Results of nomination and registration of candidates in the main regional and local elections on a single voting day

Contents

Introduction

Key conclusions

1. Nomination and registration of candidates for the election of regions' heads

2. Nomination and registration of party lists in elections of regional parliaments

3. Nomination and registration of party lists in the elections of regional center city councils

4. Nomination and registration of candidates in majoritarian constituencies in elections of regional parliaments

5. Nomination and registration of candidates in majority districts in elections of regional center city councils

6. Participation of political parties in regional and municipal elections

7. Administrative mechanisms of competition distortion and violation of the equal rights principle of candidates 

Annex

Introduction

The regional and local elections of 2021 are held in the shadow of the federal campaign for the election of deputies of the State Duma of Russia that will take place on September 17-19. There are direct elections of the heads of nine regions, the main elections of deputies of 39 regional parliaments, and nine administrative centers of the regions among them. Many of these elections show the main problems of the Russian electoral system even better than in federal ones.

This is the fifth report of the Golos movement as part of the long-term monitoring of the election campaign of a single voting day on September 19, 2021. It is devoted to the results of the nomination and registration of candidates in the main regional and local elections. Previous reports were devoted to the results of the nomination and registration of candidates for the election of deputies of the State Duma of Russia, the defeat of Russian citizens in voting rights, the legal features of the election of State Duma deputies, and the political and legal features of regional and local elections on September 19, 2021.

We summarized specific examples of violations of electoral rights and incidents in the main text of the report. A more detailed description can be found in the annex with the most striking examples.

Key conclusions

• In the 2021 elections, there has been developing a system allowing authorities to deprive citizens of the right to be elected arbitrarily. In this context, election commissions either try to avoid as much as possible to protect the electoral rights of such citizens or become complicit in these acts. This can be clearly traced in elections of all levels: federal, regional, and local.

• The traditional tools of non-admission of candidates for elections such as municipal filter, rejection of voter signatures, formal cavils, or pressure on candidates were enlarged with recognition of citizens involved in the activities of prohibited organizations. It turned out that to deprive the citizens of voting rights the election commissions is enough to have simple information from the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which even does not have references to the court's decision with indicated evidence of involvement in the activities of prohibited organizations, but a variety of reasons: previous participation in elections from the registered party of "PARNAS"; participation in protest actions and anti-corruption investigations; reposts of The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) videos*; advice and legal assistance to persons detained for participating in protests; broadcasting from protest actions; assistance in collecting signatures to support the nomination of candidates for elections; calls to release Alexei Navalny; Alexei Navalny's calls to support other candidates in other elections (Novosibirsk 2020 Coalition in the 2020 elections).

• An analysis of the registration of candidates for the election of heads of regions shows that the "municipal filter", as before, does not fulfill those publicly stated tasks to cut off "outsiders" from participating in the elections that were set for it. Instead, representatives of parliamentary parties are arbitrarily cut off, but candidates from "small" parties are registered without any problems. Among the opposition parliamentary parties, four candidates were refused registration (out of 23 nominated, 17% dropped). Although non-parliamentary parties have higher dropouts (six refusals out of 19 or 32%), candidates from Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice (five), Green REP (three nominated, two registered, one self-refused to participate in the elections), and the Party of Growth (one) were registered. In addition, the only self-nominated candidate is registered - the governor of the Tula Oblast Alexei Dyumin. In this region, only one representative of the "parliamentary" parties formally participates in the election of the governor - Vladimir Isakov from the Communist Party.

• As usual, United Russia supports acting or interim acting heads. Therefore, where the head runs from another party or being a self-nominated candidate, United Russia does not nominate any candidates, which indicates its complete non-independence.

• The success of parties passing the signature filter in the elections of deputies of regional parliaments depends not so much on the parties themselves, but on election commissions, or, more precisely, on regional administrations. In some regions, they sought to minimize the number of parties participating in the elections, on the contrary, in others, the desire to divide opposition votes among different parties is visible. Most parties that collected signatures in a large number of regions have both cases of registration and cases of refusals (the high share of registration without the benefits of lists from the Party of Pensioners - 13 out of 17, "Communists of Russia" - 11 out of 17, "New People" - 21 out of 31). However, in terms of regions, the picture is different. In 30 regions, more than one list was put forward without benefits. Of these, no one list was registered in seven regions and all certified lists were registered in 11 regions. Moreover, there are only 12 regions out of 30 where lists were registered by signatures and were refused registration.

