Appendix B 76 required, so it could not do so even though the preliminary voters registry was released in the 2013 elections. In addition, upon registration citizens were given slips that contained their identification number, and incidents of party activists demanding to see such slips undermined confidence of some voters in the secrecy of the ballot. The final voters registry was released very close to Election Day, which limited the ability of parties and civil society to conduct robust verifications. ZESN and an anonymous team of volunteers known as Team Pachedu did verifications nonetheless. Team Pachedu found the registry to be unacceptable. ZESN, which employed well-known and reliable methodologies, found that the voter registry was a major improvement over the disputed 2013 registry, though there were still some weaknesses. The weaknesses included underrepresentation of youth and an 11 percent underrepresentation of eligible urban populations. Inadequate allocation of registration resources to urban areas and a degree of disinterest among urban populations could have been among the contributing factors for urban underrepresentation. Legal Framework and Quality of Justice The legal framework for Zimbabwe’s elections provided by the Constitution, Electoral Act, and regulations could provide the basis for a credible electoral process. The framework was amended on May 28, 2018, just two days before the elections were officially set. While the amendments in some respects opened the electoral process, several key points from interparty negotiations concerning independence of the ZEC were omitted. The MPLCs also added a dimension for resolving disputes and potentially reducing tensions without turning to the courts, though the performance of the national level MPLC did not provide a consistently effective resolution mechanism. Also, the electoral law provides for expedited processing of cases of politically motivated violence and intimidation, and more than 50 magistrates were designated to address such cases. This was a significant development. The courts demonstrated some capacities during the pre-election period to act independently of political bias, although key decisions were reversed on appeal. The example of rulings concerning use of schools, their transportation resources, and compelling school children to participate in ZANU-PF rallies illustrate this matter, with restraints ordered by a High Court being dismissed by the Supreme Court. Such examples have been cited as evidence of judicial bias favoring the ruling party, including by those who note that the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, and Judge President of the High Court, though constitutionally appointed by the president, have ties to the military and ruling party, which may present conflicts of interest when adjudicating electoral-related cases. Nonetheless, it is crucial that those with electoral grievances seek redress though the judicial process even while advocating for improved quality of justice. This is an essential element of upholding the rule of law even as elections are also judged in the court of public opinion. ELECTION DAY Zimbabweans turned out on Election Day in great numbers, demonstrating their desire for democratic governance, and the electoral environment was peaceful. The polls were generally well administered in accordance with procedures, and over 100,000 polling officials seemed experienced and appeared to work diligently in the presence of political party agents from different camps, who for the most part cooperated throughout the process. Included among the officials were a large number of women, many of whom served as presiding officers. The police performed their duties commendably. Nonpartisan civil society monitors were also present in large numbers where the ZIEOM observed. 6