Other versions of this article exist, see Anna Stepanova's Removal from the Election (Theories).

The DEC of district number 30 refused to register Anna Eudardovna Stepanova, a candidate for deputy from the Parnas party, for the elections of deputies of the City Council of Nizhny Novgorod.

Chronology of events

  • On 9 July 2015 A. E. Stepanova submitted to DEC 30 an application and documents for registration of her nomination as a candidate for deputy.
  • On 29 July 2015 A. E. Stepanova submitted signature sheets with voters' signatures in support of the candidate.
  • On 6 August 2015 the Election Commission carried out a check of the signatures, according to which 16 of the 147 signatures were declared invalid.
  • On 7 August 2015, by decision number 19 of DEC 30, A. E. Stepanova was refused registration as a deputy.
  • On 14 August the Sovetsky District Court heard an application to declare unlawful the decision of district election commission No. 30 refusing to register Anna Stepanova as a candidate. The court declined to declare that decision unlawful.

Stepanova's version

According to the final protocol of the check of the signature sheets by DEC No. 3, out of the 147 signatures submitted 16 voters' signatures were declared invalid. The number of valid signatures is 131.

The ground for declaring the said signatures invalid is clause 3 of part 10 of article 33 of the Law of Nizhny Novgorod Region of 06.09.2007 108-Z "On the election of deputies of representative bodies of municipal formations in Nizhny Novgorod Region" (hereinafter — the Law). 

Under clause 3 of part 10 of the article of the Law, invalid are the signatures of voters who have given in the signature sheet information that does not correspond to reality. In that case a signature is declared invalid only where there is an official certificate from the body carrying out the registration of citizens of the Russian Federation at their place of stay and place of residence within the Russian Federation, or on the basis of the opinion of an expert engaged in the check in accordance with part 4 of this article. 

Under clause 2 of section I, and also clause 1 of section III of the Methodological recommendations on the acceptance and checking of signature sheets with voters' signatures in support of the nomination (self-nomination) of candidates in elections held in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, approved by resolution of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation of 13 June 2012 No. 128/986-6, where discrepancies are found between the personal data of citizens contained in the signature sheet and in the Register, or where the Register contains no data on a citizen, a request must be sent to the relevant territorial body of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the form established by the annex to Protocol No. 1 to the Agreement on cooperation between the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Federal Migration Service of 27 December 2010. 

In the course of the check of the signature sheets submitted by me, DEC No. 30 sent a request to the District Office of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the Sovetsky district of Nizhny Novgorod dated 06.08.2014 on verification of the validity of citizens' data. 

The said request was drawn up in violation of the requirements of the Agreement, namely:

  • the text of the letter does not state the name of the election;
  • it does not state the matter in connection with which the signature sheets are being checked;
  • it does not state the deadline by which the check must be completed;
  • the table of information lacks the column "folder, sheet, signature no."; 
  • the table of information lacks the column "citizenship"; 
  • the table contains an additional column, "results of the check", which is not provided for by the requirement of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation;
  • the table contains substantial discrepancies between the information about voters submitted for checking and the information contained in the signature sheets bearing voters' signatures in support of the candidate's nomination;
  • the entries in the "results of the check" columns for identical objections  are not of the same type;
  • there is no indication of the need to return the attachment (paper copy, electronic copy);
  • the date of the request, 6 August 2014, does not correspond to reality.

In addition, the certificate of the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the Sovetsky District of Nizhny Novgorod dated 6 August 2015 on the results of the check of the validity of the information likewise fails to meet the requirements established by the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. In particular:

  • beneath the table of the information contained in the signature sheets there is no line containing details of the official certifying the check;
  • the title of the document containing the results of the check does not meet the requirements of the Agreement;

In addition, the certificate of the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia is certified not with the official seal of the territorial body, but with a stamp (seal) reading "For packets".

In these circumstances, District Election Commission No. 30 had no legal grounds to rely on a certificate obtained in breach of mandatory requirements in order to declare the signatures collected in my support invalid.

Pursuant to clause 7 of Article 38 of the Federal Law, the checking of signature sheets must be completed no later than two days before the meeting of the commission at which the question of registering that candidate is to be considered, since it is precisely within this period that the final record of the check of the signature sheets must be drawn up, a copy of which is handed to the candidate (clause 3.1 of the Methodological Recommendations on the acceptance and checking of signature sheets bearing voters' signatures in support of the nomination (self-nomination) of candidates in elections held in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, approved by resolution of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation of 13 June 2012 No. 128/986-6).

Since the grounds for declaring the signatures of V. G. Tarasov (folder No. 1, sheet 20, line 1) and I. E. Malyukova (folder No. 1, sheet 28, line 2) invalid arose on 6 August 2015 — that is, outside the established time limit — the very fact of the check, as well as its results, are invalid and cannot form the basis of the commission's decision on the registration of the candidate.