• The beneficiary parties have only one loss on 204 nominated lists (0.5% dropout) - the list of the Party of Growth in Moscow Oblast was refused certification. The dropout for parties without benefits was 48 lists (40%).

• Comparing with all elections in the period 2012-2020, the number of nominated lists per region (8.3) is the lowest since 2012 (the previous anti-record, 8.7, was in 2018). However, the number of registered lists per region (7.1) is more than in 2016, 2018, and 2019.

• The influence of the "signatures filter" on the competition can be seen more clearly in the example of single-mandate candidates in regional elections. The number of candidates from parties without benefits and self-nominees (775) at the nomination stage was less than the number of replaced majority mandates (802). After registration, the number of candidates from parties without benefits became about five times less than the number of mandates, and the number of self-nominated candidates - about ten times less. If the parties-beneficiaries dropped out only 2%, then the parties without benefits reached 73%, and the self-nominees - 75%. At the stage of nominating, there was no one candidate from parties without benefits in five regions, and no one self-nominated candidate in Tambov Oblast. After the registration, there was no one candidate from the parties without benefits in 14 regions, no one self-nominated candidate - in nine more. Thus, in Chuvashia Republic, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Lipetsk, Omsk, Sverdlovsk, and Tambov Oblasts no single candidate was registered by signature lists.

• The dropout among candidates from parties without benefits (73%) is quite high, but compared to previous elections is not the highest (the record, 88%, was recorded in 2015 and 2020; in 2016 it was 87%). However, the dropout among self-nominated candidates (75%) was again beaten by the anti-record (the previous, 67%, was in 2020).

• In the elections of deputies of regional parliaments both indicators (6.1 for nominated and 5.3 for registered lists) are the lowest since 2012. The previous anti-record for the number of lists put forward was 7.4, for those registered - 5.7 (both in 2016). Only 13 parties tried to take part in these elections, and one of them was completely unsuccessful.

1. Nomination and registration of candidates for the election of regions' heads

Fifty-one candidates were nominated for the direct elections of nine regional heads. Two of them then refused to run for elections. Ten candidates were refused registration. Thirty-nine candidates were registered in total.

Thus, the average formal competition is 4.3 candidates for the mandate now. Dropout at the registration stage is 24%.

On the ground of the 9-year experience of holding gubernatorial elections after their restoration, we know that the municipal filter system allows the regional authorities to control fully the process of registering candidates, determining both the number and quality of registered candidates. There has been being a tradition for many years that about 4-5 candidates are usually registered in this kind of election. The current elections are no exception. Five candidates were registered in four regions, four more in for regions, and three in only one (see table 1).

Table 1. Results of nomination and registration of candidates for the election of regions' heads

Legend: V - the candidate is registered, 0 - the candidate was refused registration or lost the status of the nominated candidate, - — the candidate was not nominated.

Note: in Khabarovsk Krai the candidate of the Green REP was nominated, but then lost the status of the nominated candidate; in Penza Oblast Anna Ochkina was first nominated from Just Russia - For Truth party, who lost the status of the nominated candidate and Alexey Shpagin became the party's candidate instead of her.

The party candidates' composition is also quite traditional. As usual, United Russia supports acting or interim acting heads, which indicates its complete non-independence. Therefore, where the head runs from another party or being a self-nominated candidate, United Russia does not nominate any candidates. In this campaign, United Russia did not nominate candidates in Khabarovsk Krai (Liberal Democratic Party nominated interim acting head Mikhail Degtyarev), Ulyanovsk Oblast (Communist Party nominated interim acting head Alexei Russkiy), and in Tula Oblast (as five years ago, head Alexei Dyumin is self-nominated). As a result, candidates from United Russia are formally nominated in only six of the nine regions (everywhere registered).

Communist Party nominated candidates in all nine regions, but in Khabarovsk Krai, its candidate Pyotr Perevezentsev was refused registration, because he could not collect the signatures of municipal deputies and heads in the required number of cities and districts (although the total number of signatures was sufficient). Note that much less significant parties - Party of Pensioners and Rodina - were able to overcome the "municipal filter" in the region. Only the representative of Just Russia - For Truth and the acting governor from Liberal Democratic Party will take part in the elections besides them. The son of Sergei Furgal Anton did not run for governor.

