ADVOCACY FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS

ADVOCACY FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS FINDINGS OF VOTERS LIST, DELIMITATION PROCESS AND POLLING SCHEME ASSESSMENTS OF DISTRICTS FAISALABAD, CHINIOT AND JHANG

DISCLAIMER While significant effort has been made to avoid any factual error, omission or commission is accepted and will be duly acknowledged with gratitude. Please feel free to contact at input@cvpa-tdea.org

Contents Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 4 Scope and Methodology of Assessment Studies... 5 A. Household Survey... 5 B. Stakeholder Interviews... 6 1. Interviews with DECs... 6 2. Interviews with DDOs... 7 3. Interviews with District Level Political Party Leaders... 7 Key Findings... 8 A. Voters List Assessment... 9 1. Household Registration and Preferred Address Consent Status... 9 2. Non-Registered Eligible-Age Members of households... 12 3. Additional Registration Needs for 2018 General Elections... 14 B. Delimitation Process: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress... 17 1. Citizens knowledge of Delimitation Process... 17 2. Citizens Input in Delimitation Process... 22 3. Political Parties Input in Delimitation Process... 29 4. Delimitation: Dispute Settlement Mechanism... 35 C. Polling Scheme: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress... 44 1. Citizens knowledge of Polling Scheme... 44 2. Political Parties Input in Polling Scheme Formulation... 49 3. Citizen s Input in Polling Staff Appointment... 55 4. Establishment of Polling Station on Election Day... 60

Executive Summary This report is based on a survey of 288 households in District Chiniot, 1662 in District Faisalabad and 559 in District Jhang; and interviews with the District Election Commissioners (DECs), District Delimitation Officers (DDOs) and local leadership of the five leading political parties (as per the results of the 2013 General Elections) in these districts. The summary of key findings related to the existing status of voters registration and future electoral needs; and the participation of citizens and political parties in, and their contribution to, the processes of constituency delimitation and polling scheme formulation is as follows: Voters Registration: Existing Status and Future Needs As many as 64% (185 out of 288) households surveyed in Chiniot, 58% (966 out of 1662) in Faisalabad and 50% (279 out of 559) in Jhang reported that no one in their household was consulted about their preferred address for registration on the voters list. Only 1 out of 288 households surveyed in Chiniot, 14% (229 out of 1662) in Faisalabad and 13% (73 out of 559) in Jhang reported that they had at least one eligible-age member who is currently not registered on the voters list. For the General Election 2018, the voter registration will also contend with registration of household members who are currently not eligible to be on the voters list but will be before the announcement of election schedule. As many as 18% (53 out of 288) households surveyed in Chiniot, 27% (450 out of 1662) in Faisalabad and 44% (248 out of 559) in Jhang have at least one 15-17 year old member who will be eligible for registration on the voters list before the 2018 General Elections. Constituency Delimitation: Citizens Knowledge and Input As many as 96% (1601 out of 1162) households surveyed in Faisalabad, all 288 in Chiniot, and 76% (423 out of 559) in Jhang reported that they did not know about the last constituency delimitation in their district. Of the small number of households surveyed who knew about the last delimitation in their district, only 7 in Faisalabad and 9 in Jhang claimed that they had shared their recommendations/objections with the delimitation authority. In comparison, the district-level leaders of the five leading political parties were more engaged in the delimitation process. o Leaders of 2 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Chiniot, 1 of the 4 in Jhang and none of the 4 in Faisalabad claimed to have raised objections on the appointment of delimitation officers at the time of last delimitation in their district. Page 1 of 70

