that voters could not check for friends or family or provide objections to the IC staff. This public scrutiny of the roll is important for removal of ineligible voters by reason of multiple registration, death or non-residence. Observers were asked to evaluate the performance of IC staff over the observation period from very good, to very poor. Of the ICs, where ZESN LTOs observed, only 1% of the polling stations were rated as very poor, 1% as poor, 18% as reasonable and 80% as very good. Overall Evaluation of How IC Staff Implemented Procedures 1% 1% 18% 80% Very good Reasonable Poor Very poor Percentage of 'Very good' assessments over time 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 May 19 May 20 May 21 May 22 May 23 May 24 May 25 May 26 May 27 May 28 Ma7 29 The average number of IC staff present at each station was 2, with larger percentages of female staff than males. 4