LDPR nominated candidates in seven regions (except Chechnya and Tula Oblast), but in the Republic of Tuva its candidate Viktor Popov could not overcome the "municipal filter." However, representatives of the Greens, the Party of Growth, and Communists of Russia turned out to be quite "popular" among municipal deputies and heads in this region.

"Just Russia - For Truth" nominated candidates in seven regions, but in one of them candidate Anna Ochkina immediately refused to participate in the elections, and Alexey Shpagin was nominated instead. This was because the Ministry of Justice has recognized as a "foreign agent" one of the legal entities with which Anna Ochkina once collaborated. The candidate claims that she has not been cooperating with this organization for a long time, and the Ministry of Justice simply did not have the necessary documentation. July 14 Anna Ochkina said that she was withdrawing her candidacy because she did not desire to indicate a non-existent affiliate with a "foreign agent": "Unfortunately, today, many of my colleagues from the science society fell under the ominous status of a" foreign agent, "which, as we were explained, was introduced to fight destructive political forces. Many of us somehow collaborated with international institutions and NGOs receiving foreign grants. Most often, this is a forced measure - science in Russia is financed, to put it mildly, sparingly, and without international grants, many good studies could not have taken place: from sociology and ecology to bioengineering. But everyone is well aware that this has no means about ties with foreign scientific organizations: looking at how the lists of candidates for elections at all levels are being cleaned up now, you come to the conclusion that they are trying to push anyone who does not even have radical or opposition, but simply independent views from participating in politics". As a result, the party nominated entrepreneur Alexei Shpagin as a candidate for governor.

In two more regions, candidates of "Just Russia - For Truth" were refused registration. In Ulyanovsk Oblast candidate Margarita Barzhanova could not collect signatures in a sufficient number of municipalities (only 14 of the required 18) (see annex, card No. 1). In Mordovia Valery Bykov also could not overcome the "municipal filter". However, a representative of the Party of Pensioners was registered without problems in Mordovia, and in Ulyanovsk Oblast, candidates from Greens and New People parties overcame the "municipal filter".

Thus, the tradition of refusing to register opposition parliamentary parties’ representatives continues - this time four candidates were refused (out of 23 nominated, 17% dropped out).

Non-parliamentary parties have a higher dropout rate: six out of 19 failures (32%). Without refusals, candidates from Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice (five), Green REP (three nominated, two registered, one self-refused to participate in the elections) and the Party of Growth (one) passed.

"Communists of Russia" nominated four candidates, three registered. Rodina and New People have one of the two candidates registered.

Candidates from Yabloko, Cossack Party, and Green Alternative are not registered (each nominated one candidate).

The only self-nominated candidate is registered - the governor of Tula Oblast Alexei Dyumin. This region generally stands out against the background of the rest. Here, only one representative of the "parliamentary" parties formally participates in the elections - Vladimir Isakov from Communist Party, and United Russia, Liberal Democratic Party, and Just Russia did not nominate their candidates. But candidates from the Party of Pensioners and Communists of Russia overcame the "municipal filter".

An analysis of the registration of candidates for the election of heads of regions shows that the "municipal filter", as before, does not fulfill those publicly stated tasks to cut off "outsiders" from participating in the elections that were set for it. Instead, representatives of parliamentary parties are arbitrarily cut off, but candidates from "small" parties are registered without any problems.

2. Nomination and registration of party lists in elections of regional parliaments

Data on the nomination and registration of party lists in the elections of regional parliaments are presented in table 2. It shows that 324 lists were put forward (8.3 per region), and 275 (7.1 per region) were registered. Thus, the dropout was 49 lists (15.1%). It is best to compare this data with the 2016 elections when there was the same set of regions. Then noticeably more lists were put forward (370), but about the same number was registered (274), that is, the dropout was higher. We believe that the dropout decrease is due to the previously past liquidation of weak parties and the overall reduction in the number of parties.

Table 2. Results of Nomination and Registration of Party Lists in Elections of Regional Parliaments (by regions)

Comparing with all elections in the period 2012-2020, the number of nominated lists per region (8.3) is the lowest since 2012 (the previous anti-record, 8.7, was in 2018). However, the number of registered lists per region (7.1) is more than in 2016, 2018, and 2019.