o o o Leaders of 2 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Chiniot, 2 of the 4 in Faisalabad and 2 of the 4 in Jhang claimed to have submitted their recommendations/objections to the delimitation authority at the time of the initial delimitation listing. Leaders of 1 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Faisalabad and Chiniot and 2 of the 4 in Jhang who had submitted their recommendations/objections to the delimitation authority expressed their dissatisfaction with the mechanism adopted for addressing their objections. Leaders of 1 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Chiniot and Faisalabad and 2 of the 4 in Jhang did not consider the proceedings of the delimitation authority impartial. Polling Scheme Formulation: Citizens Knowledge and Input Of the under-study districts, the DECs of Faisalabad and Chiniot reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their districts for citizens input. Among the political parties leaders interviewed, none of the political party leaders in under-study districts reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their district for citizens input. Only five percent (14 out of 288) households surveyed in Chiniot, 11% (180 out of 1662) in Faisalabad and 4% (22 out of 559) in Jhang reported that the voters in their area had been consulted before assigning of polling stations. The DECs of Chiniot and Jhang reported that input had been sought from political parties and candidates before the draft polling scheme. o None of the political party leaders in under-study districts informed that input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of pollinf stations. o Leaders of all the political parties interviewed in Chiniot and 3 of the 4 in Jhang claimed to have registered their objections to the draft polling scheme. While, leaders of all the 4 political parties interviewed in Faisalabad reported that they had not registered any objection to the draft polling scheme. o Leaders of 2 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Chiniot and 2 of the 4 in Jhang reported that their party s objections on the polling scheme had not been heard by concerned officials. o Leader of only 1 of the 3 political parties interviewed in Chiniot and 1 of the 5 in Jhang reported that they was satisfied with the remedial measures adopted by the ECP to address their party s objections on the draft polling scheme. The DECs of all the under-study districts stated that polling stations had been established as per the final polling scheme in the most recent elections. o In line with this, leaders of all the 4 political parties interviewed in Faisalabad, 2 of the 3 in Chiniot and 3 of the 1 in Jhang stated that polling stations had been established as Page 2 of 70

per the final polling scheme in the most recent elections. However, 1 of the 3 political party leaders in Chiniot and 1 of the 5 in Jhang stated that all polling stations were not established as per the final polling scheme in the most recent elections. Three percent (43 out of 1662) households surveyed in Faisalabad, 4% (23 out of 559) in Jhang and 1 out of 288 in Chiniot reported that the polling station assigned to them had not been the closest to their house. Two percent (5 out of 288) households surveyed in Chiniot, 11% (175 out of 1662) in Faisalabad and 7% (41 out of 559) in Jhang reported that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area. Page 3 of 70

Introduction Findings of Voters List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of An electoral system that inspires public confidence is critical to strengthening democracy in Pakistan. The country s existing constitutional, legal and administrative system for conducting elections fails to meet the internationally accepted standards of electoral freedom, fairness, neutrality and transparency. Therefore, it needs to undergo comprehensive reforms to enhance the quality of future elections, thereby helping democracy to take firm root. The observation findings of national and international observer groups and, more important, the controversy following the 2013 General Elections leaves little room for delaying critical reforms in the run-up to the 2018 General Elections. The need for substantial electoral reforms has been long felt by analysts and other stakeholders because no general elections in Pakistan, barring the 1970 ones, have been free of controversy and claims of foul play. The political stand-off in the aftermath of the 2013 General Elections has once again brought the issue to the limelight and prompted demands for electoral reforms from almost all concerned, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Subsequently, a 33-member all-party bicameral parliamentary committee for electoral reforms has been constituted to look into the gaps in the country s electoral process. These developments have allowed civil society groups and NGOs to play their role in constructively engaging key stakeholders for safeguarding and furthering citizens political rights. To account for citizens genuine concerns and aspirations in the debate for electoral reforms, USAID Citizens Voice Project has provided support to its partner organizations spread all across Pakistan to: a. Strengthen citizens voice for electoral reforms through, among others, focused engagements with political parties, the media, professional associations and the ECP, as recommended by national and international election observation groups after the 2013 General Elections; and b. Strengthen citizens oversight of the electoral process, including but not limited to up-gradation of electoral rolls and delimitation of electoral constituencies, for greater transparency and accountability. The approach allows for: Evidence-based advocacy for addressing area-specific issues that have a significant bearing on citizens electoral and representational rights; and Engaging district level stakeholders in the macro-level debate on legal and structural framework of the electoral system. To scale the incidence and prevalence of local level issues that impinge on citizens rights and capacity to exercise their electoral rights, voters list, delimitation process and polling scheme assessments were carried out to inform the agenda for reforms with objective data. This report presents the tabulation of key findings of household and stakeholder surveys to: a. Identify district level issues in voter registration, delimitation process and polling scheme formulation; and b. Share position of district vis-à-vis provincial and national level findings to determine the scope and scale of issues. This report covers the findings for Faisalabad, Chiniot and Jhang districts of Punjab province. Page 4 of 70

