked to be allowed to vote, however the JEM, who had received no official notification of transportation orienters, denied them the right to vote.

Free transportation to the polls was provided by all the parties. At 10:30am we saw five trucks for the PCN, three for ARENA, two for the PDC, and two for the FMLN - all flying party flags. Several people who arrived from the estuary or island communities informed us that all water transport was free - paid for by one or other of the political parties.

Several JRVs violated the secrecy of the vote in various ways; eg. locating the voting booths in such a way that it was easy to see who a citizen was voting for. 17 out of the 34 voting tables had their voting booths inappropriately located (6623, 6624, 6625, 6626, 6627, 6628, 6629, 6630, 6631, 6632, 6636, 6637, 6642, 6644, 6645, 6646, 6647).

Due to general confusion not one member of the JEM voted before 7:00am, with the result that none of the JEM exercised their right to vote except for the PAN representative who went to San Salvador to vote in the afternoon.

At the beginning of the day, when the JRVs were deciding who was going to have which position at the table, the representative of the PCN at JRV 6627 slowed up the process by insisting that the decision had to be made by consensus, while the others were tired of the delay and wanted to decide by majority vote. In the end this is what they did, however this JRV never worked well as a team, and did the worst job in the vote counting and the filling out of the actas.

The JRVs of the voting centre were numbered from 6614 to 6647. The vigilantes of the USC were assigned by the TSE to JRVs 6623 to 6656, but JRVs 6648 to 6656 did not exist at the voting centre in La Herradura. Therefore the JEM denied the vigilantes the right to represent their party at these tables. JRVs 6614 to 6622 did not have vigilantes present from the USC.

At 10:00am a man voted at JRV 6645 when he should have voted at JRV 6646. When the JRV secretary noted this mistake they called the JEM, which took his voting card and marked down that he had voted at JRV 6646.

At JRV 6626 the JRV was denying many people the right to vote up until about 10:00am, when another member of the JRV determined that the president couldn't read very well. He was substituted by another member of the JRV.

A USC vigilante arrived at 12:30pm to the JRV 6630, and the JRV decided to let him work, but not vote.

At 1:00pm the JEM received a complaint about JRV 6631, where the PDC vigilante, wearing the PDC vest, was seated at the table replacing the actual PDC JRV member.

At no JRV did we see poll-workers carefully check that voters' fingers were not already stained with indelible ink.

At JRVs 6626, 6627 and 6628 the women JRV members of the FMLN were dressed in red and white.

Throughout election day members of the PCN, dressed in PCN t-shirts, were orienting voters. When supervisors from other parties realized this they complained to the JEM, who expelled the PCN orienters. This first happened at 9:00am, when they expelled two PCN members who were orienting voters. They didn't have their voting cards with them; "they had forgotten them", so they couldn't vote in that moment.

Members of JRV 6645 had not turned in their voting cards to the secretary when the aforementioned incident (the man voting at the incorrect table) occurred. At that moment, one of the JRV members complained to the JEM, who asked that all JRV members turn in their voting cards to the secretary of their JRV. The representative of the PCN did not want to do this, despite repeated requests from the PDC/JEM member. Finally she screamed at him and threw her card at him. The PDC/JEM member became angry and asked for the JEM to expel her on the grounds of lack of respect for the JEM, however the expulsion was denied.

At 3:00pm, an incident occurred with a PCN supervisor who was wearing party colors. He tried to help his mother vote, which was denounced to the JEM, the Fiscal Electoral, and the PDDH. This resulted in a heated argument, given that the supervisor was directly telling his mother what to do, and also violating the right to a secret vote. His argument was that he was helping his mother because she was blind, although it was obvious that this was not so. He also was arguing that the JEM was violating his "constitutional right to help his mother". This tense situation lasted about 15 minutes, after which the woman deposited her marked ballots in the correct boxes without any problem, leaving no doubt that she was in fact not blind.