I consider that the said breaches by District Election Commission No. 30 led to the adoption of an unlawful decision refusing to register me as a candidate for deputy of the City Duma of Nizhny Novgorod of the sixth convocation in single-mandate electoral district No. 30.

Anna Stepanova's account "in plain words"

  • Two requests were sent to the FMS from District Election Commission 30 (one not in the proper form, the other outside the permissible time limit) ;
  • the checking of the signatures was attended (and the actions of the members of District Election Commission 30 were directed) by A. Komrakov, an official of the Sovetsky District administration (not a member of the commission).

According to the first FMS reply, the candidate was one signature short of registration. That is why a second request was made in breach of the time limits (on 6 August), and instantly (on that same 6 August) a reply was received from the FMS under which a further 2 signatures were declared invalid.


« When they decided that we could challenge the misreading of the surname, these two forgeries appeared. The commission altered two digits in a voter's passport details. That is, the commission set about — and I am certain of this — forging the principal document of an election campaign, the signature sheet. On Friday (14 August) we filed a statement with the Investigative Committee and regard it as a report of a crime.
 »


Yakimov

Yakimov — a member of the Election Commission of District 30

He considers the refusal of registration lawful.

In conversation with him he stated that he had not even seen the reply from the FMS under which some signatures had been declared invalid.


« - Did you see this reply?

- No, I did not. The chair of the commission reads it out. - And you did not see it yourself? - What for? Do I not trust the chair of the commission? The chair of the commission reads it out. I did not see it. I did not check it. - And you were not interested? - And I do not find it obligatory to look at the signatures and seals. - And you were not even curious, you did not simply take it to have a look?

- I do not find that necessary.
 »


(In fact there were 2 different FMS replies. Under the first, 16 signatures were rejected; under the second, 2)

Yakimov, as a member of the commission, looked at neither of them; he simply "trusts the Chair"

Ekaterina Smolkina

Ekaterina Smolkina, a member of the Election Commission of District 30.

She did not take part in checking the signatures and was not present when the decision to refuse was taken. She is unable to explain anything on the substance of the matter. She recalls that on 6 August, during the checking of the signatures at District Election Commission 30, "it was noisy": Stepanova insistently demanded that her rights be observed and shouted at the members of the commission; Komrakov (an official of the District Administration) came and tried to "put out the row".

She considers the refusal to register Stepanova lawful.

Natalya Timofeeva

Natalya Timofeeva, deputy chair of the Election Commission of District 30.

She acknowledged that Komrakov was present during the commission's work on 6 August.

She is convinced that the refusal of registration is lawful and well-founded, and was made not for political motives but because the candidate was simply 3 signatures short. She did see the replies from the FMS and considers them valid.

How they turned up at the District Election Commission she does not remember. Especially the second reply ("through the secretary, probably", "they probably came by express mail")

She considers the refusal to register Stepanova lawful.

Tatyana Pavlovna Andreeva.

T. P. Andreeva, chair of the Election Commission of District 30.

She gave us 2 written replies to our questions, (see the illustrations to the article) the gist of which is that for any comments one should apply not to her but to the Court.

In conversation she made it clear that she is not interested in providing any papers or documents for the public investigation or in support of her decision not to register A. E. Stepanova (see the video recording accompanying the article).

She considers the refusal to register Stepanova lawful.

V. V. Vavilycheva

Requires further investigation

A. Komrakov

Requires further investigation

Conclusions

Mikhail Iosilevich: I have formed the impression that District Election Commission 30 did not perform its function in full, publicly and openly (as the law requires)

We were given no assistance in the "investigation"; they answered with brush-offs (saying they could tell us nothing) and tried in every way to "wave us away" so that the investigation would not take place. In the end (apart from words) they did not provide a single document in support of their position. People who are confident that they are in the right do not usually behave like this. On the contrary, they are eager to tell everyone how and why they acted correctly.

The statements of the members of the commission contradict one another (for example, the chair replied in writing that only members of the commission, the candidate and the candidate's authorised representatives may be present, while other members of the commission confirmed that Komrakov, who is not a member of the commission, was present at the meeting on 6 August)

Some members of the commission are passive and take no interest in anything at all. Others, on the contrary, are very active and demand that the candidate observe every blank and form down to the comma, down to the millimetre, while they themselves miss deadlines, draw up requests to the FMS in free form, receive replies that are also drawn up any old how, and calmly deem them "valid". In sum : the decision of the Election Commission of District 30 refusing to register A. E. Stepanova seems to me to be politically motivated.

The Court, too, did its job poorly. The essence of the law and of submitting signatures for the registration of candidates lies in the expression of the will of a certain number of voters that they want to see this candidate on the ballot. When a person comes to court in person and says "I am Ignashev, and I want to see Stepanova in the election", and is told in reply "No, it says here that you are Linashev — refused" ! That is, when what is placed above all is not the "spirit of the law" (the will of the people) but an ambiguous reading of a surname on a piece of paper, then "democracy" is being substituted with "bureaucracy" — such a decision of the Court cannot be called just, and I believe that it can be challenged.