Scope and Methodology of Assessment Studies The assessment studies for identifying the scale and scope of issues related to voters list, delimitation process and polling scheme formulation demanded the allocation of substantial resources to allow for district level trends. Subsequently, one of the largest data collection exercises in the country s history was initiated, accounting for data from 40,000 households spread across 111 of the country s 124 districts. For comprehensive coverage of the subject areas from key stakeholders perspective, the household survey was complemented by interviews of District Election Commissioners (DECs), District Delimitation Officers (DDOs) and the district level leadership of top five vote-polling political parties. The following section details the target and actual achievements, as well as the methodological concepts that guided the assessments: A. Household Survey The household survey constitutes a critical component of documenting citizens experience of the electoral process. More specifically, it aims at documenting the state of registration of the households surveyed, and citizens knowledge of and participation in the delimitation process and formulation of polling scheme. The data was sought and recorded on structured hard copy questionnaires. The following steps outline key features of the sampling method followed for extracting representative sample for provincial and national level aggregations of findings: The objective of getting a representative sample of households that could provide not only the base for provincial and national level inferences but also broader trends at the district level was operationalized in the random selection of 2,500 communities. For this purpose, the digitized data of all census blocs with registered voters was employed as the sampling frame for the household survey. Applying Probability Proportionate-to-Size sampling, the targeted number of communities was selected from the list of census blocs representing all the communities in the four provinces (Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh) and Islamabad Capital Territory. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir were excluded from the sampling frame at the outset, as were the following districts in Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh: Balochistan: Kharan, Panjgur and Washuk; Punjab: Nankana Sahib, Okara, Sahiwal and Toba Tek Singh; and Sindh: Badin, Karachi East, Korangi, Malir, Sajawal and Thatta. The districts in Punjab and Sindh were left out because of the unavailability of partner organizations there, while the districts in Balochistan were excluded because of security hazards. Once operationalized, the household survey in Gwadar and Kech districts of Balochistan had to be abandoned because the security and logistical concerns rendered the measures for ensuring data integrity redundant. In essence, the findings derived from the revised sample are representative of all districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and all but the excluded districts of the other three provinces. Within the sampled communities, the selection of households was carried out following a systematic random selection method that established an objective, and a verifiable track for the selection of street, primary household and 15 other households in each of the selected communities. Employing Right Hand Rule, 16 households were targeted in each of the 2,500 sampled communities. The distribution of sampled communities and targeted number of households, as well as successful completion across each province and district under study, is as follows: A total of 2,500 communities and 40,000 households were targeted for the survey. Of these, 95 communities (1,520 households) were located in Balochistan; 401 communities (6,416 households) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; 1,486 communities (23,776 households) in Punjab; and 493 communities (7,888 households) in Sindh. Of the sampled 2,500 communities (40,000 households) nationwide, 2,421 (38,704 households) were successfully surveyed. Of these, 90 communities (1,433 households) were located in Balochistan; 394 Page 5 of 70

communities (6,302 households) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; 1,451 communities (23,210 households) in Punjab; and 486 communities (7,759 households) in Sindh. Table 1: Household Sample Targeted Vs. Achieved District Communities Sampled Communities Surveyed Households Sampled Households Surveyed National 2,500 2,421 40,000 38,704 Balochistan 95 90 1,520 1,433 KP 401 394 6,416 6,302 Punjab 1,486 1,451 23,776 23,210 Sindh 493 486 7,888 7,759 Chiniot 22 18 352 288 Faisalabad 120 104 1,920 1,662 Jhang 36 35 576 559 As for the under study districts of this report, 22 communities (352 households) were sampled in Chiniot, 120 (1920 households) in Faisalabad and 36 (576 households) in Jhang. The survey teams successfully achieved, 18 communities (288 households) in Chiniot, 104 communities (1662 households) in Faisalabad and 35 communities (559 households) in Jhang. B. Stakeholder Interviews Along with the household survey, District Election Commissioners and Delimitation Officers, as well as the local leadership of up to five political parties in each district, were interviewed to get a more comprehensive picture of the three subject areas that are critical to preserving citizens electoral rights: voters list, delimitation process and polling scheme. Conducted on separate structured questionnaires, these interviews provide perspectives from key stakeholders on common subjects. 1. Interviews with DECs DECs are the ECP s senior-most representatives in each district. The study aimed at interviewing the DECs of all the districts where household and other stakeholders interviews had been planned. Upper and Lower Kohistan were established post-2013 elections and they had a common DEC before that, thus the targeted districts appear one less than that number of targeted districts for the household survey. Table 2: DEC Interviews Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 110 103 Balochistan 29 23 KP 25 24 Sindh 23 23 Punjab 33 33 Chiniot 1 1 Faisalabad 1 1 Jhang 1 1 As Table 2 illustrates, 103 of the targeted 110 DECs were interviewed. Of these, 23 of 29 targeted DECs were interviewed in Balochistan; 24 of the targeted 25 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; and all 23 and 33 of Sindh and Punjab, respectively. The DECs of all the under study districts (Chiniot, Faisalabad and Jhang) were interviewed. Page 6 of 70

