The Moscow City Duma approved a new scheme of majoritarian districts for the 2024 elections

Deputies of the Moscow City Duma (MGD) on Wednesday approved a law on a new scheme of single-mandate electoral districts, according to which elections will be held in the fall of 2024. During the discussion, opponents of the updated cuts pointed to the excessive radicality of the changes, but the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Election Commission (MGEC) Dmitry Reut assured that the scheme is primarily based on the criterion of representative equality and meets all the requirements of the law.

Presenting the scheme, Dmitry Reut emphasized that the need to re-draw districts every ten years (this period expires in April 2024) is dictated by the law: “This is caused by objective reasons. The city is developing: for example, in the Troitsky and Novomoskovsky districts the population has more than doubled, and this necessitates a completely different look at the district diagram. In some places the number has increased, which means it is necessary to review the boundaries of other districts.” The cutting, Mr. Reut recalled, first of all takes into account the principle of representative equality: each deputy must represent approximately an equal number of voters (about 170 thousand with a permissible deviation of 10–20%).

Having familiarized themselves with the already ongoing discussion, the authors of the cut did not see any worthy arguments against their opponents, the deputy chairman of the IPCC noted: “I have not found a single constructive objection based on the arguments of the law that would say that our scheme is bad and does not correspond to something.” “We are laying the legislative foundation for future elections,” the head of the relevant commission that previously supported the project, Alexander Kozlov, reminded his colleagues and asked the deputies to approve the proposed option.

Not everyone heeded the call. “Each of us is used to our constituencies, voters are used to it. In a number of cases, districts are cut in half, and in some places even more,” Pavel Tarasov (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) was perplexed. “Why couldn’t the borders be slightly shifted so that the overall basis of the territory remained the same?” Spravoross Mikhail Timonov (included by the Ministry of Justice in the register of foreign agents) said that “the most oppositional Eastern Administrative District” suffered the most, and his “native” district No. 16 “was generally torn in three.” Even United Russia member Lyudmila Stebenkova had questions, whose voter complained to her about the “alienation” of 6 thousand residents of the district from Maryino.

In response, Dmitry Reut convinced the deputies that he did not divide them “into opposition and non-opposition”, reminded them of the primacy of the principle of equal representation, the project’s compliance with all legislative norms and taking into account the prospects for the city’s development: “Suppose now the Moscow City Duma approves this option (without fragmenting the districts.— “Kommersant”): then the difference between the districts will be large, and if some house is built, people will move there – and the difference will exceed 20%, and changes will have to be made to the law.” “Our proposal is based solely on the requirements of the law and actual circumstances,” the deputy chairman of the IPCC again assured.

“The work has been titanic, thank you very much for completing it this year,” Alexander Solovyov (A Just Russia) found advantages in the situation. “But what do you think: if all legal requirements are met, several cutting options are possible or the scheme which you presented, is this the only option? “Could any other proposal have been made? Probably, it’s possible,” Mr. Reut unexpectedly agreed, adding that the IPCC was already trying to “take into account the usual cutting,” so “some districts are repeating what has already happened.”

A representative of just such a little-changed district, Natalia Metlina (“My Moscow”), approved the project and called on her colleagues to follow her example: “The division of districts did not occur out of protest or loyalty to the Moscow government of certain deputies.” “The boundaries of electoral districts are a purely formal story, we are deputies of the city parliament and represent the interests of all Muscovites,” United Russia member Alexander Semennikov supported her. “All deputies, including those from United Russia, will have new districts.”

The approving position was shared by all deputies from the party in power and the My Moscow association. Of the oppositionists, only the communists came out in a consolidated manner against it. “If we are a collegial body, then all issues, including the redistricting of districts, must be resolved collegiately,” its leader Nikolai Zubrilin explained the faction’s position.

Dissenting deputies were given ten minutes to make amendments. Ekaterina Engalycheva (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) proposed shifting the boundaries of several districts, and Mikhail Timonov put forward a completely different cutting scheme of his own design. Both proposals were rejected. As a result, the new scheme was adopted by deputies with 26 votes, 11 against and one abstention.

Grigory Leiba