"Scholars"
L. Ermoshina, the chairman of the Central Commission on election, in Sunday 17.09.2000 on TV declared that 99 % of cases of the refusal in the registration of the candidates in the deputies are proved and are lawful. These words seem to be strange because the experts working in the Central commission who prepare the conclusions has not yet studied "refusal" materials. But L. Ermoshina has already given come to the conclusions on this question. I.e. the result under the Complaints of the not holding candidates in the deputies in Chamber of the Representatives is known for it(her) before consideration of a question by the experts and commission.
The qualification of the workers of the Central commission it the special theme.
Let's begin from the subscription sheets on petition to support the future candidates in the deputies. The basic part "of breaches" on which the signatures of the voters in subscription sheets are recognised in valid are the not stipulated corrections. I.e. all corrections should in the opinion of the members of elective commissions, be especially marked, otherwise, the signature is considered to be doubtful.
But in the Selective Code THERE IS NO SUCH reason to recognise the signature doubtful.
And if the commission recognise the signature to be doubtful because of the not stipulated correction it is the arbitrariness.
But in the Elective Code THERE IS NO SUCH reason to recognise the signature doubtful.
There is no also such concept - CORRECTION. What should we consider as a correction? Is the led round letter "O" a correction or not? And each member of the commission interpret the concept of CORRECTION in his own way.
Moreover, when the subscription sheets were accepted by a member of the commission, the acts of their reception were not made, and to determine whether these corrections are made by a man who collected the signatures or a member of the district commission is impossible. The commission does not have any document confirming that the subscription sheets were handed over with corrections. Hence, during the delivery of sheets there were no corrections.
The subscription sheets were not numbered, and now to determine whether these sheets are handed over or they are sheets from a dustbin is impossible.
The note: the initiative group of the future candidate, for example, has collected 2000 signatures to support him. It has assured these sheets in the bodies of the state authority. The legislation requires only 1000 signatures. They have handed over 1200 signatures, they have thrown other sheets out in a dustbin. Can now somebody define what signatures were checked - from the dustbin or those which were handed over in the commission?
The following question
The central commission has developed such form of the protocol to recognise the doubtful signatures from which it is impossible to understand why a signature is recognised doubtful who recognised it as doubtful and when. In the protocol only the number of the doubtful signatures is underlined. I.e. the members of the commission have looked at the ceiling and have determined that 70 signatures are doubtful. And as you could prove the opposite. In the protocol the reference to whose signature is recognised in valid (surname, name, patronymic of the voter) is completely absent.
In our opinion, each signature which is recognised as doubtful should be specially reflected in the act with the indication of a surname of a voter and reasons on which this signature is recognised in valid.
The second "trap" is the declaration about the incomes. What income should be specified in the declaration: total or pure. Is the sale of old boots through commission shop considered to be the income?. If you have the toilet at the dacha is it necessary to mention it in the declaration or not? There a lot of other questions on different points and the commission does not give explanations. And they refuse in the registration when you did not specify a shed or toilet.
The third "trap" is party-membership. Only in Grodno they refused to register three candidates, because they have "hidden" party-membership. The candidates say: We left the party two months ago, there is a reference with a seal and signature.
The members of the commission say: We do not recognise your leaving from the party and we refuse in the registration as is the information about the party-membership is false.
Office-work in district and central elective commissions I would call as "complete brothel". They do not have the protocols of the reception - transfer of the documents having for the future candidates in the deputies huge importance, the personal businesses not laced up and are not numbered, there are no seals, entering and outputting numbers.
The commissions completely ignore the Instruction about the office-work #13.
In other words all conditions for mass jugglings of results of the election are created.
18.09.2000 Valery Levonevsky
