On September 30, 1991, 8 months after his inauguration as Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown by a military coup. On September 18, 1994, after 3 years of economic and diplomatic pressure, including the threat of direct U.S. military intervention, Haiti’s military regime relinquished power and allowed Aristide’s return to office in October 1994. Among other things, this arrangement allowed for the nonviolent entry of U.S. troops and for holding parliamentary elections in a free and democratic manner. In accordance with Haiti’s constitution precluding two consecutive presidential terms, President Aristide indicated that he would hand over power to an elected successor when his term expired in February 1996. From September 1994 through March 1995, the multinational force of about 20,000 U.S. troops and 4,100 military and support personnel from other countries was deployed to Haiti to establish a “safe and secure environment.” On March 31, 1995, responsibility for continuing the mission was transferred to the U.N. Mission in Haiti, which had about 6,900 troops at the time of transfer. U.S. troops comprised about half the U.N. force. International observers documented numerous irregularities in the first round of parliamentary and local elections, held in June 1995. Subsequent runoff and partial elections and the December presidential election proceeded more smoothly, and the electoral council showed more willingness to cooperate with its technical assistance advisors. Technical weaknesses persisted, however, and a shortened electoral period precluded some scheduled activities before the presidential election. The elections proceeded without violence and Haitians were free to exercise their voting rights; however, some instances of violence and intimidation were reported. Also, President Aristide’s ambiguity about his intentions to step aside to his successor may have created some confusion among voters and those who might have financially supported other candidates. In December 1994, the Aristide government appointed a nine-member provisional electoral council that carried out the 1995 parliamentary, municipal, and presidential elections. The electoral council administered elections through nine offices covering Haiti’s geographic departments. Administration was further delegated to the 133 communal offices as election material distribution and collection points for the more than 10,000 polling stations, each assigned 5 pollworkers. Haiti’s 1995 electoral law temporarily set the number of electoral districts at 83, corresponding to the number of seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Some districts were combined to share representation. The first round of parliamentary and local elections was a large and complicated undertaking. The elections were due to be held in December 1994, but they were difficult to organize within 2 months of President Aristide’s return. The elections were rescheduled twice and held on June 25, 1995. USAID estimates that about 97 percent of the potential voting population were registered; this is difficult to substantiate because Haiti lacks current and reliable census data. More than 11,000 candidates ran for about 2,200 seats. These seats included 18 of the 27-member Senate, all 83 members of the Chamber of Deputies, all municipal councils elected as cartels of 3 candidates (133 mayors and 266 deputy mayors), and all 1,695 seats on 565 local community councils. OAS estimated that about 40 to 45 percent of Haiti’s 3.5-million registered voters went to more than 10,000 polling stations; the International Republican Institute (IRI) estimated the turnout at 30 to 40 percent, and the electoral council announced that 51 percent had voted. The election required more than 17 million ballots be printed to accommodate the numerous contests and candidates. International observers of several organizations noted that, although the June 1995 elections were generally peaceful—deadly violence and intimidation that had historically marred Haitian elections were largely absent—the voting process was disorganized and had many technical difficulties and irregularities. For example, many polling stations opened late or did not open at all because they had not received registration lists, ballots, or other election materials due to confusion over logistics. Also, the electoral council added several hundred polling stations just days before the election, causing confusion in delivering election materials and for potential voters who did not know where to vote. Some candidates reported being on the wrong ballot and some ballots had missing photographs of candidates and party emblems. OAS received complaints on 38 ballots out of the 799 different ballots printed, and reported that 32 complaints had merit and 6 were groundless. According to USAID, most ballot problems originated with the electoral council and not the printer. One communal electoral council office was burned and several were damaged by fire after the elections when losing parties tried to burn the ballots and tally sheets; ballot security both before and after actual voting was a concern. Observers and U.S. officials noted that pollworkers were inadequately trained to carry out their responsibilities, and many were not paid on time. Observers found no evidence of organized fraud, but generally noted that the proliferation of ballots and the myriad of candidates were overwhelming in a largely illiterate country with weak infrastructure and little