The Draft Law on Election Observation - a new challenge for election observers

Gregory Melkonyants

Since 2013 - co-chair of the board of movement ‘Golos’ 

Finally, I came across the primary source, ‘the draft law on election observation’, therefore a picture began to emerge.

On January 23, the ‘Kommersant’ informed about four proposals concerning election observation submitted by AP and CEC and endorsed by the President. On 25 January, the Duma Council proposed to pass a bill submitted by the Communists on 25 September 2015 at the second reading, initiating limitation of the number of appointed election commission members acting in advisory capacity and observers in the commission based on their respective membership.

Before the second reading the bill has been enlarged with modifications and therefore has changed. The reading is scheduled for January 29.

The final result is as follows.

1. The frequency of replacement of election commission members acting in an advisory capacity was limited to five times

By now a candidate or a party may take a decision to terminate the office of the election commission member acting in an advisory capacity and re-appoint another member for unlimited number of times. The draft proposes to limit this right to five times in regard to one commission.

2. Introduction of an advance list of observers nominated to PECs that shall be submitted to TEC by candidates and parties no later than three days before the polling day (early voting)

By now there has been no requirement to inform in advance about the nominated observers. This novelty will complicate logistics. In order to prepare and submit in advance the lists directly to TECs we will have to ensure an error-free arrangement of observers’ deployments to polling stations. It will have to be done not three days in advance, but much earlier, since some TECs under various reasons might try to delay or complicate the submission of those lists.

It will be impossible to replace an observer later than three days prior to the polling day even if it is urgent or in case of force majeure due to the absence of some observers on the Election Day.

The risk of pressure on observers in order to coerce them to abandon the election observation will increase, if the lists are disclosed in advance.

The numbers of polling stations where the election observation is planned will be known ahead of time, what implicates the risk of deliberate fraud at those polling stations where no election observation is planned.

In cases of secret temporary polling stations -  we often find out about them on the polling day – it will be almost impossible to deploy election observers at these polling stations.

3. A candidate or a party entitled to observe election at the facilities were voting takes place will have a right to nominate only two observers. Moreover, the same person can be appointed to only one PEC

Currently there is no limitation on the number of observers nominated by one candidate or a party entitled in turns to be present at a polling station, moreover one observer can monitor elections in unlimited number of PECs.

Introduction of strict rule: one person - one commission, puts an end to election observation carried out by one observer in several PECs, including mobile election observers, quick response teams and stationary election observers, e.g. deployed at one school.

We might find out that it is not enough to deploy only two shifting observers for 11 days of early voting.

4. Election observers and media representatives can be expelled from a polling station only if they violate the law and the fact of such an infringement was established by court decision

A great safeguard. The current proposal introduces a formal approach to the accusations against the election observers requiring a clear reference to the law provisions.

The only question is how in practice all the judicial procedures and the trial itself are respected. Let’s imagine that an observer was accused of illegal campaigning, a commission or the police promptly submitted all the evidence to the court. In order to ensure the right to defence, an observer or a representative of him/her will have to be present. The observer would have to leave a polling station and to stay in court for indeterminate period of time. During this time the polling station might remain unattended.

5. Election observers are entitled to take photos and shoot video

This is great, as conflicts arise on a regular basis. However, there is a caveat. In the bill one can find a phrase in brackets: ‘from the position pointed out by PEC chairman’. Thus the vicious practice is legitimized when observers and media representatives are restrained from spotting violations by being located at some uncomfortable corner.

6. Summing up

The response to these initiatives can only be the increased number of observers. This is not a catastrophic proposal, but rather a challenge for the election observers, which inflicts reformation of election observation.

In the upcoming September Elections, the main work of election observation will have to be done prior to the polling day, but this does not diminish the importance of the Election Day. On this day the maximum election observation capacity must be allocated to PECs and TECs.

The more overregulated and restrictive procedures on deploying observers are introduced, the more active and well-organized is engagement and deployment of the observers. This will impel to join forces, mobilization and new approaches to work. It will overwhelm those who care about the elections and will implicate many surprises to those who on the eve of the elections decided to introduce these amendments, without testing it in some major elections.