As usual, we are primarily interested in the differences between parties with a registration benefit and parties obliged to collect voter signatures for registering their lists. Their list is different in each region; we gave it in one of the previous reports. From Table 2 we see that the beneficiary parties have only one loss on 204 nominated lists (0.5% dropout) - the list of the Party of Growth in Moscow Oblast was refused certification. The dropout for parties without benefits was 48 lists (40%). Five of those 48 cases had been denied certification of the list and 43 had been refused registration (see table 3).

Table 3. Results of Nomination and Registration of Party Lists in Elections of Regional Parliaments (by parties)

Of interest is the activity of those seven parties that have benefits in certain regions (Party of Pensioners, Yabloko, Communists of Russia, Rodina, the Party of Growth, Green REP, and New People). All of them put forward lists not only where they have a benefit, but also in those regions where they needed to collect signatures. Yabloko has more regions with benefits, and the other six parties, on the contrary, have put forward more lists in regions where there are no benefits.

In this context, the high share of registration of lists from three parties without the benefit is noteworthy: Party of Pensioners (13 out of 17), Communists of Russia (11 out of 17), and New People (21 out of 31). Moreover, the latter is a new party, which in most regions does not have branches with already well-established work (and Communists of Russia never had them). At the same time, scandals periodically arise in different regions with the accusation that authorities, budgetary institutions, or commercial organizations help in collecting signatures for the nomination of "small" parties or their single-mandate candidates. For example, in Altai Krai employees of several districts' rural administrations, as well as the heads of the district divisions of the Ministry of Emergencies and the Rubtsovsky branch of Altayvagon JSC, were accused of this". According to Communist Party, signatures were collected for their spoilers - Communists of Russia (see annex, card No. 2). Similar accusations against parties or individual candidates came from other regions (see, for example, annex, cards No. 3, 4). At the same time, there is a lot of evidence of how easy commissions continue to reject party lists and candidates who do not have benefits (see annex, cards No. 5, 6).

Comparison of data in Tables 2 and 3 shows that, as in previous campaigns, regional specificity plays a greater role than party one. If we look at Table 3, we will see that most parties that have collected signatures in a large number of regions have cases of registration and cases of refusals. This applies to a variety of parties - Party of Pensioners, Yabloko, Communists of Russia, Rodina, New People, and Green Alternative. Among the parties that collected signatures in more than four regions, only one exception is the Party of Growth. Among the parties that collected signatures in four regions, there are three more exceptions: Green REP and Russian Party of Freedom and Justice registered lists in all regions, and Social Protection Party was refused everywhere. "Russian National Union" in one region was refused certification of the list and in three - refusal to register.

In terms of regions, the picture is different (see table 2). In 30 regions, more than one list without benefits was put forward. Of these, no one list was registered in seven regions and all certified lists were registered in 11 regions. Moreover, in only 12 regions out of 30, there were lists registered by signatures and lists that were refused registration (while in Karelia six lists out of seven were registered, in Samara Oblast - seven lists out of eight).

Thus, we see that the success of parties passing the signature filter in the elections of deputies of regional parliaments depends not so much on the parties themselves, but on election commissions, or, more precisely, on regional administrations. In some regions, they sought to minimize the number of parties participating in the elections; on the contrary, in others the desire to divide opposition votes among different parties is visible. As can be seen from Table 2, only three lists were put forward and registered in Chechen Republic, four lists were registered in four regions (Adygea, Ingushetia, Mordovia, and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug). On the other hand, 11 lists are registered in the Republic of Karelia and Samara Oblast, 10 lists in Chuvash Republic, Perm Krai, and Moscow Oblast.

Note also that the parties mainly tried to put forward lists wherever they have a benefit. However, there are exceptions. So, LDPR and Russian National Union did not put forward lists in Chechnya, the Communists of Russia in Adygea, Rodina and Green REP in Dagestan, the Party of Growth and Party for Justice! - in Ingushetia, Small Business Party of Russia - in Novgorod Oblast.

3. Nomination and registration of party lists in the elections of regional center’s city councils

In the elections of city parliament’s deputies, party lists are used in nine cities. Fifty-five lists were put forward (6.1 per city), 48 were registered (5.3 per city), seven lists were refused registration (drop-out 13%). Thirty-eight lists had a benefit, and all of them are registered. Of the 17 lists that had to collect signatures, 10 were registered (the dropout rate in this category was 41%).

