CONTENTS

• CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING PREPARATION AND PROGRESS OF ELECTORAL PROCESS
• ASSESSMENT OF VOTING PROCESS AND VOTE TABULATION
• VOTER TURNOUT
• RECOMMENDATIONS

The first local elections in the united territorial communities, scheduled for December 18, 2016, were mostly held in compliance with legal requirements and in observance of the principle of competitiveness. The abusive practices, recorded by Civil Network OPORA observers, weren’t large-scale or pre-planned, but still these violations should be duly investigated for the purpose of observance of the principle of inevitability of punishment for crimes against electoral rights of citizens. The common problems recorded in the course of election campaign and on Election Day once again actualize the need for increasing the level of legal culture and awareness among voters and improving professional abilities of members of election commissions, as well as the need for strengthening preventive action and ensuring prompt police response to electoral violations. Implementation of these measures should be combined with a comprehensive reform of the electoral legislation.

At the same time, we urge candidates, local organizations of political parties and official observers representing electoral subjects and monitoring organizations to make a public statement and provide law enforcement agencies and election commissions with all available information about violations of legislation, which were committed in the first local elections on December 11 and December 18, 2016.  Improvement of electoral process and suppression of abusive acts should be based on systemic work and verification of evidence and facts, which is why it is necessary to refrain from politically motivated and unsubstantiated allegations concerning electoral process.

On December 18, 2016, first local elections were held in 144 united territorial communities in 22 oblasts of Ukraine. The voters elected 76 village mayors, 46 settlement mayors, 21 city mayors and deputies of relevant local councils, as well as one chief.

Election monitoring was conducted by 203 OPORA’s long-term observers and mobile monitoring teams in each of those territorial communities where local elections took place on December 18.

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).

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING PREPARATION AND PROGRESS OF ELECTORAL PROCESS

• Officials of local administrations and local self-governing authorities actively participated in the election campaign and made use of their official status, powers and access to budget resources for campaigning purposes, though they didn’t do it systematically. In particular, organization and/or participation of officials (who are also electoral subjects) in socially-oriented formal events remains a common practice.
• Failure to comply with transparency standards for campaign finance and expense reporting by candidates remains a key issue in the local elections in Ukraine. According to OPORA’s observers, the vast majority of candidates didn’t submit interim financial reports on the use of electoral funds to the territorial election commissions.
• Infringement of the rules of pre-election campaigning committed by candidates and local organizations of political parties was the most common violation in the first local elections prior to the Election Day, December 18. In particular, distribution of printed campaign materials without publisher’s information, posting of campaign materials in places prohibited by law and so on. Furthermore, a significant number of candidates and political parties didn’t submit samples of campaign materials to the territorial election commissions.
• More than 40% of electoral districts, which were formed by TECs for holding first local elections in the united territorial communities on December 11 and December 18, have a deviation of more than 15% from average number of voters per electoral district, thus exceeding the maximum permissible deviation set forth in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters adopted by the Venice Commission. Similar to 2015 regular local elections, the formation of electoral districts has become one of the most problematic issues for territorial election commissions. Some TECs missed the deadline for formation of electoral districts in the first local elections. The absence of legislative provision on the maximum permissible deviation from the average number of voters per electoral district and the need to respect administrative and territorial division in the process of formation of electoral districts led to conflict situations (including judicial appeals) between election commissions and electoral subjects.
• The process of nomination of candidates by local organizations of political parties was carried out, for the most part, in compliance with legislation, though there were several recorded cases of violation of procedure for organizing and holding party conferences on nomination of candidates in terms of advance notification to the TECs and journalists about the date, time and venue of the party conference.
• Registration of candidates was accompanied by a significant number of electoral disputes, while judicial practice and TEC decisions give evidence of serious shortcomings in the law on local elections, which should be eliminated by way of comprehensive electoral reform in Ukraine. Unequal application of the law, including as it relates to implementation of legal restrictions on nomination of candidates, provoked conflicts and prolonged judicial proceedings. In several cases, the latter circumstance led to violation of the principle of equal campaigning opportunity for all candidates.
• Local organizations of political parties, which have their parliamentary factions, dominate the territorial election commissions having taken advantage of representation quotas established by the legislation. Low level of professional qualifications of members of election commissions, who were delegated by political parties and candidates, was a key negative factor affecting the quality of administration of electoral process.
• Cases of vote buying weren’t widespread in the first local elections held on December 18, 2016, though in some territorial communities the law enforcement agencies should conduct prompt and impartial investigation into allegations of provision of material incentives to voters.
• Information transparency in the election commissions remains at very low level. A key problem is the delayed publication or denial of access to TEC decisions for observers, which makes it impossible to detect and prevent falsification of election documents.
• The first local elections were accompanied by public protest actions and conflict situations (including judicial disputes) between supporters and opponents of integration of territorial communities, which had a destabilizing effect on the electoral process although not being large-scale.
• The election commissions often performed their duties in unsuitable premises under conditions of poor financial and logistical support. These issues also manifested themselves in the course of voting process at the polling stations, which didn’t always conform to legislative requirements and minimum standards for comfort and convenience.

ASSESSMENT OF VOTING PROCESS AND VOTE TABULATION

Civil Network OPORA’s official observers monitored the activities of election commissions and recorded violations of legislation at all stages of electoral process on Election Day, including vote tabulation. Voter turnout was quite high on December 18, while the voting process was carried out, for the most part, in a conflict-free atmosphere. There were only minor violations with no signs of pre-planned, deliberate or purposeful electoral fraud.

