The Constitutional Court did not find any contradictions in the procedure for verifying the signatures of candidates

The Constitutional Court (CC) has recognized that “obvious unspecified corrections” in signature sheets, which cannot be attributed to blots or peculiarities of voters’ handwriting, are grounds for rejecting signatures – even in cases where such corrections cannot cast doubt on the date of entry of the signature voter on the signature sheet. This is stated in the refusal of the Constitutional Court on the complaint of former Moscow municipal deputy Evgeniy Glazko.

The applicant challenged the provisions of the law on basic guarantees of electoral rights and the Moscow Election Code regulating the procedure for registering candidates. In 2022, he was registered as a candidate for the Council of Deputies of the Gagarin District of Moscow, but was later removed from the elections due to a claim by a competitor. At the same time, Evgeny Glazko emphasized, neither the election commission, which involved experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs in checking the signatures, nor the Gagarinsky district court found grounds for depriving him of registration, however, the Moscow City Court rejected eight of the 24 signatures submitted due to minor blemishes in the signature sheets – for example, one corrected letter in the name of the city in the voter’s address.

According to the applicant, he was the victim of a classic trick to eliminate electoral competitors: the lawsuits were filed at the last minute, and he no longer had time to collect signatures again.

Technically, there would be no difficulty with this, the ex-deputy emphasizes. According to him, similar claims from the same Elena Gilvanova became the basis for the removal of other independent candidates, although she herself did not conduct an election campaign and received only a few dozen votes. Under such circumstances, compliance with the requirements for filling out the signature sheet (which in themselves are absolutely correct) becomes an end in itself, thereby losing the constitutionally necessary goal of reliably establishing the will of the voter aimed at supporting the candidate.

However, the Constitutional Court did not agree with this, pointing out that the challenged norms cannot be considered as violating the rights of the applicant in his case. The Constitution, while enshrining the electoral rights of citizens, does not directly determine the procedure for their implementation, the Constitutional Court recalled: the regulation of electoral rights and the establishment of the procedure for holding elections are within the competence of the legislator. This regulation is predetermined by the need to ensure equality of nominated candidates, as well as to conduct a high-quality and timely verification of signature sheets by the election commission within the legally established time frame, the court’s refusal said.

Evgeny Glazko admitted to Kommersant that he was disappointed with this decision, but hopes for the success of his colleagues – according to his data, similar applications have been received or will be received by the Constitutional Court from other candidates.

The procedure for collecting and verifying signatures is one of the most frequently contested sections of election legislation in the Constitutional Court. At the same time, the court has many times confirmed the prohibition to refuse registration if the information specified in the signature sheets corresponds to the data in the passport or registration certificate, but does not contain all the details required by law. And, for example, the Constitutional Court stated in its refusal rulings at least six times that the conclusion of a graphologist is not a dogma for election commissions and courts. There is simply a law, and there is law enforcement practice – and these, as they say, are “two big differences,” notes electoral lawyer Roman Smirnov. In his opinion, the procedure for collecting signatures is now as formalized as possible and carries great risks for any candidate. This is the very method in which it is very difficult not to make a mistake – there are too many grounds for refusal of registration or withdrawal from elections. The need to reform this procedure has been talked about for a long time and a lot: at various times they discussed the possibility of returning the electoral deposit or, for example, introducing the collection of signatures through “Gosuslugi”, the expert recalls. So, he is sure, this is clearly not the last complaint to the Constitutional Court regarding the procedure for verifying signatures.

Anastasia Kornya