To make the assessment and analysis, OPORA digitize tabulation protocols from elections to oblast, city and raion councils in multi-mandate election districts within territorial election districts (25 October 2015 regular local elections). OPORA is ready to present the results of the first stage of data processing and tell how well the protocols were filled in.
Thus, Civil Network OPORA has processed tabulation protocols from elections to: oblast councils – 1,308 (3,918 digitized pages); city councils – 808 (2,424) and to raion councils – 575 (1,725). Besides that, OPORA digitized the tabulation protocols from multi-mandate election districts in 25 October 2015 local elections. In particular, tabulation protocols to 15 oblast councils (over 150 pages), 15 city councils (over 150 pages) and to 17 raion councils (over 170 pages).
Thus, OPORA has noticed a number of errors in processed protocols.
1. Corrections in protocols (with a pencil, pen or correction pen)
Any corrections in protocols may arouse suspicion that commission members acted for the benefit of the certain candidates or parties to change the number of votes and, therefore, the number of mandates. Besides that, corrections in the protocols demonstrate the irresponsibility of commission members because they should have completed corrected protocols in case of any errors, according to the legislation.
Raion council election tabulation protocols:
- Volyn oblast: corrections in protocols from TEDs #25 and 32.
- Ternopil oblast: corrections and correction pen used in protocols from TEDs #24, 32 and 23.
- city of Starobilsk in Luhansk oblast: corrections in protocol from TED #17.
- city of Malyn in Zhytomyr oblast: corrections in protocol from TED #7 and pens of different colors used.
- city of Reshetivsk in Poltava oblast: corrections and correction pen used in protocols from TEDs #3, 5, 6, 8 and 26.
City council election tabulation protocols:
- Poltava oblast: corrections in “corrected” protocols in TEDs #3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
- Rivne oblast: subparagraph 1 of the final protocol contains typed “eight” and written “een” by hand (next to the number “187518”).
- city of Malyn in Zhytomyr oblast: corrections in protocol from TED #20 (paragraph 13: number “330” is crossed with a pencil and number “326” is written above); a protocol from TED #29 contains crossed paragraphs #4 and 9, and other numbers written with a pencil in paragraph #11.
OPORA emphasizes that any corrections in protocols are inadmissible. If there are any inaccuracies in a tabulation protocol noticed after it is signed, the election commission should compete a new protocol marked as “corrected” (Article 80(6) of the Law of Ukraine on Local Elections). Besides that, according to the Article 80(5) of the Law of Ukraine on Local Elections, precinct protocols must not be completed with a pencil or corrected if the precinct election commission doesn't take the corresponding decision.
2. “Incomplete” protocols (there are no mandatory components like written numbers, time, date of completion, seal)
The absence of any component or numbers puts the reliability of such protocols in question. Thus, the general election outcomes are also in question.
Besides that, taking into consideration that there are no mandatory components in some protocols, such documents doesn't have full validity.
Oblast council election tabulation protocols:
- Kharkiv oblast: there are no time and date of completion in TEDs #3, 4, 105 and 119.
- Vinnytsia oblast: there are no time and date of completion in TEDs #45 and 47.
- Odesa oblast: there is no number of votes given for the Nova Derzhava party in TED #33; no data (number of votes given for a party) in TEDs #12, 45 and 61; no time and date of completion in TEDs #41, 42, 54 and 78; no wet stamp in TED #52.
- Zhytomyr oblast: no wet stamp in TED #64.
- Dnipropetrovsk oblast: the number of votes given for councilors is only in written (without numbers in digits) in TED #55-56.
Raion council election tabulation protocols:
- city of Malyn in Zhytomyr oblast: no percentage of votes given for local organizations of political parties in 12 protocols.
- city of Starobilsk in Luhansk oblast: no percentage of votes given for local organizations of political parties in TED #33.
- Khmelnytsk oblast: no number of invalid ballots in TED #15.
- Chernivtsi oblast: no number of district in TED #17; no line for the date and time of completion in TED #18.
City council election tabulation protocols:
- Zaporizhia oblast: most of the documents lack the line with percentage of votes given for local organization of a party. no line #13 (percentage of votes given for local organization of a party) in TED #43.
- Khmelnytsk oblast: no time of completion of the protocol in TEDs #1 - 42.
- Chernihiv oblast: no seal, time and date of completion in 23 protocols (some contain only incomplete date “October 2015”).
- Odesa oblast: no time and date of completion in TEDs #1 - 31.
- Rivne oblast: no time and date of completion in TEDs #5 - 42.
- city of Malyn in Zhytomyr oblast: no signatures of PEC #181308 in TED #29; dashes instead of digits and written numbers in paragraphs 3 and 6 and no written numbers in paragraphs #1-7 in TED #9.
Thus, the problem of incomplete protocols is quite widespread. In particular, no time and date, signatures of commission members, lines, paragraphs and even seals of election commissions. The protocols without seals are not legally valid.