Both indicators (6.1 for nominated and 5.3 for registered lists) are the lowest since 2012. For the number of lists put forward, the previous anti-record was 7.4, for those registered - 5.7 (both in 2016).

Data on the results of registration for individual cities are presented in Table 4. As can be seen from the table, the situation in two cities Petrozavodsk and Perm is significantly different from the rest. Here were registered 10 lists (in Perm no one was denied, in Petrozavodsk the list of "New People" was refused). In the remaining seven cities, none of the lists that required the collection of signatures were registered. Five lists are registered in Ufa (parliamentary parties plus Party of Pensioners), in Nalchik, Saransk, Stavropol, Kemerovo, and Khanty-Mansiysk - only lists of four parliamentary parties, and in Grozny - only three lists (United Russia, Communist Party, and Just Russia).

Table 4. Results of Nomination and Registration of Party Lists in Elections of regional center’s city councils 

Turn to parties' situation, United Russia, Communist Party, and Just Russia have lists registered in all nine cities, LDPR has eight (except Grozny). Party of Pensioners' lists have been registered in three cities (in one - with benefit, in two - by signatures, it has no refusals), in two cities "Yabloko" (in both - with benefit, one refusal by signatures), "Rodina" (in both - by signatures, one refusal) and "Green alternative" (by signatures, no refusals). Also, with collecting signatures one list of the Party of Growth, "Communists of Russia," Russian Party of Freedom and Justice (these three parties did not have refusals), "New People" (in four cities was refused) are registered. The only nominated list of Russian People's Union was refused.

Thus, only 13 parties tried to take part in these elections, and one of them was completely unsuccessful.

4. Nomination and registration of candidates in majoritarian constituencies in elections of regional parliaments

Data on nomination and registration of candidates for majority districts are presented in Table 5. We see the same trends as in previous years. Mainly nominees of preferential parties attend the elections. There are few representatives of parties do not have benefits and self-nominees already at the nomination stage, and after registration, there are a negligible number of them.

Table 5. Results of nomination and registration of candidates in majority constituencies in elections of regional parliaments

From the final data, it is clear that the number of candidates from parties without benefits and self-nominees (775) at the nomination stage was less than the number of replaced majority mandates (802). After registration, the number of candidates from parties without benefits became about five times less than the number of mandates, and the number of self-nominated candidates - about ten times less. If the parties-beneficiaries dropped out only 2%, then the parties without benefits reached 73%, and the self-nominees - 75%.

At the stage of nominating there was no one candidate from parties without benefits in five Mordovia, Oryol, and Tyumen Oblasts, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, no one self-nominated candidate in Tambov Oblast. After the registration, there was no one candidate from the parties without benefits in Adygea, Chuvashia, Perm Krai, Amur, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Lipetsk, Murmansk, Omsk, Orenburg, Sverdlovsk, Tambov, and Tomsk Oblasts, no one self-nominated candidate - in Chuvashia, Altai Krai, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Lipetsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Pskov, and Sverdlovsk Oblasts. Thus, in Chuvashia, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Lipetsk, Omsk, Sverdlovsk, and Tambov Oblasts there are none of the candidates registered by signature.

A certain contrast was the situation in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, where candidates from parties that did not have benefits in the regional elections were registered - "Communists of Russia" (24 out of 25), Party of Pensioners (24 out of 25) and "New People" (4 out of 9), and 52 candidates in total. Sixteen candidates from such parties are registered in Krasnoyarsk Krai and St. Petersburg. In total, twice as many candidates from parties without benefits were registered in these three regions as in the remaining 33 (84 versus 40).

The drop out among candidates from parties that do not have benefits (73%) is quite high, but compared to previous elections is not the highest (the record, 88%, was recorded in 2015 and 2020; in 2016 it was 87%). But the dropout among self-nominated candidates (75%) again broke the record (the previous, 67%, was last year).

The average level of formal competition (5.0 candidates per mandate) is already lower than in 2016 (then on Election Day was 5.2), but higher than in 2017-2020 years. The highest (7.6) this indicator turned out to be in Krasnoyarsk Krai and Moscow Oblast, and the lowest (1.8) - in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug.

