Civil network OPORA’s statement on preliminary results of observation of first local elections in the united territorial communities held on December 11, 2016

The first local elections in the united territorial communities, scheduled for December 11, 2016, were held in compliance with Ukrainian laws and international standards for elections, while the election campaigns of candidates for the most part adhered to the principle of competitiveness. According to observers, there were no pre-planned or systematic violations recorded in the majority of territorial communities, although the election process in some of these communities didn’t fully comply with legal requirements and relevant standards. All the violations, which were committed in the first local elections held on December 11, 2016, were duly documented by Civil Network OPORA, and our organization will ensure adequate control on relevant investigations carried out by law enforcement agencies. The experience of first local elections once again actualizes the urgent need for comprehensive electoral reform in Ukraine, given the fact that shortcomings of legislation and its application has been a typical problem in the course of many election campaigns.

On December 11, 2016, first local elections were held in 41 united territorial communities of Vinnytsia, Volyn, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Rivne, Ternopil, Kharkiv, Kherson, Chernivtsi and Chernihiv oblasts. 3 of these united territorial communities are city communities, 13 are township communities, and 25 are village communities.

Election monitoring was conducted by 72 OPORA’s long-term observers and mobile monitoring teams in each of those territorial communities where local elections took place on December 11.

Civil Network OPORA’s conclusions are based on the results of long-term and short-term observation, as well as criteria and principles for democratic elections set forth in the documents of the Venice Commission, the Copenhagen conference and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

CIVIL NETWORK OPORA’S CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROCESS

• Despite the absence of facts of centrally orchestrated use of administrative resources in favor of certain local organizations of political parties and candidates, officials of local self-governing authorities made quite extensive use of formal events and local development programs in an attempt to attract the attention of voters to their nomination for first local elections in the united territorial communities. Such kind of applied practice in certain territorial communities creates conditions for violation of the principle of equal opportunity for all candidates, which signals the need for continuation of expert and parliamentary dialogue on strengthening the legal framework to prevent the abuse of administrative resources in the election process.
• Formation of electoral districts for holding first local elections in the united territorial communities once again highlighted the shortcomings of current legislation on local elections in terms of regulation of this phase of electoral process. Practical implementation of existing procedures for formation of electoral districts was accompanied by conflicts between subjects of electoral process, while the number of registered voters varied significantly from one electoral district to another.
• In several territorial communities the process of registration of candidates was accompanied by electoral disputes and judicial appeals, which resulted in limited campaigning period for some of the candidates. In their turn, some TECs delayed the process of execution of court decisions relating to registration of candidates, thus creating hindrances to their campaigning activities.
• According to Civil Network OPORA’s observers, election campaigns of some candidates were accompanied by provision of goods and services to voters, as well as other forms of financial motivation of citizens. The practice of offering material incentives to the voters has become an acute problem in 2015 local elections and still remains a burning issue, as evidenced by the practice of holding elections in the united territorial communities.
• In the first local elections held on December 11, 2016, there were quite large-scale breaches of procedures on the part of election commissions of different levels, while in some cases members of election commissions resorted to gross violations of electoral law. These problems were related to formation of electoral districts and precinct election commissions, as well as other aspects of the electoral process. Furthermore, OPORA’s observers emphasized the urgent need for raising the level of competence of members of election commissions, especially under conditions of lack of interest among local organizations of political parties in delegating their representatives to the commissions during local elections.
• Similar to 2015 regular local elections, the process of nomination of candidates by local organizations of political parties wasn’t always accessible to observers due to the fact that some of the party conferences and meetings were held in contravention of the law.
• Candidates for first local elections in the united territorial communities often violated the procedure for pre-election campaigning. There were recorded cases of violation of the transparency and accountability of campaign finance. However, given the scantiness of financial resources in local elections, especially in rural areas, these violations had limited impact on observance of the principle of equal opportunity for all candidates. At the same time, the issue of strengthening control over campaign finance and ensuring efficiency of sanctions for violations in this area of campaigning activity remains relevant to this day.

ASSESSMENT OF VOTING PROCESS AND VOTE TABULATION

Civil Network OPORA’s official observers monitored the progress of voting process and vote tabulation at the polling stations. Observation results revealed a number of significant violations of electoral law, which were committed in the course of voting process and vote tabulation at the polling stations and require an effective response from the law enforcement agencies. At the same time, the revealed violations usually resulted from unsatisfactory level of competence of members of election commissions, shortcomings in the logistics and organization of electoral process, low awareness of legal restrictions and procedures among voters and other electoral subjects. Cases of non-compliance with legal requirements, which were recorded in the course of voting process and vote tabulation, weren’t systematic and for the most part weren’t intended to influence the results of election by illegal means.

In the course of Election Day at the first local elections in the united territorial communities OPORA’s observers actively cooperated with law enforcement agencies by way of sending formal notifications about potential administrative or criminal offenses on the part of electoral subjects. Detected violations were duly documented by OPORA’s observers in a way that provides opportunities for further examination of circumstances of these offences and adoption of decisions in accordance with the law. In particular, representatives of Civil Network OPORA drew up 12 reports of alleged violations of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Elections” directly at the polling stations and filed corresponding complaints with the election commissions as well as police reports.

Breaches of procedure for issuance of ballot papers by members of election commissions, violation of the law in terms of providing adequate voting premises and equipping them with appropriate number of ballot boxes and secret voting booths, posting or distribution of campaign materials on the Election Day, and presence of unauthorized persons at the polling stations were the most common problems in the context of ensuring lawfulness and proper organization of voting process. In isolated cases, members of election commissions violated the rights of official observers by depriving them of free access to voting premises or the preparatory meetings of precinct election commissions.

Civil Network OPORA’s observers emphasized the need to step up awareness-raising campaigns and offensive activities aimed at preventing issuance of ballot papers to voters without presenting a valid passport or other document stipulated by law. In the course of Election Day on December 11, 2016, observers detected several attempts on the part of PEC members to issue ballot papers to voters who didn’t present an ID document that confirms their citizenship and place of residence in local elections. PEC members usually stopped the illegal issuance of ballot papers after objections from observers. However, in some cases members of election commissions ignored observers’ legitimate demands to stop violating the law on local elections. For example, chairperson and member of PEC at the polling station number #480198 located in Olexandrivka township united territorial community (Voznesensk rayon of Mykolayiv oblast) continued to issue ballot papers to those voters who didn’t present valid ID documents stipulated by law. OPORA’s official observers drew up reports of alleged violations and addressed to the police in order to stop the illegal issuance of voting bulletins.

The need to strengthen training of members of election commissions is evidenced by a documented decision on issuance of ballot papers to voters without presentation of passport of citizen of Ukraine, which was adopted by PEC at the polling station #050346 located in Dashiv township community (Vinnytsia oblast). It should be noted that attempts to issue or obtain a ballot paper without presentation of ID documents are closely related to illegal attempts of citizens to vote on behalf of their relatives, which constitutes a criminal offence. For example, at the polling station #74458 located in Losynivka territorial community (Chernihiv oblast) observers prevented illegal voting by citizen who received a ballot paper from PEC on behalf of other voter who happens to be his relative.

In some cases, shortcomings in administration of election process resulted in violations of electoral rights of candidates and voters. In particular, as it turned out during voting process, the name of one of the officially registered candidates wasn’t included in the text of ballot papers, which were printed for election of deputies of Losynivka township council (Chernihiv oblast). Furthermore, the ballot papers for election of deputies in electoral district #4, which is located in the united territorial community of Rohan township (Kharkiv oblast), weren’t delivered to one of the two polling stations located in this electoral district.

On the Election Day of December 11, 2016, OPORA’s observers were barred from conducting lawful observation of preparatory meetings of some of the PECs (PEC #610061 located in Borschiv city united territorial community, Borschiv rayon, Ternopil oblast; PEC #650555 located in Khrestivka village united territorial community, Chaplynka rayon, Kherson oblast). Civil Network OPORA addressed the law enforcement agencies with an appeal for holding responsible those PEC members who hindered activities of official observers. According to article 157 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, such acts of PEC members constitute a criminal offence.

Civil Network OPORA addressed to the law enforcement agencies in relation to one of the candidate’s observers who had a voters’ lists not provided for by the laws, in which he put marks against the names of those voters who took part in the election and checked with the PEC about the names of corresponding voters (polling station #070174 located in Lytovezh village united territorial community, Volyn oblast). The police task force arrived on the incident scene and canvassed the observer, who kept record of voter turnout at the polling station, and also questioned all the witnesses.

There were quite large-scale problems with logistical support for voting premises and polling stations, as well as non-compliance with the Law of Ukraine “On Local Elections” in terms of the number of ballot boxes and secret voting booths at the polling stations. In some cases, precinct election commissions organized voting process in the premises that were in poor condition (PEC #120183 located in Odarivka village, Krynychky rayon, Dnipropetrovsk oblast). Some polling stations experienced power cuts or the power supply was unstable in the course of voting process and vote tabulation. In particular, members of PEC #120187 (Bozhedarivka township, Dnipropetrovsk oblast) were forced to count votes with the help of flashlights due to power cuts in the township. In the course of the Election Day problems with power supply were also recorded at the polling station #230566 located in Urozhayne village (Tokmak rayon, Zaporizhzhya oblast).

In Kherson oblast observers recorded improper practice of involving civic groups in law enforcement activities at the polling stations (PEC #650323 and PEC #650326 located in Kalanchak township), which is not stipulated by law.

There were also isolated cases of non-compliance with the legal prohibition on campaigning during pre-election silence on the last day before Election Day (posting of campaign materials in mass media and public places, campaigning activities performed by candidates). Furthermore, observers recorded campaigning activities in support of one of the candidates for deputy of Chaplynka township council (Kherson oblast), which were performed during the working time by PEC member. At the same time, this type of violation wasn’t widespread according to observers.

At the time of publication of this statement OPORA’s observers haven’t recorded any significant violations during vote tabulation at the polling stations and transportation of election documents to TECs.

VOTER TURNOUT IN THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2016

Voter turnout in the first local elections held on December 11, 2016, varied significantly from one territorial community to another depending on campaign intensity, political competition at the local level and other factors. At the same time, Civil Network OPORA summarized the information on voter turnout with a breakdown by region to highlight the general trends. This information demonstrates that first local elections in the united territorial communities were of considerable interest to citizens, despite low intensity of candidates’ campaigns and the lack of national media attention to the progress of local campaigns (see Table 1). It should be also noted that voter turnout is influenced by involvement of national media in the coverage of election campaigns, which wasn’t the case with first local elections held in 2015.

For example, voter turnout in 2015 regular local elections was 46.5% according to parallel voter turnout tabulation conducted by Civil Network OPORA (Open access mode: https://www.oporaua.org/novyny/9864-zajava-shchodo-promizhnyh-rezultativ-sposterezhennja-za-chergovymy-miscevymy-vyboramy-2015-roku).

Summarized voter turnout figures in the first local elections held on December 11, 2016, with a breakdown by region of Ukraine

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine

• To ensure prompt investigation into violations committed in the first local elections held on December 11, 2016, while informing the media and the public about investigation findings.

To the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

• To ensure implementation of comprehensive electoral reform based on the principle of inclusiveness, including revision of current legislation on local elections (in particular, revision of procedure for formation of electoral districts).

To the Central Election Commission

• To ensure effective control over application of legislation by members of election commissions at the stage of vote tabulation.
• On the eve of Election Day in the first local elections scheduled for December 18, 2016, to provide election commissions with further clarification on inadmissibility of issuance of ballot papers to voters without presentation of valid ID documents, while ensuring that TECs and PECs are adequately informed in this regard.