We would like to remind that according to the Article 83(18) of the Law on Local Elections, a tabulation protocol must contain date and time (hours and minutes) of its signing by election commission members. Each copy of the protocols shall be signed by a head, deputy head and other members of an election commission present at a meeting of the election commission. All members of the election commission present at the meeting must sign the tabulation protocol.
3. The same time of protocol completion (at some TEDs simultaneously)
OPORA believes that the fact that some protocols were completed at the same time may mean that they were rewritten, or the information provided by commission members is unreliable (we dobt that some protocol could have been verified and signed at the same time).
Oblast council election tabulation protocols:
- Sumy oblast: over 10 protocols completed by different TECs at the same time.
- Odesa oblast: there are no time and date of completion in TEDs #48-56 and 59. 29 October 2015 at 5:50 PM
City council election tabulation protocols:
- Khmelnytsk oblast: all the documents have the date 2 November 2015.
- city of Starobilsk in Luhansk oblast: date of completion in TEDs #1 – 10 is 27 October 2015 at 2:00 PM; in TEDs #11 – 26 is 29 October 2015 at 11:20 AM.
- Odesa oblast: the date of completion in TEDs #32-47 is 27 October 2015 at 9:30 AM.
Having analyzed the data, OPORA doubts that these protocols could have been completed at the same time, because the commissions work independently.
4. Rounded percentage
Oblast council election tabulation protocols:
- Chernivtsi oblast: percentage of votes in TEDs #53-64 is rounded to tenths (one digit after period).
- Zhytomyr oblast: percentage is rounded to hundreds (two digits after period).
City council election tabulation protocols:
- Zhytomyr oblast: percentage in all protocols is rounded to hundreds (two digits after period), in TED #25-26 is rounded to tenths (one digit after period).
- Poltava oblast: percentage in all protocols is rounded to hundreds (two digits after period).
- Uzhgorod oblast: percentage in the final tabulation protocol is counted to the thousandth (three digits after period).
- city of Starobilsk in Luhansk oblast: percentage in the final tabulation protocol is counted to hundreds (two digits after period).
We would like to remind that the results of parties and candidates in percentage indicated in tabulation protocols at territorial election districts within a multi-mandate electoral district in elections to oblast, raion, city, raion-in-city councils shall have decimal fractions rounded to the nearest ten thousandth (for example: 5.2957) On making amendments to Resolution of the Central Election Commission #356 of 21 September 2015 concerning Explanation on determination of results in election to the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and raion in city councils in multi-mandate election districts (Resolution #409 of 10/9/2015)).
5. Errors and discrepancies in protocols
There are two reasons why such errors may appear: the first - carelessness and incompetence of election commission members; the second - intentional forgery of protocols.
Oblast council election tabulation protocols:
- Dnipropetrovsk oblast: the date of completion in TEDs #51-54, 57-73 – 3 October 2015; in TEDs #74-99 – 15 October 2015 (while the elections were held on 25 October 2015).
- Zakarpattia oblast: the date of completion in TED #54 – 21 October 2015.
Raion council election tabulation protocols:
– Buryn in Sumy oblast: a sheet of paper is glued in a protocol from TED #16.
- Chernivtsi oblast: 4 percent for the Batkivshchyna political party differ in digits and written number, in TED #4.
- Chernivtsi oblast: a line where the number of voters for local organization of party Svoboda should be indicated, a word “Svoboda” is written, in TED #24.
- Chernivtsi oblast: an error in percentage calculations in TED #32; percentage in writing is incorrect in TED #31.
City council election tabulation protocols:
- Ternopil oblast: percentage in digits is different from those in writing in line 13 (number of votes given for local organization of a party, a candidate from the party in the corresponding TED, and percentage), TED #20.
- city of Malyn in Zhytomyr oblast: numbers of PEC and TED are interchanged in a corrected protocol and protocol of the PEC #181302 in TED #9 (written: PEC #9 in TED #181302).
6. Discrepancy Reports
The presence of discrepancy reports means that the ballots may have been taken out from the certain precincts. Thus, we may suggest that chain ballot, or carousel, forgery scheme was applied. There are many discrepancy reports in election to Kirovohrad oblast council, what means that such violation was systematic. Therefore, we may suggest that this scheme was applied for the benefit of the certain political party.
Twelve tabulation protocols for election to Kirovohrad oblast council are followed by reports of discrepancy between the number of ballot papers and the respective numbers indicated in the excerpt from the protocol of the following PECs:
Based on the first stage of analysis, Civil Network OPORA may conclude hat commission members, who worked in election to oblast, city and raion councils, were incompetent and lacked good training. Numerous mistakes mean that forgery schemes could have been applied by commission members for the benefit of the certain candidates or parties, aimed to change the number of votes and give the certain political parties additional mandates. Tabulation protocols contain many corrections and question the reliability of election outcomes.
For comment, please contact:
Andrii Tokarskyi,
Observation Coordinator in Rivne oblast, Civil Network OPORA
Tel.: +38063 617 96 93
Email: [email protected]