experience in election administration. Given concerns over serious irregularities and the validity of the results in certain problem areas, the electoral council decided to hold makeup elections in those areas. These partial elections took place on August 13, 1995, in 21 communal districts. On September 17, runoff elections were held for 8 Senate and 65 deputy seats; in October, additional partial elections were held in areas that had experienced irregularities. The Platform Politique Lavalas, the coalition supported by President Aristide, dominated the election results, winning 17 of the 18 contested Senate seats, 66 of 83 deputy seats, and a majority of local seats. Alleging that the June elections were marred by fraud, manipulation, and inefficiency at the hands of the Lavalas-dominated electoral council, about two-thirds of the almost 30 parties participating in the June elections boycotted the subsequent partial and runoff elections and called for an annulment of the June results and replacement of the electoral council. Nevertheless, some candidates of the boycotting parties remained on the ballots, and five candidates of the three major boycotting parties won deputy seats. All but one of the parties that boycotted the parliamentary and municipal elections extended the boycott through the presidential election. Our field observations and reports of U.S. officials and international observer groups indicated that Haiti’s electoral administration improved with each election after the June race. Much of the improvement was attributed to having fewer candidates and ballots; the lower voter turnout, while disappointing to observer groups, made voting procedures and vote counting easier to implement. Observers also noted that pollworkers were better trained and prepared and vote counting at the polling stations went more smoothly. Voting materials and registration lists were generally received on time at the polling stations, and the delivery of ballots to communal and department electoral offices for vote counting was more orderly than in June. In addition, political party pollwatchers were present at most polling stations and electoral offices. The electoral council cooperated more fully with representatives of the United States, international organizations, and other donors after the June elections. The turning point was President Aristide’s appointment of a new electoral council president on July 27. According to U.S. embassy and USAID officials, officials of U.S. nongovernmental organizations, and observers’ reports, the new council president made concerted efforts to strengthen the electoral process and improve relations with the donor community. The chief of the U.N. technical assistance team also noted an improved relationship with the electoral council and greater willingness to consider the team’s advice. Enhancing the electoral council’s transparency was the press center established by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) before the September 17 run-off election. The electoral council held regular press briefings at the center, particularly during election periods; presented its electoral budget during a press conference; and televised the lottery held for candidate name placement on the presidential ballot. The new council president also held meetings to coordinate the various civic education activities that the United States and other donors planned for the presidential election. Nevertheless, despite the overall technical improvements noted after the June elections, our observations and the reports of international observers and U.S. officials noted several persisting weaknesses in electoral administration. On December 17, many polling stations did not receive electoral registration lists or received inaccurate ones. OAS observed 49 polling stations where voters with a valid card were prevented from voting when their names did not appear on the list and reported that unlisted voters were observed at 599 polling stations, mostly in the department covering Port-au-Prince. IRI observers also reported irregularities in the electoral lists. As an emergency measure, the electoral council president declared at 11 a.m. that all persons possessing a valid voting card could vote at the polling station indicated on the card, even if their names were not listed at that location. While increasing the potential for voting more than once, this was likely mitigated by the pollworkers’ notations of those who voted, as well as the use of indelible ink on each voter’s thumb. In addition to the electoral list problems, OAS reported some additional irregularities that it characterized as serious. These included the premature signing of the vote count the morning of the election in one department, attributed by OAS to inadequate training, and suspicions of ballot stuffing. The latter was a concern at certain polling places with large numbers of recorded votes where no massive presence of voters had been observed during the day. OAS reported these localities to the electoral council. OAS and IRI reported numerous other irregularities, generally minor, such as failure to count unmarked ballots or to post results at the polling stations. Overall, OAS reported major irregularities in about 2 percent of the 3,134 polling stations visited and observed minor irregularities in 29 percent. Observers generally stated that the irregularities did not appear to be the result of organized fraud and did not have a significant impact on the election’s outcome.