The members of the JEM had reached an agreement between themselves that nobody wearing party colors could stay any longer than 20 minutes in the voting centre. The JEM conducted regular propaganda sweeps all day in a very collaborative manner. This was mostly to assure that party workers who brought in food for their pollworkers did not linger for too long in the voting centre. Over the course of the day the PCN became increasingly uncooperative. In the morning they sent 12 young men to vote wearing PCN t-shirts that had an X marked through the flag. The JEM expelled them from the centre. In the afternoon another PCN team came with the afternoon snack with a woman and various young children. She was wearing a PCN t-shirt with an X through the flag. When the PCN/JEM member (the president) told her that she couldn't be in the voting centre dressed like that she began to scream at him. After a fierce discussion that lasted more than 15 minutes between the president of the JEM and his co-party member, he took off his shirt to give her his undershirt so that she could put it on over her own shirt to cover the X.

All day between 15 and 20 men dressed in PCN t-shirts and obviously of wealth and influence in the community, stood in an intimidating manner directly in front of the gates to the voting centre.

At mid-day the PCN supervisors tried to replace the PCN vigilantes who were already working. They replaced some, but when the JEM figured out what they were doing they stopped it. It seemed that it was a direct attempt to allow the vigilantes to be able to vote twice.

The JEM did a good job all day but tensions increased as the day progressed. At 4:00pm there was a further complaint against the PCN. A JRV president from the PCN had a newly given PCN t-shirt draped over his shoulder with PCN flag plainly visible. The JEM was near to its office when it received this complaint and retreated to the office to decide what to do. All of a sudden the JEM members of the PCN, PDC, and ARENA were yelling at each other.

It was observed throughout the day that the ink from the JRV stamp was going through the paper of the ballot causing some party flags on the other side to be stained. This caused complications in the vote count. Many ballots stained by the ink from the stamp were declared null votes, when they should have clearly been impugned. Additionally, at almost all the JRVs, votes stained in any way were declared null instead of impugned.

Many JRVs did not give the white copies of the actas (for the TSE) directly to the JEM at the moment they handed over the sealed ballot boxes. Some members of the JEM and the Fiscal Electoral opened the ballot boxes looking for the forms in a very disorderly way, with the result that at 4:00am the JEM found a roll of null votes from JRV 6618 on the floor.

Resigned to the fact that their parties had lost the City Hall, the JEM members for the FMLN and the PDC left the vote count at around 10:00pm (not together). The legal representatives and JEM alternates of all the parties also left, meaning that the only JEM members present were from the PCN, PAN, ARENA, and the PPL.

There were many problems with actas incorrectly filled out by the JRVs. In five cases, the vote counts did not square off. When acta of JRV 6628 was found to not square off the JEM called the JED in Zacatecoluca to ask for advice. The JED told them that if they arrived with actas which didn't square off the JEM would have to stay there and work on it until they did square off. A little before 2:00am the JEM was reviewing the acta from JRV 6627. This acta wasn't even close to squaring off, as though the JRV had made up the numbers. After opening the box and recounting the votes, the JEM determined that the PCN received 20 votes less than what had been written in the acta. In total, the JEM had to reopen and recount the ballot boxes from five JRVs.

At 2:00am the power went off. Everybody rested for about one hour until some candles were found. They worked by candle light until 4:00am when the power returned.

The JEM members from the PCN, PPL, and PAN left for Zacatecoluca to hand over the ballot boxes to the JED at 9:00am on March 13.

acta: official form filled out by the electoral boards documenting the vote count at each step of the counting process

Fiscal Electoral: Attorney from the Attorney General's office assigned to observe and verify the legality of the electoral process

Election Observers - Final Report 2000

Final Report April 2000
Elections 2000, El Salvador
Mission of Electoral Observers
Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS)

Back to top

Election Observers - Final Report 2000

Final Report April 2000 Elections 2000, El Salvador Mission of Electoral Observers Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS)

Back to top

Final Report April 2000
Elections 2000, El Salvador
Mission of Electoral Observers
Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS)