The Supreme Court confirmed the right of the Central Election Commission to make decisions for lower commissions

The Supreme Court (SC) confirmed the right of the Central Election Commission (CEC) to make decisions for the lower commission. This is stated in the decision of the Supreme Court on the claim of the current governor of Khakassia, Valentin Konovalov, who sought to cancel the registration of his opponent in the elections, Vladimir Grudinin, who was nominated from the Communists of Russia party and received the status of a registered candidate directly at the Central Election Commission. Although, in relation to regional elections, the CEC is not a higher commission, in the system of election commissions it is a step above the regional one and is competent to make such decisions, the court explained. Experts see in this decision a general trend towards strengthening the unity of public authorities now in the electoral system.

In July, the election commission of Khakassia did not have enough votes to implement the decision of the Central Election Commission, which demanded that Vladimir Grudinin, who was denied registration due to doubts about his party affiliation, be returned to the elections. As a result, the Central Election Commission, citing the inaction of the lower commission, itself decided to register the candidate, but Mr. Konovalov appealed it. In his application to the Supreme Court, he asked to recognize the corresponding resolution of the Central Election Commission as illegal and to cancel it, citing that it was adopted in violation of the law, since the Central Election Commission, when conducting elections of the head of the republic, is not a higher commission in relation to the election commission of the republic organizing the elections . In addition, the governor insisted, the commission was not idle: at the meeting it considered the issue of registering Vladimir Grudinin, but was unable to make a decision based on the voting results.

The Supreme Court rejected Mr. Konovalov’s claim back in August, but published a reasoned decision only now. Although in these elections the Central Election Commission was not superior to the republican election commission, the court explained, it is higher in level in the system of election commissions, which are entrusted with the task of ensuring and protecting the voting rights of citizens. Consequently, the decision was made by the Central Election Commission within the competence established by the legislator, and it was authorized to reinstate Vladimir Grudinin in the elections.

Arguments about the lack of inaction on the part of the Khakassia election commission, according to the court, are also “devoid of legal basis.” Inaction, the Supreme Court recalled its own recent clarifications on the application of electoral law, should be understood as the failure of the commission to fulfill the duties assigned to it by the regulatory legal acts defining the powers of the commission. Failure to make a decision to register a candidate based on the results of consideration of such an issue “restricts the right of citizens to be elected to government bodies, creates a situation of legal uncertainty and prevents the citizen from further applying for judicial protection,” the Supreme Court said.

In fact, no one argued with the fact that the Central Election Commission occupies a higher position in the system of election commissions, lawyer Kirill Serdyukov, who acted as a representative of Valentin Konovalov, explained to Kommersant. His client, the lawyer emphasizes, appealed exclusively to subparagraphs 6 and 7 of Article 75 of the law on basic guarantees of electoral rights. It says that a higher commission is obliged to consider the complaint and can make a decision on the merits without sending it to a lower one, but with the exception of cases where the circumstances set out in such a complaint were not the subject of consideration in the first instance. Since Vladimir Grudinin appealed the inaction of the regional commission, the logic of the law required the Central Election Commission to send his complaint there, obliging the election commission to take a certain action.

The case of Vladimir Grudinin reveals a deep contradiction between the formal independence of election commissions, including lower ones from higher ones, and the understandable desire to ensure vertical control and the adoption of “correct” decisions by lower commissions, states election lawyer Oleg Zakharov. He recalls that the right to make decisions for a lower commission is a relatively new procedural power of the Central Election Commission. Previously, the law had only one mechanism for correcting mistakes of lower-level commissions – canceling the wrong decision and sending it for a new consideration by the same commission. Strictly speaking, the concept of “election organizing commission” in the law means that only it has the right to register candidates. However, cases of local arbitrariness led to the fact that the Central Election Commission received the right to overturn decisions of lower commissions and independently resolve the issue on its merits. “To what extent this corresponds to the principle of independence of commissions is a big question, but in practice, although rare, such cases did happen from time to time,” the expert notes. The CEC registered candidates even for municipal elections, and the courts did not see this as a violation of the procedure.

Electoral lawyer Roman Smirnov notes that in his memory this is the first time that the center has so actively adjusted the activities of the regional election commission. But in general, we can talk about a trend towards strengthening the electoral “vertical,” he adds: the Central Election Commission is increasingly involved in the formation of regional commissions, sending its representatives to the regions, and now the Supreme Court has very symbolically confirmed the powers to control the uniformity of law enforcement practice of the commissions. However, the expert adds, in general, all this is quite consistent with the new constitutional principle of the unity of public power.

Anastasia Kornya