The voting process in the first local elections was accompanied by the same typical abusive practices as during previous elections, namely violation of voting procedure, obstruction of observers’ activity, falsification of election documents and presence of unauthorized persons at the polling stations. On Election Day, OPORA’s observers recorded 136 incidents that constitute a violation of electoral law, drew up 22 reports containing documented facts of abusive practices and violations, and prepared 5 complaints. The largest number of violations was recorded in Zhytomyr, Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy and Zaporizhzhya oblasts.

Civil Network OPORA’s observers actively cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the course of election campaign and on Election Day by way of calling in the police on 23 occasions and officially providing the information on recorded violations. Law enforcement agencies have made reasonable efforts towards ensuring public order at the polling stations and election documentation integrity, but they weren’t efficient enough in terms of responding to violation of election legislation.

Precinct election commissions failed to ensure full compliance with the electoral procedures on Election Day. No data was put into vote counting protocols at the morning meetings of 16 precinct election commissions, which is evidence of low level of legal competence and professional qualification of members of the election commissions. According to section 4 of article 77 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Elections”, members of PECs should start filling out vote counting protocols at the morning meeting by filling in the number of ballot papers which were received. Shortcomings in activity of election commissions in terms of recordkeeping and execution of election documents manifested themselves in numerous errors made by commission members, while hasty correction of these errors resulted in falsification of election documents.

In several cases official observers were deprived of the opportunity to perform their duties to the full extent and ensure observance of the electoral procedures, including vote tabulation, due to deliberate obstruction of their activity. In 8 precinct election commissions OPORA’s observers were denied access or expelled from the polling stations. For example, in Lviv oblast (Pasiky-Zubrytski village located in Davydiv territorial community) OPORA’s observers weren’t allowed to attend the meeting of PEC #460961. An unknown person used physical force to prevent observers from returning to the premises of polling station which they temporarily left with the knowledge and acceptance of members of election commission for the purpose of drawing up a report of alleged violation.

At the same time, some election commissions allowed the presence of unauthorized persons at their meetings coupled with obstruction of observers’ activity, which is evidence of unequal application of the Law. Some election commissions (in Vinnytsia and Donetsk oblasts), which resorted to violent interpretation of the law, exceeded their powers and abridged the rights of observers by forcing them to stay inside voting premises at the stage of vote tabulation. Police inaction in response to observers’ appeals provokes further conflicts and allows transgressors to perform illegal acts with a sense of impunity.

Members of election commissions weren’t always able to ensure observance of the principle of equality of voters’ rights and secrecy of ballot. OPORA’s observers detected several attempts to issue ballot papers to voters without presentation of valid ID documents. Members of PECs usually stopped the illegal issuance of ballot papers after objections from observers. The problem resides in the fact that violation of procedure for issuance of ballot papers is a customary practice in sparsely populated territorial communities, and such a practice is not regarded as a violation by interested voters and members of the election commissions. For example, the election commission in Vilsk united territorial community (Chernyakhiv rayon, Zhytomyr oblast, polling station #181143) adopted a decision which legitimized unlawful manner of issuance of ballot papers and allowed voters to cast ballots without presentation of valid passports. The fact that voters usually are accepting of such misconduct on the part of members of election commissions indicates critically low level of legal culture and awareness among citizens who don’t realize the consequences of law violation.

The poor level of financial & logistical support and suitability of polling stations for voting remains an acute problem, which not only causes additional inconvenience to voters and members of election commissions, but also often makes it impossible to maintain law and order during voting process (in particular, in terms of ensuring secrecy of ballot).

VOTER TURNOUT

Despite the fact that during the election campaign voters didn’t show significant interest in the electoral process according to OPORA’s observers, while the election campaigns of candidates (political parties) weren’t particularly intensive in terms of agitation events and messages, voter turnout was still quite high in the first local elections held on December 18, 2016.  As of close of the polling stations, the average voter turnout rate was 47.29%, while record-setting voter turnout was witnessed in territorial community of Zakarpattya oblast (79.23%). The data on voter turnout in all territorial communities of Lviv oblast is still being updated and will be published later on.

Despite the lack of national media attention to the first local elections, voters’ interest in participating in the voting process could be due to their desire to influence the composition of newly-formed representative bodies of the united territorial communities, which are vested with broader powers and more extensive resources.

Summarized voter turnout figures in the first local elections held on December 18, 2016, with a breakdown by region of Ukraine

Indicated voter turnout figures do not include the summarized data on voter turnout in Barashivka village territorial community (Zhytomyr oblast), Mostyska city territorial community and Zhovtantsi village territorial community (Lviv oblast).

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Central Election Commission

• The CEC and election commissions of all levels should conduct awareness-raising campaign and tighten control over the process of financial reporting by electoral subjects.
• To ensure effective control over the application of legislation by members of election commissions at the stage of certification of election results.

To the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

• The principles of formation of electoral districts should be revised, amplified and legally regulated in accordance with the standards of the Venice Commission.

To candidates (political parties)

• To implement intraparty mechanism of regular training and development of competence of members of the election commissions using the expertise of the CEC and specialized institutions.

To the law enforcement agencies

• To ensure prompt investigation into violations committed in the first local elections, while informing the public about investigation findings in a timely manner.

To the local self-governing authorities

• To rectify the situation with regard to the poor state of voting premises and financial & logistical support of election commissions in advance.