2. Interviews with DDOs DDOs play a crucial role in drafting the initial area listing that provides the base for delimitation of constituencies. While the DECs also act as DDOs in some cases, they are mostly appointed for the specific task of conducting preliminary delimitation of areas. As with the DECs, the DDOs are also among the key stakeholders at the district level since their conduct has a direct bearing on the citizens right to equitable representation. Table 3: DDO Interviews Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 110 103 Balochistan 29 22 KP 25 25 Sindh 23 23 Punjab 33 33 Chiniot 1 1 Faisalabad 1 1 Jhang 1 1 Against the target of 110 (1 per district), 103 DDOs were interviewed for the purpose of providing the official perspective on the delimitation process in the respective district. Of these, 22 of the 29 targeted DDOs were interviewed in Balochistan. The DDOs of all the under study districts (Chiniot, Faisalabad and Jhang) were interviewed. 3. Interviews with District Level Political Party Leaders The political parties are the key stakeholders in the electoral system. They have a legally defined role to participate in almost all aspects of the electoral system. The study of key aspects of the electoral system would therefore be lacking without accounting for the perspective of political party leaders. In order to get adequate feedback from the political parties, the study s scope required interviews of as many as five leading political parties in each district. The selection was based on the performance of the political parties in the last general elections: five political parties that polled the highest number of votes in the respective district in the 2013 General Elections contesting for National Assembly and/or the respective provincial assembly. For the 110 districts, the overall target was 550 interviews of district level political party leaders. Table 4: District Level Political Party Leader Interviews Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 550 522 Balochistan 145 126 KP 125 125 Punjab 165 161 Sindh 115 110 Chiniot 5 3 Faisalabad 5 4 Jhang 5 4 Overall, 522 interviews of district-level political party leaders were conducted. Of these, 126 interviews were carried out in Balochistan, 125 in KP, 161 in Punjab and 110 in Sindh. Four interviews of political party leaders were achieved in Faisalabad and Jhang and 3 in Chiniot. Page 7 of 70

Key Findings Findings of Voters List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of The key findings of the survey have been categorized under three broad heads: voters list, delimitation process and polling scheme. The formulation of the data has been done with a view to reflecting the trends at the district level. Next, these trends have been compared with provincial and national level trends to identify any variation specific to the target district(s). Please note that the findings at the district level are not to be treated as representative of the individual district and merely reflect the trends in the surveyed households. Page 8 of 70

A. Voters List Assessment This chapter highlights the state of registration of households and individual members of the sampled households. Registration on the voters list is a pre-requisite for otherwise eligible citizens if they are to exercise their right to vote. In essence, registration on voters list determines whether a citizen, other criteria notwithstanding, is allowed to exercise his/her right to vote. 1. Household Registration and Preferred Address Consent Status Two critical issues have been explored in this section: (a) whether the household is registered on the voters list as the preferred address with the consent of its members; and (b) whether all eligible-age household members are registered on the voters list. The first has the potential to determine the likelihood of household members casting their vote. For instance, while more and more people are settling in urban centers, the permanent addresses mentioned on their CNICs are seldom updated. Without regular updating of the voters list to account for these changes and barring any proactive pursuit by the registered voters themselves, a significant number of those not registered as voters on their preferred address are likely to be less motivated to vote in their hometowns because that would require additional travel and time. A-1.1. Consent for Preferred Registration Address Since the existing legal provisions allow for registration of vote on permanent, temporary or any other address where a citizen has business/property, regular updating of the voters list reflecting the voters consent for preferred address assumes significant importance. It was asked of the respondents of the household survey whether their households members were asked about their preferred address. In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 76 (26%) reported that their household members consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters list o 185 (64%) stated that their household members consent had not been sought. In Faisalabad, of the 1662 respondents of the household survey: o 561 (34%) reported that their household members consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters list o 966 (58%) stated that their household members consent had not been sought. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 249 (45%) reported that their household members consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters list o 279 (50%) stated that their household members consent had not been sought. Table A-1.1. Was your household members consent sought for their preferred address for registration on the existing voters list? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 29,577 17,151 76 561 249 No 7,156 4,978 185 966 279 Don t Know 1,826 1,039 27 130 31 Refused to answer 86 38-5 - Interview Abandoned* 1 - - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. Page 9 of 70

**Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 29,577 (76%) reported that their household members consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters list o 7,156 (18%) stated that their consent had not been sought o 1,826 (5%) did not know whether their household members consent for their preferred address had been sought or not. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 17,151 (74%) reported that their household members consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters list o 4,978 (21%) stated that their consent had not been sought o 1,039 (4%) did not know whether their household members consent for their preferred address had been sought or not. Page 10 of 70

A-1.2. Household Registered on their Existing Address As one of the indicators of how reecently the voters list were updated and as a factor in turnout, it was asked of the respondents of the household survey whether majority of their household members were currently registered as voters on their existing address, the following trends emerged in the under-study districts: In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 271 (94%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 1 respondents stated that they were not. In Faislabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o 838 (60%) had the majority of their household members registered on their existing address o 659 (40%) stated that they were not. o 82 (5%) did not know whether majority of their household members were registered on their existing address or not. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 460 (82%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 17 (3%) stated that they were not. o 74 (13%) did not know whether majority of their household members were registered on their existing address or not. Table A-1.2. Are the majority of your household members registered on your existing address? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 32,837 19,649 271 838 460 No 4,595 2,764 1 659 17 Don t Know 1,019 646 16 82 74 Refused to answer 194 147-83 8 Interview Abandoned* 1 - - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 32,837 (85%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 4,595 (12%) stated that they were not o 1,019 (3%) did not know whether majority of their household members were registered on their existing address or not. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 19,649 (85%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 2,764 (12%) stated that they were not o 646 (3%) did not know whether majority of their household members were registered on their existing address or not. Page 11 of 70

2. Non-Registered Eligible-Age Members of households A-2.1. Non-Registered Household Members To get a better idea of the prevalence of eligible-age individuals (those aged 18 and above) not being registered as voters, the respondents of the household survey were asked whether they had any such member in their household. The responses in the target districts were as follows: In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 1 reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 242 (84%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 44 (15%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not. In Faisalabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o 229 (14%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 1,233 (74%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 195 (12%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 73 (13%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter; o 422 (75%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 41 (7%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not. Table A-2.1. Do you have any eligible-age household member who is currently not registered as a voter? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 11,326 6,188 1 229 73 No 24,452 15,210 242 1,233 422 Don t Know 2,362 1,519 44 195 41 Refused to answer 486 287 1 5 23 Interview Abandoned* 20 2 - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 11,326 (29%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 24,452 (63%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 2,362 (6%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 6,188 (27%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 15,210 (66%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered Page 12 of 70

o 1,519 (7%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not. Page 13 of 70

3. Additional Registration Needs for 2018 General Elections A-3.1. Households with pre-2018 Registration Needs In order to assess the voter registration requirements before the 2018 General Elections, the respondents were asked about their household members aged 15-17, individuals who would be voting-age citizens prior to the next General Election year -- 2018. In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 53 (18%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 173 (60%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 62 (22%) refused to answer this question. In Faisalabad, of the total 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o 450 (27%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 1,146 (69%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 66 (4%) refused to answer this question. In Jhang, of the total 559 respondents of the household survey: o 248 (44%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 189 (34%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 122 (22%) refused to answer this question. Table A-3.1. Do you have any 15-17 year old member in your household? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 13,421 7,252 53 450 248 No 20,699 13,307 173 1,146 189 Refused to Answer 4,482 2,639 62 66 122 Interview Abandoned* 44 8 - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 13,421 (35%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 20,699 (53%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 4,482 (12%) refused to answer this question. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 7,252 (31%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 13,307 (57%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 2,639 (11%) refused to answer this question. Page 14 of 70