5. Nomination and registration of candidates in majority districts in elections of regional center’s city councils

The picture for majoritarian constituencies in elections in regional centers is almost the same as in elections in regions (see Table 6); only regional centers with majoritarian constituencies are four times less than regions (nine against 36). The dropout of candidates collecting signatures is slightly lower here (70% for candidates from parties without benefits and 50% for self-nominees), which may be due to the fact that it is easier to collect the right number of signatures in municipal elections (electoral districts are usually less, and only 0,5% instead of 3% signatures need).

Table 6. Results of nomination and registration of candidates in majority districts in elections of regional center’s city councils

No one candidate from parties without benefits was initially in Saransk and Kaliningrad. After registration, there were no self-nominated candidates in Kemerovo. However, in Perm, Stavropol, and Saratov, there are relatively many self-nominated candidates - on average, about one per mandate.

The average level of formal competition (4.6) is one of the lowest in 2012-2020; it was lower only in 2015 at the time of voting (4.5). The highest level is in Perm (5.5), the lowest (3.3) - in Kemerovo.

6. Participation of political parties in regional and municipal elections

Thirty-two political parties had the right to participate in the 2021 elections. In reality, 25 parties tried to take part in the most significant elections (the State Duma, regional heads, regional parliaments, and city councils of regional centers) (see Table 7, where the parties are sorted in descending order of the number of lists nominated). However, six parties (Russian National Union, Social Protection Party, Renaissance Party of Russia, Party of Good Deeds, Power to the People, and Cossack Party) did not have any list, and no candidate registered. Thus, only 19 parties take part in the most significant elections.

Table 7. Results of nomination and registration of party lists and party candidates in the most significant elections

As usual, parties are divided into several groups by their activity. The first group includes four parliamentary parties, each of which put forward 46-48 lists and more than 900 candidates in the districts. The second group is parties that have nominated from 19 to 37 lists and from 174 to 329 candidates. This group includes five parties - New People, Party of Pensioners, Communists of Russia, Rodina, and Yabloko.

The third group consists of the Party of Growth, Green Alternative, and Green REP. They put forward six to 11 lists and 16 to 67 candidates.

Thirteen parties have nominated no more than 5 lists and no more than 13 candidates, and it makes sense to divide them into two groups on the success of registration procedures. We belong to the fourth group parties that managed to register at least one list or one candidate. There are seven of them - Russian Freedom and Justice Party, Civic Platform (these two parties, as well as 12 parties assigned to the first, second, and third groups, take part in the State Duma elections), Party of Direct Democracy (only one list is registered), Democratic Party of Russia, Civil Initiative, Party of Good Deeds and Party for Justice! (last three registered only one candidate).

The six parties of the fifth group that failed to pass no candidate and no list through the registration filters are listed above. The sixth group includes seven parties that did not even try to participate in the elections. These are PARNAS, the Progress Party (formerly Civic Position), and Civic Force, Alternative for Russia, Small Business Party of Russia, Social Reform Party, and International Party of Russia (the latter two have already been practically eliminated).

7. Administrative mechanisms of competition distortion and violation of the equal rights principle of candidates 

As noted above, this year, at all levels of elections, there remains a problem with the registration of candidates and party lists based on the signatures of voters collected by them. This mechanism remains as manipulative and out of control to citizens as possible due to the absolute trust of election commissions to law enforcement officials and the migration service, which check the signatures of voters without a proven methodology and any justification for their recognition of signatures as unreliable. Commissions accept all certificates from these bodies uncritically, even in cases where they are challenged by candidates and parties, despite the fact that as the main task of the electoral commission system, the legislator charged them with the obligation to protect the electoral rights of citizens (see annex, cards No. 7-13).

Resistance from law enforcement agencies accompanied the process of collecting signatures at times; they detained signature collectors under various pretexts. Most often, such messages this year came from St. Petersburg (see, for example, annex, cards No. 14-16). Also in St. Petersburg, a criminal case was opened against the current deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the city Maxim Reznik, who was placed under house arrest. The investigator refused to admit a notary to Reznik to perform the procedural actions necessary for nominating Reznik as a candidate for deputy. An appeal against the court decision on a preventive measure was scheduled for August 4 - the day after the last deadline for submitting documents for nomination (see annex, card No. 17).

St. Petersburg has been remaining one of the main producers of election scandals for many years. It seems that the CEC of Russia was not able to regain control of the election commissions system of one of the largest regions of the country in terms of the number of voters.