A-3.2. Households with pre-2018 Male Voter Registration Needs To determine the future registration needs of potential male voters, the respondents of the household survey were asked about the number of 15-17 year old male members in their household. In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 187 (65%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 38 (13%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 1 had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 62 (22%) refused to answer this question. In Faislabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o 1234 (74%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 351 (21%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 10 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 67 (4%) refused to answer this question. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 230 (41%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 199 (36%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 8 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 122 (22%) refused to answer this question. Table A-3.2. Do you have 15-17 year old male members in your household? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang None 24,464 15,529 187 1,234 230 1 to 2 Males 9,078 4,836 38 351 199 3 or More 553 187 1 10 8 Refused to answer 4,507 2,646 62 67 122 Interview Abandoned* 44 8 - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 24,464 (63%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 9,078 (23%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 553 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 4,507 (12%) refused to answer this question. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 15,529 (67%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household; o 4,836 (21%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 187 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 2,646 (11%) refused to answer this question. Page 15 of 70

A-3.3. Households with pre-2018 Female Voter Registration Needs To determine the future registration needs of potential female voters, the respondents of the household survey were separately asked about the number of 15-17 year old female members in their household. In Chiniot, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o 191 (66%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 35 (12%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 62 (22%) of the respondents refused to answer this question. In Faisalabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o 1,317 (79%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 266 (16%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 9 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 70 (4%) of the respondents refused to answer this question. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 217 (39%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 209 (37%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 11 (2%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 122 (22%) refused to answer this qusetion. Table A-3.3. Do you have 15-17 year old female members in your household? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang None 25,501 16,025 191 1,317 217 1 to 2 Females 8,037 4,347 35 266 209 3 or More 560 178-9 11 Refused to answer 4,503 2,648 62 70 122 Interview Abandoned* 45 8 - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 25,501 (66%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 8,037 (21%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 560 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 4,503 (12%) refused to answer this question. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 16,025 (69%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 4,347 (19%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 178 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 2,648 (11%) refused to answer this question. Page 16 of 70

B. Delimitation Process: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress Delimitation of political units is one of the most significant factors in ensuring equitable and just representation of the citizens in elected bodies at all levels. For the process to be fair and legitimate, citizens and other key stakeholders must have the knowledge of not only when the process is being carried out but also how it is being carried out. The redress mechanisms available, if any, for addressing the concerns of the citizens on the content and/or process of delimitation are equally important 1. Citizens knowledge of Delimitation Process B-1.1. Citizens Knowledge of Delimitation To assess the knowledge of key stakeholders about the delimitation process, certain sets of questions were asked from the respondents of the household survey, DECs and DDOs. To start with, the respondents of the household survey were asked if they knew when the delimitation of constituencies was last conducted in their district. In Chiniot district, of the 288 respondents of the household survey: o All 288 did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district. In Faisalabad district, of the 1,162 respondents of the household survey: o 41 (2%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the last General Elections o 62 (1%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the last Local Government elections o 1601 (96%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district. In Jhang district, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 74 (13%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the General Elections o 62 (11%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the last Local Government elections o 423 (76%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district. Table B-1.1. When was delimitation of constituencies last conducted in your district? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Before general elections 3,078 1,431-41 74 Before local government elections 3,225 1,605-20 62 Don t Know 32,298 20,162 288 1,601 423 Interview Abandoned* 45 8 - - - Interview Refused** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 3,078 (8%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the General Elections o 3,225 (8%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the last Local Government elections o 32,298 (83%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: Page 17 of 70

o o o 1,431 (6%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the General Elections 1,605 (7%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted in their districts before the last Local Government elections 20,162 (87%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district. Page 18 of 70

B-1.2. Citizens Knowledge about the Draft Delimitation List First, the respondents were asked if they knew about the initial delimitation list. Compared to the number of citizens who had knowledge about the last delimitation in their district, the number of citizens with knowledge about the initial delimitation list dropped across all districts. In Faisalabad, of the 61 respondents of the household survey: o Only 6 reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list. In Jhang, of the 136 respondents of the household survey: o 11 (2%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list. Table B-1.2. Did you know about the initial delimitation list? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 1,215 639-6 11 No 5,051 2,388-55 125 Skipped* 32,298 20,162 288 1,601 423 Interview Abandoned** 82 17 - - - Interview Refused*** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 1,215 (3%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 639 (3%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list. Page 19 of 70

B-1.3. Display of Delimitation List: DECs Response To know the efforts being made by the concerned authorities to solicit citizens input in the delimitation process, the DECs were asked whether the initial constituency delimitation lists were made available for citizens information. The response from the DECs of the under-study districts and from across the province and the country reflects lack of uniformity. The DECs of Chiniot and Faisalabad reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions. The DEC of Jhang reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had not been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions. Table B-1.3. Was the initial list of constituency delimitation publicized for citizens comments and suggestions? Yes 75 29 1 1 - No 10 3 - - 1 Don't Know 4 - - - - Interview Abandoned* 6 - - - - Interview Refused** 8 1 - - - Grand Total 103 33 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 75 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions o 10 reported that it had not been publicized o 4 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input. In Punjab, of the 33 DECs, o 29 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions o 3 reported that it had not been publicized. Page 20 of 70

B-1.4. Display of Delimitation List: DDOs Response Following up on the information provided by the DECs, the DDOs were asked about the publication of the initial delimitation lists in their respective districts. The findings confirm the lack of uniformity in the process. The DDOs of Chiniot and Faisalabad reported they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input. The DDO of Jhang reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions. Table B-1.4. Was the initial list of constituency delimitation publicized for citizens comments and suggestions? Yes 54 15 - - 1 No 35 13 - - - Don't Know 9 3 1 1 - Interview Abandoned* 1 - - - - Interview Refused** 4 2 - - - Grand Total 103 33 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 54 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions o 35 stated that it had not been publicized o 9 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input o 1 abandoned the interview before answering this question. In Punjab, of the 33 DDOs: o 15 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens comments and suggestions o 13 stated that it had not been publicized o 3 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists where published for public input. Page 21 of 70

2. Citizens Input in Delimitation Process To know about the participation of the citizens in the delimitation process, a set of questions were asked from the respondents of the household survey, DECs and DDOs. The idea was to determine whether citizens opinions, suggestions and objections were considered during the initial listing of constituency delimitations, so as to check the gap between the electoral needs of the citizens and the working of the ECP. B-2.1. Citizens Input in Delimitation Only the respondents of the household survey who had reported to have known about the last delimitation exercise in their district were asked whether they had shared any suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned. In Faisalabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o Only 7 reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned. In Jhang, of the 592 respondents of the household survey: o 9 (2%) reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned. Table B-2.1. Did you share any suggestions on delimitation with the officials concerned? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 397 175-7 9 No 5,869 2,852-54 127 Skipped* 32,298 20,162 288 1,601 423 Interview Abandoned** 82 17 - - - Interview Refused*** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 397 (1%) reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned. In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 175 (1%) reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned. Page 22 of 70

B-2.2: Citizens Input in Delimitation: DDOs Response Following up on the household survey respondents feedback, the DDOs were asked to confirm whether citizens objections/recommendations had reached the officials concerned. The responses across the under-study districts were as follows: The DDOs of all the under-study districts - Chiniot, Faisalabad, and Jhang - reported that citizens had filed objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations. Table B-2.2. During the initial listing of constituency delimitation, did individual citizens file objections/recommendations? Yes 44 10 1 1 1 No 54 21 - - - Interview Abandoned* 1 - - - - Interview Refused** 4 2 - - - Grand Total 103 33 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 103 DDOs reached: o 44 reported that citizens had filed objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 54 reported that the citizens had not filed objections/recommendations in their district. In Punjab, of the 33 DDOs reached: o 10 reported that citizens had filed objections/ recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 21 reported that the citizens had not filed objections/recommendations in their district. Page 23 of 70

B-2.3. Consideration of Citizens Recommendations in Delimitation In order to assess how much the delimitation process is responsive to public input, the respondents of the household survey who had claimed to have filed their recommendations on delimitation were asked whether any action was taken on their suggestions. The responses varied across the under-study districts. In Faisalabad, of the 1,662 respondents of the household survey: o The 2 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions o The other 5 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that no action had been taken on their suggestions. In Jhang, of the 559 respondents of the household survey: o 2 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions o The other 7 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that no action had been taken on their suggestions. Table B-2.3. Was any action taken on your suggestions? National Punjab Chiniot Faisalabad Jhang Yes 159 65-2 2 No 205 91-5 7 Don t Know 33 19 - - - Skipped* 38,167 23,014 288 1,655 550 Interview Abandoned** 82 17 - - - Interview Refused*** 58 4 - - - Grand Total 38,704 23,210 288 1,662 559 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question. At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 159 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions reported that action had been taken on their suggestions regarding the delimitation process o The other 205 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions stated that no action had been taken on their suggestions In Punjab, of the 23,210 respondents of the household survey: o 65 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions reported that action had been taken on their suggestions regarding the delimitation process o 91 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that action had been taken on their suggestions stated that no action had been taken on their suggestions Page 24 of 70