Moreover, the election commissions of St. Petersburg often simply prevented citizens from exercising their passive electoral right, unreasonably presenting purely formal cavils and refusing to register (see annex, cards No. 18-20). In some cases, such refusals were successfully challenged in court. Sometimes the situation looked quite absurd. For example, on August 3 TEC No. 7 of St. Petersburg simply refused to accept the signatures of the candidate for deputy of the city Legislative Assembly Savva Fedoseev. The signatures were eventually adopted only after the media covered the situation and voters pressed - this happened after midnight on August 4 (after the deadline for submitting such documents). However, in the end, the candidate was still refused registration (see annex, card No. 21).

Cases of refusal to register candidates and party lists on purely formal grounds, which were then successfully challenged in court or higher commissions, are not uncommon and are known in different regions. So, the election commission excluded candidates Anton Gordyuk and Nikolai Prokudin from the list of Yabloko in the elections of the regional parliament of Leningrad Oblast due to the absence of "a document confirming membership in a political party signed by an authorized person of a political party, or an authorized person of the corresponding structural unit of a political party". The candidates insisted the documents were submitted to the commission, they had a corresponding note. On August 2, the CEC of Russia canceled the decision of the regional election commission, but three days later the regional election commission again withdrew these candidates from the elections (see annex, cards No. 22, 23).

In Kirov Oblast, the candidate of "Just Russia - For Truth" Mikhail Kovyazin was removed from the elections due to shortcomings in the documents. He was able to recover with the help of a higher commission because he did not receive a notice of these shortcomings on time (see annex, card No. 24).

We also note attempts to violate the principles of free elections by administrative bodies and heads of enterprises that put pressure on candidates, forcing them to refuse to participate in the elections. Various methods are used - from verbal threats (see annex, cards No. 25-28) to criminal proceedings (see annex, card No. 29) and attempt to enlist in the army (see annex, card No. 30).

All these are traditional problems for Russian elections and technologies to limit artificially political competition. The main novelty of the current election campaign was amendments to the legislation related to the recognition of citizens as involved in the activities of banned (recognized as extremist or terrorist) organizations. The law requires a court decision with the reference of their names to recognize persons involved in the activities of such organizations. Although this rule is extremely broads worded and allows for the restriction in the passive electoral right of citizens who were not able to defend themselves in court, it has been further expanded in practice.

Practically, to deprive the citizens of voting rights the election commissions is enough to have simple information from the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Internal Affairs instead of court’s decision. This was brightly demonstrated in the election of deputies of the Berdsk city council in Novosibirsk Oblast, where several candidates were deprived of the passive electoral right without a court decision (see annex, cards No. 31-42). The information from the Ministry of Justice became the reasons for the refusals. It even does not have references to the court's decision which indicated evidence of involvement in the activities of prohibited organizations, but a variety of other reasons: previous participation in elections from the registered party "PARNAS"; participation in protest actions and anti-corruption investigations; reposts of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) videos*; advice and legal assistance to persons detained for participating in protests; broadcasting from protest actions; assistance in collecting signatures to support the nomination of candidates for elections; calls to release Alexei Navalny; Alexei Navalny's calls to support other candidates in other elections (Novosibirsk 2020 Coalition).

There are similar refusals to register in other regions. So, in Tomsk Oblast candidate of Communist Party Maxim Zabelin was withdrawn from elections because of participation in activities of the organizations of Alexei Navalny (see the annex, card No. 43), in the Pskov Oblast there was the case of withdrawal from elections of one of the chief liberal critics of Navalny Lev Schlossberg from Yabloko, in Perm Krai the independent candidate Sergey Ukhov was withdrawn (see the annex, card No. 44). A number of candidates were withdrawn from the election in connection with the mention of their names in the court decision (see, for example, annex, cards No. 45-47).

As a result, the law enforcement practice in regional and local elections shows that now, in fact, any citizen can be deprived of the right to be elected completely arbitrarily - without a court decision, but only by reference from executive authorities or law enforcement agencies. And the system of election commissions in such cases will consider such instructions mandatory.

Annex

______________________________________________________________

* Recognized as extremist organizations by the Russian authorities and their activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation.

_______________________________________________________________

Authors of the analytical report:

• Arkady Lyubarev, member of the Council of the Golos movement,

• Stanislav Andreychuk, co-chair of the Golos movement.

Golos movement No. 1 in the register of unregistered public associations acting as a foreign agent